Earliest AIDS, Part I
trkeske at aol.com
Fri Mar 6 23:40:27 EST 1998
>There are several points which I would like to make.
> First and foremost, you claim that "one person
>debating me on another newsgroup claimed that > > AIDS did not spread rapidly
at first, because it
> existed in remote villages, and finally took off after it > entered an urban
area." This is blatantly untrue.
> I posted that message in response to your request
> for intelligent discourse on the subject. I made no
> such claim;
If I recall, the claim about "remote villages" was made
by someone on a CIA newsgroup. I don't recall that
I've heard of you before or read any of your posts,
so I'm not sure why you are imagining that it's
I'm sorry, but I'm posting far and wide. I may not
always be able to see all responses or debate them
> Furthermore you seem to have missed the entire
> point of that message, which was that for AIDS to
> have first entered the general population via
> infected prisoners released in 1975 is extraordinarily
> unlikely given that sera from 1976 showed
> antibodies in 0.8% of the samples from Zaire and
I am personally making no claims about AIDS coming
from infected prisoners- this is a theory of Segal, that
I simply reposted without comment. In fact, I don't
put the greatest stock in this particular version, but
I need to dig more into it.
Personally, I think that AIDS in Africa came from
vaccine trials. An official of the World
Health Organization, requesting to be anonymous,
reported as much to mainstream papers, saying
that he was "absolutely convinced". The report
of this in a London paper was squelched by the
press in the U.S.
Even Dr. Ho's team and the U.S. press now seem
to be saying "contaminated needles" in the vaccine
administration had something to do with spreading
AIDS in Africa.
I think that this is being a little cute, though. The
media knows perfectly well that "contaminated
needles" is not the most significant issue. It is the
CONTENT of the vaccines, themselves, that is most
The vaccines were made using monkey tissues.
It has been admitted even by the CDC that at
least one monkey virus, SV-40, was given potentially
to millions, escaping detection and deactivation.
Researchers have also suggested that ingesting
monkey blood or meat, or bites from monkeys may
have caused the crossover. It should seem
straightforward then, that when any number of
other monkey viruses may have gotten through in
the vaccines, to millions of people, that this just
might have something to do with the epidemic.
People like you seem to quibble over every little
point, never admitting even the most glaring and
obvious of valid points by the other side.
I think that it is an intentional propaganda effort on
the newsgroups to play games, as games are
being played in the media.
More information about the Microbio