Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By paralith

Thread: HIV being a man made virus?

  1. #1 HIV being a man made virus? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    59
    I was led to think that HIV was a man made virus by a few factors

    The Year it was discovered and started
    This is one of the areas for suspicion. Bascially as far as records go, HIV was kinda reared its ugly head in the 1950s. That was at least a few short years after the WW2. And also there were records of Nazis invading Africa in the ww2. So it's not surprising that the Nazi being homephobic and racist, would make something to cull the undesirable population apart from tankers and soldiers.

    The birthplace it shares with many viruses of the same nature
    It just too coincident that the mostly horrible or sexually/ intravenously spread diseases came from Africa. You can blame the bushmeat trade but then. The Bushmeat trade has been going on for millions of years so why after 1950s we began to see its effects?

    Our Closest relatives
    Chimpanzees have been the subject of experiments due to our genetic similarities. It would not be surprising that maybe someone experimented on them and it escaped and spreaded it's disease. Many of the worst ecological disasters came from experimented or introduced wildlife.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    67
    The Year it was discovered and started
    This is one of the areas for suspicion. Bascially as far as records go, HIV was kinda reared its ugly head in the 1950s. That was at least a few short years after the WW2. And also there were records of Nazis invading Africa in the ww2. So it's not surprising that the Nazi being homephobic and racist, would make something to cull the undesirable population apart from tankers and soldiers.
    Where's the evidence of this? Sure the Nazis were homophobic and racist, but that doesn't mean they created HIV. HIV infects heterosexual couples as well so I don't really see where this is going.

    Also there was an entire African campaign during World War II. Except it was in north Africa, not in the Congalese jungle where HIV originated.

    The birthplace it shares with many viruses of the same nature
    It just too coincident that the mostly horrible or sexually/ intravenously spread diseases came from Africa. You can blame the bushmeat trade but then. The Bushmeat trade has been going on for millions of years so why after 1950s we began to see its effects?
    There are lots of different theories about how viruses came about and there is no definitive answer as far as I know. Viruses don't make the best fossils so it's hard to study their origins. So HIV and Ebola started in Africa, but tons of viruses infect people worldwide (herpes, HPV, influenza).

    Chimpanzees can be hosts to the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), which can cause AIDS (or SAIDS I think its called). It's not hard to believe that this pathogen could mutate and make the jump to being able to infect humans. We're practically the same genetically.

    Our Closest relatives
    Chimpanzees have been the subject of experiments due to our genetic similarities. It would not be surprising that maybe someone experimented on them and it escaped and spreaded it's disease. Many of the worst ecological disasters came from experimented or introduced wildlife.
    That's a possibility, but where's the evidence? Government coverup? :P


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    59
    I believe that the local people have been doing well and eating apes and chimps for many many years and with no ill effects. How then it just pop out just like that?

    And another thing is that the Nazi have experimented on humans so it may not be surprising that they might have done the inevitable.

    Also I am open to the idea that maybe early eugenics in America may to blame too! Apparently in the Afro and homosexual people, there is an urban legend saying that the HIV was engineered to kill them!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1
    There are several things which suggest very strongly that the Nazis didn't create HIV.

    1. The Nazis kept very good records for everything they did, as most governments do. Most of the time, records would be destroyed rather than be captured by the enemy, but Germany was overtaken so quickly in 1945 that basically the entirety of Nazi records fell into Allied hands. If the Nazis had been experimenting with African diseases, we would very, very likely know, as we know pretty much everything they were doing.

    3. Nazi experiments on humans are well known, and did not usually concern infectious diseases. A whole lot of the experiments involved things like freezing people to death to see how much cold a human can take.

    2. You pretty much voided your point when you said that there is an "urban legend." You can find these conspiracy theories for anything. People are naturally suspicious that other people are after them. Luckily, this is usually not true.


    One note though, I think that the Japanese had a facility in China where they experimented with disease. I'm not 100% on that, but I'll check the book I read about the experiments in and see.

    Loler
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: HIV being a man made virus? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by ttyo888
    I was led to think that HIV was a man made virus by a few factors

    The Year it was discovered and started
    This is one of the areas for suspicion. Bascially as far as records go, HIV was kinda reared its ugly head in the 1950s. That was at least a few short years after the WW2. And also there were records of Nazis invading Africa in the ww2. So it's not surprising that the Nazi being homephobic and racist, would make something to cull the undesirable population apart from tankers and soldiers.
    Unfortunately we didn't have any molecular biology back in the 50s that could have made the virus.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Iowa City, IA
    Posts
    47
    Why does this forum get some many of these trolls??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: HIV being a man made virus? 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by ttyo888
    I was led to think that HIV was a man made virus by a few factors

    The Year it was discovered and started
    This is one of the areas for suspicion. Bascially as far as records go, HIV was kinda reared its ugly head in the 1950s. That was at least a few short years after the WW2. And also there were records of Nazis invading Africa in the ww2. So it's not surprising that the Nazi being homephobic and racist, would make something to cull the undesirable population apart from tankers and soldiers.

    The birthplace it shares with many viruses of the same nature
    It just too coincident that the mostly horrible or sexually/ intravenously spread diseases came from Africa. You can blame the bushmeat trade but then. The Bushmeat trade has been going on for millions of years so why after 1950s we began to see its effects?

    Our Closest relatives
    Chimpanzees have been the subject of experiments due to our genetic similarities. It would not be surprising that maybe someone experimented on them and it escaped and spreaded it's disease. Many of the worst ecological disasters came from experimented or introduced wildlife.
    If this is for your fiction (along with the quadruped birds) then you might be able to make something of it. As a factual possibility I suspect it is exceedingly remote - vide the problems mentioned by the other posters here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4
    I love how you're all so quick to disagree with the OP because you "know" that the government and all other governing bodies share all of their information with you. Now, I'm not a conspiracy nut but there are plenty of things that have gone on unexplained and have a huge basis for alternative interpretations. For 1, I do believe the AIDS virus was manufactured, though I am unsure about HIV itself. The release of any type of "natural" discriminant that has a means of controlling the population is a great way of maintaining power. Less people=Less People to control. Secondly, no government has any reason for telling people outside of its walls any of its scientific information, since it would lead to a proliferation of information to its enemies. Lastly, the U.S. government has taken countless Nazi science projects and scientists and built upon them, why would the biological field be any different?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    67
    For 1, I do believe the AIDS virus was manufactured, though I am unsure about HIV itself.
    HIV and the virus that causes AIDS are the same thing.

    Do you think its a coincidence that chimpanzees in West Africa can be infected by an immunovirus very similar to HIV (SIV) and that the first outbreak of AIDS occurred in West Africa? Konig and the OP are just speculating on the origins of HIV whereas scientists have actual evidence showing its origin in chimpanzees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Konig
    I love how you're all so quick to disagree with the OP because you "know" that the government and all other governing bodies share all of their information with you.
    No, I just happen to know the biotechnological tools that were available at that time.

    Don't jump to conclusions.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by rancidchickn
    Do you think its a coincidence that chimpanzees in West Africa can be infected by an immunovirus very similar to HIV (SIV) and that the first outbreak of AIDS occurred in West Africa? Konig and the OP are just speculating on the origins of HIV whereas scientists have actual evidence showing its origin in chimpanzees.
    You don't think it's possible for a disease that was being tested on chimpanzees to make an intraspecies jump to humans, even on accident?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Konig
    Quote Originally Posted by rancidchickn
    Do you think its a coincidence that chimpanzees in West Africa can be infected by an immunovirus very similar to HIV (SIV) and that the first outbreak of AIDS occurred in West Africa? Konig and the OP are just speculating on the origins of HIV whereas scientists have actual evidence showing its origin in chimpanzees.
    You don't think it's possible for a disease that was being tested on chimpanzees to make an intraspecies jump to humans, even on accident?
    Have you been purposely ignoring Spurious' posts? The necessary technology was NOT available at that time to artificially create a virus. Besides, don't you think it's possible that SIV mutated to HIV and made the intraspecies jump to humans, especially considering the ample opportunities that are provided for virus transfer in the process of capturing, butchering, and cooking chimps for the bushmeat trade, a good deal of which still goes on today in multiple African countries?
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Iowa City, IA
    Posts
    47
    Oh god paralith, don't talk about evolution!!!!!!! Why do you guys even waste your time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Because you know that you really understand a concept if you can teach it to others.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Where is it suggested that molecular biological techniques were required to construct the virus? Biological weapons were used prior to 1950, and throughout the 1950s with some relish. No molecular biological techniques required, simply select for the deadliest agent, on a population similar to the one you wish to target.

    This has to do with the arguments presented here and nothing to do with whether HIV is man made, which of course it isn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Where is it suggested that molecular biological techniques were required to construct the virus? Biological weapons were used prior to 1950, and throughout the 1950s with some relish. No molecular biological techniques required, simply select for the deadliest agent, on a population similar to the one you wish to target.

    This has to do with the arguments presented here and nothing to do with whether HIV is man made, which of course it isn't.
    But you would need them in order to engineer a virus capable of discerning between different population groups, no?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    One could easily exploit a deficiency common to a race to concoct a weapon that would preferentially hurt that race. See for example (note the dates):

    'Ethnic weapons'

    Anthrax has also factored into the darker side of biological research known as "ethnic weapons." Simply put, ethnic weapons ? sometimes called "genetic weapons" ? are those biological means developed to incapacitate and kill specific ethnic or racial groups.

    A November 1970 U.S. Army Command Military Review article by Carl A. Larson, head of the Department of Human Genetics at Sweden's Lund University, stated, "The immense laboratory of human natural variations provides many instances of sharp differences in the activities of well-defined enzymes." Larson writes on to detail various enzyme deficiencies including the susceptibility of southeastern Asians "to a poison to which Caucasoids are largely adapted" and underscores that "Europeans, as well as Americans of African descent, have among their members about 50 percent slow [enzyme] inactivators."

    Concluded Larson, "Surrounded with clouds of secrecy, a systematic search for new incapacitating agents is going on in many laboratories. During the first half of [1969], several laboratories reported factors engaged in passing over the genetic message from DNA, the primary command post, to RNA, which relays the chemical signal. The enzymatic process for RNA production has been known for some years, but now the factors have been revealed which regulate the initiation and specificity of enzyme production. Not only the factors have been found, but their inhibitors. ..."

    During Camp Detrick's fledgling years, anthrax factored into ethnic weaponry when scientists there began questioning whether certain "geographical groups" better withstood anthrax attacks than others.

    According to British science writer and former diplomat Wendy Barnaby, "The U.S. Navy thought of [ethnic weapons] as long ago as 1951 presumably on the basis of the observation that [African-Americans] are much more likely than whites to die from Valley Fever, a disease caught from a fungus endemic in California's San Joaquin Valley."
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=25406
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Right here! Hello!
    Posts
    72
    Apart from a group in northern africa apparently being resistant to AIDS, I had the impression HIV was not discriminating at all?

    Edit: Removed (some) stupidity.
    ...Wait, what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Where is it suggested that molecular biological techniques were required to construct the virus? Biological weapons were used prior to 1950, and throughout the 1950s with some relish. No molecular biological techniques required, simply select for the deadliest agent, on a population similar to the one you wish to target.

    This has to do with the arguments presented here and nothing to do with whether HIV is man made, which of course it isn't.
    The original argument in the opening post was that HIV was man made. Which seems to be actually connected to the counter arguments that it couldn't have been man made.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Man made does not require molecular biology, as our history of animal domestication and agriculture attests.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by CircularlyPolarized
    Apart from a group in northern africa apparently being resistant to AIDS, I had the impression HIV was not discriminating at all?
    The conspiracy theory that HIV was a designed weapon sometimes includes the bit about it being meant to target one group or another. As an example, HIV can arguably infect gays more easily than heterosexuals because anal sex allows for its transmission more readily than vaginal sex. This is an example of a particular behaviour increasing risk of infection rather than the virus preferentially replicating in one group of people over another, though the end result is similar.

    I am not familiar with (the conspiracy theory's version of) how HIV was meant to target blacks over whites.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Soem biological you have with the HIV. The incubation time is what...several months, it takes years to kill the enemy, the transmission rate is shitty (if you talk from a weapons perspective) and requires sharing bodily fluids. This is going to be a pretty long war.

    If you want to pre-select an agent suitable for biological warfare you want:
    - High infection rate
    - Transmission by e.g spray like the ordinary cough
    - Fast onset of infection
    - Mortality rate of 50%+

    None of which applies to HIV
    And then there is the problem getting the bug into a form that is actually useful if you want to deploy it on the battlefield. Take the Anthrax bug for example. Producing the spores is a snap. But getting the spores in a form that really makes it a usefull biological weapon is a major pain in the ass.
    The Nazis DID experiments with biological warfare agents but all those involved known bugs and viruses.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Man made does not require molecular biology, as our history of animal domestication and agriculture attests.
    contrary to popular belief domesticated animals are not man made. They merely went into a symbiosis of man, and the latest ideas dictate that man underwent also domestication by joining a league withe domesticated animals.

    You can split words all you want, but man made means that HIV was made on purpose by man, with the intention of targeting a certain group of people.

    Since the tools were even lacking to identify the disease till faily recently it seems weird that you can even suggest that somehow HIV was created by means to a simple 'breeding' program which would have taken a few decades at least considering the time between infection and appearance of the disease.

    You want us to believe in a silly notion because you have one-dimensional ideas on man-made; which is, whatever suits your needs.

    no thank you.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    ...one-dimensional ideas on man-made; which is, whatever suits your needs.
    This statement is entirely in line with the idea that "man made" means "requires molecular biological techniques."

    'Man made' can mean any number of things and does not require molecular biology. Growing anthrax in a chemostat to harvest quantites that would never be found naturally is another example of a 'man made' weapon, and requires neither molecular biology nor breeding programs.

    I am not the one using a single definition of 'man made' to 'suit my purposes.' If you wish to argue that HIV is not man made, which of course it is not, do not constrain your argument to a point that is not particularly defensible should someone who believes the conspiracy theory and who has some degree of education come along and knock it down.

    The evolution argument is stronger in any event, although it is less likely to be easily understood by most conspiracy theorists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    This whole thread has helped me come with my own conclusion on this topic. Looking at almost every viewpoint a person could have about the origin of HIV/AIDS, I think it is not man-made. Sure, it makes some sense why a group of people (part of the higher elite social class of course) would attempt to make a virus to clear out a population of people because of problems with race, and sexualities. On the contrary, the US Govt has committed horrible tasks such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study which was a certain virus given to a certain population because of race when they even lied and denied them treatment for 25+ years. I do believe that the SIV virus did transfer (Mutate) into the HIV virus and jumped to us humans. One person stated that if it was man-made, or a used as a weapon it wouldn't be a great weapon to use. I agree completely. Playing the harsh but true game "Plague" on my android phone states clearly how to use a Biological weapon and annihilate mankind in a matter of years. I am writing a Medical Research paper on this topic and wanted to thank all for their points on this issue. Helped alot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Holy necropost batman!

    Necropost-kitten-1.jpg
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    see?....
    Last edited by seagypsy; November 22nd, 2012 at 06:04 PM. Reason: first picture posted was a bit too horrific
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by ttyo888 View Post
    I was led to think that HIV was a man made virus by a few factors

    The Year it was discovered and started
    This is one of the areas for suspicion. Bascially as far as records go, HIV was kinda reared its ugly head in the 1950s. That was at least a few short years after the WW2. And also there were records of Nazis invading Africa in the ww2. So it's not surprising that the Nazi being homephobic and racist, would make something to cull the undesirable population apart from tankers and soldiers.

    The birthplace it shares with many viruses of the same nature
    It just too coincident that the mostly horrible or sexually/ intravenously spread diseases came from Africa. You can blame the bushmeat trade but then. The Bushmeat trade has been going on for millions of years so why after 1950s we began to see its effects?

    Our Closest relatives
    Chimpanzees have been the subject of experiments due to our genetic similarities. It would not be surprising that maybe someone experimented on them and it escaped and spreaded it's disease. Many of the worst ecological disasters came from experimented or introduced wildlife.
    I first heard the general idea as a conspiracy theory as a purposely man-made virus invented by the white man to wipe out homosexual males and minority races in general. I think it is still a big stretch to consider the possibility of HIV being man made based upon the time AIDS was first identified, and estimates backward in time to its first appearance during the first world war or even before then. Of course that HIV was started by man eating monkeys or in some other similar way, does not seem totally unlikely. But that scientists were somehow involved in it crossing species, I think is much more unlikely.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 24th, 2012 at 05:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Ya and I'm Santa Claus
    Last edited by adelady; November 27th, 2012 at 06:17 PM. Reason: vulgarity deleted
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    see?....
    seagypsy "Respecter of sick reality,"

    Suggestively very appealing As to myself I express my similar ideas a little differently, i.e. "respecter of sick reality." Instead of using the word "respecter," I usually replace it with the word "perpetrator." Instead of using the words "sick reality" I prefer to use the words "good (salacious) behavior" Not exactly the same, just putting a more definite prurient spin on it

    Hopefully the above is not directly related too much to the spread of HIV -- returning to the OP question -- otherwise I'm not immune
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman uma_and_bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    28
    The nazis were nor ashamed of the terrible things they did for their cause. If they had been responsible for whY was unfortunately such N effective virus surely they would have taken credit for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •