Your assertion that... "are responsible" is what insinuation means is absurd.

All "The River" does is look at "where" AIDS came from, and "where" these vaccines were used, and that's it. Why look at just "where" AIDS came about, when there is way more evidence suggesting that AIDS was requested and manufactured and distributed in those same areas in the mid-1970's?


Secondly, assuming it WAS true (which is hard to do, given the total lack of evidence other than the co-incidence of AIDS coming out of popular site to give vaccinations in both the late fifties [when Jewish doctors were there] and the mid seventies - right before the outbreak) why would you call the scientists responsible and the sponsors of the project NOT responsible?

The link to "The River", is an excerpt from the first chapter only. Buy the book and read it before you comment on what you presume it not to contain.

Because the scientists created the method of vaccination that may have introduced contaminated vaccine into populations. A corporation no doubt, though perhaps unknowing, distributed the vaccine... but humans created that method of vaccination.

"The link to "The River", is an excerpt from the first chapter only. Buy the book and read it before you comment on what you presume it not to contain."

Do you have the book? Have you read it?






"Because the scientists created the method of vaccination that may have introduced contaminated vaccine into populations. A corporation no doubt, though perhaps unknowing, distributed the vaccine... but humans created that method of vaccination. "

I see - everyone has plausable deniability....no liability. Your evidence for that is very, very weak compared to the series of many Litton/Department of Defence contracts for immuno-deficiency bio weapons.

A friend has the book... I have read parts that were his focus. I have not read the whole book.

Plausible deniability???
The virologists that created the method of vaccination would be ruined if their method is ever proven to have contributed to the rapid spread of AIDS (and other diseases).

The manufacturers of the vaccine would be liable through lawsuits for financial compensation of the disaster, if proven.

Liability has to be proven to be satisfied.
I haven't seen anyone running to the court house with Horowitz's book or The River.

Your claim has been that Gallo created AIDS with DoD money in the 70's.
The 1959 plasma sample of human AIDS disproves Gallo and the 70's as the creation of AIDS.

"Your claim has been that Gallo created AIDS with DoD money in the 70's.
The 1959 plasma sample of human AIDS disproves Gallo and the 70's as the creation of AIDS. "


Your own sources disprove that. Listen to the scientist YOU scapegoat explain it to you .... this is from page 14 of this thread (last page)....more than half way down.





"If the AIDS virus had been administered to children in Burundi in 1958 through polio vaccine immunizations, would not a much higher percentage of infected adults than 0.7% be observed in the rural areas? Yet it is the urban area in which the population is heavily (25 to 30%) infected with HIV, and it would seem that the spread in Africa occurs from urban areas to rural areas, not vice versa.

If one were to say that, since we gave polio vaccinations to the population in Leopoldville (now Kinshasa), capital of the former Belgian Congo, we could have started the AIDS epidemic there, we can point out that the same pool of virus material was used for the vaccination of children in L´opoldville and of children in Poland "

That's Koprowski defending his work... refer to the Rolling Stone article for what he addresses.
"The River" is more investigative.

Read on about lots of vaccine and seed lots of virus... again, that is Koprowski defending himself. And he too mentions the 1959 case which precedes your Gallo/70's/AIDS-creation

Regardless of what caused the AIDS virus to become epidemic... it existed in material evidence before your Gallo/70's/Kissinger/DoD theory... as even Koprowski admits.

You're just twisting the truth again.
Your methods of debate are dishonorable, David.
That obviously doesn't matter to you.

"Regardless of what caused the AIDS virus to become epidemic... it existed in material evidence before your Gallo/70's/Kissinger/DoD theory... as even Koprowski admits."

Your "1959" facts, even if they were true, 1) doesn't explain all the immuno-virus weapon requisition forms and budgets lying around all over the place, and doesn't really pin AIDS down to that time and that place anyway. From p. 497 of Emerging Viruses, Horowits addresses the "1959" theory directly:

"Though polio vaccines are also suspected of transmitting HIV-1 and other viruses, the unique epidemiology, and concurrent outbreaks of AIDS in New York City and Central Africa, appears to conicide more closely with the administration of experimental hepatitis B vaccines than with either Salk or Sabin vaccines. The polio vaccine trials were conducted during the mid to late 1950s and early 1960s. Had HIV-1 been transmitted then, the outbreaks would have been more likely to have occured during the late 1960's or early 1970s, that is, almost a decade before the onset of clinical cases, and prior to when molecular genetics indicates HIV-1 evolved."

The 1959 physical evidence/case blows your Gallo/70's/Kissinger/DoD/AIDS-CREATION... out of the water.

Horowitz's key words and phrases...
suspected
appears to coincide
had HIV 1 been
more likely

That paragraph does not address the physical evidence of the 1959 human AIDS plasma sample/case... at all. In fact... the 1959 physical evidence proves that paragraph to be total QUACKERY.

Good night all... sweet dreams to everyone.