From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Idiot theories abound (AIDS).
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:07:58 GMT

In article <Bxzwn5.HsK@sdf.lonestar.org>, tad@sdf.lonestar.org (Tad Dowe)
writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.162710@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
> 
> 
>>   Goddamnit could one of the SKEPTICS please construct and AIDS-was-caused-
>>by-the-govenment theory?  Then it won't be quite so silly.
> 
>>Dan
>>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU 

   Tad goes on to get _sillier_ that some of the other nonskeptic theories
proposed.  In detail:
   
> The military tested biological warfare techniques during the '50s and '60s.
> They sprayed SanFrancisco from outside the bay with an aerosol to test what
> the dispersion of the "agent" would be into the bay area. They used a 
> bacteria,
> I forget the specific type, which would not normally be infectious; except
> when the person's immune system was very poor. Since this bacteria is
normally
> present in our environment, it makes one wonder how they determined which
> sample was theirs and which was a normal species. I propose that they
"tagged"
> the test bacteria by "cutting" a genetic tag into the test sample(s). This
> "tag" was carried/cut into the genetic material via use of SV material (now
> know as reverse transcriptase.)

   You should not "assume" things.  You are too ignorant to get away with it. 
I bet they used an isotopic lable which (surprise, surprise) actually could be
done with 1950's-1960's technology!  I'm sure they didn't use genetic splicing
which was (I) unknown and (II) difficult to detect at the time.
 
> Tests were conducted in various parts of the world; e.g., Africa, Japan, 
> Haiti, and, of course, the USA. In New York, fungal test material was spread 
> through-
> out the subways. This material would also have to be "tagged" in some way;
> perhaps using SV?

   Why?  It was (I) unknown  (II) impossible to detect at the time  (III)
much harder to use than other methods that were not unknown.

> 
> Since rapid advances had been made in biology/genetics since 1944,

   For some reason that phrase rings alarm bells all over my conciousness.  It
is the halmark of a person who hasn't even bothered to try to check the
plausibility of his theory and is sweeping everything he hasn't checked under
the rug with a broad overgeneralization (Broom, Broom!!!).

> it isn't
> beyond the realm of possibility that the action of SV was known by the mid to
> late '50s.

   Yes it is.  I refer you to the rest of this thread for the reasoning.  Think
a moment: why would they use SIV which is incredibly hard to detect in 1985 for
experiments in the late 50's?  Almost any other marker, an isotopic marker for
example, would have been better.  

> Specially, in military biological research, where efforts to mut-
> ate virulent species of bacteria had been extensively studied since the '30s.
> 
> Still, this isn't a true conspiracy. Even if it were true, the spread of 
> HIV, as a result, would have certainly been accidental.

   It also still has vanishing probability.  Theres no reason to think the
millitary, the CIA, Greenpeace, or the Sweedish National Darts Team
new anything about the SIV, HIV or other related retroviruses in the proper
time frame.
 
> Tad

   Thanks for playing, but you get the rubber cigar.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU