The origin of AIDS - Documentary

[live love laugh]

All I can say is O.M.G. :wow:

I had no idea that there was a theory that AIDS was man made until seeing this documentary on the Sundance Channel today. So-called scientists killed chimpanzees in horrible ways to take their kidneys to make cells for polio vaccinations. They did no tests for contraindications of the usage of monkey cells in humans. Furthermore, the cells varied in different vaccines as only small amounts of vaccine were shipped to different parts of the world and it was up to the labs in the receiving areas to grow more vaccine--in the cultures of whatever local animals existed--usually monkeys of different species.

There was proof made available to the bastards who made the vaccines that there were other viruses present when the vaccine potions were tested. The warnings were ignored and from 1957 to 1965 millions of the vaccines were administered.

Why would scientists who are made aware of danger in their theories dismiss what they learn? Why would scientists go to the Belgian Congo and administer an untested, possibly dangerous vaccine to millions? This is where my tinfoilhat goes on and the question of whether this was an accident or intentional weighs heavily.

Many of the scientists are still alive today and despite proof and witnesses of the usage of chimpanzees to make vaccines, they deny that they did so. One of the primary culprits--the ring leader even, Dr. Hilary Koprowski--denies that he used monkey cells in his vaccines. Others have admitted that they used the cells, Koprowski's understudy Paul Osterreich for instance, and then retracted their admissions.

Those who have attempted to definitively prove once and for all that the vaccines are the culprits have been hit with road blocks. The goverment which routinely keeps copies of vaccines somehow didn't keep any of this polio vaccination. Yet, when Journalist Hooper who spent 17 years researching and writing the book "The River" chronicling the AIDS pandemic attended a debate in England in 2000, and was presented with all kinds of new "theories" about AIDS to refute his proof. He was told that AIDS first appeared in the 1930s though it did not appear until 1985. He was told that vaccines from the Congo were retrieved and tested and ruled out as the source of AIDS although all of the vaccines have been destroyed. All of this, it seems, to protect the very liable drug companies responsible for this.

Of course admitting the truth would co$$$t plenty.

I wish I were blissfully ignorant of the corruption that permeates society. What men do to other men is unbelievable and I am angry now that I know about this.

(P.S. I hope that this is not too disjointed. There is a lot more to the documentary than I could put here. Hope you get to watch it yourself if you haven't already.)

[TheWraith]

1. That theory has been pretty well disproven by a lot of different scientists.

HIV isn't similar enough to Simian Immunodeficieny Virus, and there's no evidence of the presence of either in samples of polio vaccine. Not all of the vaccine was destroyed. Further, there's a lot of evidence of HIV existing prior to the late 50s--mutation rates would place its origin around the year 1930.

Also, it's false that AIDS didn't appear until 1985. The oldest recorded HIV-positive blood sample was from 1959, and there were cases recorded in the US and elsewhere from 1969. The cause just wasn't identified until the early 1980s.

In short, people who are still pushing the OPV hypothesis are playing loose with the truth.

[live love laugh]

2. Disproven by which scientists? There is still more evidence beyond SIV

such as the emergence of AIDS initially in nearly the exact locations that the polio vaccines were given.

Didn't scientists say that cigarettes didn't cause cancer too?

[Lithos]

3. There has been some serious study about this

And it has been fairly well proven that SIV and AIDS have different lineages. The OPV HIV theory also doesn't account for the fact that there are two forms of HIV (HIV-1 and HIV-2) which, while both come from primate sources, come from different primates including one (HIV-2's Sooty Mangabey) which was never a part of any polio experimentation.

Also of note is that the use of the live Polio vaccine was fairly well established WORLD WIDE in 1959. Had it been the source, HIV would not have a very clear and delineated path. (The infected material would have been scattered world wide creating multiple pockets almost instantly). In fact the odds of it returning only to the same area in the Belgian Congo would have been astronomical.

Rather, the cause seems to be the butchery and consumption of primates from a single area. It moved to Haiti in the early 60's and then to the US by 1969.

L-

[live love laugh]

4. SIV and aids having different lineages was mentioned in the documentary.

However, HIV from monkeys is related to the HIV we know of.

Also, as mentioned previously, different species of chimpanzee were used to make vaccinations worldwide as well so that while the polio vaccine predated those vaccine with monkey cultures, the polio vaccine itself was not uniform. The same polio vaccine serum was used, but it was mixed with the cultures from a variety of monkeys, some of which had the traits related to HIV and some that did not.

It is too convenient for those who might be culpable to put the blame for HIV on the people eating monkeys--just as global warming is now being blamed on people instead of industry.

Some questions remain. For instance, if the polio vaccination predated the vaccinations with monkey cultures, why did they put monkey cultures into the polio vaccines? There were ways to produce the vaccines without animal parts at all why wasn't that done? Why did they lie about it and why do they continue to lie despite evidence today that they used monkey organs to make the vaccines? Finally, there was another virus present besides HIV and SIV in monkey cultures known as Virus X. There is no remaining sample of those vaccinations available for testing Virus X and the one scientist who attempted to find it was turned away by the government. Another scientist who traveled to Africa to collect monkey stool samples and reproduce the experiments died of malaria in 2000 at about the same time that a debate was held in London dismissing all evidence that monkeys had anything to do with AIDs.

Furthermore, NO RECORDS were kept of ANY of the monkey/polio vaccines as mentioned in the documentary which is highly unusual. This was a super secret operation. It literally mirrors the Tuskegee experiments but at least those people were caught later. The men who unleashed the tainted polio virus don't seem to be anywhere near being held accountable for what they did.

[Lithos]

5. Except

There is a very definite path, movement, whatever you want to call it, from a VERY specific geographical area through the rest of the world.

Anything such as a vaccine would have followed a completely DIFFERENT path. In other words, it would have been like taking a shotgun and hitting the world. The live Polio vaccine was pretty much being consumed world wide by 1959 when the first case appeared in the very same part of the world as where human consumption of bushmeat was highly prevalent (Same area where Marburg and Ebola are also present). If the conspiracy were true, AIDS would have been Pandemic in 1960 and affecting primarily children. Instead it attacked much later, showed a definite sexual/blood based trail and affected primarily adults who were NOT the primary people getting vaccinated.

L-

[live love laugh]

6. I think that you are missing the point made in the documentary about

the mixing of the polio vaccines with different chimp cultures. That mixing would not result in a shotgun like pattern but a definite pattern, depending on which vaccine had the cultures that mutated to human AIDS. Some monkeys had the traits some did not.

Furthermore, the eating of something vs. being injected with something has different effects. While there may have been one or two cases on a miniscule scale as you mention, there was a massive appearance of AIDS in the '80's in correlation to the massive vaccinations administered in the Congo.

[JackBeck]

7. What the documentary doesn't address

is how these injections were provided to the recipients.

The polio vaccine was injected without using disposable needles, since they didn't yet exist. Recipients of the vaccine in Africa were lined up and given the vaccine using the same needle, spreading infected blood, not infected vaccine.

Also, please try to learn the difference between HIV and an AIDS diagnosis. If you need any help, let me know. You continue to misuse the word "AIDS".

On edit: You can't get AIDS from anyone.

[Lithos]

9. Thanks

The polio vaccine was injected without using disposable needles, since they didn't yet exist. Recipients of the vaccine in Africa were lined up and given the vaccine using the same needle, spreading infected blood, not infected vaccine.

True. Other diseases as well could have also been passed (Hepatitis for one).

On edit: You can't get AIDS from anyone.

Very true. If I suggested as much in any thing I said, then I stand corrected and apologize.

[live love laugh]

11. The documentary did address how the vaccines were administered and it was not injected

They were administered with hand held syringes which did not touch patients and which did not break the skin. The liquid vaccine was squirted into patients' open mouths so disposable needles were not needed.

[Lithos]

8. You do realize

1) That scientists have pretty much determined the first infection of HIV into humans occurred in the 1930's in the Southern Cameroons?
2) That a sample of a man from the Congo in 1959 who had AIDS contains an HIV strain whose mutation from the Cameroon SIV would have been pretty much impossible in the very short time frame available?

L-


On Edit:

Outside of the medical community and academia, it really doesn't matter terribly where or how AIDS came from. Taking too much time looking backward is all that much energy not focusing on the needs of today.

[live love laugh]

10. I disagree that it doesn't matter where AIDS came from, and that looking back is a waste of time

What scientists have determined this? When did that determination surface? The same information surfaced only when public debate about the nefarious activities of the experiment in the Congo was opened up for debate in 2000 in Europe. Along with that information from scientists came a proclamation that the vaccines had been tested and found to be devoid of any viral components linking them to HIV but there was nothing made available for independent verification or testing and it had been determined years before then that there was not vaccine left from the Congo to be tested. All of this information was put forth at one time to basically clear the scientific community and the drug companies that they work for from culpability.

To say that we should forget about the nefarious activities coinciding with the pandemic of HIV/AIDS makes little sense. Isn't public debate stifled enough already?

Mass outbreaks vs. an infection here and there over a period of fifty years are like comparing apples and oranges.

At the very least, those who administered those vaccinations to millions can be linked to the widespread emergence of AIDS/HIV which continues to ravage Africa today and they should be held accountable for that if an investigation reveals that they are responsible. However, the 1960's were not ancient times and

One of the primary tenets of scientific research is to look at the data. Instead of doing that, the answers here suggest that we should not look at data but blame people who are already victimized, by possibly being used as human guinea pigs, for what they eat, or now as is implied, because they already had AIDS/HIV when they were given the vaccine.

[TheWraith]

14. "Nefarious activities?"

The scientific community does not "work for" the drug companies. If there were evidence of a human cause for HIV, it would be known. There's tens of thousands of excellent independent scientists for whom such data would be pretty obvious, and almost all scientists concur that HIV was around for 50 years before we knew what it was.

[pinto]

15. Epidemiologically, many pandemics start with scattered infections

here and there.

It's when the vector base, infected populations, reaches a certain size that regional epidemics and general pandemics develop.

With HIV, the latency of symptoms, and mortality, played a huge part. (i.e. Ebola is quickly evident and deadly. By nature there is some self-containment of transmission due to mortality.)

With HIV, again, the virus eventually spread to a highly mobile population, unnoticed by health professionals or people with the virus. It was a silent pandemic that developed.

[malaise]

12. Bingo n/t

[applegrove]

13. I've heard that theory too. Don't quite know what to think. But it looks more

than possible. Kinda explains why African people are so mistrusting of the rest of the world when it comes to vaccines and Western advice on health care. This mistrust has been a tragedy as many in Southern Africa refused to believe AIDS was a simple virus or that it existed and was a threat. Until way too many people were dying from it....the whole thing is just awful.