the theory has been out there forever. what are the thoughts on this?
Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola – Nature, Accident or Intentional? Dr. Horowitz is the best book i have read on the subject - he takes it back to escaped NAZI’s brought here by the CIA …also what about the theory that HIV and AIDS are unrelated and that HIV is a harmless retrovirus
Define “man-made”.
That the AIDS pandemic has been so devastating - man’s fault.
That the AIDS virus was artificially manufactured. Crap.
created by accident or on purpose
Virology still doesn’t have the ability to create an artificial virus - even hybrids are naff.
Accidentally - again, seems unlikely. They didn’t have the lab expertise to fiddle much with viruses back then anyhow. Its as much an accident that is arose naturally through the bush meat route.
Sorry, this conspiracy style science is almost always nuts. No respected scientist believes it.
HIV is waaaay too complex to be man-made. Especially given the technology of the 80s.
of course it was man made. a man screwed with a monkey and blammo!
-Imp
Yes, I love the idea of it …
We have the intelligence and technology to create a “super virus”, yet somehow we forgot to investigate that little side effect of disease transmission that all viral agents engage in, and therefore neglected the vaccine that would have stopped it if the whole insidious project careened out of our control.
Think about it, for just a second.
[/exit bittersarcasm.exe]
Its possible, it wouldnt be that hard to create a virus, the money theory is the dumbest thing ive ever heard, and if thats true then man is dumber than i thought. think about the technology gap between now and the 80s, its a big jump. the theory that aids was created by man is very logical espically when you think about all the money gained from people with cronic illness such as aids and cancer, never underestimate someone else because you lack the ability they may posses.
Research Nef – that alone is a solid demonstration as to why HIV is not man-made. As for “it wouldn’t be that hard to create a virus”, it all depends on what you mean by “a virus”. We can create polio, that is easy-peasy. But lentiviruses are in a class all their own. I mean, look at how the genome is organized in HIV. The degree over overlap, the raw complexity. No way this thing is man-made.
Besides, there is too much homology with SIV. I mean, there is an easy answer, which is that SIV jumped from monkeys to humans (as Imp so blithely described), something that is well recorded with other viruses and is heavily supported by genetic evidence . . . or, HIV is man-made and you need to take a variety of steps to make it that don’t really make any sense.
Dont underestimate man, if man truely desired im 100% positive that they could create a virus more deadly than aids, and make a cure for it.
Well i have heard the deal that since monkey’s were used for vaccines in the early 20th century some of those monkey’s carried SIV and once people were inoculated with the vaccines made from monkey hosts it crossed species.
As an immunologist, I am 100% positive you are overestimating man’s ability. Especially not with technology from the late '70s and certainly not with technology from the '40s!
A nasty bacterium . . . well, that is a horse of a different color. We can do that one without too much trouble. But viruses are too compact for us to be able to manipulate terribly well. Their life-cycle also makes they frustrating to work with.
Come on, directed evolution of a virus is fairly straight forward too.
Scientists get themselves in trouble through semantics - it is not beyond the realms that this might have been evolved from an SIV strain in a lab, but the likelihood of the happening a couple of generations ago is next to zero. Non-scientists simply cannot understand the concept of “highly unlikely”, as the popular definition differs from the scientific one.
“This sort of pseudo-scientific conspiracy stuff is utter rubbish” is the sentence that I want to post. Unfortunately, scientific correctness urges me to prefix “utter” with “usually”, and this is the word that a non-scientist will use to justify their argument that it “could” happen. Its not wonder that scientists shun mortals. 
Yeah, that is usually why I try and toughen up my semantics Otherwise the mutability of theories becomes a weakness and not a strength and rubbish gets the “perhaps” seal of approval. I’d rather be too definite than too vague when discussing things, it allows for clear stances to be made and rightness or wrongness to be established from that vantage point. Of course “usually” is a good call, but this is philosophy, let’s have some strength in our convictions.
Social definition of “highly unlikely”: 49.5% unlikely, 49.5% likely, 1% uncertainty.
Scientific definition of “highly unlikely”: 93.7% unlikely, 5.7% likely, .6% uncertainty. (Margin of error calculated to +/- 2.8% of total)
Nah, they’re about the same … LOL.
Most would suggest that definites imply arrogance and make you look foolish when proven wrong.
Maybe scientists would benefit from more definite responses in the long term, but few would risk it.
As to the SIV vaccine point - evidence seems to suggest bushmeat rather than vaccine route.
shrugs I’ve never had a problem being wrong before. Happens all the time. Personally, I’d rather an honest, “Well, I was wrong there!” than, “See, I said it was only probable, so I wasn’t wrong per se . . .”
Mmmmm, bushmeat.
Merck’s HIV vaccine failed the test. Back to square one.
Engineered T cells are about at their end of likely usability in this scenario.
I think Xunzian is most close to correct in this instance, the virus is too complex for current technology.
There are 33 other type attempts across the globe currently, all T cell in method, so it doesn’t appear we are any closer to abating the virus’ spread.
Man made, indeed.
I thought it was sheep or goats?. Or was that syphyllus from screwing sheep? I am pretty sure a deadly STD came from sheep screwing.
Do monkies have aids?