Laurie.Forti@asuvax.asu.edu (Laurie Forti) (05/29/89)
I wonder how many folks here have watched the Tony Brown's
Journal series on AIDS on the public educational channels.
The basic thesis presented is a real shocker and, in summary, is
that the US Congress asked for the development of a virus or
biological weapon that the human immunological system could not defend
itself against (Congressional Record, 7/1/69), that the US War College
started developing ethnic weapons (Congressional Record, 11/7/70), and
that the AIDS virus was developed specifically as a genocidal weapon
against Blacks to depopulate Africa so the industrial nations could
take over that continent in order to steal the vast reserves of
natural resources there. Further, the AIDS virus was propagated in
Africa by putting it in the Congo River, and then, infected African
blood was intentionally brought to the US to purposefully infect
certain groups. Also, male homosexuals were intentionally infected
to be used as carriers. Several authors of very powerful books
appeared on this series such as: Dr. Leonard Cole ("Clouds of
Secrecy", documents US Army experiments on testing biological weapons
on US cities), Dr. Eva Lee Snead ("Win Against Herpes & AIDS"), the
author of "AIDS and the Doctors of Death", and many others.
Heavy stuff, this!
For catalog information on audio and video tapes of this four
part series, and a catalog of some 200 shows, send $2 to:
Tony Brown's Journal
1501 Broadway, Suite 2014
NYC 10036
1(800)223-1796
P.S.: Please, no flames or responses to me. I am merely
providing this information as a public service.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!135!3!Laurie.Forti
Internet: Laurie.Forti@f3.n135.z1.fidonet.orgmandel@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Tom Mandel) (06/03/89)
In article <24473@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> stjhmc!f3.n135.z1.fidonet.org!Laurie.Forti@asuvax.asu.edu (Laurie Forti) writes: > > I wonder how many folks here have watched the Tony Brown's >Journal series on AIDS on the public educational channels. > The basic thesis presented is a real shocker and, in summary, is >that the US Congress asked for the development of a virus or >biological weapon that the human immunological system could not defend >itself against (Congressional Record, 7/1/69), that the US War College >started developing ethnic weapons (Congressional Record, 11/7/70), and >... This story has been around since the mid-1980s and first appeared in several European newspapers. My recollection is that it was eventually discounted as a Soviet KGB disinformation story, and a very nasty bit of disinformation at that. It is a very implausible tale, since it implies that the state-of-the-art in genetic manipulation is orders of magnitude more advanced in secret government laboratories than it seems to be in the rest of the biological science community. --Tom Mandel mandel@well.uucp
michaelm@vax.SPD.3Com.COM (Michael McNeil) (06/07/89)
In article <24473@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> stjhmc!f3.n135.z1.fidonet.org!Laurie.Forti@asuvax.asu.edu (Laurie Forti) writes: > I wonder how many folks here have watched the Tony Brown's >Journal series on AIDS on the public educational channels. > The basic thesis presented is a real shocker and, in summary, >is that the US Congress asked for the development of a virus or >biological weapon that the human immunological system could not defend >itself against (Congressional Record, 7/1/69), that the US War College >started developing ethnic weapons (Congressional Record, 11/7/70), and >that the AIDS virus was developed specifically as a genocidal weapon >against Blacks to depopulate Africa so the industrial nations could >take over that continent in order to steal the vast reserves of >natural resources there.{...} Why, how did *this* get in sci.med.aids? When I tried to post some solid scientific information debunking this myth, I was told "the readers of sci.med.aids know very well that AIDS is not a result of biological warfare experiments gone awry," or words to that effect. -- Michael McNeil michaelm@vax.3Com.Com (3comvax.UUCP) 3Com Corporation hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Mountain View, California work telephone: (415) 969-2099 x 208
phil@wubios.WUstl.EDU (J. Philip Miller) (06/07/89)
In article <24599@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> 3comvax!michaelm (Michael McNeil) writes: >In article <24473@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> stjhmc!f3.n135.z1.fidonet.org!Laurie.Forti@asuvax.asu.edu (Laurie Forti) writes: > >Why, how did *this* get in sci.med.aids? When I tried to post some >solid scientific information debunking this myth, I was told "the >readers of sci.med.aids know very well that AIDS is not a result of >biological warfare experiments gone awry," or words to that effect. > well the problem (sic) is that we have moved from a single person doing all the moderating to doing the moderating by committee. This means that there certainly will be inconsistancies according to who gets there first to do the moderating. I approved the posting based on the fact that there were also several responses to it already in the que. If this is offensive, I am sorry. I only do the best job I can. -phil -- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* J. Philip Miller - Div of Biostat - Washington Univ Medical School phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet phil@wubios.wustl - bitnet (314) 362-3617 c90562jm@wuvmd - alternate bitnet
Rob.Carr@asuvax.asu.edu (Rob Carr) (06/10/89)
This rumor has been going around for quite a few years. Fortunately, it
doesn't make any more sense now than it did then. As a biochemist, let me
point out that we simply don't know enough to create something as all-out nasty
as AIDS from scratch. And no one would be stupid enough to modify an existing
pathogen to create something like AIDS.
As a weapon, it stinks. It isn't discriminatory enough to stop where you want
it to, it's too obvious, it's too slow (how do you test something that can
remain dormant for 10+ years, 3+ of which you may or may not show signs of
infection (including antibodies?). Furthermore, military people count on blood
to treat wounded soldiers. AIDS is a blood-borne pathogen, which means you can
unknowingly contaminate the blood supply of your troops. And if there were no
treatment, you would not dare release it. If there were a treatment, you
wouldn't dare release it since you don't know who among your people may
sympathize with the target population. If a treatment existed, the story would
have been broken before this.
If I were going to wipe out Africa and the gay population, I woulnd't have
chosen AIDS. There are a couple pathogens that would have done the job much
"cleaner" than AIDS. There are some genetic modifications that could be easily
made to make it safer as a weapon. Even so, you'd need an idiot to even try to
make it, let alone release it. Organisms mutate, so biological warfare is
either limited to small-scale (give the enemy hepatitis
non-a/non-b/non-c/non-delta (got to come up with a better name for the leftover
hepatitises)) or suicide (release Ebola Viral Hemmorhagic Fever.)
Now there's a frightening thought. If AIDS hadn't come along and got everyone
practicing "safe sex," what if Ebola had been the one to hit? Or any of the
other blood-borne diseases on the fourth level? We'd be talking mass
catastrophy far beyond what we've seen with HIV.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!129!81!Rob.Carr
Internet: Rob.Carr@f81.n129.z1.fidonet.org