Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created

[Nightingale]

Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created

Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, today reiterated her claim that the AIDS virus was a deliberately created biological agent.

"Some say that AIDS came from the monkeys, and I doubt that because we have been living with monkeys (since) time immemorial, others say it was a curse from God, but I say it cannot be that.

"Us black people are dying more than any other people in this planet," Ms Maathai told a press conference in Nairobi a day after winning the prize for her work in human rights and reversing deforestation across Africa.

"It's true that there are some people who create agents to wipe out other people. If there were no such people, we could have not have invaded Iraq," she said.

"We invaded Iraq because we believed that Saddam Hussein had made, or was in the process of creating agents of biological warfare," said Ms Maathai.

"In fact it (the HIV virus) is created by a scientist for biological warfare," she added.

"Why has there been so much secrecy about AIDS? When you ask where did the virus come from, it raises a lot of flags. That makes me suspicious," Ms Maathai said.

Africa accounts for 25 million out of the estimated 38 million across the world infected with HIV, and the vast majority of infected Africans are women, according to UNAIDS estimates.

The United States on Friday congratulated Ms Maathai on winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but tempered its praise over her claims about AIDS.

"She said (HIV/AIDS) was invented as a bio-weapon in some laboratory in the West," a senior State Department official said.

"We don't agree with that."

The official pointed to a report of those comments published in August in Kenya's daily Standard newspaper, in which Ms Maathai was quoted as saying that HIV/AIDS was created by scientists for the purpose of mass extermination.

--AFP

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1216687.htm

considering we didn't even know what DNA did at the time of the first HIV case (1959), I think she's smoking something...

opinions?

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9802/03/earliest.aids/

 

[Spud]

I'm at a loss to throw out a meaningful comment (nothing new I suppose).

Perhaps this illustrates how enormous the divide is between our cultures. I don't doubt she is a thoughtful and caring person, but I am disturbed by her lack of logic and by my own inability to understand how she came to such a conclusion.

Wow.

 

[bignick]

She's not the only one that has believed that conspiracy...a lot of people thought/think that it was created to wipe out everything from black people to homosexuals....

The fact that she's a Nobel Prize winner just gives her a louder voice

 

[Bammx2]

I'm not giving an opinion,I'm asking another question....

1) is it not possible that someone has learned how to duplicate the virus based on info that has been gained since the first supposed case in 1959?
Anthrax hasn't been a substantial problem since the early part of the 20th century.....now look at it.
2) I am curious at peoples arguements as why it could not be man made...or manipulated.
Any takers?

Personally....
I don't have an opinion either way.
I have lost friends directly related to HIV and it just sucks.
We need to get rid of it FIRST...then we can sqabble over where it came from!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well, sure it's remotely possible that some bio-engineer isolated a sample of AIDS and somehow manipulated it. However, I think the point is more that if you make an assertion, especially one as sweeping and controversial as hers, you need to be able to back it up yourself; others' failure to provide a counterclaim doesn't prove your own.

And determining where the virus came from, as the article goes into some depth over, is very important to the process of getting rid of it, both in containing the spread and finding the cure.

All I really have to say on the issue.

 

[PeachMonkey]

The sad thing is that the world's response to the AIDS crisis, which has been based on, alternately, a mixture of religious bigotry and financial greed, has been so disastrous that it lends credence to this sort of conspiracy theory.

 

[Phoenix44]

That's why she won the Nobel Prize for Peace, and not for Medicine.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I suspect if it were that easy to "create" it'd be much easier to "cure".

Her statement concerning monkeys is silly. As we push back the boundaries of the forests we encounter new species, come closer to species we knew existed. Viruses mutate and jump species. Nature is perfectly capable of engineering something like HIV.

I think she's reaching and trying to place blame where it need not go.


Regards,


Steve

 

[GAB]

Well,
Saying something like that after winning the prize?

I say make her come up with some stats.

If she does not, give it to the second choice, because it is pretty clear she is stirring the pot, and that is not peaceful.

On a side note, the medical community is concerened about another epidemic,
like the one in 1914 that killed about .05% of the population.

Then World War 1, so we have been there (war) and nature has done it before.

Regards, Gary

 

[auxprix]

I apreciate what she has apparently done, but if I had the power, I would revoke her prize. That statement is crazy, paranoid, and insubstantial. How 'peaceful' is it to claim on record, with out any evidence, that another country has caused a scurge that we are all suffering from?

Misinformation breeds misunderstanding and hate. It scares me that when she says BS like this that someone may actually be listening.

Sorry, this stupidity really makes me angry...

 

[Xequat]

The thing is, the burden is on her to prove that it did happen, not on the accused to prove that it didn't. How do you prove that something never happened? It's a conspiracy theory, so if there's a conspiracy, where are the doctors that created the virus? I mean, there had to be more than one person who created it, so why hasn't someone come out and written a book exposing the creation of HIV and making millions on the book deal? There must have been several doctors, the head of the lab, and several persons in the government who oversaw and funded the project. Somebody would have come forward by now. Another case of leaders preying upon people's ignorance instead of trying to educate and enlighten their people.


Besides, the A in AIDS stands for acquired. Maybe she should focus on preventing drug use and unprotected sex so that it is not acquired any more.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

The sad thing is that the world's response to the AIDS crisis, which has been based on, alternately, a mixture of religious bigotry and financial greed, has been so disastrous that it lends credence to this sort of conspiracy theory.

I don't think she is correct in her assertions, but

a) why should she give back her Nobel Prize? This is exactly why the tenure system is in place - so academics can have views, even highly unpopular views, and be somewhat protected from the political climate of the day. Give back her prize? It was for something else entirely.

b) by the way, no-one seems ruffled by the fact that a large number of leading scientists, including a number of Nobel Pirze winners, have critiqued the current Administration's misuse and disregard for science, and rejecting the evidence on global climate change.

c) I can completely understand her frustruation and anger. As PeachMonkey referred to, a generation of Africans are dying, a generation of children are orphans, and our country is too weak to turn to drug companies here and insist on cheaper, more accessible medical aid for HIV prevention and HIV drug treatment. It sickens me. If I saw my countrymen and -women suffering, I would be more likely to try to start pointing fingers at powerful nations who had it in their power to try to help more effectively, and chose not to.

p.s.

Besides, the A in AIDS stands for acquired. Maybe she should focus on preventing drug use and unprotected sex so that it is not acquired any more.

HIV has already spread to a huge part of the population. Some "rural myth" cures for disease among men include having sex with a virgin who cleans you of the disease. So 12-year-old (and younger) girls are raped and infected. Education is important. Condom use is important. These are different cultures with very different attitudes towards sex, monogamy, and promiscuity, and Americans tend to forget that. And how will only focusing on prevention tactics affect all the kids who are HIV+?

 

[Rich Parsons]

The Lady is allowed her opinion.

I would personally first go back and do some research about the Polio Vaccine. If you research into this, and the fact that kindeys from monkeys were used to create many of the trial runs for the vaccine are how it crossed over. I believe there were three teams working on getting down a good process and were in a race to be approved by the US government, to make lots of money. Some used healthy monkeys (* The team that was award the go ahead for the US program *), others used what ever they could get cheap.

Also investigate where the trial runs were executed. You will see 100% HIV in those towns and areas in Africa. You can also watch the spread outward from this area.

So, in my limited knowledge on this subject, I would form the opinion that one could state that greed helped create this enemy to our population. I would not make the comment that it was deliberate to attack a specific group or region of this planet. Yet, this is my opinion as well.

As to where to look for your investigation, I do not know if there are web links or not. I did this many years ago the hard way, with articles and books in libraries. Therefor, it is from memory, which I am the first to say, I am not always right.

Good Luck in your investigations
:asian:

 

[Xequat]

"b) by the way, no-one seems ruffled by the fact that a large number of leading scientists, including a number of Nobel Pirze winners, have critiqued the current Administration's misuse and disregard for science, and rejecting the evidence on global climate change."

Sorry, but I don't see how that is even slightly relevant. Maybe you could elaborate a little because to say that Bush is somehow responsible for the spread of AIDS seems unfair and unfounded. I'm sure you have reason for putting that in there, but I don't know what it could be.

I think we might be on the same page about education, but maybe we worded it differently. I wsa trying to be concise by saying that AIDS/HIV doesn't spread by itself; it is spread by human activity. That is a fact. But education is the key, as you said. I was trying to keep it simple by saying that we should educate people not to do the things that spread the disease, such as needle-use drugs and unsafe sex. As for protecting the kids who already have HIV, we can only treat them the best we know how. To say that countries who have the ability to do more should be doing more is not reasonable, in my opinion. Maybe, if you were in one of those countries, you might accuse the more powerful nations of causing it, but that would only get you more followers, but not solve the problem because it is reckless, ignorant, and unprovable. We are trying to cure AIDS, along with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc, so what else do you think we should do? If there were a chepaer way to treat HIV, then the drug companies would jump at the opportunity. Drug companies do not exist, unfortunately, to make the world a better place, primarily. They exist to make money, and their method for making money is to treat and cure illness, which happens to help everyone.

I understand that there are different attitudes about sex. But education is what can change that. You and I know that AIDS is acquired, but the uneducated and/or ignorant people do not know that. That is why I said that the Nobel Laureate should focus on prevention tactics.

 

[heretic888]

I understand that there are different attitudes about sex. But education is what can change that.

The problem is that your view of proper "education" is having everyone conform to your particular cultural values and social norms. Because, clearly, if they don't have your attitude concerning sex, then they must be "uneducated".

In academic circles, thats called "ethnocentrism".

 

[Flatlander]

For the most part, I think I can agree with most of what you've said here, if what you mean is that she shouldn't have been pointing fingers without having some sort of evidence to support that. In her position of prominence, that was irresponsible.

However,

To say that countries who have the ability to do more should be doing more is not reasonable, in my opinion.

Why is it not reasonable? If we agree that the threat of AIDS is essentially impossible to contain, therefore impossible to eliminate the risk of having it infect our people, ought not those who CAN help, do so? This is everyone's problem, yes, some more than others, but nonetheless, everyone's problem. Not every country has the resources to assist in combatting this plague. So those that do, should.

 

[heretic888]

Yeah, there's also that little thing called "moral responsibility".

Its kinda part of what our country was supposed to have been founded on, if you hadn't been paying attention in American History.

 

[Xequat]

The problem is that your view of proper "education" is having everyone conform to your particular cultural values and social norms. Because, clearly, if they don't have your attitude concerning sex, then they must be "uneducated".

In academic circles, thats called "ethnocentrism".

You're way off. I'm not saying that anyone should conform to any of my moral beliefs. I think sex is great and my attitude has nothing to do with it. I am advising that people get educated about what causes HIV and AIDS. It is a fact that it has been spread by unsafe sex and sharing needles. There are other ways, too, but the fact remains that AIDS is not like a cold which spreads on its own...it can only be spread via a person's activity, whether that be a bad blood transfusion or something that isn't the recipient's fault, or by something that the recipient does to allow the virus into their body.

"Yeah, there's also that little thing called "moral responsibility".

Its kinda part of what our country was supposed to have been founded on, if you hadn't been paying attention in American History."

Thank for the history lesson...I always thought it was freedom.

Flatlander...my mistake, I'm sorry...I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that we should do nothing about the disease; I'm saying that we already are doing something about it. We are also spending money and resources combatting other illnesses, which actually cost more lives in our country thatn AIDS and HIV. We only have so much money and resources, so we have to prioritize their use, and a logical way to do it is to spend the most on the diseases that cost the most. The point is, we already spend a lot of time end effort trying to cure HIV and IADS, so I don't see what else we can do.

 

[Flatlander]

Continue working at finding a cure, and educating those at risk. This stuff requires money. Every country that can help should be doing so.

 

[Xequat]

Agreed. And I know the US already is, so I guess other countries are, too. I just hope it all works out. In fact, since AIDS is acquired, maybe education would be cheaper and more efficient. Although it wouldn't be up to my standards of morality because the people who already have it would continue to suffer.