Permission granted for anyone to distribute this document, or
parts thereof, free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition no profit is made therefrom, and
that excerpted portions remain intact and complete, including
credit to the original author, Tom Keske.

Subject:      Earliest AIDS, Part I
From:         Tom Keske (trkeske@yahoo.com)
Date:         1998/02/18
Newsgroups:   bit.listserv.gaynet


I have found several new arguments to justify my contention
that AIDS most probably did not exist before the late 1970s.

The question is significant because claims of early AIDS are
used as an argument against the possibility that AIDS might be
a laboratory product.

In several past postings, I pointed out how one HIV infection
in 1950 should have produced a billion by 1980, given an
annual doubling.  Obviously, we saw nothing even close to

This is not to say that the growth curve is expected to be a
smooth, perfect mathematical function.  Of course, it can go
faster and slower.  But historical data shows that an annual
doubling in the early years is a very good approximation to
what really DID happen.  Considering the unprotected blood
supplies and complete lack of knowledge of the dangers, it
should have spread much faster.

There are additional reasons to doubt the claim made this
month concerning the frozen blood sample from 1959, supposedly
showing HIV in a man from the Belgian Congo.

This is hardly the first time that it has occurred to anyone
that we should be checking old blood samples.  We've already
had well over a decade of opportunity to analyze old blood
samples, and would have little excuse for not having already
done so.

In fact, studies HAVE already been made.   The Belgian Congo
case does not merely represent a matter of new information,
where previously we had none.  It is in fact a CONTRADICTION
of existing data, that has as much claim to legitimacy.

In "The Evolution of the AIDS viruses", by David L. Robertson,
phD, of the Laboratory of Structural and Genetic Information,
in Marseilles, France, it states,

   "There is no firm evidence that HIV-1 existed, to
    epidemic levels, before the 1970s, on the contrary
    the evidence seems to indicate that it did not.
    For example, Dube and co-workers could not find any
    instances of HIV-positive blood in 250 Zairean
    frozen plasma samples all dating back to 1969 (Dube
    et al. 1994).  This result is unlikely to be due to
    lack of detection as they successfully confirmed
    positive HTLV samples."

Mind you, Zaire was one of the very hotbeds, one of the
epicenters, of the epidemic.  If AIDS existed in Africa in
1959, it is very peculiar indeed that it could not be found
even a full decade later, in an area that was so hard-hit.

One person debating me on another newsgroup claimed that AIDS
did not spread rapidly at first, because it existed in remote
villages, and finally took off after it entered an urban area.

The "remote village' claim has its own difficulties, which
leads me to suspect government disinformation as a better

In the "AIDS Knowledge Base", maintained by the University of
California, I find a claim:

    "The earliest AIDS case in the United States
     documented with HIV-positive serum and tissues
     occurred in 1968 in a 15 year-old black male
     living in St. Louis, who died on an aggressive
     disseminated Kaposi's sarcoma."

Notice that this is stated as fact, not even qualified as
something merely suspected or suggested, as was the case with
the frozen blood from the Belgian Congo.

The St. Louis case shows a similar weakness.  With a 10-year
average incubation period for AIDS (according to CDC), the
original infection would have been about 1958.  This should
have led to about 4 million in infections in the U.S. by 1980,
with annual doubling.

St. Louis- that is a hell of a "remote village".  Another
excuse would be needed to explain this one away.

Interestingly, St. Louis was NOT one the cities among the
among epicenters of the epidemic.  So, we WERE able to find
HIV in old blood, in locations where AIDS did not break out as
dramatically, yet we were NOT able to find HIV in old blood,
in locations where AIDS did later break out dramatically.
Exactly the opposite of what you should expect.

What accounts for the peculiarities?

Who guards the blood samples?  What security precautions are
taken to ensure that no one doctors them with old samples of
virus?  Is there a continually running video camera?  Is there
a 24-hour armed guard?  Is the blood totally out of government
possession, in independent hands, at all times?

The most distinguished scientists in the world are not
prepared for the possibility of games of intrigue.  They don't
expect it, don't plan for it, don't guard against it, don't
even consider it as a possible factor.  They will assume, at
face value, that they can trust their own government, that no
one will break into their labs.

For a government with a long record of radiation experiments
on human guinea pigs, Tuskegee experiments, Watergate
scandals, Kennedy assassinations, etc- that is a bad

The only hints of the Big Lie that you might ever see are the
contradictions that can't be explained away, as the lies trip
over themselves in small but telltale ways.

In part II, I'll discuss yet another straightforward
contradiction that doesn't seem to be occurring to anyone,

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.


Subject:      Earliest AIDS, Part 2
From:         Tom Keske (trkeske@yahoo.com)
Date:         1998/02/20
Newsgroups:   bit.listserv.gaynet

Earliest AIDS, Part 2

I will continue to explain why the idea that AIDS existed
significantly prior to the late 1970s is in all probability
not only untrue, but ridiculously untrue.  More likely, we are
seeing deliberate misinformation, calculated to obscure a
man-made origin of the epidemic.

One of my key arguments is that the spread of AIDS would have
been far too extensive, over a 20 or 30 year time period, for
us to have failed to have noticed it, earlier.

Let's start by summarizing some of the arguments in favor of
an early origin.

* AIDS started in remote villages of Africa.  It went
unnoticed for years, because these remote location were
virtually cut off from civilization.  No one saw the disease
present, there.  The people were so isolated and backward,
that no one knew or cared about them.  AIDS had no opportunity
to spread outside the village for a long time. At last, when
there was finally migration to urban areas, the epidemic took
off rapidly.

* My assumption of annual doubling is incorrect.  It may
double for a period of time, but not indefinitely.  It has
slowed down in recent years.

* AIDS began in lower-risk populations, and spread more
slowly. When it finally hit high-risk populations, it took off

* We DID have a billion or so HIV infections by 1980. We
merely didn't notice it, because it was misdiagnosed, or
because the infected people were still asymptomatic.

Let's take these, one at a time:

"REMOTE VILLAGES":  One obvious problem with this is that some
of the same people arguing about "remote villages" have also
argued specifically that AIDS existed in the U.S. well before
1970.  Recall for example, how I cited a supposed HIV blood
sample from 1969, in St. Louis.

For the sake of argument, let's forget the U.S. for a minute,
and just concentrate on Africa.

We have a clear paradox, here.  On one hand, Africa is
decimated in many locations- large percentages of entire
nations infected. It would seem that AIDS spreads much FASTER
than in the U.S.

But perhaps we are really talking about two very different
Africas, superimposed on one other.  The Africa of remote
villages, versus the urbanized Africa.  In the former, AIDS
can linger for decades, without spreading widely, or becoming
obvious to the rest of the world.  In the urbanized Africa,
AIDS spreads like wildfire, due to promiscuity, poor health
care, crowding, etc.

Many Africans take offense at both of these stereotypes of
Africa. The "remote village" image, they say, is more in the
minds of Westerners who watch too many Tarzan movies, and is
simply not in tune with history and reality.

The "poor and promiscuous" image is condescending and racist,
they also say.

I agree about the tendency of arrogant Westerners to
stereotype Africa, with very superficial knowledge.  However,
purely for the sake of argument, let's pretend that these
images are true.

A $64 dollar question:  When we examine old blood samples of
Africans, from which of these two very different "Africas" are
we drawing?

The newspaper and Internet articles give no clue.  It makes a
very major difference.  If the samples are from "urbanized"
Africa, we should expect the very rapid spread that goes with
that territory.

On the other hand, if we claim the samples to be from the
"remote village" version of Africa, I would have some other
questions and objections.

We have said that these are villages virtually cut off from
civilization.  If so, how did we come by blood samples, in the
first place?  Supposedly, we barely knew that these villages

Did someone specifically make an exploratory expedition to
hidden, remote villages to take blood samples?  And then to
preserve them for several decades?

For what purpose?   Just so that in the case that several
decades later a deadly epidemic should break out,  we would
know whom to blame?

Obviously, if we were taking blood samples for some reason,
then the villages must have had at least some contact with
civilization.  If large numbers of people there had odd
infections, and were dying of unknown diseases, someone should
have taken notice.

If the old blood samples were not from remote villages, then
we are GUESSING that AIDS originated in remote villages.  The
samples do nothing in themselves to support than contention.
In fact, they would pose a worse problem- if the samples are
from more urbanized areas, then AIDS should have spread all
the more quickly.


The annual doubling effect in gays, then later in women and
teens, is amply documented and often cited.

The rate DOES slow down, in time.  However, it does not slow
down by caprice, by magic, by coincidence, for no reason.
There has to be a REASON for it to slow down.

What are some of the reasons? When we develop a screening test
to protect the blood supply, the rate slows.  If people
finally start paying attention to safe-sex guidelines, and
using condoms, then the rate slows.  If the "high-risk"
subgroups die off, and new infections are "lower-risk" groups,
then the rate slows down.

I point out that NONE of these factors take place, prior to
the detection of the fact that a new disease exists.

Let's contemplate the issue of blood supplies.  In the U.S.
epidemic, the first identified AIDS case was in 1981.

In June of 1982, the CDC first adopted "AIDS" as the official
name of the new disease.  By August of 1982, the CDC first
asked blood banks not to accept blood from "high risk" groups.

By 1985, blood testing commenced, giving nearly 100%
protection of the blood supplies.

In other words, we nipped the blood supply problem in the bud,
taking the first protective actions only two months after we
had even given a name to the disease [1].

Even with this, some 90% of the entire hemophiliac population
of the country had become infected (www.web-depot.com/

Think how very differently the epidemic would have proceeded
if we did not have this quick protection.  If the blood supply
is unsafe, then EVERYONE is a "risk-group".

In the U.S., someone needs blood every 3 seconds.  Some 14
millions pints of blood are given to some 4 million patients,
every year (source: www.americasblood.org).

If you cannot detect a new disease, you cannot likely protect
the blood supply.

There is no controlling of behavior, no cutting down of
partners, no one motivated to use condoms.

IN SPITE of all these advantages, AIDS was doubling annually
for years.  With none of the logical reasons present to make
AIDS slow down, and with factors present in fact to make AIDS
spread much faster, I say that it is completely ridiculous for
anyone to challenge the assumption that AIDS would continue
doubling in America, or in most of the African population.


If AIDS existed in 1950, when should we have reasonably first
expected to become aware of it?

To answer that, I contemplated the question of how we actually
DID first become aware of a problem.

As you know, the first thing that we noticed was an increase
in usual cancers, such as Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), which existed
before AIDS, but was rare.  It became much more common as an
opportunistic infection from HIV.

Nearly everyone knows this much, but I needed more specific
information to determine when it should have become
noticeable.  I figured out what information I needed, and went
in search of it:

What EXACTLY was the incidence of Kaposi's sarcoma before
AIDS?  What percent of AIDS patients develop KS?  How many
cases of KS would it take, to become evident?  A few dozen? A
few hundred? A few thousand?

You can estimate from the growth rate of HIV, how many people
would become HIV+.   To estimate how many have full-blown
AIDS, you take into account the 10-year average incubation
period (cited by CDC).   I discounted all recent infections,
counting only people who would have been infected for at least
a decade.

You can multiply by the percent of HIV+ who should get KS.
Then you compare this to the old rates of KS.

How much of an increase in KS should it have taken to get

I guessed at a doubling or tripling of the normal rate.  I
should suppose that the CDC, not being buffoons, is aware of
the emerging and re-emerging diseases.  Diseases that are
common to one part of the world may encroach on another part
of the world.  Therefore, they should be monitoring the rates
of all diseases, common and uncommon, taking notice of any
sudden, drastic increases.   If a doubling or tripling would
elude them, and they are not doing their job to protect us,
then I will let them correct me.

I would also expect them to take notice if any sizable number
of people are dying of infectious diseases that cannot be
adequately diagnosed.

I did not know in advance how this exercise would turn out. I
laid out the measurement criteria in advance, then set out in
search of the necessary information.

As it turns out, KS had only about 160 cases annually in the
U.S., before AIDS (CDC info).  It occurred mostly in older men
(over 50) of Mediterranean and Jewish heritage [2].  It was
significantly more common in Africa.

As for how many KS cases it would take to get noticed, I found
some confirmation in an old headline from the New York Times,
July 3, 1981:

        "Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals"

My estimate of a doubling or tripling would be 320-480,
turning out to be very generous.

I also found that the rate of KS among AIDS patients decreased
over time, but was in the range of 25% to 50%.

This was all I needed.  If you started with one HIV infection
in 1950, with an annual doubling, how long would it take for
the KS to become noticeable in full-blown AIDS cases?

It works out that you would have an octupling  (x8) of the KS
rate by 1969- more than a full decade before we actually
noticed it, and far in excess of the doubling/tripling

As you can see, when you start digging into the matter in more
depth, the superficial plausibility of 1950s AIDS and "remote
villages" dissipates.

The proposition that AIDS existed significantly before the
late 1970s is not only a lie- it is a preposterous lie.

What, then, does it mean when media reports and distinguished
scientists all persist in a pathetically unrealistic scenario?

I suggest to you that it is a government propaganda effort,
cleverly implemented, but poorly planned.  It probably means
that someone contaminated the blood samples, to try to play
games with the truth as to where and when this epidemic began.

I hope that this propaganda attempt will backfire and actually
have the reverse effect- calling attention to the fact that we
are being told lies, which must have some strong motivation
behind it- something too ugly to dare let the general public

Our government has been caught before, many times, at lies as
shameless, brazen, and elaborate.

I hope, too, that you will see how this argument is like gay
people arguing against the Religious Right.  No matter how
flawless your logic, not one point is conceded- they repeat
themselves like broken records, gibbering about "special
rights" no matter how many times you point out that they
themselves enjoy explicit employment discrimination
protections under the category of religious belief.

It ceases to be a serious debate: people with an ax to grind
simply play Devil's Advocate, play games with words,
shoe-shuffle around straightforward observations that are
virtually irrefutable.

The pro-government, "Don't Worry Be Happy" crowd that pastes a
reassuring smiley face over a probable Holocaust is beyond
reach, as is the Religious Right on homosexuality.   My
concern is to reach impartial parties who don't already have a
load of ego and pride staked in publicly proclaimed position.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.


[1] AIDS History Project, University of California
[2] The Merck Manual, http://www.merck.com
      CDC data: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/akb/1994
      New York Times, 1/1/95, "Breakthrough Seen in Kaposi's


Subject:      Earliest AIDS -correction
From:         Tom Keske (trkeske@yahoo.com)
Date:         1998/02/21
Newsgroups:   alt.conspiracy

Earliest AIDS- minor correction

I found an omission in last night's essay, but it is of a kind
that actually bolsters my primary contention, so I am happy to
report it.

Just after I posted the essay, I felt an urge as if by an
inner, guiding ESP, that I needed to double-check whether my
clipped articles said anything about where the supposed 1959
AIDS blood sample was taken- a city or a remote village.

I was pointing out what a major difference it would make. I
was imagining that it was supposed to be from a remote
village, as I have been contending with arguments that AIDS
lingered, unnoticed, for decades in such settings.  I was
saying that if the blood were from an urban area, this would
be the most credibility-damning scenario of them all.

Most of the articles didn't go into that much detail, but the
original one from the Boston Globe most certainly did- the
blood was from Leopoldville, the capital of the Belgian Congo:
hardly an area qualifying as a "remote village".

I had also been questioning what level of security existed
around the blood sample, where it had been stored.  The
article also answered this- it was stored at Emory University
in Atlanta.

I've freely roamed the halls of enough universities to know
what kind of security likely existed for the blood- next to
none. Contaminating it would have been child's play.

For anyone wanting to work out the details of the calculations
as to when the cases of KS would have become overwhelmingly
impossible to miss- I did this the tedious but straightforward
way, computing iteratively  for each year, testing the result
for one year at a time.  Since it's just a 20-30 year
interval, you don't really even need a program to do it- just
a little patience and a calculator.

It is stunning that 1950 AIDS stories pass with so little
critique. The Globe article was glowing about the scientific
"tour de force".

"Tour de Farce" is more like it.  I think it shows the dangers
of excessive specialization, perhaps.  Some of these
scientists seem to be very "genome sequence"-smart, but
"powers of two"-deprived, thus allowing them to be duped
completely by the klutziest piece of government duplicity
since the Watergate bungling burglary.

I also would like to add another little note as to why we
probably see decimation of large areas of Africa from AIDS.  I
hear scientists saying with straight faces so often about how
it's the promiscuity, or the scarification rituals, or the
poor hygiene, or perhaps it's a strain of virus that spreads
among heterosexuals more easily.

I count among my blessings a wealth of friends and
acquaintances of varied backgrounds.  I have one friend who
has spent years living and working in Africa, returning to the
Boston area in between.  I eagerly sought his opinion as to
why heterosexual AIDS was so wide-spread in Africa compared to
America- was it a different virus strain, or what?

He said that there was little screening of the blood supply,
as one of the primary factors.  I was a little shocked- I
couldn't believe, when our country had screening available in
1985, that we wouldn't take immediate steps to help the rest
of the world protect its blood supplies, also.

"Why hasn't the West helped them more with this?  Wouldn't it
be a crime, a scandal, to just let African blood go
unprotected?" I asked.

He looked at me, with a slight tinge of exasperation at a
naive question.  Comes the dawn- yes, of course it's
scandalous. Congratulations, you finally get through your head
that the West is an indifferent bastard that would let Africa

The lion's share of AIDS research money comes from the U.S.
government.  No wonder our sense of reality is so twisted. How
many scientists will risk the wrath, the loss of funds, by
making a big issue of the simple truth:  AIDS in Africa is in
large part a product of the genocidal indifference of the

When politics intersects with science, intersects with money,
intersects with national pride, intersects with cultural
chauvinism- Science is no more pure than African blood
supplies.  Truth is no more sacred than the lives of our
African brothers.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.


Subject:      Earliest AIDS, Part 3
From:         Tom Keske (trkeske@yahoo.com)
Date:         1998/02/28
Newsgroups:   bit.listserv.gaynet

Earliest AIDS, Part 3

Further investigation continues to raise questions concerning
the supposed case of AIDS in 1959, in a man from the Congo.
There seems to be a fair amount of contradiction in the data,
which perhaps is suggestive of a propaganda effort to obscure
the real origins of the epidemic.

This installment will deal with HIV mutation rate.

I had previously posted some material from Professor Jacob
Segal from Humboldt University in Berlin.  Segal was using the
mutation rate of HIV to argue that HIV could not have existed
before the late 1970s.

I recall that this methodology was ridiculed on one newsgroup,
with the suggestion that is was totally unreasonable to extend
back so far.

It is ironic, then, that in this latest case of supposed early
AIDS, the distinguished Dr. Ho of the Aaron Diamond Research
Center is using the very same methodology, only extending it
back even further, all the way to 1959.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Toufu Zhu argued that AIDS must have originated
around 1959, but could not have existed much before 1959,
based on the mutation rate [1].  They base this on a "steady"
mutation rate of about 1 percent per year in the genetic
material of HIV.

It is not clear, however, that the mutation rate of HIV is
such a simple matter.  Segal was basing his calculations on a
mutation rate of 10% change every 2 years.  This figure seemed
to be backed up by a 1986 study (Hahn et al, Science

When I researched these two competing claims, I found mostly
confusion.  I saw references to HIV mutation as a million
times faster than similar viruses, and references to the rate
as being "remarkable".  Robert Gallo was quoted saying that
HIV mutated "several times per day" [2].   Much literature
emphasized that the human immune system could not keep up with
HIV, because it mutated too quickly.

One reference cited the mutation rate as one per nucleotide
per 10,000 replications, which HIV having anywhere from 1 to
10 billion virus particles produced daily[3].  The "1 to 10
billion" figure seems to give a rather wide range.

Oddly, I still found one reference claiming that the mutation
rate of HIV wasn't all that much different than from colds or

To complicate the matter more, I found a study which suggested
that the mutation rate of HIV could be dramatically impacted
by drugs, with a 7 to 10-fold INCREASE in the mutation rate
caused by AZT [4].

My net conclusion from all of this that you can't assign a
simple number to be the mutation rate of HIV: the picture is
more complicated.

We have a great deal more to discuss about this 1959 claim,
which I am confident will call credibility into question.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.


[1] MSNBC Wire Report, Chicago, 2/3/97
[2] International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care,
[3] Concepts Guiding Anti-HIV Therapy, P.T. Cohen, PhD
[4] Journal of Virology, June 1997, Julias, Kim, Arnold and


Subject:      Earliest AIDS, Part 4
From:         Tom Keske (trkeske@yahoo.com)
Date:         1998/03/01
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.zimbabwe


This is continuing along with the discussion of questionable
aspects in the claims of a 1959 AIDS case in the Congo.


I forgot last time to mention one other problem that I see in
the claims of early AIDS, in consideration of a steady and
rapid HIV mutation rate.

Francois Simon and colleagues at the Centre Pasteur in France
recently reported finding a strain of HIV that seemed halfway
between the human and ape version of the virus (i.e., between
HIV and SIV).  This was from the blood of a Cameroonian woman
who died in 1995 of AIDS [3].

This presents a slight problem.  If I understand correctly, a
rapid and CONSTANT mutation means that you are statistically
likely to move further away from SIV, never back closer to it-
much like an egg being likely to break, but never to jump back
together.  Also, a constant mutation rate means that you will
not simply sit still, with some strains remaining unchanged
for long periods.

If this finding is true, then the scientific community would
seem to have a need to reevaluate one of two hypotheses:
either HIV is younger than they think, or there must have been
multiple crossovers between species- an idea which currently
not supported by a consensus of the scientific community.

Dr. Ho and his team are suggesting that all 10 subtypes of HIV
began with a single species jump, about 50 years ago.  Dr.
Simon's finding would not seem to fit in with this.

I would like to note that in general, an extremely high rate
of mutation tends to be regarded as a measure of instability,
and a sign of a YOUNG virus.   I believe that the high
mutation rate should decrease in time (I am looking for more
sources on this).  I may attempt some calculations, but it
seems to me that if HIV originated before 1959, given its high
mutation rate, we would have more than the 10 subtypes by now,
and they should have been detected earlier.


Some newsgroup readers protested that it was far-fetched to
imagine that the claim about 1959 AIDS might be the product of
sample contamination.

These readers probably do not appreciate one of the ironies in
this episode.  The study of the 1959 Bantu man from
Leopoldville was conducted primarily by Dr. David Ho.

This is the same Dr. Ho who refuted an even earlier study that
claimed a case of 1959 AIDS, involving a sailor from
Manchester, England.  This was not just a matter of being
unable to duplicate the results.  Dr. Ho specifically said
that the Manchester case showed evidence of CONTAMINATION,
that entered the sample "long after" the man died [1].

Drs. Ho and Tuofu Zhu that the 1959 sample contained DNA
sequences essentially identical to a strain of HIV that was
circulating in the late 1980s.  In fact, the researchers
concluded that the tissues examined were "derived from at
least two individuals" [2].

Contaminated, yes, but contaminated how?  By whom?  The
researchers, being scientists and not politicians, in their
innocence, do not speculate on many possibilities.

Mind you, these are blood samples being studied for possible
HIV, and are therefore potentially infectious. They have to be
handled VERY carefully.  If you peruse through some of the
regulations and guidelines of our government, and in typical
universities, you will find that they are voluminous,
detailed, picky: how you handle things, sterilize things, what
you wear, how you label things.  When they specify
disinfecting germicides that are acceptable, they go right
down to the level of how many parts per million of free
available chlorine must be present.

Remember that this Manchester case of supposed 1959 AIDS was
accepted as fact for 5 years before Dr. Ho refuted it.  Dr.
Corbitt, the researcher who published the Manchester study was
indignant at the suggestion of contamination.  So impossible
did it seem to him, that he characterized it in London's daily
"Independent" as a "calculated hoax or a mammoth error".

Yet, in another bizarre twist, Corbitt himself later admitted
publicly that contamination had occurred. In the 9/97 issue of
Lancet, the British medical journal, Corbit and fellow
researcher Andrew Bailey admitted that the virus in the
original sample was a modern strain. They accepted
responsibility for the probable contamination.

Accepting the responsibility is noble, but were they really
this careless?  There are few researchers who would even
conceive of more sinister sources breaking into their lab with
the same boldness that Nixon's CIA spooks used in breaking
into Daniel Ellsberg's office or into the Watergate complex.

If it were deliberate contamination, it would have been very
incompetent contamination.  However, even bungling spooks can
learn from their mistakes, and do it right the next time.  Not
even our best scientists could understand exactly what they
were seeing, what had confused them.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass


[1] MSNBC Wire Report, Chicago, Feb. 3
[2] Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola, Leonard Horowitz
[3] Reuters, "Sample Traces Earliest HIV case to 1959",


From:         Tom Keske (trkeske@yahoo.com)
Date:         1998/03/08
Newsgroups:   gay-net.aids


This is continuing the discussion of why the recent claims of
AIDS supposedly discovered in 1959 are probably not true, and
are likely to be an effort to obscure more unsettling truths.


I think that I have found information explaining some of the
contradictions that I have otherwise been finding about the
mutation rate of HIV.  Some sources characterized it as
"remarkable", while others acted as if it were little
different than that for colds and flu.

Much of the confusion is probably stemming from sloppy
language.  In one context, the "mutation rate" has to do with
the number of genetic changes that occur per reproductive
cycle.  In this sense, HIV is not that all that different than
ordinary viruses.

"The enormous genetic diversity of HIV-1 can be traced to the
unprecedented extent of viral replication, and not any
inherent tendency of HIV to mutate more than other
retroviruses" [1]

The bottom line then is that HIV does have an unusually high
EFFECTIVE mutation rate, not in any one reproductive cycle,
but because it has so many cycles.

I would not object so much to the claims about 1959 AIDS, if
it were acknowledged that there are aspects that do not add
up, and require a further explanation of some sort.  We should
have seen far more cases of HIV, should have seen many more
strains of virus by now, should have been little able to help
but notice the growth of Kaposi's sarcoma,   in such an
extended period of time.    Rather than to offer any
explanations or further theories to explain the shortcomings,
the proponents of the theory seem to act as if nothing is
amiss that even requires explanation.  That is an absurd

* Multiple species crossovers

I was debating offline with an very opinionated and sarcastic
microbiologist concerning a recently discovered strain of
virus that was halfway between HIV and SIV (Francois Simon,
Centre Pasteur).

I was saying that this presented a problem with Ho's theory,
that either the HIV is younger than admitted, or there must
have been multiple species crossovers.  It seemed likely to me
that ground would have to be yielded on one of these two
points.  The huffy microbiologist was claiming that this was
all nonsense.

In the meantime, I found this further information:

"Not one is it likely that HIV-1 and HIV-2 evolved from simian
lentiviruses, but there is also evidence that separate
monkey-to-human transfers occurred.  In particular, HIV-1
subgroup O viruses are so different from all other strains
that they are presumed to have derived from a different
ancestor" [1].

This was exactly my point: the virus that Simon had found
belonged to subgroup O.  The author above is saying that its
existence implies multiple crossovers.

I think that the other key point is not just that the new
virus is genetically DIFFERENT from other HIV, but that it is
genetically so much CLOSER to simian virus.

The microbiologist whom I was debating said that back
mutations (taking you closer to SIV again) can occur, as well.

I am skeptical of this.  Human beings evolved from primates
just as HIV supposedly evolved from SIV.  Are humans likely to
evolve backwards, into monkeys again?

Yes, viruses are simpler, but HIV also has a mutation rate
described as "remarkable".  Virtually every host of the virus
is creating its own strains.

If human beings were changing 1% to 5% of their genetic makeup
every year, after an extended period of time, you would not
merely be left just with a lot of different races or
subspecies.  You would have virtually nothing left resembling
much of the original.  Or, you would find that the mutation
rate slows down in time, as more stable strains develop.

When we find a strain so close to SIV, it could mean one of
TWO things.  Maybe we jumped species more than once.  Or,
maybe HIV has not been around for as long as we think, and all
the different strains are merely owing to its extraordinary
mutation rate, producing this effect in a very SHORT period of

In any case, the microbiologist who gave me such a hard time
is obviously contradicted by the other microbiologist, who did
indeed think that the type O subgroup was evidence of multiple

I'm finding a great deal of such contradictions and serious
lapses of credibility from supposed experts.  This is not even
to mention the utterly bizarre phenomenon of experts like Dr.
Duesberg, who has impeccable credentials, yet argues about HIV
not causing AIDS at all, a position which other experts
describe as "flat earth".

To the microbiologists in the crowd- this is why a layman is
so presumptuous as to try to think for himself.  It's hardly
the ideal, but we simply cannot trust you, or our government

I would suggest that you realize that the image and
credibility problem may be some of your own doing, and try to
work on that.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.

[1] Lentiviruses/HIV: Pathogenesis, Steve Dewhurst, PhD.


Subject:      Earliest AIDS, Part 6
From:         Tom Keske (trkeske@yahoo.com)
Date:         1998/03/29
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.zimbabwe

Earliest AIDS, Part 6

This is to give a few more skeptical comments about the
supposed AIDS virus in a 1959 blood sample from a man in
Kinshasa, the capital of Congo, in central Africa.


You might be assuming that this was a man who died of some
mysterious disease that could not be diagnosed.  Many of the
news articles left this to the imagination.

In fact, even Dr. Ho has admitted that it is not known for
sure if the man was even sick.  No records were kept of the
man's name, and no records of what became of him [1].

The blood samples were not taken as part of a study of
infectious diseases.  They were taken to study a hereditary
blood disorder, namely sickle cell anemia.


Ho and his colleagues admitted that the virus sample had
"degraded", and they were isolating only four small fragments
of two viral genes.

I was curious how long blood samples could be kept, and still
allow for accurate analysis.  I decided to check how long
blood could be preserved for purposes of transfusion.

I realize that the requirements are not identical for the
different purposes.  However, it still gives something of a
sanity check, since the same basic issue of degradation is
involved whether it is a question of suitability for
transfusion, or for forensic investigation and courtroom use,
or for general research.

With special techniques, platelets can now be stored for 5 to
7 days.  Whole blood and red cells, with new preservatives,
can be stored for 5 weeks. Plasma must be frozen below 0
degrees Fahrenheit (a difficulty in Africa), and even then has
a shelf live of 1 year [2]

Remember that the Ho's sample had been in a freezer for nearly
40 years.  To say that is was "degraded" must be putting it

Ho used a technique called "polymerase chain reaction", or
PCR.  This is the same technology that was used by the
prosecution in the O.J. Simpson trial.  Concerns about its
suitability for forensic purposes was one of the factors that
probably led to the acquittal.   The acquittal itself may have
been a miscarriage of justice, but that fact should not
necessarily bias the evaluation of PCR.  The National Research
Council (NCR) issued a report severely criticizing the use of
PCR in such DNA testing [3].

Apparently, one of the criticisms is that PCR is so
extraordinarily sensitive, able to detect just a few molecules
of human DNA, that it also has an exceptional sensitivity to
possible contamination.


Contamination in the earlier 1959 case of the Manchester
sailor was hardly so subtle as to involve just a few stray

The Congo man is at least the third such attempt to pin the
origins of AIDS in 1959.  One of the other 1959 claims came
from Robert Gallo, himself.   This is interesting particularly
in the context that Gallo was also investigated on the charge
that he deliberately contaminated samples in order to hamper
his competition.

The 1959 claims have not yet held up, but researchers keep
trying.  I suspect that there is a particular fondness for
1959, as opposed to 1960, because it creates an illusion of
being an entire decade earlier- a bit like advertising
something as "$19.99" instead of $20.

The suspicion that someone is eager to sell us something, is
part of the suspicion that unscrupulous individuals might
contaminate a sample in order to make the sale.


Why would someone want to sell us something?

Perhaps the answer is in another telltale remark made by Dr.
Ho: that "the virus might have been spread by contaminated
needles used in a mass vaccination campaign".

Dr. Ho and the media are both perfectly aware that the issue
in the minds of many is not merely "contaminated needles". The
question is whether the vaccine ITSELF was contaminated with
virus.  If we are seeking credibility, then why are we so
obviously skirting the real issue?

The very admission that "contaminated needles" may have spread
AIDS in Africa is in fact a significant retreat.  For a long
time, the official line has been that the vaccine programs in
Africa had nothing whatsoever to do with AIDS, no possibility
worth considering.  There would not be this backpeddling, if
it were not clear that the evidence is so overwhelming, that a
strategic concession is necessary in order to preserve the
appearance of honesty.

Strategic concessions, however, are merely another dance step
in a game, the goal of which is still to deny the more
embarrassing and disturbing possibilities.


The same news article [1] said that "Many scientists think
that the virus spread thru people eating infected monkey

As I read this, I feel that I am justifiably puzzled.  I
recall watching a documentary where a man was eating a hot
dog, to assure us that you can't get AIDS from eating anything
with HIV virus.  I recall news articles explaining that HIV is
fragile and would be destroyed by the acids of the stomach.

And of course, if eating infected monkey meat caused AIDS,
then why would oral sex not be equally dangerous?

And of course, if eating infected monkey meat could cause
AIDS, then why is it so preposterous to think that vaccines
manufactured using infected monkey tissues might also have
been a problem?

The things that we are told do not add up, and do not always
have the ring of honesty.  Questions such as why oral sex is
not dangerous, if infected monkey meat is dangerous, demand an
explanation.  The first challenge for the gay community and
the public in general is to wake up to the fact that we are
getting contradictory claims, the details of which could have
substantial implications for our lives.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass

[1] AIDS virus is traced to mid-century Africa, Huntly Collins,
     and "Sample traces earliest HIV case to 1959", Reuters

[2] http://www.larcbs.redcross.org.au/processing.htm

[3] http://www.eur.promega.com/geneticidentity/symposia/


Subject:      Piltdown AIDS
From:         Tom Keske (trkeske@yahoo.com)
Date:         1998/02/05
Newsgroups:   gay-net.aids


Here we go again- the Boston Globe reported today that a
frozen blood sample collected in 1959 from an African man in
the Belgian Congo yielded evidence of the AIDS virus.

I already described, in the case of an English sailor who also
supposedly had AIDS in 1959, why this almost certainly cannot
be true.  The point still keeps coming up, so I'll briefly
restate the argument.

The AIDS epidemic has shown a characteristic annual doubling
pattern during its early phases.  I previously cited data
showing that this had been true for gay men, and is now also
shown in other groups, such as women and teenagers.

It is also a supposition that makes intuitive sense.  The only
supposition necessary for an annual doubling is for each
infected person, on average, to infect one other person in the
course of a full year.  Obviously, promiscuous people,
prostitutes, contaminated blood, could all infect more people
FAR more quickly.

Also, we are talking about a period of time when no one even
knew AIDS to exist.  There was no "safe sex", no testing to
know who was infected.  The infection rate logically should
have been even greater, under such circumstances.  These
factors would have REMAINED true, right up until the time that
we new that we were facing a new virus.

Therefore, it is nothing dramatic to assume an annual
doubling- this is a CONSERVATIVE assumption.  Yet, the effects
of this supposition are dramatic.  If you had even one person
infected with HIV in 1950, you would have had a full billion
infections by 1980, when we first became aware of AIDS.

Obviously, we had no where near a billion infections yet, in
1980.  Therefore, in all probability, there was no one with
AIDS in 1950, at all.

We didn't even know that we had a new problem in 1979, yet in
a few years time, it spread around the world, and became a
major cause of death.  It would be a quite peculiar pattern,
for a virus to linger and loll around so inconspicuously for
decades, then suddenly take off like a race horse.

Again, there is a curious contradiction supported by the camp
that chooses to contend that everything is fine, and nothing
is suspicious.

When we ask why there is so much heterosexual AIDS in Africa,
but so little in America, we are assured that this is not
surprising at all.  There is so much heterosexual promiscuity
in Africa, well OF COURSE it spreads very quickly there.

Yet, when we ask why AIDS would linger in the background for
decades in Africa, not spreading enough to be noticeable, we
are assured that this is not surprising, either.  AIDS isn't a
virus that spreads easily.

Which is it?  The African heterosexual are "very promiscuous",
yet the virus lingers for decades without spreading enough for
us even to notice?

What does it mean, then, when we are told the stories of
frozen blood indicating that AIDS existed in the 1940s?

My opinion is that it means we are being told a deliberate
lie, some calculated misinformation.

In the past few weeks there have been some other Boston Globe
articles revealing past CIA and Pentagon misinformation, that
they apparently now, decades later, feel comfortable to admit.

One story revealed a scheme, using falsified evidence, to
blame any possible Apollo mission failure on sabotage by
Castro.  Another article revealed a scheme to falsify a report
that Cuba had attacked an OAS member, in the event that we
needed a pretext to invade Cuba, during the Cold War tensions.

Yet, the Globe will turn around and act like some gaynet
members- shocked, totally shocked, that anyone could be so
low-minded as to believe in silly "conspiracy theories".

Their editorials pontificate that maybe it is because of an
excessive tendency of the government to slap "Top Secret" on
things that don't need really to be "Top Secret", that causes
the mistrust.  It never seems to occur to them that it is a
long-term, consistent pattern of shameless government lying,
mindlessly parroted by an obedient press, that causes the

The insincerity is evident also in the Globe article about the
1959 Belgian Congo AIDS case.  They admit that there is also a
theory about vaccines linked to emergence of AIDS, but pretend
that it is a matter of "unsterile needles".

They know perfectly well that "unsterile needles" is hardly
the crux of matter, concerning the vaccines.  It is the
significant possibility that AIDS was a laboratory product,
contaminating the vaccine itself, directly.

You have to choose where to put your faith, because you are
going to be confronted with conflicting data in affairs like
these.  It is like Clinton's supposed sexual affairs- you know
that  SOMEONE is lying- whom do you trust?

Excuse me, but once a government tells big lies and gets
caught at it, and once that a government shows a hostility
against a minority that can reach blood-chilling levels, it
has forfeited the right of expectation to trust, virtually
ever again.  That is why it is such a serious thing, for a
government to tell a shameless lie to the public. That is why
it is such a serious thing for Newt Gingrich to be
affectionately putting his arm around Lou Sheldon, who has
only said that he would put gays and AIDS victims in camps.

Excuse me, but I choose to put my trust in the knowledge that
one AIDS case in 1950 means a billion by 1980.  From a basis
in data and assumptions so firm as to be virtually above
denial, it then becomes an exercise in pure logic.

You can't falsify pure logic that states all its assumptions
explicitly, and is openly on display for the world to see. You
CAN falsify lab results as easily as you can falsify
"incontrovertible proof" of nonexistent atrocities by Castro.

The government and the press can tell me all about finding
AIDS as early as the Piltdown Man, as well.  I still won't be
buying it.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.


Subject:      KS and HHV
From:         Tom Keske (trkeske@yahoo.com)
Date:         1998/05/16
Newsgroups:   gay-net.aids


This is an interesting URL about HHV, from the New York
Native, issue #640, July 24, 1995:


Some researchers are strongly touting the role of HHV-8 in
Kaposi's sarcoma, but others are strongly disputing it.  A
Columbia team found HHV in KS tissues, but a French team
disputed the finding, saying that they also found HHV in
healthy skin tissue.

Robert Gallo hotly disputed the role of HHV in KS.  He said
that if HHV were the cause of KS, it "would be the most
unorthodox virus in nature".

Dr Yuan Chang said that her finding was "clear", but Gallo
even labeled as "ridiculous" the planned NCI clinical trials
for anti-herpes drugs such as foscarnet on KS.

Gallo and conventional wisdom both say that KS is found
predominately (almost exclusively) in gay men, not in women or
people who become infected with HIV through routes other than
gay sex (i.e., drug users or transfusion cases).

It would be a mystery, why either HHV or HIV, if they are
responsible for KS, would confine themselves in this way.

The debate underscores something that I typically find when
researching AIDS and its origin:  there are few basic facts
that are undisputed.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.

-----finis (end of document)

Tom Keske