Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!news
From: MACGYVER%INDYCMS.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (MacGyver)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: (2931) No "Genetic Weapon"
Message-ID: <1991Jan25.152917.19782@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 91 15:02:16 GMT
Sender: news@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 39
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu
Archive-Number: 2932

On Fri, 25 Jan 91 06:10:44 pst Support Account for SCI.MED.AIDS said:
>to respond.  I will not deal with the documentation, as this has been
>described previously.  All I will say is that the concept that it became part
>of a vaccination program is basically ridiculous, and that it is "in the drugs"
>on the street, as opposed to the paraphernalia of drug users being
>contaminated,
>is equally or more absurd.
>
>Basically, the science of molecular biology did not exist as such in 1969.
>Let me qualify that: a science called that did exist, and at roughly that time
>I was employed in a laboratory which was called a Molecular Biology Lab;
>however, what we could *DO* as molecular biologists in the early 1970s was
>extraordinarily little.

I do not regularly purchase the magazine and do not have any idea as to the
overall credentials, but one issue of "21st Science & Technology" attempted
to prove a correlation betwixt receiving treatment for Hepatitis-B and the
subsequent contraction of AIDS several months later and attempting to
say this was how it was introduced.  I do not support such a viewpoint, but
just had to purchase it to keep it in my library of ridiculous literature.

>Molecular biology as it exists *today* could not be used to design such an
>entity de novo.  While we know an incredible amount about HIV, particularly
>considering the time frame, we still do not fully understand the interactions
>of molecules that, for example, keep the virus in a latent state.  We are not
>even sure if we know about *all* of them, let along how they might interact
>with the myriad of cellular factors that are available to it.

There seems to be a common theme in the history of development of things:
once something thought "impossible" has been demonstrated to be feasible,
no matter what it was, everyone else seems able to do it, even /s the
"inside information".  I think this line of reasoning could also apply to
AIDS.  i.e. I find it hard to believe some fiendish scientist(s) somehow
devised this bug, yet the rest of the talent in the world cannot undo it.
I just happened to think of an example to my assertion:  nuclear fission,
atomic weapons, etc.  It was theorized, but no one could make it work. Once
it was proven and announced, others followed suit, armed only /c the knowledge
it COULD be done.  While not 'a posteriori' evidence, I think the trend
is concrete enough to continue to this day.