AIDS: ‘The Manufactured Virus’From the Official U.S. Govt. Documents House of Rep.
AIDS as a weapon of war
Thu Jun 28 10:59:13 2001While I do believe that AIDS is a weapon being used by the Federal Fraud Machine (FFM) and its allies, I disagree that it is a contagious disease caused by a little retrovirus, many types which exist in the normal human system. There are hundreds of well known doctors, microbiologists, professors, laymen who have proved that AIDS is not caused by HIV but by drugs end/or other immuno suppresive factors. AIDS is really a psyop weapon that actually gets “the AIDS victim” to kill him or herself. Rather than go into a lengthy and detailed explanation, I suggest you visit www.duesberg.com or aidsmyth.com or virusmyth.com. The AIDS dissidents like Dr. Duesberg, Professor of Microbiology at UC, Kerry Mullis, Noble Prize winner for the PCP test, Walter Gilbert of Harvard, Dr. Charlie Thomas formally at John Hopkins and Harvard, and many others get almost no publicity for their views. Dr. Duesberg has paid for his views by losing a $3 million research contract plus almost all of his other non professor revenues. As he told me “If I would come out and say that maybe HIV is partially responsible for AIDS, I could be paid like an NBA star, like Gallo (who stole the HIV virus from Montagnier) is currently. Now I’ll just have to get by on my tenured professor salary.” Most of the biological research at Fort Detrick has been bogus and led nowhere. Yet, a lot of people and companies continue to get rich with such research.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970
United States Senate Library
HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ninety-First Congress
First Session
Subcommittee on Department of Defense
George H. Mahon, Texas, Chairman
Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, Glenard P. Lipscomb, California
Jamie D. Whitten, Mississippi William E. Minshall, Ohio
George W. Andrews, Alabama, John J. Rhodes, Arizona
Daniel J. Flood, Pennsylvania Glenn R. Davis, Wisconsin
John M. Slack, West Virginia, Joseph P. Addabbo, New York
Frank E. Evans, Colorado
Temporarily assigned H.B. 15090
PART 5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Department of the Army
Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency
Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1969
UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY
129
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.
MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?
DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.
MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.
MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be. The time and the cost involved?
DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. The information follows:
The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:
1. All biological agents up the the present time are representitives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientisis in the field., almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of sciences – National Research Council (NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program., and our reluctance to involve the NAS NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.
It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaked lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done. there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.
Population And The American Future
The Report Of The Commission On Population Growth And The American Future
John D. Rockefeller 3rd, Chairman
March 27, 1972
“Letter of Transmittal”
Commission on Population Growth and the American Future
726 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20506
March 27, 1972
To the President and Congress of the United States:
I have the honor to transmit for your consideration the Final Report, containing the findings and recommendations, of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, pursuant to Sec. 8, PL 91-213.
After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.
The recommendations offered by this Commission are directed towards increasing public knowledge of the causes and please consequences of population change, facilitating and guiding the processes of population movement, maximizing information about human reproduction and its consequences for the family, and enabling individuals to avoid unwanted fertility.
To these ends we offer this report in the hope that our findings and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration of an issue that is of great consequence to present and future generations.
Respectfully submitted for the Commission,
John D. Rockefeller 3rd, Chairman
The President
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Commission
Chairman
John D. Rockefeller 3rd
Vice Chairman
Grace Olivarez
Executive Director, Food for All, Inc.
Vice Chairman
Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., M.D.
President, The Institute for the Study of Health and Society
Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.
The Edward Wisner Professor of Public Health
Tulane University Medical Center
David E. Bell
Executive Vice President, The Ford Foundation
Bernard Berelson
President, The Population Council
Arnita Young Boswell
Associate Field Work Professor
School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago
Margaret Bright
Professor, Dept. of Behavioral Sciences and Dept. of Epidemiology
School of Hygiene and Public Health
The Johns Hopkins University
Marilyn Brant Chandler
Housewife, Volunteer, Student
Paul B. Cornely, M.D.
Professor, Dept. of Community Health Practice, College of Medicine
Howard University
Assistant to the Executive Medical Officer
Welfare and Retirement Fund United Mine Workers of America
Alan Cranston
United States Senator
California
Lawrence A. Davis
President, Arkansas Agricultural, Mechanical & Normal College
It is hard to believe the public law that authorized AIDS will be thirty one years old next week. Even more remarkable, that in a score and a half, no one has ever read it!
On March 16, 1970, following significant world events both in medicine and politics, President Richard Milhouse Nixon signed into law the U.S. policy to protect America’s future by “stabilizing” the population of Sub-Sahara Africa. The history leading to the politics is relevant in our further presentation of the “research logic” Flow Chart of the federal virus program. On April 4, 1969, President Richard Nixon did not want to be late. He had been there many times before, but today was special. He wanted the scientific and medical communities from around the world to hear and see his presence as our military scientists and doctors announced, ‘they could effectively make AIDS.’ It was Fort Detrick, Maryland and the ethnic nature of the work would not be printed until November ‘70.
Unbeknownst to the American people, the Special Virus program had been underway since November, 1961. In a real sense, the current trillion dollar ‘tax’ “give back” to U.S. taxpayers, is in essence the benefit of our sharpened ability to kill humans for a better tomorrow for our financial investment in our trust in God.
The 1971 Flow Chart proves the United States sought to co-mingle animal viruses (Visna) that had never before been seen in human disease. Thus, at what point did the population projections of Africa necessitate this “long standing secret virus program?” It appears that shortly after WW2, and the importation of the German (Operation Paperclip) and Japanese biological experts, the U.S. State Department wrote a top secret memo under the pen of George W. McKennan. The United States knew in 1948 it had to ‘devise a scheme’ to implant the German Visna in the human population and assist the Black population in copulating itself into extinction. Why? Why? Why would the ’so-called’ greatest “people-oriented” country in the history of the world have an Oz-like curtain behind which reveals a twisted, evil social structure so contrary to the very fabric of the core Constitutional foundations?
As Zbigniev Brezinski says in his classic 1978 National Security Council Memorandum #46: “Africa’s resources remain our “highest priority”"! (Translation: If we allow the Africans to use of all their own diamonds and gold, we won’t have anything physical to show that we are not available for sex for others.)
So what we have done over the last fifty three years is come up with a way to make it appear that Africa’s people are “sexually nasty”. Thus African deaths are palatable. These people are dying solely because of their behavior. Sort of the same thing that happened to homosexuals.
In other words, we are going to secretly make AIDS and not tell you, so if you never stray from ‘monogamous missionary’, you won’t have anything to worry about. Yeah, yeah, mr. government, please give us more concocted social skills tests that end in state death. Even though you can’t see it now, we will all be crucified.
But as it was, Nixon helicoptered back down to the Wh— House and got busy. They were going to do it. No more White on White crime, we are going to get those darkies. Adolph was wrong, why check for foreskins to determine who your enemy is when you need only look toward his (face).
Wasting no time to get to waste Blacks, in May 1969, Nixon authorized the United Nations Association of the United States of America to issue the first of the U.S. policy decisions carving out a U.S future world with Africa’s resources void her people.
On June 9, The Pentagon informed the U.S. Congress and presto, there it is. The trickster’s manifesto as to why we would quickly need something like AIDS (which we had just made).
President Nixon’s “Special Message to the Congress on Problems of Population Growth” 7/18/69 is the crown jewel of the ideology of eugenics and racism. Again, though, who could possibly have known and have been able to see through this government matrix? Reflect back that we were distracted frequently throughout the entire decade of the 60’s and 70’s. Kennedy, King, Kennedy (KKK) and Vietnam.
A very strong case builds that the desire to introduce Visna (wasting) into humans is the direct result of the true tilt of the ethnic/social landscape to the detriment of racial and social minorities.
With Nixon’s law authorizing eugenics czar, John D. Rockefeller, III to lead the charge to cull the Black population, the U.S. Congress is dog-tied from citizen overview of the Population Commission (“COMMISSION”). AIDS is official U.S. policy. However, it is only outlined until the end of the 20th Century. Our call for review is just, it is our union which is imperfect.
Join our petition call for immediate review of the 1971 Flow Chart and 15 progress reports of the U.S. federal virus program, the Special Virus. By reviewing this program we conclude this is our best chance to most effectively and directly begin the universal collaboration to dismantle this synthetic biological agent we have come to call AIDS.
I see a brightening American and united world future, of course, band-aids of truth everywhere, and ultimately, a humanity on the mend.
aids the virus official u s house weapon war
