Is AIDS a man-made disease?

Post Reply
Leonel JB

Is AIDS a man-made disease?

Post by Leonel JB » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:42 am

I know that this is going to sound silly: "Is AIDS a man-made disease?"

By man, I mean The USA, via the CDC in Atlanta.

We know at the CDC they(Scientists) are working with diseases which can wipe Humanity in a short time.

We also know about the Tuskegee Siphillys (? my spelling) case. So many other instances, spreading germs in NYC subways and San Francisco etc...

I think of AIDS as a USA-made disease which can not be controlled...

We would need some whistle blowers on this matter?



Post by T-dodo » Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:31 pm


Back in the 80s, there was a report by a Soviet press agency alleging that it was man-made. There was never any proof of it and the report was treated instead as cold war propaganda of disinformation by the press at the time.


Lemane Vaillant

Post by Lemane Vaillant » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:15 pm

Leonel et Jean-Marie,

Je pense que tous les deux , vous avez visionné le Film Virus / Épidémie , starring Dustin Hoffman , Renée Russo, Donald Sutherland , Morgan Freeman et le Jeune Noir Junior Gooding .

Ce film n'a pas valeur d'aveu ou d'accusation formelle , mais il est un message d'Hollywood sur l'origine probable ou certaine du making en Labo et de la propagation du SIDA en Afrique d'abord ..

Et puis d'ailleurs : Comment ranger les maladies naturelles et celles , selon vous , créées par l'Homme ?

Toutes viennent du mal et des péchés des hommes sur la terre .

Dieu n'a point créé les maladies . Ça , Guy et Moi , on en est définitivement sûr . N'est-ce-pas , Guy ? ( Surtout Guy , ne viens pas me désapprouver ! )



Post by T-dodo » Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:42 pm


In English, the movie you are talking about is called:"Outbreak." Although I saw it, what I remember from it was of entertainment value only. Thank God, I don't use Hollywood as a source for learning.

By the way, Lemane, I thought your specialty was history and geography! It seemed you omitted your expertise in epidemiology and biology. We certainly know you are an authority on theology. Must we add psychic, as well?


User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Sun Jan 09, 2005 11:22 am

[quote]Religion is based on faith, while science is based on fact and reason - and science is neutral to race. Unfortunately, scientists are not neutral to race.

Take, for example, the origin of AIDS, an international disease. According to scientific records, the first person to die from AIDS was a 25-year-old sailor named David Carr, of Manchester, England.

Carr died on August 31, 1959, and because the disease that killed him was then unknown, his tissue samples were saved for future analysis.

The "unknown disease" that killed David Carr was reported in The Lancet on October 29, 1960. On July 7, 1990, The Lancet retested those old tissue samples taken from David Carr and reconfirmed that he had died of AIDS.

Based upon scientific reason, researchers should have deduced that AIDS originated in England, and that David Carr sailed to Africa where he spread the AIDS virus.

Instead, the white scientific community condemned the British authors of those revealing articles for daring to propose that an Englishman was the first known AIDS patient.

If these scientists were neutral to race, their data should have led them to the conclusion that Patient Zero lived in England.

If these scientists were neutral to race, they should have concluded that AIDS had spread from England to Africa, to Asia, and to America.

Instead, they proposed the theory that AIDS originated in Africa. [/quote]

For more, see

Post Reply