Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

AIDS


Mr-X

Recommended Posts

Aids apparently was developed by WHO (World Health Organisation)because the worlds population was increasing so they developed AIDS to decrease and control the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr-X

    4

  • reese92

    2

  • Dowdy

    2

  • cerberus

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't you think it would of been alot easier to create a world war to control the population rather than use a disease to do it?

It's easier to do and you kill people quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No because war kills in big numbers, they were not trying to wipe out human life as we know it. They just wanted to slow things down. If they were to start a war then many countries would be affected and a WW3 could break out. And the people who started it would be in danger so why would they put themselves and their family in danger of dying in a war. I will tell you one thing you have a greater chance of dying in a war than of AIDS.

jUST SOMETHING I READ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't they put themselves in danger aswell by starting AIDS?

And the last sentence you did, doesn't it support my opinion more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All im trying to say is that wars can wipe out everything humans and nature. They wanted to SLOW...... the problem not destroy everything. And what a better way to do it, everyone has sex so those who arent cautious may get it you see its slowing it down. Look its easier and less expensive then starting a war. Weapons cost governments a fortune and so do the effects of war.  Now in my last sentence i was trying to say war can kill in millions this is not what they wanted to do.

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. X,

  Your post really makes alot of sense. Weapons cost governments a fortune and so do its effects. Hmmmm.... lets see how the costs of AIDS breaks down. This is information garnered from the International AIDS Conference held in 1998, 3 years ago.

            -----------

The theme of this year's International AIDS Conference was "Bridging the Gap." This was interpreted in many different ways, but I think the most telling indication of the gap to be filled was graphically displayed at the final plenary. In front of all of us there was a large digital display entitled: "Why We Are Here." It was a set of numbers: 33,592,990 rapidly changed to 33,592,991 to 33,592,992, and on and on. The sign made us feel each new HIV infection in the world, where a human being is infected every six seconds.

The issues were put most starkly by a Dr. Bello, a PWA and MD from Brazil. He attempted to make an estimate of the worldwide costs of AIDS. He estimated that the world is spending, right now, approximately $9 billion a year for antiretroviral treatment(drugs) alone, with an additional $20 billion a year estimated for medical and research costs. Over 90% of these new infections are in the developing world, whereas 90% of the money spent on AIDS is in the industrialized developed world. There are at least 21,000,000 people infected with HIV in Africa and another 10,000,000 infected in Asia. The simple fact is that countries on these continents have no chance of PI therapy right now.· If all developed countries gave medical aid (drugs and limited medical care) to those suffering from AIDS, estimated costs would rise to $40 billion/year.

            -----------

 So roughly speaking, $30 billion was being spent 3 years ago to fight the AIDS virus in the industrialized countries. The AIDS virus was first discovered in the late '70's - early 80's, but for brevity lets make 1985 a starting point for estimating the cost of this diesease. Even if a cure is finally found in 2005, 20 years x $30 billion dollars a year = $600 billion dollars! You could fight quite a few wars for that kind of money.

Try to focus on the numbers at the top, 33 million infected by the AIDS virus in 1998. Life expectancy is less than 2 years for those in the underdeveloped countries (90%), so at least 13 million people died from AIDS in 1998. To be sure fewer people died in the beginning but the epidemic grew, so lets choose a conservative number of approx. 5 million per year. I think WW II was the last war to involve numbers like that, and it was for the entire run (5 - 6 yrs.) of the war. I guess somebody at the World Health Organization really screwed up, hey?

The WHO is pretty lame as far as conspiracy theories go, stronger arguements have been made for the White Supremicist movement (insuring the 'purity' of the white race by infecting Blacks - both the AIDS and Ebola virus have their origins in Africa) or Global Pharmaceutical companies developing AIDS and the Ebola virus as a means to reap huge profits. The worlds population is increasing by the hundreds of millions every year, nothing but a near global catastrophe of unbelievable proportions would even begin to make a dent in the possibility of slowing mans growth.

 

MAGIKMAN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's alittle something to make your minds swirl.  Did any of you know that just 2 little years before the first American outbreak of the AIDS virus, Which was a homosexual white man, Air Force scientists went before a committee to get funding for a weapon to use on mass populations in case of war.  Biological, chemical warfare.  And their little "invention" which needed further funding was developed to kill ones immune system, slowly, and able to infect simply.  To be able to shut down internal organs.  Well needless to say, they were approved for the funding.  And then 2 years later, the first case of Aids is reported in the US.  I say all this because I have read the transcipts from the committee hearing.  It did happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Teresa, you have the most comprehensive response to this issue and I have to agree..

prejudice reared its ugly head against homosexual and black populations, but it (AIDS) seems to have taken on its own...as a popular line from a movie states, "nature finds a way".  It turned out differently than suspected and has gotten out of hand to say the least.  Greed, hatred, prejudice, all of these 'reasons' seem to taken a shape all their own...Agent Orange also comes to mind!

All the little gimmiks intended to control certain efforts and populations when created for greed more often than not are not wisely created!  The outcome by now, one would seem to think, would be obvious, no good can come of hatred!

-lori

:'(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:-*

Thanks Lori,

 I have read the documents.  I must say that at first, I thought of it as a more inprobable situation than probable.  But, it happened.  I think you are probably right, in assuming that it is now out of control and worse than projected.  I had read that the disease was first introduced into the population by injection of what people thought were drugs to help prevent various infectious diseases.  I believe it was Hepatitus.  It was New York City, and there was a campaign being launched, by the government, to help those that were most at risk for Hep., which ultimately was Blacks, and Gays.  They were told to come on down to the free clinics, line up and get your shot, because the Gov't cared enough to send the very best, if you know what I am saying.

When I first heard the rumors of this situation I thought, huh??  Maybe, but why would the Gov't really care about the Gays and Blacks being wiped out?  Then I stumbled upon a conspriracy theorist;  he went into great detail in explaining the situation and the factors behind it.  He said this, I will break it down into Laman's terms for all those that need the extra help, That all the fighting that was supposedly going on during the reign of Hitler, most of you know him as the Anti-Christ, hehe,  was a fabrication.  We have, supposedly, been in conjunction with them all along.  It was told to me that some of the highest ranking Russian officials were placed among our Gov't.  Taking seats that are high ranking.  In order to have the greatest nation, they have done this.  Now all I know for sure is that I did read the transcipts of the original committee hearing, when the funding was given for the Chemical Weapon.  Of course, as with any documents from the Gov't certain areas were blacked out.  I still managed to read most of it anyway, and they certainly didn't cover up the necessities;  because, I am thinking, that at the time of the request of the documents, they thought that it was of no importance.  Little did they know that it was all being peiced together by a very diligent man.  Smooches to all :-*  Teresa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • 3 months later...

i story i heard from Nigeria, a few years ago (1999) that 4 prostitutes had contracted the AIDS virus, but continued to live without any health problems.it is said the virus in their body is being fought off by a certain gene each of the four women seem to carry.I have no proof this is true, except that the women were diagnosed with HIV and had been living with the disease over a long period of time.Is it possible that we are naturally developing our own cure for AIDS, or at least to postpone the illness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

researches in australia are already testing HIV drugs which can potentially stop HIV from developing into AIDS.

an AIDS vaccine will be developed within this decade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

AIDs is too slow of a burn to be part of a conspiracy. Such an action, a plan to spread AIDs in order to cut population/reap profits/cut down "unpure aspects, it would never work. It would have been a really shoddy conspiracy that thought that it could possibley be used to just cut a segment of the population. Why not Ebola? Why not something that is HIGHLY transmittable and very lethal? AIDs is lethal, eventually, but not overly contagious in the way that viruses normally. You can take a vial of infected blood, waft it under your nose, smash it into tiny bits on the wall, you're not going to catch it. Do the same with Ebola...

I do think that there is certainly a lot less effort being put in by pharmacuticals then there could be. I think that it is advantageous for those companies that so many people get sick and have to pay for treatment, and I don't think a vaccine will be put out until the last possible second, simply to reap the longest amount of profit for medicines.

I'm really uncertain how a joint Nazi/Communist/American conspiracy would gain at all from millions dying in Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just a thought, but if the government meant for AIDS to be used as a weapon, would'nt they make it a bit easier to contract. I mean, aside from sending AIDS-laden prostitutes to enemy bases (Which could just be gassed or bombed), it would take WAY to long for the benefits of such a weapon to show up. The more desireable bio agents are the ones that take effect in less than 24 hours, not 5-7 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.