Recorded June 11, 2006
Listen: MP3 This program was recorded in one, 30-minute segment .
NB: This stream contains both FTR #s 557 and 558 in sequence. Each is a 30 minute broadcast.
Introduction: A recent news story reinforced a mythological explanation for the origin of AIDS—that it originated with chimpanzees in Africa many years ago. In this program, we visit again with Ed Haslam, who has written extensively about simian viruses and their role in creating human diseases. In this program, Ed points out that: Dr. Beatrice Hahn used a blood sample from a chimpanzee (now deceased) housed in a U.S. Air Force laboratory in New Mexico; that the researcher presiding over the primates in that lab deliberately injected the apes with HIV; that the apes were kept in “natural” conditions that permitted the colony’s alpha male to have sexual relations with multiple females in the colony and that genetic markers in the genetic material of HIV were at variance with the chimpanzee hypothesis. In addition, the program sets forth text from a congressional subcommittee hearing that directly forecasts the development of AIDS.
For more about AIDS and the strong probability that it is a man-made disease, see—among other programs—AFA#16  (available from SPITFIRE), as well as FTR#’s 16 , 19 , 225 , 324 , 411 , 47 2 , 504 , 606 , 682 , 686 .)
1. Supplementing FTR#269 , this broadcast features the work of Ed Haslam, author of Dr. Mary’s Monkey. (For more about Ed Haslam, see—among other programs—FTR#’s 16 , 19 , 62 , 63 , 76 , 198 .) The focal point of the broadcast is the [fallacious] claim that the origin of AIDS can be traced to chimpanzees in Africa. Ed points out that the creator of this hypothesis—Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama—drew her conclusion on the basis of a blood sample taken from a female chimpanzee named Marilyn. Kept in an Air Force laboratory in New Mexico, Marilyn was part of a group of chimpanzees that were deliberately injected with the AIDS virus!! Furthermore, the chimpanzees in this particular captive population were maintained in social conditions mirroring those of their natural habitat. Maintained in this colony, the group’s alpha male would have had sexual relations with the other female members of the population, thereby infecting them with any viruses capable of being sexually transmitted! Obviously this negates the accuracy of Hahn’s claim! To examine Hahn’s claim in more detail, see article .
2. The discussion of the origins of AIDS takes place in the context of discussion about the possibility that AIDS is a man-made disease. Mr. Emory read an excerpt from the book A Higher Form of Killing . This excerpt is from testimony before a House appropriations subcommittee that was drawing up the defense budget for the following year. (The hearings were in 1969.) The testimony discusses the possibility of using genetic engineering to produce a disease that would be “refractory” to the immune system. This is virtually the clinical definition of AIDS. It is worth noting that the project was funded, and just such a disease—AIDS—appeared in just the time frame posited. It is also worth noting that, in the 2002 edition of A Higher Form of Killing, this passage is omitted!!
“As long ago as 1962, forty scientists were employed at the U.S. Army biological warfare laboratories on full-time genetics research. ‘Many others,’ it was said, ‘appreciate the implications of genetics for their own work.’ The implications were made more specific that genetic engineering could solve one of the major disadvantages of biological warfare, that it is limited to diseases which occur naturally somewhere in the world. ‘Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective micro-organism which could differ in certain important respects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.’ The possibility that such a ‘super germ’ may have been successfully produced in a laboratory somewhere in the world in the years since that assessment was made is one which should not be too readily cast aside. . .”
3. Indicative of the skewing of the results of the HIV/chimpanzee “investigation” is an article from Nature magazine. Ed points out that the scientists quoted in the article say that the “clocks”—genetic markers denoting the time sequence of the virus’s mutations—don’t support the chimpanzee hypothesis of the origin of AIDS. They note that if the clocks are disregarded, the hypothesis makes sense, and they then endorse the chimp hypothesis. This is at fundamental variance with scientific procedure. If data disproving a hypothesis are discovered, this negates the hypothesis. One doesn’t disregard data that are divergent from the hypothesis in order to validate a preconceived conclusion.
(“HIV-like Virus Found in Chimps”; Nature; 5/22/06)