54 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

You can find the two books on Amazon, apparently one won an award. I do apologize that I lose focus sometimes and I don't expresss my ideas coherently. If I am told where the issues are with my arguments I have no problem with correcting them.

Let me make this deliciously clear.
Anyone can write, and publish a book. Case in point, one of our forum members has done just that.

Only vetted papers will end up in journals. Vetted by the top scientists in the relevant fields.

Or, put simply, books can easily be full of bollocks, whereas journal papers are infinitely more likely to be accurate.

[Gone]

Let me make this deliciously clear.
Anyone can write, and publish a book. Case in point, one of our forum members has done just that.

Only vetted papers will end up in journals. Vetted by the top scientists in the relevant fields.

Or, put simply, books can easily be full of bollocks, whereas journal papers are infinitely more likely to be accurate.

I already mentioned that in the post you quoted if you would continue reading it.

Journalism is, by its very nature, dumbed down, inaccurate and sensationalist.

There is also unverified/researched information that are presented in journals. Some "journals" fall under your your above quote. Of course, I do aknowledge that you were excluding scientific journals from those that might be presented in magazines but you do have to recognize that what has been presented as accurate finds can latter be disproved by a more viable claim or for proving to be fradulent. It depends on what information the scientic journal wants to present.

Edited by Meirsa, 10 October 2008 - 04:36 PM.

[Grizzly]

c) gay-made

[Sweeney]

I already mentioned that in the post you quoted if you would continue reading it.

An edit after the discussion had moved on.
Underhanded and discoursive.

However, you still seem unable to grasp the difference between primary literature, and books; tertiary literature.

[Gone]

However, you still seem unable to grasp the difference between primary literature, and books; tertiary literature.

I edit as I am getting the source, so the time mentioned is not as it seems. I post the revised piece after ever time I add new information, so I post on several occasins within various time frames.

I do not know to the diff. of the most credible source fro scientic issues.

Edited by Meirsa, 10 October 2008 - 04:37 PM.

[Sweeney]

There is also unverified/researched information that are presented in journals. Some "journals" fall under your your above quote. Of course, I do aknowledge that you were excluding scientific journals from those that might be presented in magazines but you do have to recognize that what has been presented as accurate finds can latter be disproved by a more viable claim. It depends on what information the scientic jurnal wants to present.

No journals contain journalism. Oddly.

If you're thinking things like New Scientist, or Scientific American are primary literature, you're grossly mistaken.

And everything printed in scientific journals is as accurate as it can be given the data. In light of new data, things can be revised, updated or even thrown out. This is how science works.

I edit as I am getting the source, so the time mentioned is not as it seems. I post the revised piece after ever time I add new information, so I post on several occasins within various time frames.

You can't seriously assume that? I recognize when a source is primary, the information can directly be obtained from it and its resourceful especially if the author was alive during that time period that the research is about. Secondary can be an analysis of a work by another or information that is presented by someone that is not the initial researcher. Third rank sources just mentions information and is just about useless for any sort of credible research.

I suggest you compose a post fully before submitting. It makes life a lot easier.

As far as the scientific literature classification goes, you are, in fact, incorrect. How do you propose a researcher performs research while dead?

Journals are primary literature. Only Journals.
Review Journals are secondary literature.
Books, magazines etc. are tertiary literature.

[Gone]

It seems I had non-scientific works, on the mind. I stand corrected. But Kitsune, my sources are not "unrealiable" when it deals with events, scientific claims on the other hand, might be another story.

Strecker brothers info. is the only source backed by scientific journals. Credit needs to be given to the specific scientific journals that Dr. Strecker researched.

Edited by Meirsa, 10 October 2008 - 04:38 PM.

[33724]

Wow, books are unreliable. It seems I had non-scientific works, on the mind. I stand corrected. But Kitsune, my sources are not "unrealiable" when it deals with events, scientific claims on the other hand, might be another story.

Just looked up Alan Cantwell Jr, and some of his theories have been published in several scientific journals (will be looking for specifics shortly)
Hmm, apparently Dr.Robert Strecker, in his "Strecker Memorandum" got all of his information from well-respected scientific journals. Dr.Strecker and his brother's findings actually is what made Dr.Alan Cantwell change his mind on the theroy of "man-made" AIDS being absurd. Credit nees to be given to the specific scientific journals that Dr. Strecker researched.

You fail to see the point. Without credible evidence to support your blasphemous, radical ideals. You will only be considered a farce and your respect here shall continually dwindle away. It seems you have a problem understanding even the most common of knowledge as being fact and have only replaced those facts in your simple mind with those radical and incoherent thoughts.

[hungryhippo]

Please support the facts you have that can prove your absurd assertion. Otherwise you need to study how debates work and stop wasting our time.

I know how debates work thank you very much. I didn't actually think that anyone would buy into this conspiracy theory enough to require support for my viewpoint. But since it seems to have taken that turn, allow me to support

First of all, when you talk about HIV origins, you have to talk about SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus). Using a technique called antibody cross-reactivity, which utilizes the principle that the antibodies for one pathogen often react on similar antigenic sites on immunoglobulins for another pathogen in primary immune response (Source: I'm pre-med...I got A's in bio and organic chem), researchers were able to determine a direct link between SIV and HIV (Source: New England Journal of Medicine http://content.nejm....l/330/3/209#R1). Simply from a basic understanding of virulogy, the link makes it clear that they arose from a common ancestral virus. Because HIV is the newer of the two viruses, we can deduce that HIV arose from SIV because antigenic sites are extremely specific. It is rare that viruses separated by more than one generation of DNA changes will react within the same immunoglobulin. The meat of the article which I have sited thus is as follows:

"From a strict classification perspective, HIV-2 is simply an SIV strain or series of strains that has become endemic among people in West Africa, Angola, Mozambique, and a few other geographically restricted sites. From a viral standpoint, HIV-1 has been more successful at infecting humans, since it spreads much more rapidly through diverse populations."

[33724]

I know how debates work thank you very much. I didn't actually think that anyone would buy into this conspiracy theory enough to require support for my viewpoint. But since it seems to have taken that turn, allow me to support

First of all, when you talk about HIV origins, you have to talk about SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus). Using a technique called antibody cross-reactivity, which utilizes the principle that the antibodies for one pathogen often react on similar antigenic sites on immunoglobulins for another pathogen in primary immune response (Source: I'm pre-med...I got A's in bio and organic chem), researchers were able to determine a direct link between SIV and HIV (Source: New England Journal of Medicine http://content.nejm....l/330/3/209#R1). Simply from a basic understanding of virulogy, the link makes it clear that they arose from a common ancestral virus. Because HIV is the newer of the two viruses, we can deduce that HIV arose from SIV because antigenic sites are extremely specific. It is rare that viruses separated by more than one generation of DNA changes will react within the same immunoglobulin. The meat of the article which I have sited thus is as follows:

"From a strict classification perspective, HIV-2 is simply an SIV strain or series of strains that has become endemic among people in West Africa, Angola, Mozambique, and a few other geographically restricted sites. From a viral standpoint, HIV-1 has been more successful at infecting humans, since it spreads much more rapidly through diverse populations."

Now was that really hard to do? Thanks for the fantastic insight and hopefully the OP could deduce that it is in fact very probable that the virus mutated and was transmitted from species to species.
All I wanted was factual evidence and this will suffice.

[SRF]

It also states that it works for HIV type 2, if you would finish reading. I know about the several strands of HIV, so stop pointlessly attacking, okay?

The type two are antibodies as well... you missed my point

[Gone]

In defense of theory that AIDS is man-made

I have come across several articles that I feel support my stance:

Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo, who is a pathologist for the Department of Defense, recieved a patent for his discovery of mycoplasma fermentans incognitus states on patients he studied.

His claim is as followed:

"O. Other Disease States in Which M. fermentans incognitus Has Been Implicated In addition to AIDS, M. fermentans incognitus has been implicated in a number of other Disease states including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Wegener's Disease, Sarcoidosis, respiratory distress syndrome, Kiku-chi's disease, autoimmune diseases such as Collagen Vascular Disease and Lupus, and chronic debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease. M. fermentans incognitus may be either a causative agent of these diseases or a key co-factor in these diseases. P. Treatment of M. fermentans incognitus Infection M. fermentans incognitus is known to be sensitive to a number of antibiotics, including doxycycline, quinalones such as ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol and tetracycline. Therefore, effective treatment of any of the above implicated diseases should include administration of antibiotics to which M. fermentans incognitus is sensitive."

Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus can be linked to the developemnet of AIDS, and well as other diseases.

This claim is further supported by an article in Science, in which the article mentions Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus strain strengthening HIV-1 "that produces cytopathic effects on human T lymphocytes in vitro" (or outside living organism, but rather is something like a test tube). The HIV-1 reproduces itself  while coinfecting with the Mycoplasm. HIV-1 and mycoplasma both hinder "the standard reverse transcriptase enzyme assay".  HIV-1 is altered in way, by coinfection with mycoplasma, that may be involved in the developement of AIDS.

Enhancement of HIV-1 cytocidal effects in CD4+ lymphocytes by the AIDS-associated mycoplasma

The possible origins of mycoplasm has been observed by PC Hanna, and her obseravtions were published by The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. In her article, tests of Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus that had tissue cell cultures exhibited resistence to aminoglycoside antibiotics, while the Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus obtained from the urine of AIDS patients were sensitive to aminoglycoside antibiotics. She concluded that Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus found in AIDS patients is more likely to have emerged from "a tissue culture contaminant."

This is an abstract of her article:

Observations on the possible origin of Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus strain based on antibiotic sensitivity tests

Something that needs to be considered is that there were vaccines that were produced by monkey cells, that were being in use by during the time of the HIV outbreak in Africa. They were given hepatitis b vaccines that contained tissue cultures obtained by monkeys. Although I cannot assume that they "intentionally" injected people with what could possibly be contaiminated vaccines, but it would be reasonable to believe that the virus spread so rapidly through vaccines that were given that no one knew were contaiminated.

There is an article in Science that is titled "Human Virus Vaccines: Why Monkey Cells?" by Leonard Hayflick, John C. Petricciani, Hope E. Hopps, and Douglas E. Lorenz and was publsihed on May 19 1972.

[Sweeney]

In defense of theory that AIDS is man-made

I have come across several articles that I feel support my stance:

Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo, who is a pathologist for the Department of Defense, recieved a patent for his discovery of mycoplasma fermentans incognitus states on patients he studied.

His claim is as followed:

"O. Other Disease States in Which M. fermentans incognitus Has Been Implicated In addition to AIDS, M. fermentans incognitus has been implicated in a number of other Disease states including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Wegener's Disease, Sarcoidosis, respiratory distress syndrome, Kiku-chi's disease, autoimmune diseases such as Collagen Vascular Disease and Lupus, and chronic debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease. M. fermentans incognitus may be either a causative agent of these diseases or a key co-factor in these diseases. P. Treatment of M. fermentans incognitus Infection M. fermentans incognitus is known to be sensitive to a number of antibiotics, including doxycycline, quinalones such as ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol and tetracycline. Therefore, effective treatment of any of the above implicated diseases should include administration of antibiotics to which M. fermentans incognitus is sensitive."

Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus can be linked to the developemnet of AIDS, and well as other diseases.

This claim is further supported by an article in Science, in which the article mentions Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus strain strengthening HIV-1 "that produces cytopathic effects on human T lymphocytes in vitro" (or outside living organism, but rather is something like a test tube). The HIV-1 reproduces itself while coinfecting with the Mycoplasm. HIV-1 and mycoplasma both hinder "the standard reverse transcriptase enzyme assay". HIV-1 is altered in way, by coinfection with mycoplasma, that may be involved in the developement of AIDS.

Enhancement of HIV-1 cytocidal effects in CD4+ lymphocytes by the AIDS-associated mycoplasma

The possible origins of mycoplasm has been observed by PC Hanna, and her obseravtions were published by The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. In her article, tests of Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus that had tissue cell cultures exhibited resistence to aminoglycoside antibiotics, while the Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus obtained from the urine of AIDS patients were sensitive to aminoglycoside antibiotics. She concluded that Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus found in AIDS patients is more likely to have emerged from "a tissue culture contaminant."

This is an abstract of her article:

Observations on the possible origin of Mycoplasma fermentans incognitus strain based on antibiotic sensitivity tests

Something that needs to be considered is that there were vaccines that were produced by monkey cells, that were being in use by during the time of the HIV outbreak in Africa. They were given hepatitis b vaccines that contained tissue cultures obtained by monkeys. Although I cannot assume that they "intentionally" injected people with what could possibly be contaiminated vaccines, but it would be reasonable to believe that the virus spread so rapidly through vaccines that were given that no one knew were contaiminated.

There is an article in Science that is titled "Human Virus Vaccines: Why Monkey Cells?" by Leonard Hayflick, John C. Petricciani, Hope E. Hopps, and Douglas E. Lorenz and was publsihed on May 19 1972.

PC Hannan's paper, if you care to actually read it, draws the conclusion that the isolation of M. fermentans incognitus was not, in fact, from human tissue, but a lab contaminant of the tested culture.
Not a lab contaminant of the subject.

Your first cited paper supports the fact that HIV-1 can be boosted in virulence. Nothing more.
It certainly doesn't suggest that AIDS can develop independantly of an HIV infection

I don't have access to the last paper, even via my university. I doubt you do either.

[Gone]

PC Hannan's paper, if you care to actually read it, draws the conclusion that the isolation of M. fermentans incognitus was not, in fact, from human tissue, but a lab contaminant of the tested culture.
Not a lab contaminant of the subject.

Your first cited paper supports the fact that HIV-1 can be boosted in virulence. Nothing more.
It certainly doesn't suggest that AIDS can develop independantly of an HIV infection

I don't have access to the last paper, even via my university. I doubt you do either.

I did notice that it said lab contaminant. The second paper was to dicuss what helps HIV develop into AIDS (so I am rejecting the HIV does not lead to aids theory), which is the M. fementans. The M.fermentans can be developed through a bacteria in the intestines of animals, and it just so happens that many vaccines were developed from monkey tissue culture (some specifically from organs), where M. Fermentans would he housed. I have also changed my stance on not coming from monkeys, since the M.fermentans that can be found in a monkey tissue culture could have contaminated the vaccines that were given to Africans, and homosexual men. I was unable to directly access the last journal, but I will make efforts to directly access it for details on the information presented on monkey tissue used in vaccines. Maybe my university will hopefully allow me access, because the article does exist but is limited to those that will pay for it. The journal for that time peroid is avaliable at my school's library (in micro film), so hopefully I can find the article, scan it, and post specifics.

The man-made theory comes into place because it is possible that the tissue cultures from the monkeys were not throughly examined, and through the negligence of the medical personal, put injections into people with faulty vaccines.

Edited by Meirsa, 10 October 2008 - 06:45 PM.

[Sweeney]

Accidental contamination does not equate to man made.

I am, however, glad to see you've retracted most of your previous opinions in the face of actual evidence.

[nox]

lmao

If you believe any of this crap, you're a moron.

HIV is not transmitted through saliva. Unless you happen to salivate blood.
Blood contact is also the likliest way HIV entered the human population.
And there is no doubt, no doubt, that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

^

PLEASE stop all these annoying afrocentric threads

Edited by nox, 11 October 2008 - 08:12 AM.

[33724]

^

PLEASE stop all these annoying afrocentric threads

Would that be another racist comment?

I didnt know Neocodex discriminated against posting afrocentric topics.

[Mr. Hobo]

Nox doesn't represent Neocodex...

[33724]

Nox doesn't represent Neocodex...

well thats a relief.

How are afrocentric topics "annoying". Or are they just annoying to you?



What it all comes down to is there is sufficient scientific evidence to support the theory that the virus has been transmitted among species through blood and bodily fluids. Not "saliva". As for it being man made, there isnt enough data to support this hypothesis and all that I have read so far is nothing unlike what you may pick up in the science fiction section at Waldon or Barnes & Noble.

[Frizzle]

Fuck off Nigz. Go pick some cotton.

[daemonacht]

Umm.. In my opinion some creepy guy looking to get his dick wet went into the jungle and tried to hump a monkey, AIDS DID come from monkeys right?

Put those two things together and what to you get? A valid point?

[nox]

this thread is hilarious

[Amour]

So has the original theory of the guy doing a monkey been proven wrong?

[Tetiel]

Dude. How have I NOT replied to this thread?

AIDS started appearing in the early 20th century in central Africa. During this time, we didn't have even close to the technology to create a virus. Therefore, AIDS is not man-made.

So has the original theory of the guy doing a monkey been proven wrong?

Oh, I'm pretty sure it has. It just has been kept around for its humour.

A more likely theory is that a hunter had a monkey as his prey and had open wounds on his body. He killed the monkey and some of the blood got into his open wounds.

[Amour]

Oh, I'm pretty sure it has. It just has been kept around for its humour.

A more likely theory is that a hunter had a monkey as his prey and had open wounds on his body. He killed the monkey and some of the blood got into his open wounds.

How did the monkey get the AIDS?