Is AIDS man-made?

[Papay]

Not sure if this is the right section for this topic. There are some things that trouble me regarding AIDS

1)It appeared suddenly, the years after WW2. This means that the disease was either in existance but not recorded(difficult but not impossible)or emerged suddenly during that period

2)All nations during ww2 did biological experiments that today would be considered war crimes. Even US admitted that they deliberately injected sypfilis to prisoners and others

3)The basic characteristic of AIDS is that it destroys the immune system(making it the perfect biological weapon)

Under WW2 circumstances its not impossible to think that a group of doctors, sponsored by a government conducted experiments on black people in Africa. Then at some point, the project was abandoned and the doctors left(but AIDS stayed behind)

[Verr]

they created it with their sins.

as for today: i already read about a bio-lab in the netherlands working on viruses - to be prepared and for a immunization of course.
im afraid we will see the use of bioweapons sooner or later ; its not that easy to prove that human released them intentionaly.

but whats the difference between god sending you a deadly virus directly or "using" humans to do so?

[Shaxx]

they created it with their sins.

Nonsense. Do not be brainwashed by whatever organization gave you such an ignorant and held-back point of view.

It is a stupid rule (speaking of many religions restriction on homosexual activity) someone thought up millennia in the past likely just to keep manpower from dropping so they could defend their dynasty and have enough serfs and peasants to tax. End of story. Greed, weakness and survival for the 'special' few.

but whats the difference between god sending you a deadly virus directly or "using" humans to do so?

Make-believe? Make-believe is the difference.

Long story short, the AIDS (or SIV as it's known) in chimps and the AIDS in humans share a common ancestor, dated to 1908 give or take 10 years. How SIV became HIV is simply a matter of natural selection favouring vira that could adjust to infecting human cells.

Is it not feasible that instead of creating a brand new virus someone perhaps could have just modified an existing one?

If you were going to make a virus, you'd make it a lot better at spreading than just by sexual and blood contact, like say, an airbourne flu. AIDS would be a terrible virus to manufacture, as it takes years and years to kill people, is easily stopped with condoms or needle exchange. Putting to one side its unlikely that any virus would be made and then let loose - also at the time that it first appeared, was a long time before DNA sequencing had really come along. So the balance of probabilities says that - this is not likely to be a weaponised agent, as it is a simply hopeless weapon - who'd want a weapon that would take more than a decade to kill people and be easily stopped with a piece of latex rubber?

Look for super flus, or aerosol rabies if you are thinking weaponised destruction, not AIDS.

Some would argue if created by humans it was created out of prejudice and hate. Someone who hates a certain type of person or a certain activity rarely attribute it to people they like. Thus having it transferred by the activity they dislike is perfectly safe in-their mind to not end up affecting them or their friends or family and would get rid of those people they do not favor very much and in a fitting way that they foolishly think they deserve.

[Phier]

Is it not feasible that instead of creating a brand new virus someone perhaps could have just modified an existing one?

Most people who do not study genetic research just don't understand this sort of thing isn't really "easy" to do. Feasible isn't really the right word to use here, feasible implies a likely hood. AIDs also was identified from a death in the Congo in 1959. At that point it wasn't even possible, feasible, probably, or even highly unlikely. We as a species didn't have the science.

[Shaxx]

Most people who do not study genetic research just don't understand this sort of thing isn't really "easy" to do.

Ahh, I see.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

You could basically ask the same question about H1N1, the Spanish flu and Bird flu, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS#Discovery provides a few suggestions, the urbanization of Africa due to colonialism and the gathering of people in larger cities. It also seems to be a development of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), which jumped from wild chimpanzees, a bit like with Bird flu and H1N1, when humans hunted them for their meat and got infected by their blood.

A more "credible" source on the subject: http://www.theaidsinstitute.org/node/259

they created it with their sins.

as for today: i already read about a bio-lab in the netherlands working on viruses - to be prepared and for a immunization of course.
im afraid we will see the use of bioweapons sooner or later ; its not that easy to prove that human released them intentionaly.

but whats the difference between god sending you a deadly virus directly or "using" humans to do so?

You really are quite the comedian, without the ability to be considered funny.

[Visna]

Not sure if this is the right section for this topic. There are some things that trouble me regarding AIDS

1)It appeared suddenly, the years after WW2. This means that the disease was either in existance but not recorded(difficult but not impossible)or emerged suddenly during that period

2)All nations during ww2 did biological experiments that today would be considered war crimes. Even US admitted that they deliberately injected sypfilis to prisoners and others

3)The basic characteristic of AIDS is that it destroys the immune system(making it the perfect biological weapon)

Under WW2 circumstances its not impossible to think that a group of doctors, sponsored by a government conducted experiments on black people in Africa. Then at some point, the project was abandoned and the doctors left(but AIDS stayed behind)

There are plenty of things that are "not impossible to think", but this particular one is false. AIDS (HIV1-Group M), or rather the disease that would become known as AIDS, had been circulating for decades by the time of WW2. Long story short, the AIDS (or SIV as it's known) in chimps and the AIDS in humans share a common ancestor, dated to 1908 give or take 10 years. How SIV became HIV is simply a matter of natural selection favouring vira that could adjust to infecting human cells.
Obviously human activity helped it spread, everything from using infecting syringes in vaccination programs to the always popular unprotected sex. But the disease itself is nature's own doing. Or the gods, if you believe in creating, meddling gods.

[frozenprince]

I'm gonna go with "No. That's ing stupid". For $500 Alex.

[Lazarus]

Short answer, no.

Long answer, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

[Sharpe]

Your post raises a lot of bizarre choices, like why would they infect monkeys with it?

And given the Clausewitzian style of total war that was being waged, an immune system targeting weapon would not have been effective - too slow, a risk of your own troops getting affected. Stuff that attacks the eyes, lungs and skin would have been far more effective.

[Simon Cashmere]

If you were going to make a virus, you'd make it a lot better at spreading than just by sexual and blood contact, like say, an airbourne flu. AIDS would be a terrible virus to manufacture, as it takes years and years to kill people, is easily stopped with condoms or needle exchange. Putting to one side its unlikely that any virus would be made and then let loose - also at the time that it first appeared, was a long time before DNA sequencing had really come along. So the balance of probabilities says that - this is not likely to be a weaponised agent, as it is a simply hopeless weapon - who'd want a weapon that would take more than a decade to kill people and be easily stopped with a piece of latex rubber?

Look for super flus, or aerosol rabies if you are thinking weaponised destruction, not AIDS.

[fkizz]

Well it appeared/spiked precisely on times of sexual liberation and shortly after mass biological experiments being done by most WWII countries, and on first stages happened to target mostly homosexuals and the promiscuous, also attacks only the human immune system and the disease came from chimps, from SIV to HIV so..

Either some perverts were having sex with chimps in africa (be tolerant of all sexualities plz hate is not a game)

Or some scientists for le progress were doing experiments with chimp cell tissues on humans and passed the SIV to humans. SIV being created by nature but passed to humans through the biological experiments.

Saying HIV didn't have the hand of man on artificially passing it to our society is quite the thing..

So are you telling me nature suddenly pops a virus that in its initial stage punishes mostly homosexuals and the promiscuous people?

Not impossible, but seems a very, very, very bigoted and intolerant nature It would seem that nature follows the most fanatic conservative ideals of judging sexual behaviour. IDK, nature having put HIV on people seems sort of ironic.

While HIV being a product of experiments on SIV seems more plausible. I mean, it seems less unreal to me, than events such as Unit 731.

[Phier]

So are you telling me nature suddenly pops a virus that in its initial stage punishes mostly homosexuals and the promiscuous people?

Yes, allow me to introduce you to STDs, they have been around forever, and greatly increased with the advent of civilization.

AID's isn't even the worst one historically, not even close.

http://jmvh.org/article/syphilis-its...n-its-origins/

By definition they will spread to those having sex more.

[fkizz]

Yes, allow me to introduce you to STDs, they have been around forever, and greatly increased with the advent of civilization.

AID's isn't even the worst one historically, not even close.

http://jmvh.org/article/syphilis-its...n-its-origins/

By definition they will spread to those having sex more.

Well this helps to explain why customs driven people try to promote so much the idea of sexual retention; plenty of extra worries asides from unwanted pregnancies. Nice link. Didn't know syphilis was THIS brutal.

But still, as a biologist, how do you explain the passage of SIV to HIV? Experiment gone wrong or simian fetishists? What's your take on this? I'm curious.

[Visna]

Well this helps to explain why customs driven people try to promote so much the idea of sexual retention; plenty of extra worries asides from unwanted pregnancies. Nice link. Didn't know syphilis was THIS brutal.

But still, as a biologist, how do you explain the passage of SIV to HIV? Experiment gone wrong or simian fetishists? What's your take on this? I'm curious.

Heh, yeah syphilis is one of those diseases that really show just how much a creating God loves us.
As for the jump between chimps and humans, a far, far more reasonable explanation than a chimp fetish is that a hunter has killed a chimp and the jump has happened during the preparation. That hunter would only have needed a small cut on his hand for the virus to have a free passage. Sex is a fairly unreliable method of transfer, while blood passed directly from one host to the next is one of, if not the most effective one.

[Adar]

Well it appeared/spiked precisely on times of sexual liberation and shortly after mass biological experiments being done by most WWII countries, and on first stages happened to target mostly homosexuals and the promiscuous, also attacks only the human immune system and the disease came from chimps, from SIV to HIV so..

Either some perverts were having sex with chimps in africa (be tolerant of all sexualities plz hate is not a game)

First of all, the disease tend to target people who have multiple partners in parallel regardless of if you are promiscuous or gay. This is because the amount of virus in your bloodstream peaks a short time after you've bee infected which greatly increase the risk of passing it on. This sex pattern is common in the gay community and sub-Saharan Africa.

And as you know HIV also spread by blood. In some parts of Africa they eat chimpanzees and butchering animals generally involves blood.

[Ludicus]

First of all, the disease tend to target people who have multiple partners in parallel regardless of if you are promiscuous or gay.

Just to clarify, Fact Sheet

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States

[fkizz]

@adar
@visnar

What do you think of this?

"Serge Abrahamovitch Voronoff (Russian: Серге́й Абрамович Воронов; c. July 10, 1866 – September 3, 1951) was a French surgeon of Russian extraction who gained fame for his technique of grafting monkey testicle tissue on to the testicles of men for purportedly therapeutic purposes while working in France in the 1920s and 1930s."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Voronoff

He did chimp experiments of implanting testicle tissue on human testicles. The idea is a bit nutsy by itself. He also did monkey thyroid transplants into boys, and apparently some of them worked.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...off_Jean_G.JPG

Pre-1920s 14-year old boy after having an ape thyroid gland grafted onto his own (right) Same boy at age 15.;"

Well I'm not here to prove anything, just to point out that human-monkey biological experiments did exist.

[Adar]

@adar
@visnar

What do you think of this?

"Serge Abrahamovitch Voronoff (Russian: Серге́й Абрамович Воронов; c. July 10, 1866 – September 3, 1951) was a French surgeon of Russian extraction who gained fame for his technique of grafting monkey testicle tissue on to the testicles of men for purportedly therapeutic purposes while working in France in the 1920s and 1930s."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Voronoff

He did chimp experiments of implanting testicle tissue on human testicles. The idea is a bit nutsy by itself. He also did monkey thyroid transplants into boys, and apparently some of them worked.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...off_Jean_G.JPG

Pre-1920s 14-year old boy after having an ape thyroid gland grafted onto his own (right) Same boy at age 15.;"

Well I'm not here to prove anything, just to point out that human-monkey biological experiments did exist.

I would say that it is utterly retarded and not very healthy.

Pictures of a child who hit puberty late doesn't really change that .

But yes having SIV infected material grafted onto your body may cause issues...

[Visna]

@adar
@visnar

What do you think of this?

"Serge Abrahamovitch Voronoff (Russian: Серге́й Абрамович Воронов; c. July 10, 1866 – September 3, 1951) was a French surgeon of Russian extraction who gained fame for his technique of grafting monkey testicle tissue on to the testicles of men for purportedly therapeutic purposes while working in France in the 1920s and 1930s."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Voronoff

He did chimp experiments of implanting testicle tissue on human testicles. The idea is a bit nutsy by itself. He also did monkey thyroid transplants into boys, and apparently some of them worked.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...off_Jean_G.JPG

Pre-1920s 14-year old boy after having an ape thyroid gland grafted onto his own (right) Same boy at age 15.;"

Well I'm not here to prove anything, just to point out that human-monkey biological experiments did exist.

I'm almost tempted to say of course. Of course they existed, the early 20th century was the wild west when it came to biological experiments. Heck, Russian scientists tried to produce chimp-human hybrids before eugenics became associated with "decadent capitalism, fascism.... etc" you know the routine. Is it in some ever so remote way possible that's how the jump occurred? Possibly. Is it likely? Hell no. Same with the sex scenario, a chimp isn't some friendly or weak creature like a cow or sheep for someone to practice their zoophilia upon, they're around 5 times stronger than even the strongest human, and they will literally beat a would-be rapist to death at the first given opportunity. Not to mention that the several strains of HIV show that the cross species transfer has happened several times.
A far more likely scenario is the bushmeat scenario explained above, and the spread really kicked off at a time of increased urbanisation, improved travel opportunities, vaccination programs, sexual revolution and what have you.