AIDS is 100 Years Old? So Much for Conspiracy Theories
Posted on October 3, 2008
-By Warner Todd Huston
Negroists — that would be people who think “black” first, instead of American first — have posited for years that the U.S. government created AIDS to kill blacks and keep them down. But now geneticists are discovering the the HIV virus is at least 100 years old. That would sort of blow the ridiculous conspiracy theory out of the water, wouldn’t it? (And it would be contrary to what Barack Obama’s “spiritual adviser” Reverend Jeremiah Wright has said.)
According to a new report “The AIDS virus has been circulating among people for about 100 years, decades longer than scientists had thought, a new study suggests… Genetic analysis pushes the estimated origin of HIV back to between 1884 and 1924, with a more focused estimate at 1908.”
The researchers also said that it isn’t a surprise to find HIV is that old.
Experts say it’s no surprise that HIV circulated in humans for about 70 years before being recognized. An infection usually takes years to produce obvious symptoms, a lag that can mask the role of the virus, and it would have infected relatively few Africans early in its spread, they said.
Once again, we find that the wild-eyed conspiracy theorists are fools, easily led, and not very bright.
» Filed Under Healthcare, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Racism, Science/pseudo-science
Trackback URL
Comments
16 Responses to “AIDS is 100 Years Old? So Much for Conspiracy Theories”
Leave a Reply
That was the height of the eugenics movement and thus still could be a man made plague. Still technology was not as well developed then.
I detect a whiff of hypocrisy here. This site regularly trumptets the conspiracy theory that there is no evidence for climate change when hundreds of independent studies have shown man-made effects on the environment.
You can’t have it both ways. The results of scientific studies aren’t right when they support you or discredit someone you dislike and wrong when they don’t.
Ian,
“To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.” — Jules Henri Poincaré
To believe every scientific consensus merely because there is one excuses you from thinking. But, we are used to visitors like you coming here to display a lack of thinking.
Au contare! The fact that the HIV virus, the cause of AIDS, has been infecting humans for circa a hundred years, does not prove the CIA did not invent AIDS. Rather it proves that the CIA, and Ronald Reagan, invented time travel.
CRAP! I KNEW that logic and facts were too good to believe. Time travel! I shudda figured!
Warner,
I’ve been watching the climate change debate for several years and I’ve seen enough evidence- and enough naysayers proved wrong- that I accept the science behind it is strong. No single study is perfect, but the core hypothesis- that human activity is affecting the climate- is proven.
To believe something because it reinforces your prejudices, or to dismiss it because it doesn’t, is the true display of a lack of thinking.
Yes, and many people disagree with you. I’m glad you’ve decided which side of the religious argument to side with. All hail Algore the prophet.
Personally, I do believe Hiv was manmade and it’s part of a wider and well protected conspiracy. I don’t believe it’s a Jewish o Zionist conspiracy, because I think that the power of Jews is widely overstimated. If Jews were really the masters of the world, Palestine would have already vanished. But the Aryan lobby is really a powerful lobby. Think about Germany and Italy: their regimes caused the war, they lost the war, they cause immense human tragedies and huge damage to the world economy. Who paid? The Soviet soldiers and the American taxpayers, who financed the recovery of Europe! Germany and Italy, instead of being punished, received benefits and now they even dare play racists. So, a lobby so powerful like the Nazi one, with assets hidden in safe haven, with key supporters in the American establishment, cannot have produced a biowarfare virus like Hiv? For what concerns the old sample of Hiv, I simply don’t believe about this research.
Don’t tell me America is not involved, but maybe also Soviet Union and other countries were involved in the plan with the specific purpose of controlling African resources.
… cue Twilight Zone music here.
why should we believe their study? why should we believe anything they say about aids. the hiv theory changes with the seasons.
“I’m glad you’ve decided which side of the religious argument to side with. All hail Algore the prophet.”
And that is why I called you a hypocrite. Hundreds, if not thousands of studies and experiments, consensus amongst the scientific community and visible, recorded effects- yet you dismiss it because you don’t like Al Gore. One study (which is as valid as any one of the thousands you dismiss) and you accept it because you don’t like Jeremiah Wright and want to make him look like a fool.
If you’re so sure climate change isn’t valid then show me something substantive that disproves it. Or claim that it’s all a conspiracy and look just as dumb as the “negroists” you despise.
… and there’s where you and others like you are wrong about at least about me, anyway.
I never said “climate change” is not occurring, or isn’t valid. I merely posit that man has no role in either creating, or stopping it.
Climate change has happened many, many times on this earth and guess what? It’s never been “catastrophic.” I see no reason to doubt it may be happening again, but it is NOTHING to get your panties in a twist over.
If you live at the Ocean’s edge and find the waters rising… I have an idea to help you out… MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND!
Climate change has occurred so many times and man is still here. It’s called adapting. We’ve done it before and if climate change comes, we’ll do it again.
In the meantime, it is foolish to destroy our lives with fear for no reason. Accept what comes and adapt.
Additionally, it is patently obvious that the only thing globaloney turns out to be is a replacement for the failed ideas of socialism. Socialism failed to destroy capitalism and the United States. So, now they hide their attacks under the faux rubric of “saving the earff.”
Lastly, however, I love you globaloney zealots and your use of science. You seem to want to claim that science is perfect. That if I, for instance, reject one scientific claim and accept another, I am being “hypocritical.” But science changes nearly everyday in some way or another. So, it ISN’T hypocritical to assume that science CAN be wrong.
I want to remind you that science ISN’T consensus. At one time, the “scientific” consensus was that the world was flat. Was THAT “consensus” correct?
No, in truth YOU are the hypocrite… well, if not a hypocrite a fool… to believe that science is infallible, perfect, beyond question. In fact, I’d posit that you have made your science into a false God.
Bow to it. believe it. Pray that it saves your soul.
You obviously don’t get it, but I’ll try again. The basis of science is that a particular hypothesis or theory could be wrong- that is why they are tested. And most research finds out something new about the subject. Very rarely this completely changes the way the subject is viewed. More normally it answers some questions and adds detail to what was known.
Man-made global warming is a theory that has been tested many times. And almost every time the results have come back and shown that it’s actually worse than previously thought. You’re the fool for thinking that something’s going to magicaly appear that vindicates your denial when all the evidence is for you being wrong.
As for destroying your way of life, what utter nonsense. I want to see changes that will make each household, not just each country, develop energy independence. Just think what you could achieve with a net-zero carbon home. No fuel bills, no worries about whether the actions of people in the Middle East, or London or Washington will affect your standard of living. More money. Even if you’re too blind to see the problem, surely you can’t be so dumb as to want to opt out of improving your life.
Oh, I get it alright. You have allowed yourself to be taken in by flawed science. You’ve rejected all the scientific reports that show that the methodology of the reports you believe is based on flawed computer simulations.
The single biggest flaw with globaloney theories is that they get money when they prove there IS globaloney. So, miraculously, they see globaloney everywhere so they can get more money.
But, even that aside, few of even the scientists that believe in it will down play that “fact” of it all. They will throw disqualifiers in to downplay the veracity.
Anyway, I simply have seen enough doubting science out there that I believe it disqualifies the globaloney alarmists.
And STILL, as I said up top, if global climate change comes, we will adapt. So, ultimately, I am not worried that much about it.
Oh, and by the way, your little name calling rant about “energy independence” was amusing. Obviously YOU are “too dumb” to stay on topic without going off track. I never said thing ONE about being against energy independence of new forms of energy.
If you have to resort to misdirection to “prove” your arguments, you obviously haven’t a leg to stand on.
(And for your edification, I am 100% for any new types of energy that proves effective helping us to energy independence. But the two — globaloney and energy — don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other but tangentially.)
“In the meantime, it is foolish to destroy our lives with fear for no reason. Accept what comes and adapt.
Additionally, it is patently obvious that the only thing globaloney turns out to be is a replacement for the failed ideas of socialism. Socialism failed to destroy capitalism and the United States. So, now they hide their attacks under the faux rubric of “saving the earff.””
I don’t know what you thought you were saying, but to me that sounded like dismissal of all the things climate scientists have been advocating- energy efficiency, microgeneration, renewables, reduced reliance on dwindling fossil fuels- that would lead to energy independence. I was simply pointing out that it’s not about destroying our way of life, quite the opposite. A greener future- even if you remain in denial of Carbon etc.s effect on the climate- will be better for all of us.