Original article for Internet
The Origin of Aids
by K Ingemar Ljungquist
E-mail: kwameingemar@hotmail.com
Key words: HIV, AIDS, origin
Origin of Aids
Abstract: to top
The origin of the Aids pandemic
and thus the origin of the HIV has ben puzzling for most researchers. The
most widespread speculation that HIV emanated in Africa has been built
on unsubstantial facts, of which some have been proved to be false. Some
researchers have made the conclusion that HIV most probably has originated
in a laboratorium. Yet their mode of discussion has not been allowed to
enter the main scientific journals, with a few exceptions. Thus a lot of
information has not been easily available for the researcher, scientist
or doctor that could cast light onto the enigma of the very beginning of
the most intriguing disease of this decade.
In this article some evidential
facts pointing towards an artifically constucted virus is done outgoing
from different fields of society like epidemiology, genetics, military
documents, review of early viral experiments.
Text: to top
Epidemiology to top
To find an origin of an epidemic the very first cases are to be examined thoroughly.
The AIDS epidemic originated,
as an at that time unknown syndrome, among young, well-educated, previously
healthy, homosexual, mainly white men in Greenwich Village, south of Manhattan,
New York in early 1979 (one patient was even retrospectively diagnosed
in December 1978). The pattern of the epidemic was rather explosive. Within
two years 80 patients had shown clear signs of a yet unexplained phenomen.
In autumn 1980 the same pattern was repeated in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
For all these three cities there was a common denominator. Young, healthy,
educated, homosexual men were enrolled in a trial testing a new hepatitis-B
vaccine. These trials started first in New York in November 1978 and in
the Californian cities in March 1980. {1,2,3}
The obvious link between these
trials and the outbreak of Aids was first denied by the authorities, although
the
afflicted patients and their physicians asked for an investigation. An
investigation was to appear in 1986, when testing facilities was available.
Although in the report all were excluded who at that time already were
diagnosed as having Aids seven out of 212 were already infected by HIV
in 1978-79 {4.} The total number of participants who got either the trial
vaccine or a placebo were 1083.
The official figures reported
for the AIDS epidemic in USA has been in cumulative numbers: 1980: 80 cases
1985: 22200, 1990: 223000 1994 (Sept.). 402000 {5}
The epidemic then spread to
other cities as well as to other continents. The first European cases were
reported in 1980-81 from Denmark, France and Switzerland.{6} In the Danish
case thorough investigation was made and in all cases it could be traced
back to homosexual contacts in New York the previous year.
Africa got its first cases
of the epidemic in Kagera district in the rural south-west of Uganda in
1982.{7} This pattern was unusual to Africa since for other countries the
epidemic usually started in the upper class who had close contacts with
Europe. There has been no explanation to the sudden and explosive outbreak
of the epidemic in Uganda in the scientific journals. In such an explanation
it must also been taken into consideraton that the HIV noticed in Central
Africa has got a slightly different genomic set up from the type seen in
USA/Europe.{8}.
Genetic relationship to top
The causative virus, HIV ,
has got a genetic set-up consisting of RNA including close to 10000 bases.
From their sequences and their corresponding genes a comparision is possible
with other retroviruses. Before HIV was detected in 1983 a number of similar
viruses was known; CAEV in goats, Visna in sheep, EIAV in horses and BIV
in cattle. After Aids became a target for research more retroviruses were
found especially in monkeys. Although most of them don´t give rise
to any immunedeficiency they got their description SIV (Simian Immunedeficiency
Virus).
For all these viruses noone
can´t in a short time be the the single ancestor of HIV, since their
corresponding bases are too different although they show similarities in
many respects.
For the newly detected SIVs
in monkeys at least one is of great interest ; the SIVmaq causing AIDS
in maqaques. It is not present in free living monkeys but was developed
by inoculations of cutaneous leprosy tissue from another specie, the sooty
mangabey, into maqaques which came down with Simian AIDS.{9} The SIVSM
, the SIV maq and also the HIV-2 show great similarities within their genomic
sequences.
Another important fact concerning
HIV is its outmost tendency to mutate spontaneously. This in turn may be
a result of the heterogenity in its reverse transcriptase which got two
activity maxima concerning its reactivity due to pH. This further may well
point towards a recent recombination where at least two ancestral viruses
being involved.{3,10}
Any new virus that recently
jumped species usually can infect their former host. By experimental infection
of HIV into animals the successes have been few. HIV cause a long-lasting
non-pathogenic infection in chimpanzees. There is also one report that
sheep infected by HIV-infected human blood came out with anti-body production
as well as some sheep became sick from symptoms similar to what can be
seen in AIDS. The scientist who performed this experiment was abruptly
withdrawn from this experiment, and in no journals there is to find anything
about using sheep as a model for HIV-infection,{ 3,10,11} although many
researchers recommended this.
The conclusion to be made
is that under certain conditions viruses may change either by mutation
or by recombination their genetic set-up. These conditions very occasionally
occur in nature but far more easily could be errected in the laboratorium
using virus-cocktails, i.e. tissue, sometimes cancer cells, inoculated
with two or more different viruses where their is an excellent opportunity
for exchange of genetic material including both mutations and recombinations.
{12, 13}
This type of research was
frequently done in laboratories in the 70-ies after the detection of reverse
transcriptase. Some researchers also warned for the consequences, which
led to the Asilomar conference in 1975 whereafter the regulations became
more strict.
Military ambitions to top
Parallel to the official research
the militaries also were interested in biological agents either for purposes
of weapons to kill enemies or to reduce the strength of nations or ethnic
groups in low-intensified strategies. In 1969 the ambitions of the biological
weapon architects were revealed in a hearing with representatives of the
parliament in US: ...¨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 theurapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative
freedom from infectious disease¨. {1,3,13,14}
In 1970 another article appeared
in Military Review which had the title ¨Ethnic weapons¨. It discussed
the possibility to ascertain the molecular differences among the different
human races and thereby constructing either chemicals or biological agents
which could use these differences as a target. The article ended by the
sentence : ¨Thus the functions of life lie bare to attack.¨ {15}
This conclusion could easily
be made: The AIDS virus appeared as a new a biological entity at the same
time as the military prepared to make such an agent.
Denial and fraud to top
Normally any statement leading
to an artificial or worse an attempted creation of HIV and thereby as a
result to the death of a mere of one million people all over the world
before the end of this decade is a contradiction of what we are used to
learn from school. It is a common cognitive law that any person with a
basic education build up a reference - a picture of the world - What new
information that person experiences will be added and reinforce the former
picture if they are in agreement with what was originally there. If there
are deep contradictions or radically new experiences these are met with
ignorance or rejection. This may especially be true for scientists since
an artificial creation of HIV would normally make an uproar in the picture
of science per se and thereby put into question the very base for the scientist
himself, who usually is brought up with theimage that science is a tool
for creating a better future.
Thus it has been a very few
researchers who have shown responsibility to investigate the origin of
AIDS. The interesting is that those who have fulfilled that task without
ignoring e.g. the stated ambitions of the military all have ended up with
the conclusion that HIV most probably is of laboratory or artificial origin.
{ 1,2 3,10, 11, 12,13, 14,) There has also been other conclusions that
hints to an African origin, but by reinforcing their conclusions, very
weak arguments have been offered and even fraud has been used to obscure
the picture.
It has been very popular to
search for early cases, especially if they have got an African connection.
In one study from spared specimen
from 1959 originating from South and Central Africa one test out of 813
showed antibody positivity towards HIV. {16} This could just reflect the
normal rate of false positivity especially when in tropical areas this
a common phenomenon due crossreaction and also to ¨sticky¨ old
tests saved under tropical conditions. Also the patient was unknown and
his or her later medical status was not recorded. Another example was an
English male printing apprentice who died from a strange immune deficiency
in 1959. In the report he was recorded as a former Royal Navy, {17} in
the press transferred to sailor who had visited African harbours. From
his remaining tissue a virus was found. By PCR technique the virus was
in the gag part determined by its genomic sequence. The british group who
made the research claimed HIV was present already in 1959. An american
group who checked the findings first was astonished by the too great similarity
of the genomic sequence from 1959 and todays appearance. Due to the high
rate of mutations in HIV they concluded a contamination must have occured.
When later being provided with a test the American group could find no
virus at all. The Americans claimed the British made a fraudelent attempt.
{18}
The two American scientists
Robert Gallo and his fellow virologist Myron Essex were in the begining
of Aids research the only to be given government grants for Aids research.
Besides laying obstacles for others they also hampered Aids research by
accidentally or deliberately publish articles that later was shown to be
false. Welknown is the attempt from Gallo to try to steal the originality
of the Pasteur group in 1983 to have isolated the first HIV in the world,
by claimimg himself as the first in 1984. Also the repeated false reports
about from Essex in finding SIV in green monkeys as well as HIV-2. In both
cases it was the maqaque virus he proclaimed as something else.{3,19},
Also their ambitions to lead the scientific world to believe that Aids
had an African origin by first press conferences, then congresses until
very speculative articles appeared in the scientific press has largely
obscured other researchers work. Since both Essex and Gallo were participants
in very hazardous viral experiments in the 70-ies their false and fraudelent
behaviour may have revealed more for critical thinkers, in opposition to
what their aims were: to obscure.
From this short view of some
facts concerning the origin of AIDS, my conclusion is obvious. HIV was
most probably a chimera made artficially in the laboratory. Obviously there
are some missing links to state it is proofed. But such proof may be obtained
by sequencing the very first HIV that apeared in the patients who came
out with AIDS in New York in 1978-79, but their samples are stored in a
freezer sealed by the Department of Justice.{20} Also military laboratory
protocols from after 1970 could reveal what type of research were made
but they are classified.
Thus it is a question of responsibility
not only for researchers but also for every human being to interrogate
those researchers who were involved in dangerous experiments in the 70-ies
if their work created HIV. If not , by accident or deliberately a new hybride
could be formed that is contagious by respiration. Then not only sex is
dangerous. Also laughing together could be a deadly risk.
Literature: to top
Other good works challenging
the existing dogma of a natural origin of HIV;
SEALE JOHN. Origins of the
Aids viruses HIV-1 and HIV-2: Fact or fiction? Journal of the Royal Society
of Medicine 1988:81:537-39
SEALE JOHN. Crossing the species
barrier viruses and the origin of Aids in perspective. Journal of the Royal
Society of Medicine 1989:82:519-22
SEALE JOHN. Kuru, Aids and
unfamiliar behaviour. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1989:82:571
MORRISEY MICHAEL. Looking
for the enemy. Niestetal Deutschland 1993.
BINGHAM BILL et al Biohazard.
NAVS London 1987
HOROWITZ LEONARD. Emerging viruses, AIDS & Ebola, nature,accident or genocide? Tetrahedron Inc, Rockport.MA USA 1996