From: dem@engin.umich.edu (Darryle E Merlette)
Subject: Re: AIDS and the CIA (was Question)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 11:55:27 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Summary: I stand corrected, *but* ...

In article <BxH8EA.F1F@access.digex.com>
wbrown@access.digex.com (William Brown) writes:

>In article <rKB=qf-@engin.umich.edu> 
>dem@engin.umich.edu (Darryle E Merlette) writes:
>>is genetically engineered (ie. man-made). Among other things, it is
>>not possible for viruses to cross species, so that story about AIDS
>>originating from the African green monkey is even more impossible.
>[stuff deleted]
>>	Darryle

>Point of order, Darryle - It is both possible and common for viruses to
>cross species.  We simply don't pay attention to the zoological equivalent
>of human diseases, even when caused by the same organism.  (unless, of
>course, you are a vet...)
>
>Peace

>Bill

I've chosen to reply to Mr. Brown's post because it was not obnoxious like
those originating from some other knuckleheads. Thanks for the polite 
information, Bill.

Actually, I knew this was going to happen so I did some checking last
night and I admit I was wrong: it *is* possible for viruses to cross species,
and several examples have been pointed out. The sources I've read that
say viruses can't cross species were taking the property of *host specificity*
too literally. Viruses are usually specific to a certain tissue type within
a certain species -- but where there are similar tissue types across species
(plus mutation of the virus itself) it is possible for cross-species infection.

I still stand by my claim: in light of the facts behind the Tuskegee 
Experiment, the Violence Initiative, and known chemical/biological warfare 
capabilities, one would have to be naive and/or stupid to consider the
possibility of AIDS being genetically engineered as totally without merit.
And even if it is a naturally occurring virus, there is still evidence that
it is being used against what the government considers "undesirable 
populations". I wish some people would consider these possibilities rather
than being knee-jerk (emphasis on the *jerk*) reactionaries attacking
anything that even hints at conspiracy/complicity.

The following article is from the _NY Daily News_, dated *July 15, 1962*
-- although it speaks specifically about bacteria, it is easy to see
an extension to viruses occurring over the past 20 yrs:
-------------------------------------------------------
"A Super Germ is Bred as a Death Weapon"

Washington, July 14 (UPI)- Forty Army scientists are working on a project 
that could add deadly super germs of types that do not exist in nature to 
the potential of biological warfare.
 The scientists at the Army's biological research center at Fort Dietrich,
MD. already have succeeded in producing bacteria with new combinations of
hereditary characteristics.
 
Army Urges Expansion
 If their research bears fruit, a new and fearsome surprise element would
be added to the potential of bacteriological war. A germ known only to
its finders conceivably might wipe out populations before any antidote
could be devised.
 In a written statement submitted to the House on defense appropriations, 
the Army indicated that results obtained so far have been sufficiently
spectacular to warrant expansion of the program.

Genetics is the Key
 "It is not unlikely that the major contributions of the future to biological
weaponry and defense will result from research and a better understanding of
the science of genetics," the statement said.
 The Army did not name the scientists in the program, but said several are
nationally and internationally recognized.
-------------------------------------------------------

	Darryle
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers