PDA

View Full Version : AIDS caused by polio virus theory



mathyou9
2005-Jan-17, 05:14 AM
DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT believe this theory, but I never heard of it until today for the first time from my wife telling me that her dad (a chiropractor) supports this theory.

According to my wife who said [or at least implied] according to her father:

[... that [in the 1950s] the vaccine was being cultured on monkey organs where said virus was present. Then when the virus was administered to natives in Africa, they became infected.]

I asked how it came from Africa to the rest of the world. She said:

[... that a stewardess on a plane had apparently done "the deed" with one of the locals in Africa who was infected. Then back at home, she [the stewardess] passed it on to her husband, who was gay who passed it on to his associates.]

I asked her for evidence that supports this idea (esp. the burden of proof about trying to prove the whole "stewardess and her husband" bit.) This seems like a highly illogical theory, and I told her that. I brought up Occam's razor and told her that such a theory is not the most simple theory to explain AIDS; on the contrary, it's rather complex (esp. with the stewardess and her husband, et. al.)

Anyway, I did a few google searches to find that the original polio vaccines from the 1950s were tested for HIV (and SIV, chimpanzee equivalent) and the tests were negative, thus disproving this ridiculous theory.

I felt the need to bring this up here in a scientific forum for discussion/debunking (mostly for the enlightenment of those like me, who never heard this theory before.)

Makgraf
2005-Jan-17, 05:23 AM
I think there's a bit of reality where one part of that theory could've emerged. IIRC, "Patient Zero" in the US was a stewart who got AIDS in Africa and then spread it into America.

I think conspiracy theories pop up about stuff like this is because it's just human nature to want to blame someone. That's why you had (some crazy) people saying that the US government started the tsunami. Of course the truth in these matters is that someones bad stuff happens.

Maksutov
2005-Jan-17, 05:40 AM
There's another angle to consider.

Chiropractors believe that all illnesses can be cured without drugs. They believe that all drugs are bad and nasty. Instead a chiropractor's position is that any illness can be cured through the manipulation of the spine.

Therefore it behooves chiropractors not only to not prescribe drugs, but also to be very credulous when it comes to stories, no matter how apocryphal, that show drugs, including vaccines, in a poor light.

mathyou9
2005-Jan-17, 05:47 AM
There's another angle to consider.

Chiropractors believe that all illnesses can be cured without drugs. They believe that all drugs are bad and nasty. Instead a chiropractor's position is that any illness can be cured through the manipulation of the spine.

Therefore it behooves chiropractors not only to not prescribe drugs, but also to be very credulous when it comes to stories, no matter how apocryphal, that show drugs, including vaccines, in a poor light.

I totally agree with you (esp. after being around my father-in-law, said chiropractor in initial post.) Interestingly though, I found this article (http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/18/23/05.html) with the headline, Scientists Find No Link Between Polio Vaccine and AIDS at a "pro-chiropractic" website. It caught me off guard. I think I will e-mail my father-in-law the link, I'll bet he may find it interesting.

Candy
2005-Jan-17, 07:54 AM
IIRC, "Patient Zero" in the US was a stewart who got AIDS in Africa and then spread it into America. steward

Argos
2005-Jan-17, 12:49 PM
Natives in Africa...

I think the word "native" is ladden with prejudice. I think it would be better to employ the expression "the people in Africa".

AstroSmurf
2005-Jan-17, 02:02 PM
Chiropractors believe that all illnesses can be cured without drugs.
Hehe, I've been confused by notes about chiropractors in the past here, because in Sweden, 'kiropraktorer'/'sjukgymnaster' are quite respected - not quite on the M.D. level but nearly as high. I'm not quite sure what the equivalent term would be in English. Physical therapists?

At any rate, its by no means a one-approach-solves-all thinking here, but more of applying the correct means to a certain situation, and physical therapy can work wonders for some problems.

Amadeus
2005-Jan-17, 02:13 PM
I think that chiropractors have gotten a bad name in the states because of a lot of fraudulent claims made by those practising there.
(source of informtion is that Penn & Teller show with the name I cannot mention here)

Here in the UK they seem to be ok and just help you out when you have back problems.

Kebsis
2005-Jan-17, 02:14 PM
Chiropractors believe that all illnesses can be cured without drugs.
Hehe, I've been confused by notes about chiropractors in the past here, because in Sweden, 'kiropraktorer'/'sjukgymnaster' are quite respected - not quite on the M.D. level but nearly as high. I'm not quite sure what the equivalent term would be in English. Physical therapists?

At any rate, its by no means a one-approach-solves-all thinking here, but more of applying the correct means to a certain situation, and physical therapy can work wonders for some problems.

Most people I know just consider chiropractors to be 'back doctors'.

Swift
2005-Jan-17, 02:44 PM
We had a discussion previously here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16894&start=0&postdays=0&postorder =asc&highlight=aids).
I've read articles about this idea, I don't remember details. I believe the idea was that Western drug companies tried out experimental vacines based on Monkey viruses in Africa and this transfered the AIDs virus (HIV) to people in Africa. I believe the evidence is very weak at best.

Edited to add:
Here (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/37185;jsessionid=aaabr7NrY_U7p4) is the abstract for one article about this idea from American Scientist. Sorry you have to be a member to see the full article.

Donnie B.
2005-Jan-17, 03:16 PM
There's some evidence that HIV's origin goes back well before the 1950s. Obviously, this would preclude the polio vaccine as the source of transmission.


In January 2000, the results of a new study presented at the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, suggested that the first case of HIV infection occurred around 1930 in West Africa. The study was carried out by Dr Bette Korber of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The estimate of 1930 (which does have a 20 year margin of error), is based on a complicated computer model of HIV's evolution.

Amadeus
2005-Jan-17, 03:23 PM
There's some evidence that HIV's origin goes back well before the 1950s. Obviously, this would preclude the polio vaccine as the source of transmission.


In January 2000, the results of a new study presented at the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, suggested that the first case of HIV infection occurred around 1930 in West Africa. The study was carried out by Dr Bette Korber of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The estimate of 1930 (which does have a 20 year margin of error), is based on a complicated computer model of HIV's evolution.

Well there's nothing to say that there just has to have been one outbreak?

This could have happend many times before in the past. However now people are moving abotu the globe a lot more this is when previously small scale infections because widespread. In the past a village might have contracted it with the result of that village dieing out. If that village did not have a lot of contact with others then the infection would have ended there.

Sammy
2005-Jan-17, 04:36 PM
A note from Quackwatch at http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/chiroimmu.html


In April 2000, the medical journal Pediatrics published a detailed report on chiropractors and immunization. The authors, two of whom were Canadian chiropractors, concluded:

Because early chiropractic dogma eschews both the germ theory of disease and vaccines, adherents can reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccination is a highly effective methods of controlling infectious disease because this does not conform to [chiropractic's] "major premise." However, not all antivaccination chiropractors fit into this category. Some may have been unduly influenced by the antivaccination literature, while others may have rejected it for less than altruistic reasons: for example, there may be a financial advantage in maintaining a health care practice that is totally distinct from medical care. Whatever their reasons, antivaccination chiropractors and the methods by which some disseminate their views are a continuing source of embarrassment to their more evidence-based colleagues.

Lots more in the full article

Amadeus
2005-Jan-17, 04:47 PM
This is all very alien to me in the UK.

To most people chiropractors are people that sort your back out.

Irishman
2005-Jan-17, 04:57 PM
I live in the US, and until finding out about chiropractors in adulthood (and the basis for chiropractic, etc), I also thought a chiropractor was some type of back doctor. Now I know better.

Bawheid
2005-Jan-17, 05:07 PM
This is all very alien to me in the UK.

To most people chiropractors are people that sort your back out.

I have just checked with a colleague whose husband is a chiropractor and she says this is a UK/US thing. UK chiropractors are back/muscle guys with a four year course and a professional body (http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm) who treat biomechanical problems. The other kind can't call themselves chiropractors here.

Donnie B.
2005-Jan-17, 10:25 PM
Sounds like what the UK calls chiropractors is similar to what are called osteopaths in the US.

What we Merkuns call chiropractors, well, there's another name for them -- but the BA frowns on ad hominems...

*cough* quacks *cough*

Gillianren
2005-Jan-17, 11:50 PM
well, my chiropractor did wonders for my back, when I was in hs. it's not cured, but I can't afford the six months' recovery time, thank you.

and "Patient Zero" was Gaetan Dugas, a steward for Air Canada.

beskeptical
2005-Jan-18, 02:13 AM
Please, this thread is very important. Don't hijack it too far with chiropractic discussions, as important as that subject is also.

Back to the HIV.

First, don't confuse speculation, with hypothesis and..

Don't confuse hypothesis with theory. We work hard enough on that one in the evolution threads.

This HIV from polio vaccine, from small pox vaccine and/or from a CIA bioweapons program to a CIA 'kill off all Africans program' are at best woowoo speculation and at worst calculated defamation rumors. I don't think any serious evidence exists that could even put this into an hypothesis category.

I have a video tape of some bizarre lecture where the presenter puts up all sorts of really bad or fake science stuff on the overhead and supposedly shows how the HIV virus is similar to cow pox and how it could have resulted from small pox vaccine manufacture.

It doesn't have the molecular stuff even close to correct and it is even more ridiculous how the speaker claims small pox vaccine is manufactured. But if you didn't know that, there is enough 'mumbo jumbo' fake science to be convincing.

Recently, a large number of people in several African countries actually stopped using polio vaccine because of some rumor that it contained a chemical intended to make Muslim women sterile. The result has been an ongoing polio resurgence.

The President of South Africa announced publicly as did one of the recent Nobel Prize winners that HIV did not cause AIDS.

There are incredibly serious consequences to these myths and they involve prominent citizens and persons who should be educated enough so as to not buy into this junk. It's as if the folks on GLP were the leaders of the country instead of whoever they are. (Egad, maybe the GLPers are not who we may think they are).

As scientists, educators, medical practitioners, and just plain well informed persons, we should be extremely concerned about the ignorance out there. It's more than just fighting Lunar landing lunacy when kids get polio, and a poor nation is deprived of government funded HIV drugs because of the inability of so many people in the population to understand the most basic science foundation, that of evidence.

What is evidence, how to interpret it, how to find it, how to evaluate research, how to tell if what you are hearing is utter nonsense or not. Why is this such a hard thing to get across to people despite the information that is available to all of us via the Internet?

All the research and science advances in the world are going to be wasted on over half the population if we don't solve this problem.

Well, this is a tad broader than the OP of just the HIV myth. Those of you who prefer to discuss just that aspect can bring it back OT. I don't have any solutions anyway. :cry: It is mind boggling to see such bizarre thinking.