The Truth About The AIDS Virus

[MagentaCandle]

Originally Posted by Chuckleberryfinn

You putz, the first known HIV case has been traced to a plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Zhu, Tuofu, Korber & Nahinias. "An African HIV-1 Sequence from 1959 and Implications for the Origin of the Epidemic" Nature, 1998: 391: p. 594-597

How can the virus have been laboratory manufactured in the 70s if it was traced back to 1959 and determined to have been a naturally occurring biological organism (as opposed to a synthetic one, as you say)?

You know, certain people on this board NEVER seem to fail to dissapoint me, and amaze me at the same time.

In 1959 AIDS DID NOT EXIST. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF AIDS, AND NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT! PERIOD.

Here is what Wikepedia says about the AIDS virus:

In the beginning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[53][54] They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.[55] In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[56] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community,[55] the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[57] By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.[58] In 1993, the CDC expanded their definition of AIDS to include all HIV positive people with a CD4+ T cell count below 200 per µL of blood or 14% of all lymphocytes.[59] The majority of new AIDS cases in developed countries use either this definition or the pre-1993 CDC definition. The AIDS diagnosis still stands even if, after treatment, the CD4+ T cell count rises to above 200 per µL of blood or other AIDS-defining illnesses are cured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS

GRIDS, was the first official name for AIDS. It wasn't even until 1982 when the term AIDS was first used to describe the disease. And what did GRIDS stand for again? Gay-Related-Immune-Deficiency-Syndrome. This was a horrible term by the way, because Gay people had nothing to do with the creation of the AIDS virus, or the reason for it.

Now...if you look at the top other 3 search results for the term Discovery of AIDS on yahoo, you will find these little tidbits of information:

Today, as when it was officially first recognized on June 5, 1981, this vicious infectious agent remains unique even within its own classification of retroviruses. classification of retroviruses.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/05/after_25_years_of_aids_the_news_only_gets_worse/

Now, that article plainly states that AIDS wasn't even officially recognized until the year 1981.

Or how about this article, again, which is at the TOP of the list of search results for the words "Discovery of Aids":

On June 5, 1981, scientists made a terrible discovery. They discovered the cause of a disease that was killing people by the thousands. The disease is called AIDS. That stands for "acquired immune deficiency syndrome." AIDS makes people very sick. It is caused by a virus. Your body is made of millions and billions of cells. Your body is able to fight off most diseases because some of these cells are very special. They are called T-cells. Could that be because they are so tough?

http://www.edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_35_886.html

Now did you all read that CORRECTLY? It clearly states that at the time of June 5th, 1981, the AIDS virus was only killing people by the thousands. Not hundreds of thousands, not millions, thousands. So therefore, there is no way in hell that the AIDS virus had been around for almost 20 years previous to that as some of you are claiming.

Now I don't blame you for being misunderstood, but not a SINGLE one of those articles claims anything about the AIDS virus stemming from the 1950's. Not a single one.

[MagentaCandle]

Here's the speech from Dr. Robert Strecker on the AIDS virus:

http://www.righto.com/theories/strecker.html

[MagentaCandle]

Originally Posted by MagentaCandle

If someone were to ever take a look at the Congressional House Bill 15090, they would find out that it relates to funding, or appropriations , for the Department of Defense in the fiscal year 1970.

You would also see words such as "91st Congress", "First Session", "June 19th, 1969," "Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee of Appropriations," "House of Representatives," and "Budget - $10 million." This Bill helped fund what would eventually become project MK-NAOMI , where the DOD asked for and received 10 million dollars.

You see, there was a man named Dr. Donald MacArthur who was the Deputy Director of DOD's Research and Technology Division. He's the one who provided the outline for this project that would be carried out by a small group of scientists. MacArthur testified before the House Committee in 1969 in hopes of producing a new virus or bacteria that would attack and destroy the body's immune system. They called this a "Refractory Virus."

Now, how do you all feel about dem apples? And how do you feel that these facts relate to the AIDS virus? Because as you can see, THEY DO.

[Poi]

Magenta, often there's smoke where there is fire, granted. But I think the overall pictures you try to paint here have a lot more to do with the path on which you find yourself, one of saturation with fearful events rather than logical reasoning for their occurrences.

With the AIDs virus, there may be very good alternate explanations, but you choose the very worst scenario because it fits your current agenda. There is a part of us, in each of us, that is capable of dissociating with our mindset, one that allows us to view our behavior and thinking from a distance. That exercise allows us to step out of agendas to get a broad view of reality. Lots of good info for what drives us to think in familiar patterns in that exercise.

Yeah, I'm suggesting that you pull away from fearful thinking to get a better grip. There's logical argument for why you may be incorrect in your suspicions, but you will never see or here it until you look, from a distance, at your need to find the illogical and scary stuff you focus on.

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Originally Posted by MagentaCandle

You know, certain people on this board NEVER seem to fail to dissapoint me, and amaze me at the same time.

In 1959 AIDS DID NOT EXIST. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF AIDS, AND NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT! PERIOD.

Here is what Wikepedia says about the AIDS virus:

In the beginning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[53][54] They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.[55] In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.[56] However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community,[55] the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.[57] By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.[58] In 1993, the CDC expanded their definition of AIDS to include all HIV positive people with a CD4+ T cell count below 200 per µL of blood or 14% of all lymphocytes.[59] The majority of new AIDS cases in developed countries use either this definition or the pre-1993 CDC definition. The AIDS diagnosis still stands even if, after treatment, the CD4+ T cell count rises to above 200 per µL of blood or other AIDS-defining illnesses are cured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS

GRIDS, was the first official name for AIDS. It wasn't even until 1982 when the term AIDS was first used to describe the disease. And what did GRIDS stand for again? Gay-Related-Immune-Deficiency-Syndrome. This was a horrible term by the way, because Gay people had nothing to do with the creation of the AIDS virus, or the reason for it.

Now...if you look at the top other 3 search results for the term Discovery of AIDS on yahoo, you will find these little tidbits of information:

Today, as when it was officially first recognized on June 5, 1981, this vicious infectious agent remains unique even within its own classification of retroviruses. classification of retroviruses.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/05/after_25_years_of_aids_the_news_only_gets_worse/

Now, that article plainly states that AIDS wasn't even officially recognized until the year 1981.

Or how about this article, again, which is at the TOP of the list of search results for the words "Discovery of Aids":

On June 5, 1981, scientists made a terrible discovery. They discovered the cause of a disease that was killing people by the thousands. The disease is called AIDS. That stands for "acquired immune deficiency syndrome." AIDS makes people very sick. It is caused by a virus. Your body is made of millions and billions of cells. Your body is able to fight off most diseases because some of these cells are very special. They are called T-cells. Could that be because they are so tough?

http://www.edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_35_886.html

Now did you all read that CORRECTLY? It clearly states that at the time of June 5th, 1981, the AIDS virus was only killing people by the thousands. Not hundreds of thousands, not millions, thousands. So therefore, there is no way in hell that the AIDS virus had been around for almost 20 years previous to that as some of you are claiming.

Now I don't blame you for being misunderstood, but not a SINGLE one of those articles claims anything about the AIDS virus stemming from the 1950's. Not a single one.

I don't think that I have to point out much except that my source, which I documented, is a scholarly medical journal -- a damned good one, at that -- and your source is wikipedia.

If you had bothered to read the article, you'd know that the virus most certainly did exist in 1959. The man cited in the article had given a plasma sample which was stored and subsequently tested many years later. It is undeniable. You are wrong.

[MagentaCandle]

Originally Posted by Chuckleberryfinn

I don't think that I have to point out much except that my source, which I documented, is a scholarly medical journal -- a damned good one, at that -- and your source is wikipedia.

If you had bothered to read the article, you'd know that the virus most certainly did exist in 1959. The man cited in the article had given a plasma sample which was stored and subsequently tested many years later. It is undeniable. You are wrong.

No you are wrong. No one knew about it in 1959. There WAS NO SUCH THING AS AIDS IN 1959!!!!

How many times do I need to prove that for you?

And the evidence you are talking about, that ONE SINGLE SAMPLE, that was planted. Everyone knows that. No one is going to take a single sample as evidence anyways. MOST people are too smart for that. Bro.

[Fastwalker]

MagentaCandle,

What is your purpose in regards to promoting the idea that AIDS is manmade? For all I know, this is true. So what?

What are we supposed to do with this information? Feel bad, feel scared, feel angry, feel despair, feel frustration, feel alienated?

Please help me understand what you want from us. Thank.

[Jose Collado]

The Truth About The AIDS Virus? Truth? I think you need to change the topic title. Wait...what? The Controllers? This is really starting to sound like a bad 50's scifi flick. Warning! Warning!

I'm putting my money on the green monkey that bites people on the ass. I mean, I don't honestly believe in green monkeys, but they're a whole lot more believable than this tripe.

Oh god no....another conspiracy theory! Maybe I'm one of those Controllers.

*Whispers into his Pez dispenser* The package is in the open...I repeat....the package is in the open.

[Fastwalker]

Originally Posted by Jose Collado

The Truth About The AIDS Virus? Truth? I think you need to change the topic title. Wait...what? The Controllers? This is really starting to sound like a bad 50's scifi flick. Warning! Warning!

I'm putting my money on the green monkey that bites people on the ass. I mean, I don't honestly believe in green monkeys, but they're a whole lot more believable than this tripe.

Oh god no....another conspiracy theory! Maybe I'm one of those Controllers.

*Whispers into his Pez dispenser* The package is in the open...I repeat....the package is in the open.

Well, to be fair, this is the area of the forum set asside for conspiracy theories, so it isn't really right to downgrade someone for posting such theories, even if they are farfetched. MagentaCandle is just "following the rules" for posting items in the proper area of the Paracast forum. Many people do believe the AIDS virus was manufactured. My issue is I am not sure what difference it makes at this point. We know what transmits it, and what matters is to stop transmission and find therapies that work. I doubt if it was manufactured that there will ever be any retribution for this. The world does not work that way.

[Seth]

One thing I do find quite amusing or odd is that magentacandle has repeated or copied his posts from other forums:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s=dcafb6a0b0edf23c23af4190bb9c374a&showtopic=21382&st=15&#entry335857

http://www.elijahdays.org/forums/showthread.php?p=68868

Another oddity is that he/she has copied the arguments from users with a similar naming formula color+candle=username. On this forum the name is magentacandle; on the others the user is named goldcandle and bluecandle, respectively.

Questions: Why the copied and pasted repetitive posts magentacandle? Why the multiple-post-guerilla-tactics delievered to multiple forums?

Sounds like someone has something to gain.