From: dem@engin.umich.edu (Darryle E Merlette)
Subject: Re: 1950's Darryle, damnit.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:46:31 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Summary: Normally I don't respond to hostility, but I'll make an exception.

In article <1992Nov10.134053@IASTATE.EDU>
danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) gives irrefutable proof
that the rabies virus can cross species boundaries by acting like
a mad dog! He writes:

>Darryle, AIDS appeared in the fifties.  Everything you have to say is rendered
>nonsense by this observation.  Could you please stop wasting time and space and
>take cognizance?  Ay least post a _possible_ conspiracy theory.  At the moment
>you're repeating yourself like a parrot while ignoring an objection that
>destroys your whole thesis.  Why?

Even if AIDS appeared in the 50's (what evidence is there of this?)
and is a naturally occurring virus, that doesn't preclude its use in wiping 
out populations just as smallpox was used to wipe out the indiginous people 
of North America. So you are wrong if you think everything I'm saying is
rendered nonsense by your dubious claim. 

The AIDS virus isn't the only immuno-deficiency causing agent. 
Are you sure what was found in the 50's was actually the same AIDS virus? 
I'd like more information on this.

>You posted know crap refuted before HERE.  What did you expect?

When was that? I have never posted to folklore or skeptic before this thread 
and I've been on hiatus from s.c.a.a, but I've never seen your name before.
If you mean my claim that viruses don't cross species, that just happened
yesterday and I've admitted my mistake. Can we move on!?

> THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS GENETIC ENGINEERING WHEN THE AIDS VIRUS APPEARED.
>Given that well documented fact, how on earth can you say the proposal has
>any nonzero merit?
>No such evidence has ever been produced.  The virus infects populations
>that exchange bodilly fluids more often than normal.  This explains the 
>observed infection pattern.  Promiscuity in Gays, needle sharing in drug
>addicts, etc.  The conspiracy theories are not being dismissed out of hand;
>they fail to make sense.
>
>   If you could produce some of this evidence, please? 
>  (Before hell freezes over?)

Well, the devil must be ice-skating as we speak...

The London Times, May 11, 1987 ("Smallpox vaccine triggered Aids virus in
Africa and Haiti") tells how the World Health Organization injected
100 million Africans (plus 14,000 Haitians working in Zaire) with AIDS
infested smallpox vaccines. When the Haitians returned to Haiti, it spread 
there. That's why when AIDS was first publicized, being Haitian mysteriously
made you "high risk". 

July 1, 1969 the House Appropriations subcommittee hearings report has this
to say:
"Within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be possible to make a new
infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects
from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that 
it might be REFRACTORY TO THE IMMUNOLOGICAL AND THERAPEUTIC PROCESSES UPON
WHICH WE DEPEND TO MAINTAIN OUR RELATIVE FREEDOM FROM INFECTIOUS DISEASE...
It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such
research should not be undertaken lest it lead to YET ANOTHER METHOD OF
MASSIVE KILLING OF LARGE POPULATIONS." [emphasis added]

Of course this doesn't prove anything, but it does give evidence of
the possibility, and that's all I want people to acknowledge.

>AIDS appeard in the fifties.  

Who sounds like a parrot now?

>Are you postulating time travel?  Are you to
>stupid to read the articles TELLING you AIDS appeared in the fifties?  Again:
>the capabilities to produce the AIDS virus do not exist NOW and failed
>radically to exist when the virus appeared.  Biowarfare -hell biotecnology-,
>just doesn't have the degree of specificity you need.

What is your evidence that the technology doesn't exist? -- (before hell 
thaws out again.)

BTW, this is my last public posting on this thread.
	Darryle
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban