You are viewing anarchists

Previous Entry | Next Entry

HIV & crack cocaine and the CIA

What does everyone think about the conspiracy theory that the CIA created HIV and crack cocaine in a lab in order to spread/distribute them to kill off people of color?

Is there any evidence at all for this, or are these just conspiracy theories people pull outta their asses?

Any (credible) websites?

Comments

( 49 comments — Leave a comment )
postrodent
Jun. 28th, 2005 02:53 pm (UTC)
I don't think the CIA *created* crack. I think there are plenty of inventive and creative druggies out there -- how many of you have made a pipe out of common household objects? -- and that crack was developed by one or more such people. However, the evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that parties connected with the CIA started dealing crack in LA, in places and quantities that it hadn't been before, in the early 80s, and that the CIA has been heavily involved with drug trafficking at various times and places (opiates in Southeast Asia in the 60s and 70s, coca in South and Central America in the 80s, probably opiates again in central Asia more recently).

I have no information about the AIDS theory and thus suspend judgment, but I'd love to hear more.
punkymunky21
Jun. 28th, 2005 04:00 pm (UTC)
Do you know of any good web sites or books for the CIAs connection with crack that you mentioned here? I've heard that before, and I believe it to be true, but I'd like to read more about it.

Thanks!
postrodent
Jun. 28th, 2005 04:17 pm (UTC)
Gary Webb's report on the subject, _Dark Alliance_, is excellent. Too bad the media never gave him the credit he deserved for it.
bloochik
Jun. 28th, 2005 04:40 pm (UTC)
nope, don't know any good sites for it, it's just something i hear from people once in a while.
mackave
Jun. 28th, 2005 03:12 pm (UTC)
The idea that HIV was engineered by the govt. is ridiculous.

As far as crack is concerned, the authoritative book is "Dark Alliance" by Gary Webb. He was a journalist who broke the story for the San Jose paper, and was somewhat persecuted for it.
bloochik
Jun. 28th, 2005 03:36 pm (UTC)
oh i think i heard of him... didn't he die recently?
bloochik
Jun. 28th, 2005 03:38 pm (UTC)
oh and I asked about the HIV thing cuz I read about it in some zine. And, of course, anything that some random punk kid writes in a zine has to be true! *sarcasm*
mydayiscoming
Jun. 28th, 2005 03:41 pm (UTC)
no it isn't.
mackave
Jun. 28th, 2005 05:10 pm (UTC)
my_insurrection
Jun. 28th, 2005 03:40 pm (UTC)
HIV was naturally occuring in chimps when to save money they used chimps instead of monkeys as a base for the polo vaccine in africa. Now there you could easily say that they knew aids was in the chimps and wanted to destroy the people of africa while looking good cause they were tring to save them, but you cant prove it. The lead dr. guy says he used monkeys, but there's evidence in his files and the people that were helping him that say they did use chimps, but that doesnt prove they knew they were replacing one crippling virus with another.
jtguy
Apr. 22nd, 2008 04:59 pm (UTC)
Get a clue
This was proven to be false and Ed Hooper's book has since been discredited. They went back and literally tested the stocks used for those vaccination campaigns and found NO traces of SIV or HIV. It's this kind of paranoid bullshit that feeds paranoia and keeps people from vaccinating their kids (yea, I want my infant to die of diptheria and measles cuz the man's trying to control me).
bloochik
Apr. 22nd, 2008 11:01 pm (UTC)
Re: Get a clue
holy shit, how did you find this post from 3 years ago? I was so confused when i got your reply in my inbox...
mydayiscoming
Jun. 28th, 2005 03:41 pm (UTC)
aids probably was created by scientists
this article is from an anti-state communist perspective, and it emphasizes that scientists had the ability to create aids in the early seventies (a fact) and that all of the science's "explanations" of where AIDS came from have been shown to be false or doctored up. the article is very biased and does not pretend to be objective and constantly calls these people pigs, etc., etc., BUT it does highlight the fact that it was possible and that scientists have made phony evidence to cover someone's tracks, and that it would be profitable to try to create similar viruses (not intentionally to infect other people, but perhaps for research)

this article does not argue that scientists intended to kill others, but more that even if this virus was an accident, it came about because science is put to the service of capitalism

http://www.geocities.com/icgcikg/communism/c8_aids.htm
odubtaig
Jun. 28th, 2005 04:44 pm (UTC)
Re: aids probably was created by scientists
Oh FFS, I've got as far as "Science is fundamentally inhuman: not only in its applications, but in its foundations." and decided this was bollocks but chose to plough on anyway.

The author all and at once chooses to brand scientists as morons (for saying AIDS was a 'gay' disease which they never did) while attributing RNA manipulation that I serously doubt we could manage today. The author a) hasn't the first fucking clue about science and b) is a fucking moron overall.

More specifically, HIV has been traced back to a crossover between two related viruses which chimpanzees carry (chimps have never actually carried HIV themselves).

Now, if you please, we have enough crap to fight without bullshit conspiracy theories by people who declare all science to be capitalist oppression.
odubtaig
Jun. 28th, 2005 05:04 pm (UTC)
Re: aids probably was created by scientists
It should also be pointed out that the ability to infect host DNA is not specific to HIV and this is not what defines it as a retrovirus (nor is HIV the only known retrovirus) but is also used by temperated phages which are DNA viruses. What defines HIV as a retrovirus is that it travels as a single strand of RNA (as opposed to a double helix) with an enzyme which can translate this RNA into DNA. Again, this is not behaviour limited to HIV.
mackave
Jun. 28th, 2005 05:18 pm (UTC)
Re: aids probably was created by scientists
"Now, if you please, we have enough crap to fight without bullshit conspiracy theories by people who declare all science to be capitalist oppression."

Thank you.
mackave
Jun. 28th, 2005 04:59 pm (UTC)
Re: aids probably was created by scientists
Even if you accept that scientists could have created HIV in the early 70's, that doesn't help explain the presence of the virus in an African patient in 1959.

Did they have the technology then?
mydayiscoming
Jul. 5th, 2005 12:42 am (UTC)
Re: aids probably was created by scientists
"The case of AIDS of 1959 has been shown to be false. Analysed again, the man's tissues contain a virus dating from 1990. The first man recognized as dying of AIDS did not have that illness (...). Tissues that had enabled this diagnosis to be reached had not come from his body (...) Two hypotheses: either an accidental mix up of tissue in the laboratories, which is inconceivable (sic!), or a deliberate swapping of test tubes."
-A.F.P. in Le Nouveau Quotidien (Switzerland), 27/03/95-

http://www.geocities.com/icgcikg/communism/c10_aidsorigin.htm
intractablecunt
Jun. 28th, 2005 04:17 pm (UTC)
i dont know about the coke thing cause coke is quite expensive and a rich mans drug. hiv is another story though.
boyamihardcore
Jun. 28th, 2005 06:06 pm (UTC)
crack is, however, NOT a rich man's drug
intractablecunt
Jun. 28th, 2005 06:21 pm (UTC)
yes but crack and coke are the same shit except for its shape. i think tht its deffitnyl racist that the state gives you 3 times more time in jial for being caught with crack cocaine then powder btu i dotnthk ti was invented buy the state.
tender_comrade
Jun. 29th, 2005 08:17 am (UTC)
as far as I know, its actually a 10-1 ratio as far as sentences go. 5 grams of crack gets you the same 5 years sentence as 50 grams of coke. 25 grams of crack same 10 year sentence as 250 grams of coke, and so on.
boyamihardcore
Jun. 30th, 2005 11:45 pm (UTC)
Yeah i don't know if I believe it was invented by the state either. I do believe they use it to jail the "unwanted". Eugenics has really just disguised itself, it isn't gone.

Believe me though, as someone with a crack addiction (who used to snort powder cocaine), its a totally different circle of people from one form of the drug to the other.
crudocrust
Jun. 28th, 2005 04:29 pm (UTC)
Read up on the Gary Web articles as were allready listed. He showed that in the 80's the US government funded the selling of crack cocaine in largely black areas to help pay for arms to the contras.
foobarintel
Jun. 28th, 2005 04:48 pm (UTC)
Read "The CIA Makes Science Fiction Unexciting #2"

This zine explains the history of US chemical biological testing and development, how the HIV virus cannot scientifically be related to AIDS, CIA and military documents requesting the creation of a virus with the clinical description of AIDS, and how AIDS death statistics have been inflated for the last 20 years when the supposed "miracle cure" drugs kill the patients even faster than AIDS.

Also the relationship of the SIV (HIV in Simmians->Monkeys/etc) only shares ~40% of the same genetic code as HIV. Anyone who has studied biology knows that for it to mutate to a point where it's 60% different in only 20-100 years is pretty much bull.

It's a SUPER good read and I got mine over @ Covert Coercion (http://ccdistro.doesntexist.org) for only $1.50 postage paid. Plus all the information is backed up so it's not just some Zine'ster shooting off his/her mouth.
bloochik
Jun. 28th, 2005 04:57 pm (UTC)
that was actually the zine where I first heard about the HIV/CIA conspiracy theory :P I don't remember much of it right now but I do recall at the time thinking it was bullshit. I have it at home. Maybe I'll re-read it.
foobarintel
Jun. 28th, 2005 05:05 pm (UTC)
Yeah re-read it. The whole thing. Trust me.

All the resources are rather credible too. So it's not just some guy in his basement playing conspiracy theory. You can find most of the documents they reference there yourself.
odubtaig
Jun. 28th, 2005 05:11 pm (UTC)
1) How, exactly, does it explain how HIV and AIDS are not related? Considering HIV (that's Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus) attacks the immune system destroying white cells and AIDS (Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome) is defined as a fatal lack of these same white blood cells, how exactly are the two unrelated?
2) SIV is not the only virus involved
3) How exactly do you propose these scientists manipulated the RNA to such a great degree in the 1970s when much of the capability to maniuplate genetics has only come about in the last two decades
4) How do you know these military documents aren't forgeries?

Has anyone here got more than a high-school level of biology behind them? I've never seen any of this bullshit espoused by anyone who actually knew what they were talking about.
foobarintel
Jun. 28th, 2005 05:16 pm (UTC)
I'm at work right now and I'll go in to details later.

In response to your comment after #4, yes, I've taken several bio courses in college, some of which focused on evolution, ecology, mutation and of course some courses on more specifically: rNA/DNA/etc.
(Anonymous)
Jun. 29th, 2005 01:02 pm (UTC)
Who cares if someone has more than a high school level of biology behind them? just because someone does it doesn't mean they know what they are talking about!

odubtaig
Jun. 29th, 2005 02:14 pm (UTC)
What the fuck kind of retard logic is that?

If someone has a degree in biology then, chances are, they had to know what they're talking about to get the degree. That's what a qualification is, it's a confirmation that you know what you're talking about.

Yeah, I know, anyone with money can get a degree, but not one that anyone would take seriously, a medical degree is just a bit different from one in business (which everyone knows is a degree for rich people too dumb to get a real degree).

Here's a quarter, go buy a fucking clue.
bloochik
Jun. 29th, 2005 04:59 pm (UTC)
Aw, don't fight :(

Please, think of the children!!!
microcomputer
Jun. 29th, 2005 06:07 pm (UTC)
Anyone can get a degree. It takes the smart ones to actually come to conclusions that aren't written in text books.

Has anyone here got more than a high-school level of biology behind them? I've never seen any of this bullshit espoused by anyone who actually knew what they were talking about

I think what the person was trying to say is people can know biology (and know a good ammount of it) without having to go to college. You can't jump to conclusions and assume that people don't know what they are talking about just because they havn't taken any courses.

I also think you should chill out with the angsty replies, honestly if you want to be taken seriously address things the right way.
odubtaig
Jun. 29th, 2005 09:10 pm (UTC)
I just find it hard to accept any arguments on the origin of HIV from anyone who doesn't at least have a basic grounding in genetics, molecular biology and virology which, in this country at least, you don't get anywhere near until Further Education. It's also important to make a distinction between what was possible in the 1970s and what is possible today and gene splicing was beyond the capabilities of anyone back then.

The knowledge of how something fits together is a long way off from being able to do anything with that knowledge. It took a century and a half after the deduction of the existance of atoms before the processes to create nuclear fission were developed (a good 35 years after the proper structure of an atom was discovered and about 22 years after G.N.Lewis published Valence and the Structure of Atoms and Molecules).
microcomputer
Jun. 29th, 2005 06:36 pm (UTC)
I also forgot to mention Dr. Peter Duesber, one of the worlds leading microbiologists, a pioneer in the discovery of the hiv family of viruses, and member of the national academy of sciences. His evidence -revealed in top scientific journals but kept out of the mainstream press- raises questions the aids research establishment has so far declined to answer

- if hiv causes aids, why have thousands of aids victims never had hiv?

- Why have hundreds of thousands who have had hiv- for many years- remained perfectly healthy?

- why does the discoverer of the hiv virus now claim it can not be the sole cause of aids?

- why has more than ten years of aids research- costing tens of billions of dollars- failed to show how (or even if) hiv causes aids or attacks the immune system?

all taken from Inventing the aids virus by Kary Mullis a book that I am reading.
odubtaig
Jun. 29th, 2005 08:46 pm (UTC)
- if hiv causes aids, why have thousands of aids victims never had hiv?

Because it's a syndrome, not a specific illness, which means that there is not necessarily one specific cause. If you think of death as a syndrome (which it isn't the symptoms are pretty conisistent) there are many possible causes but if Hepatitis C is not the cause of death, this does not mean that Hepatitis C cannot be a cause of death.

- Why have hundreds of thousands who have had hiv- for many years- remained perfectly healthy?

Because of the well known incubation period? It has also been noted that the incubation period can be over a decade in length depending on how well the body fights the infection; an initially highly publicised study of a group of African prostitutes who seemed resistant desipite regular contact was abandoned after they eventually succumbed.

- why does the discoverer of the hiv virus now claim it can not be the sole cause of aids?

Could you clarify this? Do you mean it cannot cause AIDS on its own or it cannot be the cause in 100% of AIDS cases?

- why has more than ten years of aids research- costing tens of billions of dollars- failed to show how (or even if) hiv causes aids or attacks the immune system?

here, here, and here explain in increasing detail how HIV makes its journey from the cell membrane to the nuvcleus (with pictures). It's actually been filmed infecting a CD4 cell, what more proof do you want?
microcomputer
Jun. 29th, 2005 09:40 pm (UTC)
a lot more, because I'm difficult. But I do hear what you're saying, and I note it.

I would clarify it if i could but i havn't gotten that far into the book but you could feel free to look into it, all I was saying is that he was a man who knew a lot about what he was saying.

I knew someone who went off of the cocktail though and got a great deal better health wise after that. So who knows!! all this talk about disease is making me ill.


-Julie
odubtaig
Jun. 29th, 2005 10:08 pm (UTC)
How much more conclusive than 'they have filmed HIV infecting an immune cell' do you want? I'm not saying it's the sole cause of AIDS (there are other reasons why the immune system can fail) but the correlation that someone who shows the presence of HIV antibodies is extremely likely to show a year on year drop in CD4 (then increasingly CD8) cell counts is pretty hard to ignore.

No, HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, it's near impossible for an illness of this nature to have a only one possible cause. This however, does not mean that HIV is not a cause of AIDS and that HIV will not result in AIDS. When a virus (HIV) infects a host and systematically attacks the immune system weakening it over a period of many years (the 'incubation' period is generally 5-6 years) the end result is going to be an Acquired Immune Deficiency which is what AIDS is by definition.

As for your friend, yeah, he'll feel better in the short term, anti-retrovirals are known for their hideous side effects but they do also lengthen the amount of time it takes for HIV to really dig in. I guess it's up to them whether they have a longer life or a better quality of life and a lot of western medicine is very much geared towards lengthening life at the cost of everything else but, barring accidents, HIV will probably win in the end.
microcomputer
Jun. 29th, 2005 09:44 pm (UTC)
Your icon reminded me of sandman (the comic/ graphic novel)
odubtaig
Jun. 29th, 2005 09:45 pm (UTC)
I give you 3 guesses as to where I got it from :p
mackave
Jun. 28th, 2005 05:16 pm (UTC)
Please everybody, read this.

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/profiles/gilbert/aidsconsp.html

And think a bit before you accept some whacko conspiracy theory at face value just because it might seem to agree with your politics.
intractablecunt
Jun. 28th, 2005 06:23 pm (UTC)
unrelated other than i love david gilbert he's my baby's daddy;)
adrenaline3426
Jun. 28th, 2005 06:07 pm (UTC)
in a health class i took last year, the teacher told the class that HIV was created to kill off colored people and homosexuals. he also said it was "supposedly" created by the government. he said it like he actually knew what he was talking about...so maybe there's something true behind that?
nobody123
Jun. 29th, 2005 01:50 am (UTC)
maybe your teacher was just off his nut.
adrenaline3426
Jun. 29th, 2005 02:19 am (UTC)
eh possibly. he was the guy giving me a hard time about the pledge of allegience at the begining of the year... and i think he was saying that to scare me because im hispanic and bi.
110679
Jun. 28th, 2005 08:12 pm (UTC)
I have heard a couple of articles that state that HIV was created by a government, But it was apparthide south africa, not the US. Another vertion goes that it was created by the US in order to woo South africa.
(Anonymous)
Jun. 29th, 2005 01:11 pm (UTC)
I think people can argue about this all they want but what it really comes down to is what you believe.

I believe that the hiv/aids theory is true, I also believe that the drug theory is true.

halfcuban
Sep. 3rd, 2005 01:28 pm (UTC)
The "Drug theory" has changed over the years. Intially all the deniers blamed needle users and other "undesirables" for giving themselves the disease by their "immoral" behaviour. Duebure was one of these idiots. Than when they started to be proven wrong, HAART drugs came on the scene, and with their toxic side effects, the deniers latched on to another convenient theory.

I'm a person who is fairly radical and agrees that alot of things are the fault of alot of the powers that be. But not this one. The only one that IS responsible is the lack of response by anyone with the ability to do something about it.
halfcuban
Sep. 3rd, 2005 09:28 am (UTC)
The funny thing is seeing gay/bi/trans people involved in HIV/AIDS conspiracies, since it is many of the originating conspiracy theorists who essentially came out and said that AIDS was caused by immoral behaviour (in this case anal sex and drug usage) and not by an actual disease. Duesburg, who is mentioned above, is famous for essentially blaming drug addicts and fags for doing it to themselves. Of course, as the evidence mounted against him and other theorists, and certain elements of the queer community found symapthy with his cause, he changed his bloody tune. I refuse to buy into the conspiracy theorists just because what the conspiracy theorists offer as an alternative (that its caused by ones reckless immoral behaviour or the government made it up) is either an example of classist, homophobic hysteria, or an example of everyone piling on everything on the state (the Henry Kissinger syndrome of blaming everything on the American government and ignoring other actors or simple luck).
( 49 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

ngnm
anarchists
Anarchism Community

Latest Month

June 2014
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     
Powered by LiveJournal.com