AIDS: The Strecker Memorandum

Assuming what you say is true, what prevented it from taking place 30 years ago, at the start of the HIV pandemic?

I came of age (puberty) in the 1970s. Everything was sex, Sex, SEX! It was common to see advertisements for massage parlors in "entertainment" papers throughout Madison, WI. There was at least one well advertised massage parlor right next to the state capital building - with men in business suits coming-and-going (pun intended). From the late 1960s to early 1970s, Madison had "The Blue Bus". It provided infectious disease "curb-service". All one had to do was put on a good disguise, wait on one of the designated street corners, and hop-on The Blue Bus. By the time I got to college, it had stopped running. But the jokes about it lingered for years. The point of this paragraph is that there was never a shortage of unprotected heterosexual activity at the start of the HIV pandemic.

Either something acccelerated the spread of HIV in gay men (contaminated vaccine, I.V. drug use, etc) OR something delayed the introduction of HIV into heterosexuals, OR there is a valid explanation for the (more than) 30 year delay of a HIV into heterosexuals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WeeBee,
Thank you for the statistics. Here are the absolute #s

GENDER MEN WOMEN
------------------------------------
Homo aquired 16,800 + - = 16,800/year
Hetro aquired 4,200 + 9,000 = 13,200/year
I.V.D. aquired 7,000 + 3,000 = 10,000/year
------ ------- ------------
TOTAL 28,000 + 12,000 = 40,000/year

I was wrong about there being 50% men and 50% women
becoming HIV+ per year in America. But, with respect to
sexual activity spreading HIV (16,800 v. 13,200) the gap
isn't all that big.

So, given the small gap between heterosexually transmitted HIV and homosexually transmitted HIV, my original question still stands. Why did it take 30 years for HIV to show-up in heterosexual populations given that it CLEARLY is transmitted that way in our society?

The I.V. drug use looks to be the answer. We will never be able to get our hands on the hepatitis-B vaccine stocks of the 1970s. It was reported back in the early 1990s that attorneys for the large pharmaceutical companies that supplied vaccines to the world advised their clients to destroy their older vaccine stocks because of the risk that they would be found to be contaminated with who-knows-what.

The CDC web page has information on the Simian Virus #40 (SV-40) that contaminated tens of millions of polio vaccine doses of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The vaccine is suspected to be the cause of small increases in some cancers. I suspect that it was this fiasco that lead the attorneys to advise their clients to destroy old vaccine stocks.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/sv40-polio-cancer-facts.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hay
can you cite the numbers?

cheers

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I spent prob. about 5 hours on it. As a scientific issue I don’t think its worth much more, but its quite interesting for its historical context over the cold war fear of viruses.

I agree that at the time (early 1980’s) people were worried about human viruses. I also agree that the US (and others) were working on viruses. What I’ve yet to see proven is that the US had the technical know how to create a new virus, and that they then infected African chimps and humans with this virus HIV.

I’d be interested in who you actually interviewed….

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Its scary that this thread is still up, what is even more scary though is that in virology class we were discussing this and to our horror a graph was displayed that showed that more people die from tobacco related illness then aids!!! Why was it that not an especially lethal cigarette was target at gays instead of this claim that the government made a virus to do it? It would have been far more effective and cheaper.

habit_forming,

Because if AIDS was carrier from Africa to America by gay man, thus it started out in the homosexual population first, is that not a more reasonable theory? I heard that many gay man go to Haiti to “party” and Haiti is consider the first place were aids traveled to America.Also it was a 3 year diffrence not 30 years sinse first heterosexual case of AIDS from the first (homosexual) case of AIDS.
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/health/CommunityHealth/pdfs/123101HIVTimeline.pdf

By the way to anyone that still believe this was man made tell me how it could have been made naturally with 1950's technology???
http://www.aegis.com/news/sfe/1998/SE980201.html

 

And why does the US government want to kill lions?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1145828,00.html



I must admit this thread is a bit of an ego amusement. I would how ever be interested in the technologies which people believe were available in the 1950's to create this new virus.

 

Hi,
Can you cite your claim that ‘viruses have been made by people since the BC's’. I think I might be misunderstanding what you mean by ‘made’. Taking the blankets off sick people and dumping on an invading army is not ‘making’ a virus.

And can you also cite your case for ‘AIDS started in America and Africa at the same time’. Which ‘male’ are you referring to?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks.

 

yeah, and i would like to see evidence of all this research you've done sci_geek_101. you seem so convinced, and if you can honestly write what you've written with that kind of conviction then surely you must be able to show something to back up your claims.

 

It's your premise that seems unreasonable. Why would ONLY homosexual men bring the virus into the homosexual population, when we know full well that heterosexuals were JUST as capable of spreading it at that time - extrapolating from the rate at which heterosexuals are spreading HIV today AND from the rate of many other STDs that were spreading among heterosexuals at the time. Your explanation doesn't account for the differences in the rates that HIV spread in those two groups. If HIV came from a country where an equal number of men and women carried the disease WHY would homosexual men - almost exclusively - get it during most of the first decade. It's that damned tell-tale monopolar SPIKE that gives me the impression that HIV was accelerated (somehow) into the homosexual community.

Perhaps I'm naive. Perhaps ALL men are really bi-sexual by nature. Perhaps recently emigrated HIV+ African men allowed themselves to be "serviced" by homosexual men much more often then they could "score" a women.

 

Random chance habit_forming. Why does one man become a carrier of deadly disease instead of another man? Because that one guy just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. My explanation works quit fine if you first note that in Africa far more heterosexuals our and were dieing of AIDS tehn homosexuals ever. Also the disease did start in africa it just was not notice there for decades until first world countries like the USofA noticed it at home. Just one person brought the disease over to the Americas and by random bad luck he was gay. Why does this explanation work better then some evil government conspiracy to kill off gays gone horribly wrong, because: first there is no evidence for that theory, yes the government was slow to move on it when they thought it was only a gay man’s disease, but that does not mean they started it. Second my theory is far more simple and plausible (if we remember occam’s razor) thus my theory is more likely.

 

i think there is plenty of evidence to support the theory that there are political figures responsible for anti-gay conspiracies. *ahem* GEORGE FREAKIN BUSH and his anti-gay marriage lobbying comes to mind.. add to his grand-dad having Nazi ties, his dad being head of the the shadiest group of people (CIA) on the planet, his ties with the skull & bones, bilderbergs and trilaterals, and you got a pretty good basis for the whole shadow-gov't-keepin-gays-down scenario.

 

All that evidence is circumstantial... you cannot prove the USofA government started spreading aids on purpose with that.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to round up all gays and shoot them?

 

yeah, but this way the "problem" kind of works itself out.

 

What is the problem exactly?

They have sex with their people of their own gender who would never have sex with people of the other gender to start with.

It is a bit difficult to see what the problem is exactly?

It is not as if they are going to steal someone's girlfriend (unless they happen to be lesbians, but that would make your girlfriend not quite heterosexual either).


Ok..what is the problem with gays then.


Do they dress too well? Do you hate moustaches?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

aaah we may not have a problem with gays, but many people do in fact hate gays (homophobias) and they hate by logic that we do not understand.

I think the problem is how unlikely it is. It’s not really plausible that those bigots would find an unknown virus from Africa and secretly use it to infect gays here in the states. To many very lucky chances would have to be made by the bigots to get this done, first of all finding HIV when no one else knew of it, second implementing the plan in top secret with the use of dozens if not hundreds of conspirators in high places and never a soul telling the truth or the millions of $ required not being noticed

 

Another problem that would interfer with this conspiracy is that the US government would probably have needed the help of the military to pull such a big operation off.

It is a known fact that the military is teeming with homosexuals and therefore I do not believe that even they would be stupid enough to unleash a nasty virus on potential mates and potential soldiers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(put a smiley in again, otherwise I would be in trouble again)

 

(sarcasm)
That was tried in Moses' (stoning) and Hitler's (gassing/shooting/starving) time. But, mother nature kept bringing more every year, and the gays eventually learned to act straight. No plan is perfect.
(end sarcasm)

Although I'm suspicious that HIV was spread by Nixon operatives, given his great hate for gays because of how they ruined a few of his favorite quaint Southern California coastal/vineyard towns, expressed in one of his infamous Whitehouse Tapes, I would suspect the following scenarios for the spread of HIV in order of highest suspicion:

1) IV drug use among gay/bi-sexual men in group settings at "clubs". I.V. drug use was especially prominent among musicians and entertainers back in the mid-late 1970s. Sharing needles was a "sign of trust." I've heard (2nd hand), from people who used to frequent these clubs, that open I.V. drug use was common.

2) accidentally contaminated hepatitis-B vaccine

3) purposefully contaminated hepatitis-B vaccine

My main concern is to discredit the idea that HIV was initially spread primarily through sex - and NOT to prove that there was a conspiracy to eliminate homosexuals.

But, I don't know how to "crunch the numbers" to invalidate a sexual spread of the disease. This is a rate (calculus) problem. I would need to prove that the rate within the homosexual community was initially much higher during some (undefined) period shortly after the hepatitis-B vaccine trials of the 1970s, and much lower in the homosexual community (say) a decade after the effects of a presumed vector that excellerated the spread HIV had ceased to exist.

I would need accurate numbers of the newly infected over the last twenty five years. I have heard that these numbers don't exist. We don't know if there are presently 850,000 or 3,000,000 HIV+ Americans. So, getting data from the past is out-of-the-question.

 

agreed. and there are people who are drunk on power and elite affiliations that might work in favor of anti-gay causes.

the reason i don't find it so unlikely is that it's easy for me to think of all the things that are taboo in my own social circle and then to think of how some things that aren't ARE in others. for example, when you get to a high level of politricks, it's taboo to side with radicals and reactionaries even if you agree with their motives because then it makes you look like one of them. it's also taboo to talk about hanging out with hookers and dopers & taking bribes, even though everyone does it. those things are kept on the down-low within social circles until someone in another political party (or a journalist) finds out. everyone knows about this stuff but they don't say anything cuz they're on the same side. plus, one of the main tactics any political science major learns in lessons on leadership is your pokerface and how to play the game to get to the top. you don't win by being a whistleblower.

so why wouldn't it be taboo to admit that someone in a high position of power over you would make moves that would hurt members of the community? i think it happens all the time. maybe not to the extreme of what we're discussing here, but it happens.

as far as financial backing and the severity of spreading the AIDS virus goes, i think if it's truely man-made, or at least intentionally spread, a very VERY small group of people knew about it to begin with (maybe like 5 people tops??) so it's not like it's this HUGE conspiracy. by nature, the way gov't intelligence works is the whole need-to-know basis thing. there are many many MANY secrets that i am sure the general public has yet to find out about. i mean, isn't that what "classified documents" are about?? and if you're just a messenger, you don't know what is in the document you are holding if it's sealed, only the writer and the reader know. so, that's why it's easy to me to understand how secrets can be kept.

but as with any secret, it would probably be tough to keep a lid on the origins of AIDS if it's truly spread intentionally, and then obviously the secret has gotten out, so...

but, who could have paid to have it made? there are so many potential bidders, man. if you looked at what million or billionairs are involved with bilderbergs, skull & bones, trilaterals or other political conspiracy groups, there are many candidates. i don't understand why that is so hard to see. maybe i need to provide a list for you.

or maybe you you're overestimating how much it would cost? i'm not sure.. but i do know that money is not a factor to people who are truly in power.

you do have a point about getting their hands on the virus before anyone else did. but, if we're talking about a shadow gov't that has been around for centuries, then they've infilitrated every gov't in the world and are gonna have first dibs on anything new cuz they're everywhere (the world is a small place..) but also, maybe they made it and didn't discover it.

 

We have already gone over this: it is NOT mad made, its genome is natural its history is natural and far before any usable biotech was available, in fact we could not make the HIV now without it obviously being man made.

As for politics I don't even see what your getting at, have you seen politics lately like within the last 10 years??? its extremely partisan with each party trying to find what ever dirt on each other possible, heck Clinton was impeached for lying about fucking a intern! The Bush administration is under attack on what Clark said. How can you possible think a conspiracy like spreading HIV on purpose could stay under wraps???

To grow the virus cell culture vats are needed with specific cells, so a top secret biotech factory would be needed with a good percentage of the staff knowing full well that they aren’t growing the common cold in there. There is no way that only 5 people worldwide would know about this.