From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,soc.culture.african.american,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: of human or divine genius  re: AIDS
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:29:36 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Paul M Mweene)

In article <9809@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, pmmst8+@pitt (Paul M Mweene) writes:
>Nope. According to the CDC, there is no such thing as AIDS like symptoms. 

This is ambigious.  CDC defines AIDS via the secondary symptoms, and
is proposing a change to T-cell counts.

>Now supposing some one had created the virus and the heat was on them, what
>would they do? They could shift the blame to some one else.

So what?  The evidence would tell us how good the shift is.

>							     But that would
>'mean admitting that the disease was lab made.

Huh?  Saying AIDS came from this-or-that isn't any admission whatsoever.

>					        If not they could claim that
>the disease was always there. The question of bringing up evidence to support
>this would be the least of their problems. 

That's right.  The amount of evidence is staggering.

>If some one created the virus in secret, then he had a lot of time to take
>precautions against any eventuality. The would try and cover their tracks.
>In this case it is a relatively easy matter for some one to come up with
>a doctored sample as proof of their case.

Nonsense.  HIV mutates quickly enough, so that any doctoring after the
fact would be pretty obvious by checking the strain.  We don't know enough
to control the exact sequence.

>And if they chose not to go this way they could hold up any sample in an old
>bottle and claim that it is the 70 year old alibi that absolved them of 
>blame. How do we know that these samples are as old as claimed? For all we
>know they could be from the year before they were the publicised. 

No.  The strain would be the giveaway.

>The development of such a virus has to have taken some years.

And more knowledge than we currently have.  You're speaking of a rank
impossibility.

>							       During this
>time the powers could store all the blood they required. This nonsense about
>old samples just doesn't stand up. 

WHAT nonsense about old samples?

>I have heard that the powers invistigated the Rolling Stone magazine claim
>that Wister institute triggered the virus.

You have heard gibberish.  What "powers"?

>					    Subsequently Wister is said to
>have been cleared of all blame. This is a farce.

_You_ are a farce.  All that has happened is that the chain of possibilities
has been examined very carefully, in light of what we know about HIV.

>						  If Wister did indeed cau
>se the virus what would  make them want to be caught? What we hear is that
>they found a teaspoon of the original vaccine which of course was devoid of the
>virus.

That's not known.  It has not been tested yet--my understanding is that
some kind of negotations are going on with CDC, NIH, WHO regarding who is
going to test it and how.

>       They subsequently touted this as the great proof that proved their
>innocence. 

Innocence?  As in "not guilty"?  The only question is whether a terrible
accident occurred.

>	This is really a circus. What happened between the time between the
>publishimg of the magazine and the time a investgative panel was allowed to
>reach the vials containing the vaccine?

The search for the original vials, of course.  Do you think it's easy to
find 35 year old stuff?

>					 The CIA, Wister and the FBI would
>have been at work eliminating all the evidence and even installing that which
>exculpate them from all blame.

*WHAT* evidence?  Besides your mouth.

Do you think we've tracked down every last copy of the relevant medical
journals and filled in phony reports of AIDS-like deaths in the fifties?

>Can you imagine how many Nuclear weapons and scud missiles would turn up if the
>UN allowed Iraq to inspect itself? This is far greater scandal than that.

*WHAT* scandal?  Besides your mouth.

We have clear cut evidence that Iraq has scuds and nukes.  There is zero
evidence for any of your gibberish.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.urban:28764 sci.med:21101