NOTE - This is presented for logical and intellectual debate. I welcome intellectuals to participate but I will ignore emotional responses.

Animal cloning is a scientific advancement. To get to that point where an animal is successfully re-imaged, the path, I am sure, is strewn with many unsuccessful products. Imagine a goat with mouth located where the eyes should have been. The anus is left exposed with no tail to cover it because the tail is mis-positioned midway along its back. What is cloning? It is not an accidental outcome. Cloning is artificially predictive, it is deliberate and it is utilitarian. Cloning is genetic engineering, a process whereby you mess with the DNA of a specie and divert the structure of its organisms from conforming to predictive natural outcome. You manipulate their characteristics and cause it to result in a modified outcome different from its DNA imprint. Through manipulation or cloning or mutation or genetic engineering, whatever you want to call it, you can cause a goat to bark like a dog. You can mutate a snake to loose its predatory function for rats. Or turn a mutated rat loose to hunt on non-engineered rats of its specie. I heard the other day of a new dog specie that glows in the dark. You turn all the lights out at night and you can see the dog radiating flourescence light from its nose and ears. That's a genetic function in jelly fish. So if you take that characteristic and recombine it with the dog DNA, then you have a glowing dog. But then this destroys the natural ability of the dog to conceal itself or to hunt because its glow is serving as advanced warning to preys and equally alerting predators like Hyena to its presence and location. It's a scientific success but a destruction of ecological relationship. A dog with no stealth looses its primary place in the food chain and becomes the hunted, not the hunter.

Genetic engineering is not limited to animals, it is used in agriculture as well. Scientists use molecular biology techniques to modify crop plants created for human and animal consumption. Traditionally bred or grown crops respond to seasonal schedules and are susceptible to damage from insects, birds, drought and so on. But through genetic engineering you can breed plants that yield crop in rapid succession and in larger volume and can endure drought spells or self-shield against insect attacks by generating its own pesticide. This is achieved through complex designs whereby characteristics are cross-transferred between plants or between animal and plants. These applications are advancements in research but they carry tremendous costs to health and population. Healthy and disease free living is factored upon food organisms releasing their nutrients into the human body. Therefore arguments against genetically engineered food (more appropriately, genetically modified organisms) stems upon the possibility that humans will ingest cross-transferred characteristics that endanger life and behavior.

Another application of genetic engineering is in the field of medicine. There are many ways you can administer medicine but two are prominent - by giving it in food/beverage or as a pill/injection. Now, this application makes it more likely that genetic engineering can be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. I will not bore you much about a subject called "mechanisms of social control" but you should familiarize yourself with it if you can. Far more than concerning itself with whether or not terrorists will acquire knowledge of nuclear technology, the government ought to conduct study on their sophistication in scientific knowledge and the understanding of genetic engineering. It takes years to produce nuclear armament and it's such a monstrous project that it's almost impossible to hide it from public awareness and media outing. On the other hand, creating modified organisms in food and medicine for public consumption is less tasking and can easily be decoyed to conceal its intended target. I am sure that the government is well aware of the strategies and all the potentials in these applications. To catch a thief, you first become a thief. How far in the field has the strategies of genetic engineering been deployed and to what extent has the results of its outcome been acknowledge or denied?

Let us start with AIDS virus. A number of people in Europe and America have advanced the theory that HIV and AIDS virus originated from "contaminated polio vaccine". The HIV 1 virus is found in chimpanzee. The virus was mutated as a chracteristic code used in the production of polio vaccine (hence the label "contaminated" but should correctly be "engineered" which was then administered experimentally in Belgian Congo. This was back in colonialism when Congo was under Belgium. The vaccine was given to millions of natives without their informed consent. So the media claim is that AIDS originated in monkeys in the Congo and it was not at all a covert operation by the West. They never explained how humans got it from the monkeys even though they admit its transmission is only possible through blood contact and or sex. Isn't Congo where the famous EBOLA virus was also said to have originated?

In 1996, Pfizer did a similar experiment in Nigeria. Pfizer marketed a drug called "trovan", which had earlier been banned in America and Europe, to the government in Nigeria. The drug trial was deployed in Kano and was to be dispensed to children susceptible to polio from meningitis attack. You see, another polio medicine! The consent of the parents were not obtained. Well, a handful of children died and many more ended up injured or deformed. Genetically engineered medicine, marketed as one thing, but designed for something else. I have often wondered why AIDS thrive amongst black South Africans but white South Africans are largely immune and are disproportionally not casualty to the disease despite the fact that the white men are very promiscously engaged in sex with blacks. It is equally suspicious that AIDS was not a problem in S.A. when it was under white rule. Regardless, given the exposure of what happened in Belgian Congo and in Nigeria, there are enough evidence to support an allegation of wrongdoing and criminal intent from the West to use Africa as experimental laboratory for its researches in genetics engineering. The impact is great on all front but particularly destructive to the human population, health and lifestyles of the African. AIDS is not an attribute of poverty or bad hygiene, it is a weapon of mass destruction, marketed to unsuspecting and non-consetual consumers as a disease fighting drugs.


Just food for thought!

Have you actually thought any of these theories through?

The polio vaccinations given to Africans were orally taken. An oral administration is just about the most inept way of trying to transfer HIV - the lining of the mouth and throat acts as a natural barrier.

Just one of the many other errors in your post concerns Trovan, which was an available drug in the US up until 1999 (three years after the Kanu tests) and which is not a polio vaccine.

Also, the South African AIDS epedemic is considered to have taken hold in 1990 - 4 years before apartheid ended and therefore making your claim that it wasn't a problem under the white regime incorrect.
As for more recent times? What is one to expect from a country who's President (Mbeke) thought that AIDS was only a minor problem and who diverted badly needed funding away from tackling the problem.


I could point out other problems with your theory but simply can't be bothered typing them all up. I'd be here all night!!!