Conference quark::mennotes

    I heard/read a wild rumor that Hitler's scientists had developed a
    mysterious bacteria that was to be introduced into the US via a plan
    that left Germany, flew to Africa, across to South America and then to
    the US.  He believed that Americans were a sex crazed, decadent lot. 
    Problem was that the plane crashed in Africa and thus AIDS was
    released.
    
    Fact or fiction?  Who knows?
    Paul

    re .3, yeah, that's it.  Let's blame Hitler, nevermind he's been dead
    for 48 yrs.!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

re .0:  Yes, I've heard this rumor in many variants.  It's always been 
biological warfare research, not chemical.  Hard to believe that messing around
with nerve gas would lead to AIDS.

>As far as I know, there is no 100% prove as where AIDS comes from, or 
>is there?

Right.  There is no 100% proof of anything.  For all you know, this note is 
being entered by somebody's clever LISP program.

>What do you think: Could AIDS have been the result of an experiment to
>create some kind of new "disease weapon" 

Yes, it is possible, but extremely unlikely, based on current evidence.  HIV
is closely related to a whole set of human and simian virus species.  The time 
and location of the oldest samples are about what we would expect for natural
mutation.  If this was an escape, we would expect to see the first cases near
some CBW research facility, not in Central Africa.

.1>    It has been know that gays have been in the military since the begining
>    of time. It could have been a means to rid the military of their
>    undesirable folk. And could have been sponsered by other orgs that do

Self-contradictory.  Because there are many gays in the military, any military
program to target gays would have been identified and leaked to the press and
the gay community before it even left the drawing boards.

.2>    like MS. Think of Jerry's Telethon coming soon. All the money rasied by 

Jerry Lewis has nothing to do with MS.

>    him and from the goverment should have rid MS decades ago. Or have rid 

"Should"???  Please explain how you know what amount of money it takes to
"rid MS".

> AIDs could have been induced into the mainstream as another horrid cause

Also self-contradictory.  If these folks are collecting our money for diseases 
they will never cure, they are all set.  Why would they want to create another 
disease?

There are many other problems with this thesis.  Why create the disease, release
it in Central Africa, and then wait decades for it to reach the big donor
countries?  Why not create a disease which spreads among children, who look
much better on a poster and raise no inconvenient questions about life style?

re .3:  Worldwide understanding of virus was pretty limited in 1940, and the 
Nazis were well behind the state of the art.  I doubt they had the technology
to design and manufacture the virus.  

Of course, you can believe anything you want.  There is no idea so loony that
somebody can't be found to say that it might be true.  This topic is ample
illustration of that fact.

    re. 05
    -self contradictory. because there are many gays in the military
    any military program to target gays would have been identified and 
    leaked to the press and the gay community before it even left the
    drawing boards.
    
    Hummm...don't think so!  Romantic to think that these types of
    programs will be 'identified' and leaked to the press!!!
    Boy, I wish I could beleive it.
    
    I think there's alot that happened (is happening) behind closed
    doors that the masses are completely ignorant thereof, or simply
    misinformed due to lack of information released.
    An example being the work related to UFO's and the like.
    Not that I'm an expert, but what from what I've learned the
    government lies about such matters.
    
    Laura

George, that's the point; there's no answer to the question.  You keep
working on the evidence until science cracks it or gives up on it.
There's no promise that any scientific research will ever be successful;
it takes lots of smart people and lots of effort, and sometimes lots of 
luck, to make progress in research of this nature.  Telethons are not a
plot.

DougO

    Some diseases cures HAVE been found without much expenditure on research.
    Other diseases have not been cracked, despite billions of research
    dollars.  It's a combination of tenacity, luck, perseverence, and faith.

    re .11, wonder what???
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .0 
    
    1)I've heard several variations of this rumor, including one that
    indicated that the virus was deliberately released in Africa by
    some white supremisist that worked for the lab in hope that
    it would wipe out all black people.
    
    2)The rumor doesn't stand up under logical scrutiny as in 
    previous replies.
    
    3)Anybody that has been anywhere neer the military knows that
    the military is the source of more rumors than an Old Ladies
    Aid tea party.  Therefore the fact that this one came from
    then military itself gives it _less_ credibility rather than
    more.
    
    4)It doesn't really matter where it came from at this point.
    What matters is how do we get rid of it or at least stop it
    from spreading.  However, if the intitiy _responsible_ has
    a _lot_ of money, then it might matter, which explains why
    this rumor is still kicking around.
    
    fred();

    
    Don't forget that much of the $$$$$$$$$$$$ goes to hospice care and
    necessary chairs and braces for the people inflicted with MD.
    
    
    Mike

    Scary rumors related to epidemics are as old as the hills.
    Some Black people think AIDS was introduced to kill them off.
    You can twist the fear any which way.
    
    Some people in the Middle Ages thought that unwanted groups were
    poisoning the wells.  Now we know the bubonic plague was caused by
    fleas carried on rats, possibly brought on ships from Asia.  
    
    Some day we may know what caused AIDS and today's rumors will look
    equally ridiculous.
    
    Laura

    re:.0
    
    Preposterous.

    
    Figure out who started the fire after we get it under control.
    
    The key point is that AIDS is a preventable disease.  Educate
    everyone on how it is transmitted.  I'm shocked to find the 
    number of very bright people who don't know the facts.
    
    Jon
    

    I havn't read through all the replies to this AIDS theory, but one thing
    immediately strikes me. AIDS is SLOW, it takes YEARS to kill people. 
    Most countries invovled in wars want things resolved quickly.  AIDS
    is 'too slow' I would think for it to be attractive as a weapon
    
    I don't believe it... that AIDS is a scientist created disease weapon
    that got out of control.
    
    I have read that AIDS has been in Africa since before modern medical
    science discovered its existance in Africa.  That theory is that modern
    transportation (airplanes) and loose sex mores moved AIDS out of
    isolated African villages and into the general world population.
    
    Jeff

    the ultimate weapon ?
    
    Imagin a small frustrated country or group of terroist.
    
    Targeting a big nation or group of people.
    
    they can easely infect thousend of habitants ( not everybody say NO to
    sex)
    
    then wait a long time. safegard your group, by for exemple strong
    religious practises,
    
    wait 
    wait
    wait
    
    and after all those waiting your group can become the surviver.
    
    
    Sure this is fantasie but maybe there are fouls loose out there.
    
    Luc

    
    
    re: .19
    
    ...probably the most ludicrous note I've seen to date.....
    
    
       GJD

    	"We are going to inject you with this stuff, and then in the
    name of our Lord you will go out and have sex with as many people as
    you can. Yes, we know promiscuous sex is forbidden to the chosen ones,
    but that will make you doubly a martyr to our faith".
    
    	I think even *I* would smell a rat in a deal like that!

    How about Blowfeld from a James Bond movie, release thousands of green
    face monkeys into large populated areas, descised as Good Humor ice
    cream truck drivers, Lawyers, and used car sales persons. The primary
    mission..... Blowfeld holds the antidote, and for a cool zillion
    dollars. He will give to all that solution.:)
    
    Bond of course, must run around the world, uncovering the monkeys
    wearing human faces. Biting folks. Even one of his many
    booo-datious-women-with-the-lovely-taa-taa's. Is really a woman green
    faced monkey. Who tries to bit Bond. <insert Bond theme song>
    
    

    Re .22
    
    That's Blofeld, George, not "Blowfeld."  Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

    Any time, George.  Any time.  :-)

    
    
     I like the Monkey Theory much Better ! 
    
     Besides why would our Government want to kill our own Children? 
    
      johnny B^) 

      Sounds quite plausable to me,
      Germ warfare was used against the American indians, atomic warfare
      against the japanese, etc etc. These were all actions made with full
      knowledge of the consequences and some risk.
            I have no evidence that it is man made. I would like to see some
      evidence that it was not. In the meantime the suddenness of its appearance
      indicates something manmade rather than a natural phenomen. the security
      of the moral majority also makes it very worrying.

Why do you think it appeared suddenly?  It didn't.

What kind of "evidence that it is not [man-made]" would you be willing to
accept?

					Steve

    AIDS appeared as suddenly as the Bubonic plague appeared in Europe.
    
    					andrew

    >AIDS appeared as suddenly as the Bubonic plague appeared in Europe.
    
    Oh, no! The CIA caused the Bubonic plague! :-)
    
    			Alfred

   � Oh, no! The CIA caused the Bubonic plague! :-)
    
    No, they are working on the trained monkeys.:) Gives new meaning to an
    old saying about Monkey suits.:)

    "AIDS appeared suddenly".  The implication being that it suddenly was 
    created.  OR it suddenly got DISTRIBUTED to the population via looser
    sex, improved intercontinental TRANSPORTATION.  As I understand it AIDS
    is not a new disease in Africa. It had occured in isolated pockets. 
    Only in the 1970's did it begin to move into the World at large via
    better transporation etc.
    
    Also, many diseases cycle randomly. Such as? Flu, rabies, diptheria.
    Why couldn't AIDS also have a natural cycling period built in as well
    as improved transporation etc?
    
    Were the South Americans who were decimated by the arrival of the White
    Man in the 1400's victim of brand new diseases? Yes, new to THEM. But
    they too were victims of 'modern' (sailing ships) transporation
    bringing new diseases to them.
    
    Jeff
    

>      I have no evidence that it is man made. I would like to see some
>      evidence that it was not.

Item: a sailor died of an unknown wasting disease in a remote port in 1969.
Unable to determine what had killed him, tissue samples were collected and
frozen.  In the mid-80s, some of these samples were thawed out and checked
HIV+; ergo, the man died of AIDS.

Item: HIV is a virus.

Item: viral manipulation is as yet a technically extremely challenging field.
While gene mapping and engineering of facets of bacteria have emerged as 
technical capabilities (with very specific bacteria, like the huge E. Coli)
only in the mid-to-late 1980s, this is not true of viruses, which are much
smaller and as yet beyond labratory engineering.

I conclude that the technological capabilities to engineer a virus for HIV
DID NOT EXIST in the 1960s when the virus made its known appearance.  I 
conclude the virus is not manmade.

DougO

    Ha! A likely story Doug! What are you going to tell Blofeld?:) All of
    those monkeys! What are you going to tell British Inteligence? :)

re.. .33
>Item: a sailor died of an unknown wasting disease in a remote port in 1969.
>Unable to determine what had killed him, tissue samples were collected and
>frozen.  In the mid-80s, some of these samples were thawed out and checked
>HIV+; ergo, the man died of AIDS.
>
      If it is the same sailor that I read about (As reported in the new
      scientist) 2 years ago. He died in England not in a remote port.
      The evidence that he died from aids was not conclusive.
      
>Item: HIV is a virus.
>
>Item: viral manipulation is as yet a technically extremely challenging field.
>While gene mapping and engineering of facets of bacteria have emerged as 
>technical capabilities (with very specific bacteria, like the huge E. Coli)
>only in the mid-to-late 1980s, this is not true of viruses, which are much
>smaller and as yet beyond labratory engineering.
>
>I conclude that the technological capabilities to engineer a virus for HIV
>DID NOT EXIST in the 1960s when the virus made its known appearance.  I 
>conclude the virus is not manmade.
>
      Slight time shift..
      Sailing is as yet a technically extremely challenging field. While
      navigation and engineering of facets of ships have emerged as technical
      capabilities (with specific ships). distances of this type are therefore
      impossible.
      I conclude that America does not exist. Any attempt to proove
      that will result in falling off the edge of the world.
      I will return to manmade aids later.
      Rgds,
      Stephen

Stephen, you said you had no evidence.  I provided some.  Whether or not
you accept this evidence is not really my concern.  Non-sequitor analogies
need not even be entered.

DougO

      Doug0,
      you are right your comment deserved a better answer than I posted. What
      I was trying to say, (the line broke) was that because you do not
      understand/believe that these things exist does not proove in any way
      conclusive to me that it does not exist. history provides so many
      examples of things that we take for granted to day being denied for
      years.
      The human immune system has been one of the greatest challenges to
      medical researchers this century. In the 60ies enough was understood to
      transplant the first kidneys. In the 60ies enough was understood to
      transplant the first heart. These things happened after decades of
      experimenting with ways of controlling the human immune system.

      So, If the sailor that you mention is the same one that I read about,
      then the report that I read was not conclusive that aids caused his
      death.

      What you mention is controlling the virus, which is far more complex
      than creating and letting it loose in the first place. A bit like
      striking a match, then containing the smoke and flame. The interest and
      experimenting has been there for this century, the guy who let the virus
      go will not be writing any papers for the medical journals.
      Rgds,
      Stephen

Stephen, prove to me that the AIDS virus was not created by aliens from
Jupiter.

				Steve

>Stephen, prove to me that the AIDS virus was not created by aliens from
>Jupiter.
>
>				Steve
>
      Yes OK..
      Stephen .. 

    Come now Steve, we all that that virus is a concept the the aliens on
    Jupiter do not understand. Beside that their medical technology is 
    just not up to it as they just re generate themselves.
    
    
    			Alfred

      OK.. Steve,
      is that proof enough.
      Stephen

      Has anyone out there heard of a place called Portdown. I believe that if
      you had the smiles (note wise) would be wiped, all to quickly off the
      faces.
      Germ warfare has been planned by the major powers for the last 70 years.
      Do you mean to say that all that investigation and has been wasted?
      Where has all the tax payers money gone??

      What is not believable about it? Has mankind in your part of of the
      noting world progressed to the point where human life is sacred.
      Perhaps we could  change this note string into a list of geographic
      locations where life is valued to the point where individuals/countries
      are no longer able/willing to kill.
      
      Steve, Is there a genuine belief that the technology does/did not exist?
      Or is there a fear that AIDS was obviously manmade?

      For me it is too convient to be accidental. The victim group was
      initially the most promiscuous in society (so I read), drug addicts
      were incidental second.
      The next question is which nation had the technology to create and
      released AIDS. This is the point that I expected to have the shuffeling
      of feet and jokes about martains.

    re..... letting the virus go is different from creating it.
    
    That underscores my contention that AIDS apparently came into existance
    due to more efficient distribution systems rather than because its a
    new bug mad scientists leashed on the World,  although Mankind
    certainly is emotionally capable of letting horrors like AIDS loose.
    
    And my mom told me when I was a kid that there aren't monsters.
    
    Now we had better stay alert that TB doesn't get anymore out of control
    than it already is.  i.e. TAKE your damm antibiotics if you have the
    new TB!  Or, will we have to wait until TB becomes a pandemic before
    patients are 'forced' to take their medicines?
    
    Jeff
    

    Re .42: I don't think anyone is saying that germ warfare is an
    unbelievable concept, just that there has been, as yet, no proof that
    AIDS is the result of it. Sure, it could be. (For that matter, the
    rabies epidemic that's showing up in the northeast could have been
    caused by somebody playing with the rabies virus; the fact that it
    looks like good old-fashioned rabies doesn't mean that somebody didn't
    make some subtle genetic alteration, and/or deliberately spread it
    around.)
    
    I would think that the main value in theorizing about the origins of
    AIDS (other than for the fun of it, which is a perfectly valid reason
    too) would lie in finding a cure; if somebody made it, there's a chance
    that that somebody _has_ a cure or antidote (not guaranteed; it's
    sometimes easier to break things than to fix them - but it's possible),
    and if so, it'd be awfully nice to get hold of it. But so far I haven't
    seen any evidence that proves it's man-made, much less points to a
    likely origin.
    
    Personally, I don't much care whether it's man-made or not. If it is, I
    expect it'll all come out someday; if not, the conspiracy theories will
    still continue until something more fun to speculate about comes along.
    (I prefer to worry about the origins of, say, spontaneous human
    combustion.)
    
    -b

My point of the question about aliens was that it's extremely difficult to
prove a negative, especially when the person who is asking the question is
predisposed to disbelieve you.  Can we prove that aliens didn't build the
pyramids or that Atlantis didn't exist? 

If you're going to hypothesize an event which most people consider unlikely
or impossible, it's really up to you to prove that it DID happen rather than
wave your hands and say "well, can you prove it didn't?"   There is no
evidence to support the theory of "AIDS as a weapon".  If you can come up with
some, please let us know.   Otherwise, you're just wasting your time (and
everyone else's).

				Steve

.42>      Has anyone out there heard of a place called Portdown. I believe that if
>      you had the smiles (note wise) would be wiped, all to quickly off the
>      faces.

Why do you believe that?

>      Germ warfare has been planned by the major powers for the last 70 years.
>      Do you mean to say that all that investigation and has been wasted?
>      Where has all the tax payers money gone??

Yes, bio warfare R&D is well known.  Wasted?  Maybe, in the sense that my
life insurance is wasted, so far.  The public purposes of germ warfare R&D
were deterrence and counter-measures.  I'm not sure the money was wasted in 
those terms.

>      What is not believable about it?

At risk of repeating many previous notes:
	that the technology existed at the time
	that any large group within bio R&D was motivated to create AIDS
	that they would have been successful
	that they would then take it to Africa for release
	that they could have kept the secret
	that they could have left no trace of their activity

All your talk about the sanctity of life is a red herring.  I am not
claiming that ethics restrained anyone.

>      Steve, Is there a genuine belief that the technology does/did not exist?

I'll answer for myself.  Yes, I genuinely believe that the technology did not 
exist in the 1960s.  But for me, that is a minor part of the reasoning.  I
imagine myself in 1965 (yes, I was around then) going up to a military bio
R&D committee and saying:

	I have a proposal to spend a few hundred million to design a virus
	which will be transmitted most effectively among gay men.  This is
	militarily useless, and it could never be mentioned in reports or
	secret budget hearings, but I know you all will agree that gay men 
	are such a menace to society that it will be a worthwhile project.

I would expect to wake up the next day in a rubber room.

>      Or is there a fear that AIDS was obviously manmade?

Again, I'll answer for myself.  I have no such fear.

    Usually if one is going to build a weapon its a good idea to try and
    design it so that it can't be as effectively used against YOU as the
    enemy.  Chemical warfare is a perfect example.... the wind can change
    and you had better be sure you have gas masks and that they work!
    
    Something as potentially rampant as a disease is REALLY risky to
    release unless YOU have some natural immunity to it.  As far as I know
    not many (if any) have natural immunity to AIDS.  Therefore, unless
    the 'unleashers' are mad (which certainly is possible of course) or
    suicidal AIDS would be a poor weapon of choice I would think.
    
    Aiming it at a specific population group: Geez, how effective can the
    shotgun approach be?  Unless the overkill in non target groups is of
    no concern, which of course, could be too.
    
    Hmmmm. Maybe AIDS was released by celebate monks?
    
    Jeff

    I had this sneaky suspicion that the virus was released by divorce
    attorneys. The seem to enjoy screwing everyone!:)

    
    
    -1
    
     :-) 
    
    Dybz

re.. .47
      Jeff,
                                  -< Monks? >-
>
>    Usually if one is going to build a weapon its a good idea to try and
>    design it so that it can't be as effectively used against YOU as the
>    enemy.  Chemical warfare is a perfect example.... the wind can change
>    and you had better be sure you have gas masks and that they work!
>
      Mustard gass was used until the last days of WW I, you are telling me
      that they did not know about wind in those day.
      
>    Something as potentially rampant as a disease is REALLY risky to
>    release unless YOU have some natural immunity to it.  As far as I know
>    not many (if any) have natural immunity to AIDS.  Therefore, unless
>    the 'unleashers' are mad (which certainly is possible of course) or
>    suicidal AIDS would be a poor weapon of choice I would think.
>
      The moral majority is not at risk from aids..
          
>    Aiming it at a specific population group: Geez, how effective can the
>    shotgun approach be?  Unless the overkill in non target groups is of
>    no concern, which of course, could be too.
>
      In warfare losses have always been an accepted part. WW1 there are many
      examples where own troops have been simply sacrificed for a considered
      advantage.

      I postulated the human element in this disease, I am more interested in
      the "be quiet and go away response". Can someone explain that for me.
      Seriously, I see a number of coincidences, unnatural coincidences. I
      have no conclusive evidence that it is manmade. If I had I would
      probably shut my mouth and join the see nothing, hear nothing, say
      nothing group.
      
>    Hmmmm. Maybe AIDS was released by celebate monks?
      Why celibate monks? any monogamous group that believes in a period of
      celibacy prior to intimacy with a selected life partner, would feel
      completely safe from the disease. Or are there new means of
      transmission.
      Rgds,
      Stephen

    Celebate monks because they 'obviously' would be at minimal risk... not
    that other groups (the Moral Majority) wouldn't be at decreased risk
    too.
    
    AIDS seems to be an ingeniously engineered virus.  As you well know it 
    targets the very defense mechanisms designed to attack viruses.  Also,
    as you well know AIDS mutates rapidly and has multilayered defense
    mechanisms which make it a particuarly difficult virus to
    counterattack.
    
    And THIS virus is a relatively early human attempt at germ warfare?
    AIDS seems remarkably well designed (evolved) to be designed by human
    attempts.  Either the designers got unbelievably lucky (VERY unlikely I
    would think) or bio engineering is alot more advanced than the public
    has been led to believe?
    
    Also, why so SLOW a method? Usually one wants to wipe out the target
    rather rapidly.  Or, is this so well designed an effort that a decade
    or so to decimate the targeted population is acceptable?
    
    Jeff
    

   .51 
    Slow and painful deaths will appease most of us ghouls.:_)

      Re.. .51 
>
>    Celebate monks because they 'obviously' would be at minimal risk... not
>    that other groups (the Moral Majority) wouldn't be at decreased risk
>    too.
      The moral majority MM are perfectly safe. Two year courtship, medical
      test, lifetime partner.

>    And THIS virus is a relatively early human attempt at germ warfare?
      There is nothing early about germ warfare, mixamatotis against rabbits
      in the 40ies. there are many cases of using available diseases from day
      one.
      
>   Also, why so SLOW a method? Usually one wants to wipe out the target
>   rather rapidly.  Or, is this so well designed an effort that a decade
>   or so to decimate the targeted population is acceptable?
      To be effective it has to be slow, using a slow agent it is only
      necessary to infect a small number of targets. The longer that each
      target continues to live, the more effective the agent is. Take
      mixamatotis, this was used against rabbits in the 40ies. A bullet was
      found to be a quick and effective means of eliminating rabbits. However,
      one bullet, one rabbit, one minute. The rabbits reproduce faster than
      they can be shot. One man, one rabbit, one jab. The rabbit lives for two
      to three weeks, has contact with every rabbit in the warren in that
      time. As the warren decimates the survivors travel to neighbouring
      warrens. A five minute agent would not be effective. If the incubation
      time had been 5 years can you imagine how effective it would. 
      Mixamatotis was cooked up by a couple of people in a garden shed. (I
      will check that)
      Stephen

    That was a type that the moral majority would be at risk... I ment to
    say they would not be at the same risk of AIDS as say, gays are.
    
    I think there is a big difference between releasing a pre-existing
    disease against ones' enemy and genetic engineering virus's into a
    viral horror such as AIDS.  As far as I know the genetic engineering
    of virus's wasn't possible in the late 1950's.  When DID it become
    possible anway... was it back in the early days of the appearance of
    AIDS?  Even so, as I said in a prior note, I wonder at the degree of
    sophistication for viral genetic engineering possible just prior to the
    obvious emergence of AIDS?  I think that point still stands as a valid
    rational pointing against AIDS being a man made virus.
    
    Jeff
    
    

      re  .54 
>    
>    I think there is a big difference between releasing a pre-existing
>    disease against ones' enemy and genetic engineering virus's into a
>    viral horror such as AIDS.
      If you are releasing a virus, which is intended to damage, there is no
      need to calculate all the possibilities. If you look at afganistan,
      veitnam  and other war torn countries. They have a heritge of landmines
      to last them until 2050. So to give the creators of the virus (if it was
      man made) the credit of planning the course I think is too much.
>				As far as I know the genetic engineering
>    of virus's wasn't possible in the late 1950's.  When DID it become
>    possible anway... was it back in the early days of the appearance of
      I first began to hear about "genitic engineering" when inroads wer first
      being made with the controll of the immune system to enable transplants.
      
>    AIDS?  Even so, as I said in a prior note, I wonder at the degree of
>    sophistication for viral genetic engineering possible just prior to the
>    obvious emergence of AIDS?  I think that point still stands as a valid
>    rational pointing against AIDS being a man made virus.           >>>>>
     >>>>>>>>
      You have a point.
      Stephen

    Random creation of virus... let it go....see what happens etc.:
    
    Yes, but AIDS is TOO perfect.... too perfectly adapted to create havoc
    in the human immune system...  i.e.  It takes DESIGN to work. i.e.
    I find if almost impossible to believe that AIDS is the result of the
    RANDOM creation of a virus.  Its like a lock and key.  What are the 
    odds against a randomly created virus just HAPPENING to unlock the 
    ability to wreck human immune systems????? I dare say the odds against
    AIDS being random are astromonically AGAINST it.  Therefore, I belive
    that AIDS evolved the same way other virus evolved.... over many 10's
    of thousands of years.... naturally.  Its just that THIS one is SO damm
    clever!
    
    We can be VERY glad that AIDS is not spread the way the common cold is.
    Talk about pandemics!
    
    Jeff
    
    
    

.50>      Mustard gass was used until the last days of WW I, you are telling me
>      that they did not know about wind in those day.

I think that Jeff is saying that in WWI, users of chem warfare watched the 
wind and had their gas masks ready.  By analogy, I would expect that anyone
planning to start an epidemic would be very sure about the means of contagion
and means of protection.  Who got advance warning against transfusions?  Who
is now being vaccinated?

.50>      The moral majority is not at risk from aids..

False, assuming that we can agree on the meaning of such a vague term.  First,
there are no foolproof tests for HIV, so even a long courtship and testing 
would not eliminate the risk.  Second, a number of AIDS cases were caused by 
contaminated blood transfusions.  Third, some members of the 'moral majority'
have IV drug use and/or sexual promiscuity in their past.  Fourth, HIV can
be spread by rape and physical assault.  Fifth, some of the 'moral majority' 
fall into what they call sin, in a big way.  All these things put the 'moral
majority' at risk.

.50>      I postulated the human element in this disease, I am more interested in
>      the "be quiet and go away response". Can someone explain that for me.

I would be interested in trying, but in another note.  Would you care to start
a new topic on open-mindedness in notes.

.50>      have no conclusive evidence

As far as I can tell, you have no evidence at all, just an endlessly
repeated assertion that you believe it.

.50>      celibacy prior to intimacy with a selected life partner, would feel
>      completely safe from the disease. Or are there new means of
>      transmission.

See above.  Such groups might feel safe for a while, but they would soon 
learn otherwise.

Note that this problem would look completely different to the design team.

	"We've got this whizzy new virus which will spread to our enemies."

	"How can we be sure there is no way it can spread back to us?  What if
	it were to spread through insects?  Or casual contact?  Or food?
	What if it mutates so it can spread by a new path?"

	"This is war.  Let's release it and find out if we die."

I can't believe I'm seeing the words "Moral Majority" used in
public discussion again.  Jeez.

The concept that the technology of the 60's (or for that matter
the 70's) was capable of engineering a retrovirus of any sort,
much less such a 'perfect' one as HIV, is ludicrous.  Pure
fantasy.

What's the matter?  Now that the Cold War is over, you don't 
have enough to keep you up at night?  Such paranoid delusions.

Silly.

tim

    SSSsssssshhh! There is a commie under my bed! Bee vwery vwery quite! 
    

      That was a short discussion on the possibility that AIDS could be
      manmade. With the comments and feedback delivered there seems little
      (how about no) acceptable acceptable evidence to indicate that AIDS is
      artificial. *I* can produce no evidence whatsoever. It does seem to be a
      very clever litte bu**er. Despite lack of evidence I feel uncomfortable
      with the idea that it just happened. Most counter arguments asume that
      the development of the human mind is a parallel process. Ten to 15 years
      in the development seems to be a short time to me. It is easy for me to
      consider that someone somewhere did the necessary ground work in gene
      manipulation 10 years before the the french or the americans. but press
      on.

      Is it a taboo subject or can we discuss further?  

      Other aspects to discuss might be the the Darwinian aspect.

      Is evolution completely directed by mechanical and environmental means?
				        Or is it helped by biological agents.
      The God aspect, if the Darwin veiw does not prevail. I understand that
      the Darwin teachings are illegal in some parts of the world. 

    
    re .60

>Despite lack of evidence I feel uncomfortable
> with the idea that it just happened. 

    Did syphilis  "just happen"  or was it a product of some enterprising
    medicine man to wipe out the Europeans before they got to America?
    (Syphilis is commonly thought to have been brought back from the
     "New World" by Columbus's crew).

    fred();

.60>      Is it a taboo subject or can we discuss further?  

I think that 60 notes of mostly serious discussion show that it is not taboo.
I don't see any point in further discussion of a hypothesis as long as the
available evidence weighs so heavily against it.

>      Is evolution completely directed by mechanical and environmental means?

There is a long and write-locked discussion of evolution in BIOLOGY, and a 
shorter one in PHILOSOPHY.  I don't think we need one in MEN.

    Are there ANY weapons which CANNOT come back on the user in some form
    if they fall into the 'wrong' hands or something goes wrong with the
    distribution system?  I think not.
    
    So, do MOST of us agree that the chances of AIDS being a man-made
    scourge engineered in bio labs, and released on purpose is not likely
    for the reasons we have been going over?
    
    Jeff
    

 Hmmmm....

	I haven't been reading 'notes' for a while, so didn't catch this
 discussion...what is below may sound a bit far out and is paraphrased
 from my memory of what I have read, but ...

	The question about the origin of AIDS in humans seem to be, from
 what I have read, 'How did the virus make the jump from monkeys to humans?'
 Evidently, the virus has been present in certain species of monkeys in Africa 
 for some time; but it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a human 
 to be directly infected by a monkey. 

	One current theory is that the transmission to man MAY HAVE
 come about by accident, as a result of the first tests of polio vaccine.
 When polio vaccine was first developed, the culture used to develop the
 vaccine for innoculation was kidneys from a species of monkeys (now) known
 to harbor the AIDS virus. I should perhaps note right away that vacines 
 given in Europe and the America's were NOT made from kidney cultures;
 only a small amount of early test material was.

	Now, as it turns out, the first documented cases of AIDS were
 found very close to (a couple of hundred miles, as I recall) the 
 pretty isolated area where monkey-kidney-cultured polio vacines were
 tested.  While follow-up studies were done of the people who received
 these vacines, no studies were done that lasted as long as the years it
 often takes to develop the symptoms of AIDS.  Even if they had, the
 rate of human infection rate may have been so low that the new syndrome
 might not have been identified.

	At the time these vacines were developed, there was no test that
 would have detected the AIDS virus in the culture medium.

	There ARE samples of these kidney-cultured vacines still preserved
 and there is some demand that they be tested for the presense of the 
 virus; the owners of the cultures have refused, and there is controversy
 whether there "is any point" of examing them.   Certainly the level
 of guilt that would befall the researchers if it is found that their
 successful work to rid much of the world of polio accidentally led to
 the introduction of AIDS virus into the human species would be incredible.
 Probably we shall know, in the not too distant future whether this happened 
 or not, as the 'political' issues of control of the vaccine samples evolve.
    

    Bet it came from the biological experiment lab which is in the hangar 
    where the Air Force has successfully covered up that crashed UFO since
    the late 50's and, with it's "secret" communication links served as a
    front for a joint effort by the CIA and the KGB in plotting the Kennedy
    assasination. You can trust me on this one. I had a Top Secret Special
    Intelligence security clearance for almost 15 years and NEVER saw one
    little line of intelligence regarding this BS about an Army biological
    experiment gone astray. And at that level of intelligence information
    you see every accomplishment and screw-ups committed. No way could this
    be covered up as too many people have many security accesses to such
    information. Don't you think ONE of those people with this "proof"
    would have sold it to Time or Newsweek by now? Get real.
    

    The monkey/man polio research theory sounds alot more plausable than 
    many of the theories I have heard to date.  Sometimes parasites (AIDS)?
     are less perfectly adapted to an alternate host (man) than the
    original specicies they invaded.
    
    Jeff

    
    it was dances with monkeys what started it.

    There is at least one NASTY virus called Marlburg Fever which
    originates in Green Monkeys.  People can get it and the fatality rate
    is in the 60 % range. Nothing compared to AIDS with its 100% but the
    point is there is at least one nasty virus monkeys can pass along to 
    mankind.
    
    Dancing with monkeys: Hmmmm, well, it had never occured to me, they are
    too short.
    
    Smile
    
    Jeff

    re .67, seems like if they had stuck to dancing, there wouldn't be a
    problem.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

>re .67, seems like if they had stuck to dancing, there wouldn't be a
>problem.  :-)

Well, that depends on how dirty the dancing was Lorna.  

80)

    re .70, I didn't think of that. I guess you can see how tame my
    experiences have been!
    
    Lorna
    

Lorna, are you implying that I have a sick, twisted, depraved and perverted 
mind?

Well, it might be true but I don't think I'd care to dance with the monkeys.

80)

I've seen a more plausible explanation of how the virus could have passed 
from monkey to human.

We know that the virus can pass through contact of blood with an open cut.
Anybody killing and skinning a monkey would be at risk.  Apparently these
monkeys are not much valued as food or pelts, but some do get skinned.

    I just finished a long article on the source of AIDS. I think it was
    in NEWSWEEK.  The article was compehensive and made sense.
    
    The gist of it was that a primate virus (commonly found in monkeys)
    mutated slightly and was passed to a human via a mode like that
    mentioned in the prior entry.  Changing sexual mores (read liberal)
    and improved faster transportation spread the AIDS virus with great
    efficiency.  
    
    I am hope that we, (mankind) don't stir any other 'sleepers' out there
    (virus) out of hiding and into general circulation.
    
    Another example is the hanta virus which hit the Southeastern U.S.
    recently.... the hanta virus has been around... but again, it came out
    of hiding with a slight mutation which made it deadly rather than
    extremely serious.
    
    Jeff
    

    It's beginning to look more and more like hanta virus is not what
    killed those people.
    
    Less than 50% tested positive for hanta virus.
    
    Most credible speculation to date suggests chemical agents from a
    nearby military base, either deliberately or accidentally released.

    Mike,
    
    I would agree with this, IF there weren't cases popping up in
    Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming.  there is a real problem with
    chemical dumps just off the Navajo reservation.
    
    However, maybe those isolated cases are there to keep us from worrying
    about the gvmnt?
    
    Yours in paranoia
    
    Meg  

    There was an article in the Dec. DISCOVER Magazine about the hanta
    virus scare.  It seemed to be a comprehensive well researched article.
    I read the entire article thoroughtly.  It didn't mention the
    possibility of a toxic release causing the deaths.  Either the Discover
    Journalists didn't do their research as well as they should have, or
    the gov. is hiding information (what else is new), or the cause WASN'T
    due to a toxic release.
    
    The prior entry which mentions outbreaks in areas OTHER than near the 
    Navajo Reservation seems to confirm that toxic releases from nearby
    military installations wasn't the cause.
    
    Anti paranoidly yours,
    
    Jeff

    re:.76
    
    Meg, I was referring only to one cluster of cases of hanta virus.

"<<< Note 85.74 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>
    Another example is the hanta virus which hit the Southeastern U.S. ..."
    
    Ahem, "Southwestern"
    
    ed

    Mike,
    
    That cluster is definitely curious.  I am keeping a close eye on it as
    the four corners area is our favorite place to backpack and fish in
    Colorado, and the mouse control recommendations are sort of damned if
    you do damned if you don't.  I would almost prefer it being a chemical
    problem, as deer mice are ubiquitous in the area.
    
    Meg  

	       ""AIDS as a weapon?""
      
      How silly! the next thing we will be expected to believe is that the US
      carried out radiation experiments on its own citizens.
      Rgds,