The AIDS-ET Connection Hypothesis.

T he AIDS-ET Connection Hypothesis is a new, unifying scientific concept which explains diverse phenomena relating to HIV/AIDS and Ufology in terms of each other.

A hypothesis is the least well established stage of scientific knowledge, serving primarily as a guideline concept for further study and investigation. All scientific hypotheses must agree with and explain the known facts logically, and as simply as possible.

Anyone in possession of information or desiring to communicate regarding this subject, is invited to contact the author.

Evidence supporting the AIDS-ET Connection Hypothesis is taken from the literatures concerning HIV/AIDS and Ufology. Evidence is published in a book titled The AIDS-ET Connection.

This brief article is necessarily a very limited synopsis of the book; for more information read the book; send $20.00 to 2503 S. 47th St., Omaha NE 68106 USA, or contact Arcturus Books rgirard321@aol.com or For immediate information about the book.

http://www.amazon.com

http://DrPDuke.com

http://Alienscalpel.com/duke.htm

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF HIV/AIDS.

I nfection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) eventually results in the disease Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). AIDS is a brand new, entirely different, lethal human disease; nothing even remotely like it was known before 1979.
HIV replicates in and attacks cells of the human immune system, eventually allowing opportunistic infections which terminate in death (1 - 5). AIDS patients presenting with multiple opportunistic infections are considerably more difficult to treat than situations of disease due to infection by a single organism (3, 4 ).

For a previously unknown (because previously non-existent or harmless) virus to suddenly arise and cause major lethal pandemics, is contrary to all medical and natural experience (1).

There is excellent evidence that HIV infection was initiated on two different, widely separated continents, Africa and North America, at very close to the same time, in two different strains (1,2). The time frame of origination is reliably believed to be between 1910 and 1950 (see references 8 and 9).

The African strain is infective heterosexually, the American strain is infective homosexually (1- 3). Both strains are readily infective by blood transfer.

The origination of these two different viral strains, in two distant locations, at the same time, in two differently susceptible human populations, is entirely contrary to how natural infectious disease works (1,2).

HIV is a retrovirus, necessarily employing the enzyme RNA transcriptase in its replication. RNA transcriptase is notoriously prone to transcription errors, resulting in numerous viral mutations (sudden marked genetic changes) (4). Viral mutations can be expected to select for properties favouring viral survival, such as drug resistance and increased infectivity (4,5).

HIV replicates in and destroys primarily certain cells of the immune system, thereby weakening it over time. Eventually the weakened immune system allows multiple opportunistic infections (1,4).

Until opportunistic infections appear, only laboratory tests reveal infection with HIV during this asymptomatic period. Again, HIV infection can be determined only by laboratory testing, which commonly detects antibodies to the virus (5,6).

HIV's unusually long asymptomatic period averages roughly about 10 years; during this time the infected person may be quite unaware of the fact he/she is infected, and possibly spreading the infection.

When a pregnant woman is HIV infected, her infant is commonly infected during pregnancy and/or during passage through the birth canal, or by breast feeding. Effective treatment before and after birth can be helpful. An HIV infected untreated infant's death by AIDS usually occurs within a few years of birth. (1,2,3)

HIV's sexual spread promotes infection and death among people of the most active age range - in America AIDS is now the most common cause of death for males aged 25 to 44 (5).

It has been said that HIV is the ideal agent of mass human destruction; it is an ideal Biological Warfare (BW) agent, in that it cannot be improved upon (6). If it were more infectious and rapidly lethal, like Ebola, infected persons would be readily identified and quarantined. Then its spread would be effectively halted (2).

With HIV however the spread continues unabated, simply because people don't know (and may not want to know) they have it, and are spreading it to people who don't know they are being infected. Some people may know they are spreading it but don't care (3).

In nature there is always some type of balance between parasitic organism and host. A parasite that kills all its hosts also perishes. No such balance exists between HIV and humans.

The body's major defence against viral infection is the immune system. HIV specifically attacks the immune system, the body's only defence against it.

Then, since HIV attacks the only defence against it, there is no natural defence against HIV (1 - 4), as there is with every other organism. HIV acts contrary to nature. I suggest this is because it originated outside nature.

The official view of HIV origination is that it came from non-human primates, infected with Simian Immuno-deficiency Viruses (SIVs), which somehow became HIV and infected humans (2).

The evidence all contradicts this. SIVs are genetically very different from HIV. They do not cause Simian AIDS - if they did, there would be few if any Simians left. Attempts to infect Simians with HIV and produce AIDS have all failed.

HIV is a new, unique virus, causing a new, unique lethal human disease, AIDS. There is no logical connection in any way between HIV and SIV (6). The idea that HIV originated from SIV is quite scientifically incorrect; it is maintained only due to its political correctness.

Consider these facts. This concept requires that Simians in Africa and North America transmitted two different viral strains, to two differently susceptible human populations, at the same time.

The two different viral strains would have had to originate in the Simians, be promptly transferred to humans (because the virus does not last long outside host cells) and then vanish, because HIV has never been found in Simians.

In addition, numerous attempts to substantiate this concept by infecting Simians including chimpanzees with HIV had all failed. When introduced into Simians HIV always dies; it cannot replicate in this (foreign) host. There is no way HIV could have originated from SIV. Nature simply does not work this way. It never has and it never will.

FALSE CONCEPT THAT HUMANS
CREATED AND SPREAD HIV.

T he foregoing facts have resulted in concepts whereby HIV was created and spread by humans. Then HIV was supposedly created by human Biolgical Warfare research science, and spread either accidentally or purposefully by medical procedures such as innoculation and vaccination (1,7).

All such concepts fail due to the fact that HIV originated at a date when human science was quite incapable of creating it.

According to the work of Wolinsky et al (8), HIV originated around 1950. According to the very recent and supposedly even more exacting work of geneticist Dr. B. Korber (9), the date is more likely around 1930. Human science was quite incapable of creating HIV anywhere around these early dates.

For example: The key enzyme Reverse Transcriptase, detection of which made possible the discovery that HIV was a retrovirus, was discovered in 1970; retroviruses were first discovered in humans in 1978; and the Polymerase chain reaction, central to retroviral research, was discovered in 1983 (10).

It was quite impossible for human science to create HIV around 1950 or earlier, because the essential research and development tools were quite unknown then. The concept that HIV was originated initially by human activity, is contradicted by the scientifically established time frame of HIV's origin.

In addition, even if it were possible, what human being or human organisation would purposefully develop and unleash the infectious lethal virus HIV, which threatens to destroy human civilization and possibly even our species? The concepts of HIV's origination in simians, or by human science, re invalidated and must therefore be discarded.

CATTLE MUTILATIONS, HUMAN
ABDUCTIONS AND HIV.

I nformation supporting HIV's purposeful ET origination comes from reports of cattle mutilations and human abductions. Authentic cattle mutilations occur without any nearby animal tracks or evidence of human activity.

There is very little bleeding because all the blood has been removed prior to mutilation. Laser-like extremely even cuts are found to have removed certain body parts (11,12,). Parts removed are those which in humans are possible sites of HIV transmission (13). I suggest these are taken for study; the left ear is probably taken to retrieve a locator implant.

Cattle blood is genetically relatively similar to human blood (14), and in theory might be a medium for HIV replication.

The concept that cattle mutilations are related to HIV logically and simply explains everything concerning these otherwise incomprehensible phenomena. There is no other logical explanation.

The politically correct idea that animal predators are involved, is readily excluded by the laser-like cuts, absence of blood, absence of tracks, predator avoidance of the carcass, the fact that mutilated parts taken are not good to eat, etc.

And also by the unusual circumstances of death, which in one well documented case was probably due to the homogenized heart inside an intact pericardial membrane (15).

A biocidal light blue gel containing formaldehyde was found on the body cuts and at the formerly pregnant dead cow's rear end. I suggested the biocidal blue gel's main function was to protect the new born calf during its passage through the birth canal (the calf could not be found and is presumed abducted).

A similar light blue gel has been reported in connection with preservation of a dead ET alien body, and treatment of abductee vaginal infections (Reference 6 p. 28). The scientific explanation for cattle mutilations involves UFOs and HIV (16). There is no other logical, simple explanation.

Authentic human abductions by the extra-terrestrial aliens termed "Greys" involve transports to secure locations, followed by medical-type physical examinations which are centred around AIDS.

The major organ systems examined for disease in a routine human physical, such as the heart, digestive tract, liver, lungs, kidneys, nervous system, etc. are given little attention. Instead, there is examination for lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes characteristic of AIDS) in the neck, armpits and groin.

The mouth and eyes are examined (possible opportunistic infections and sites of infection) as is the rectum (possible site of infection). Samples are taken of blood and reproductive materials (but not of urine) (16,17).

I suggest the evidence shows clearly that people are abducted by ET alien Greys to harvest reproductive materials (17), monitor for HIV/AIDs status (18), apply and service implants (19), and obtain information (20).

There is a case documented in writing where an abductee tested HIV positive until his implant was surgically removed, after which he tested and continues to test HIV negative. The implant was hollow and secreted something... (21).

Reasonably assuming the implant was of ET origin (19), this shows a clear connection between ETs and HIV. I emphasise- the concept that cattle mutilation and human abduction phenomena are related to HIV readily, simply and logically explains the known facts concerning both, including facts that are otherwise incomprehensible.

For example, the ubiquitous anal corings of cattle mutilations, and the common mechanical anal probings of male abductees, are readily explained by the fact that this body region is an important site of HIV transmission.

ET ALIEN GREYS AND HIV.

W hen all the foregoing is put together, one arrives at the logical conclusion that the ET alien Greys very probably created and initially spread HIV. The history of humanity shows that when two human societies met, the more technologically advanced societies destroyed the others. How many American Indians are left in America? How many aborigines in Australia? Hawaiians in Hawaii?

© Flying Saucer Review Library of Congress copyright FSR Publications, Ltd. 1981.

Contributions appearing in this magazine do not necessarily reflect its policy and are published without prejudice.