24

There are lots of places that claim this.

Is there any good evidence for or against this?

Insane
  • 170
  • 10
picakhu
  • 3,158
  • 1
  • 22
  • 42
  • 1
    If the government(or some private group) was bent on genocide, and had the ability to create this disease, and was targeting blacks why not just make one that targeted negroid alleles? – Chad Nov 30 '11 at 20:01
  • Do any sources that don't look like nutters claim this? Are any similar claims made by people who have credibility in other areas (e.g. Linus Pauling, Nobel prize winner, had strange beliefs about vitamin C: his ideas are probably wrong but his prior credibility might make them a little more worthy of investigation). – matt_black Nov 30 '11 at 20:06
  • 3
    @matt_black you don't have to find a professional nutjob making a claim to make it notable, but if you must have some then [here you go](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discredited_AIDS_origins_theories) – dtanders Nov 30 '11 at 21:18
  • 2
    Can the downvoters please say why they are downvoting this question? – Sam I Am Dec 01 '11 at 05:39
  • 1
    I think the comments show clearly why it was downvoted... The claim is so obviously absurd it's not worth debunking. – jwenting Dec 01 '11 at 06:24
  • @SamIAm the question is a bit too basic, maybe? – Sklivvz Dec 01 '11 at 09:53
  • @Chad because viruses mutate, the instigators forgot that, and it got out of control. Obviously. – Kaz Dragon Dec 01 '11 at 10:55
  • 10
    I've +1'd this because I *have* heard people regurgitate this nonsense and I'd like something other than "what nonsense!" to say to them. – Kaz Dragon Dec 01 '11 at 10:56
  • 4
    you can't debunk conspiracy theories (which this is, it's a deliberate hoax launched by people with an anti-western agenda to paint the US as a nation that created HIV to exterminate "the black race') as the conspiracy theorist will just deny any evidence you present as being more proof of the coverup they claim exists to prevent people from finding out "the truth". – jwenting Dec 01 '11 at 11:36
  • 5
    I agree with Kaz. The claims are idiotic and the people who claim (or believe them) are pretty evil (as in, ACTUAL racists who accuse someone of negative characteristics/behavior **on the basis on their race**), but it doesn't mean they aren't worth officially debunking. Skeptics SE is specifically designed for such pseudo-scientific BS claims – user5341 Dec 01 '11 at 11:36
  • @KazDragon - The problem with up voting a question like this is it promotes asking these types of questions with no valid claims or evidence.I do not have a problem with the invented disease so much as the idea that it is intended to target blacks. I have seen references that claimed it was created that had some at least at cursory evaluation the potential for validity. But this has no real scientific backing even attempted. – Chad Dec 01 '11 at 14:44
  • 3
    @jwenting People *still* believe all kinds of "obviously absurd" claims. It is still worth debunking as long as people are still making these claims. – Sam I Am Dec 01 '11 at 17:15
  • There should be a meta question on this matter. I think it quite important. – Jose Luis Dec 05 '11 at 09:43
  • This is a really bad question, yet it gets 4 upvotes just because they guy says he does not believe in it. The so called skeptics here seem to vote entirely on the bases whether they agree with the person, not on whether it is a good question. –  Aug 12 '12 at 15:39
  • 2
    Something else to keep in mind: We have found HIV in samples from the 50s. While we might be able to develop HIV now we certainly couldn't have done it back then. – Loren Pechtel Aug 29 '14 at 20:47
  • When dealing with a conspiracy theory like this, I think there are two complementary approaches to answering it. The first is to provide the "mainstream' explanation for the phenomenon (as given in the accepted answer). However, that will be dismissed as a "cover up" by the conspiracy theorists, so it also helps to show that a conspiracy is implausible....but that also requires a more specific claim of how the conspiracy works. The claim by "wakethefuckup" is absurd -- you don't cover up an AIDS cure by patenting it (which is publicly available). – adam.r Sep 01 '14 at 18:55
  • 2
    I wonder if the conspiracy theorists think [cat AIDS and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feline_immunodeficiency_virus) are man-made as well? – user56reinstatemonica8 Mar 09 '16 at 11:02

1 Answers1

23

There are two HIV variants which stem from two different SIVs (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus):

The only species naturally infected with viruses closely related to HIV-2 is the sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys) from western Africa, the region where HIV-2 is known to be endemic. Similarly, the only viruses very closely related to HIV-1 have been isolated from chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and in particular those from western equatorial Africa, again coinciding with the region that appears to be the hearth of the HIV-1 pandemic.

Ref: P M Sharp, E Bailes, R R Chaudhuri, C M Rodenburg, M O Santiago, and B H Hahn. The origins of acquired immune deficiency syndrome viruses: where and when?, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001 June 29; 356(1410): 867–876.

The abstract goes on to explain that several instances of Zoonosis have been observed in the genetic record of the virus going back before the 1940s when it was certainly not technologically possible to engineer a virus and mass vaccination of humans was not practiced in any case.

This article is where the team that found the (chimpanzee) source of HIV-1 published their findings, but does not include the full source. However, you can get it from the NIH here. And a summary from The Guardian here which mentions origins of HIV-1 dating back before the 1930s.

The more modern transmission events are addressed here:

Our research indicates that serial passage of partially adapted SIV between humans could produce the series of cumulative mutations sufficient for the emergence of epidemic HIV strains. We examined the rapid growth of unsterile injections in Africa beginning in the 1950s as a biologically plausible event capable of greatly increasing serial human passage of SIV and generating HIV by a series of multiple genetic transitions. We conclude that increased unsterile injecting in Africa during the period 1950–1970 provided the agent for SIV human infections to emerge as epidemic HIV in the modern era.

Full text is available from the NIH. By "increasing unsterile injections" they mean

80% of African households had experienced needle use in a two-week period by the 1960s (Birungi et al. 1994)

dtanders
  • 983
  • 6
  • 12