Monday, June 06, 2011
AIDS - 30+ years later
Read a big writeup about AIDS in my Sunday paper yesterday, how despite initial pessimism they're making progress after all these years. Many of the harsher earlier drugs like AZT have been replaced by kindler, gentler and more efficient and less toxic medicines and there is definite hope on the horizon but I got to thinking back to what the Jamaican chef (a character who occasionally pops up in these blogpages) told me once. Now if you met the guy you'd say he's quite intelligent, articulate and not your broadbased wildeyed conspiracy theorist, you can rap with him and since I'm on the subject I've been meaning to pose the question for BB and the others is there at least one conspiracy theory that you believe in, that you subscribe to? (what is this overtrust of government anyway?) Anyway he opined to me one day that he thinks AIDS was invented by the U.S. Government as a form of genocide against black people. Now I don't subscribe to this but it should be apparent by now that the darker-hued folks do see alot of subjects quite differently but I will say the key here and something I cannot answer and that doesn't sit well is why should there be a new disease? We've had your basic classic diseases down through the centuries. Mentions of syphilus have been woven into some of Shakespeare's plays and breast tumors have been around since the time of Cleopatra but AIDS??? Was this invented by some weird masturbator in a CIA lab somewhere, some Mengeleian prodigy? a form of biological warfare as it was maybe initially designed that somehow found its way into the general population? So how would you respond to the Jamaican chef? The argument from intimidation won't work, the man wants anwers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd respond by stating the fact that his claims have some merit. After WWII, many German scientists and the like came to find themselves working in some capacity for the U.S. government.
ReplyDeleteEugenics has a rich history amongst the elite aristocrats.
Saty said something interesting too when I first broached this very subject some time ago. Don't wanna put words in her mouth so maybe later.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a lot of merit to the idea that possibly HIV was developed as a biological weapon. I wouldn't necessarily posit it as being designed to put down the black man (although the world sure doesn't seem to be panic-stricken over the fact that Africa is essentially a synonym for AIDS at this point), but as a general biological weapon it would seem to be a good one. The interesting thing about HIV is that you don't 'die of' HIV. You die of a scratch that gets infected, or pneumonia, or a cold, or a stomach bug. Basically, HIV sets you up to die.
ReplyDeleteThe United States has enough of a history of Mengele-esque medical testing-on our own minority citizens, our own mentally ill citizens, and citizens from other countries that we thought we could get away with infecting-that the entire idea shouldn't really cause any jaws to drop or incite gasps of disbelief.
There's some fairly convincing, if circumstantial, documentation linking outbreaks of HIV to hepatitis vaccination programs for gay men in New York and California. I don't recall many people being sorry to see the gay community 'being punished for their sins' when HIV was first brought into the media and explained as a 'gay-only' disease. Then it was only gays and junkies, which, basically, made it even more appealing to the social conservative mindset.
Of course, it all changes when it becomes apparent that HIV doesn't care about sexual orientation or your drug of choice. That's when it becomes personal, and that's just what happened; when HIV began to spread to children, through blood transfusions, through heterosexual sexual contact.. when it wasn't just people of 'other' groups getting infected, when it wasn't just poor, homeless junkies or gay debauchees, then suddenly it became An Issue. Because frankly, until then, no one cared that these people were dying.
Do I think there's a cure for HIV? Not necessarily. I do think Magic Johnson looks mighty fabulous. Without a doubt HIV can be managed successfully in the long term. What is more murky is whether this is a privelege that is extended only to selected persons/classes/countries and withheld from others. It doesn't seem like too many people (apart from Bono and the general left) really care a whole lot about Africa being decimated by this disease, and it does seem mighty strange how well it stays confined there. But now I'm moving into speculation.
While I'm on the subject of biological warfare, let me mention that anthrax was one of the stupidest choices that could have been made. Smallpox would have been, and remains, the wisest choice for someone wanting to throw us into a biological tailspin. Especially now that for the last 25 years parents who've bought into the autism/vaccine bullshit have been forgoing vaccinations for their children. At any rate no one's been vaccinated for smallpox (except a select few in the military et al) in over 30 years. We have no immunity left to it.
I signed up on a nursing list to volunteer to be vaccinated and to go serve in needed areas in the event that a biological attack using smallpox did come. Smallpox is one vaccine that truly is quite dangerous (though my mother insisted I be vaccinated as a baby regardless). Anyway, so they've got my name if they need me.
Knowing some virologists and their work, I'm gonna stay standard on the origins of the virus, summarized in Wiki . Ongoing work in
ReplyDeletemolecular phylogenetics
(you know, the DNA sequences of Neanderthals compared to us advanced types, etc) is aimed at
viral genomic sequences of the HIV compared to the
SIV.
As far as some conspiracy on the part of
the military, we know that both the US and the USSR
were active some years back in gene-splicing; attempting to make Black
Plague, Anthrax, Yellow Fever and the like more virulent. IMO, these were
pretty much a failure. In
terms of germs as weapons,
the protocol was easy distribution, quick effect, lethality (the old LD50 goal) and further spread among the population. So, HIV would have been a poor candidate: long incubation, apparent specificity in vectoring
(endemic among particular
population portion)and the
virus has poor survival in the environment.
So, again, BB is skeptical of conspiracy.
But, conspiracy-wise I am starting to think that Lee Atwater is still alive and directing the GOP. :)
I thought I saw just the other day a blurb on the 'net that a guy was cured of AIDS...but I think he was white!
ReplyDeleteSaty: "...then suddenly it became An Issue..."
ReplyDeleteI detect a definite Lista influence here.
LMAO!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteBB brought out some good points about HIV with the latency period and all that.
It never seemed to me to be an 'instant assault' type weapon; more one of those insidious long term sapping the strength and killing the enemy one at a time type weapons.
Over a period of years, generations, forever.
I dunno, it always seemed that way to me.
But BB, your points are on the money.
I don't subcribe to any racial theory here just that a brand new MAJOR disease cropping up is so weird. It's definitely not the norm. Trouble is if you pursue this, just ask basic questions you end up sounding like the Rev. Wright.
ReplyDelete