MovieChat Forums > Les origines du SIDA (2004) Discussion > To answer the question posed in the revi...

To answer the question posed in the review.

posted 19 years ago by wendy-joy
14 replies | jump to latest

The review on this website criticises this film and raises a question, they say: "Now unless I'm missing something, the polio vaccine hypothesis has a serious flaw. The film states that primate organs were the basis of the vaccine that was distributed in the US and given to millions through vaccination. Why, then, would HIV have been transmitted only to the Congolese and not to Americans?"

If you think this represents a serious flaw in the film then you weren't paying much attention, the film expressly states that it was only in the Belgian Congo that they used tissue culture from chimpanzee cells to grow the vaccine in.

The documentary said that only 100ccs of the vaccine was produced in Western labs and this small amount was sent to the various sites around the world to be grown in local tissue cultures.

The small quantity of the vaccine that was sent to the Belgian Congo was reproduced in large enough numbers to use on one million people. The film suggests that the vaccine was grown in Leopoldville in a tissue culture that was produced from the chimpanzees at the Lindi camp.

The hypothesis is that the chimpanzees at Lindi were infected with SIV and that is how the virus jumped species. This didn't happen in the states because obviously the vaccine here wasn't grown in infected tissue culture.

Also it wasn't a "program" to "vaccinate" the Congolese people, it was only an experiment to see if the vaccine worked. The fact that western scientists could "experiment" on a population of one million Congolese is no small scandal in itself.

[–] amazonlucy 19 years ago

"An even deeper question is, what difference does it make how it originated? The important thing is to deal with the here and now."

It matters because understanding the nature of how a disease travels to its victims is key in finding a way to halt its spread. There is quite a difference between ingesting infected monkey flesh and having an infected vaccine given to you. They made that point in the film, its very important to understand the origins of a disease. You might think details don't matter, but if the theory in the film is correct, details may have prevented contaminated vaccines from being administered.

To the poster above you are right on with your answer.

[–] wendy-joy 19 years ago

Absolutely. Of COURSE it makes a difference how it originated and if human error was partly responsible for the death of millions. History repeated itself when Mad Cow Disease crossed over into the human population. If humans unwittingly spread lethal animal viruses then I should bloody well hope that the reasons why are fully exposed and documented so that it never happens again.

"An even deeper question is, what difference does it make how it originated? The important thing is to deal with the here and now."

pff, the most "undeep" question I've ever heard Mr Reviewer.

Watching this documentary made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. I'm a child of the AIDS generation and the virus has made a huge impact on my existence. The possibility that it was spread by an accident of scientific research makes my head spin.

[–] amazonlucy 19 years ago

I grew up in the 80's, born in 79, and since I can remember I've been learning about it and hearing about it. I worry that younger kids, like those in highschool or just entering highschool don't look at it the same way we do because they didn't grow up during all the fear and misinformation about the disease. They didn't hear about Ryan White, they didn't see all the judgment that happened because of the disease, I worry that they don't see it as a serious problem anymore.

[–] magicvoice 18 years ago

I posted on another thread but I think it's important that people see this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12966623/

This pretty much confirms the theory of the film for me. They used SIV infected
organs and the disease made the jump to humands. The article above says that maybe the first human was bitten by an infected chimp. Bitten, my ass.

[–] doomsday_defense2k4 18 years ago

Wendy your thinking is flawed. You must didn't pay attention to the film, hon. There was different batches of the vaccine and this one focuses on the particular batch tested in Africa by Hilary Koprowski. It wasn't the same given in the U.S. Try to be a little more informed the next time you post.

Also a 15 yr old boy died of AIDS in 1969. So who's to sayt some batches weren't contaminated with HIV in the U.S. as well. The chances aren't good that a doctor would've had the forsight to take notes and save samples so that one confirmed case could represent a thousand others, potentially, spread across the world.

[–] gqtaste 18 years ago

boy died in '69? Please!

the first case was in '80.

[–] doomsday_defense2k4 18 years ago

Dummy, you need to do some reserach before you post and make an a-hole out of yourself.

http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/Abstracts/rr99.html

Ignorant post like yours are a true pert peeve of mine. How do you get through life being the way you are? Just curious.

[–] THB999 18 years ago

In response to doomsday_defense2k4:

Perhaps you need to read the reference data you posted again. All it states is that he was a 15-year-old black boy. It does not state where he was born or whether he migrated to the states. For all we know, he could have been a boy who was part of this vaccine program and made his way to the states. If the information you present is accurate, it is quite possible that this supports the theory presented by this film. The data you reference is incomplete and it is obvious that you are the one who needs to do more research.

Perhaps those who read your commentary should read some of your other postings as I have. It certainly is a brilliant body of work. (Not! LMAO) Of course, anyone with half a brain can simply derive that from your initial post.

This is a brilliant film and I hope that everyone who reads this will find the time to watch it. It runs on the Sundance Channel from time to time. I suggest you use it and whatever other data you uncover to make up your own minds.

[–] gqtaste 18 years ago

doomsday, you just convinced me.

as ever
GQtaste

[–] doomsday_defense2k4 18 years ago

Well maybe you should do some actual research and not just read postings because that case is well documented> What I posted was only one link. It is known that he never left the midwest or been out of the country. Common sense says that implies that he was born here if he never been to any other country. If you want my personal views, I'm gonna assume his doctors speculations that he engaged in homosexual activities and was a prostitute and say he probably caught it from someone who had vacationed in Haiti. It's natural to assume that someone who sees prostitutes in Haiti will see them in the USA.

My AIDS timeline include the African Vaccine program by Koprowski. From there it spread to the Haitian workers who took jobs vacated by the Frenh who brought it to their country. Many Haitian mles worked as prostitutes (my only personal source is the extensive Frontline AIDS documentary from a few weeks ago, what I said was basically verbatim from that except citing the vaccine as why it appeared in central Africa) but considered themselves heterosexual. Vacationing gay american males picked HIV up from them as well as the Haitian women. That explains why the original cases in the USA were gay males and heterosexual Haitians.

But going back in time to 1969. Robert R. dated his symptoms to am encounter with a neighborhood "girl" (one of his doctors mentioned that he was not the type to really open up with her being a white woman and him being a teenage black boy so the "Girl" could be a guy.). That encounter gave him the clap. Now you can assume std may have been the catalyst to bring on his full blown AIDS so who knows when he was infected.(All of that except the assumption is from the NY Times article on the story ro either the Chicago tribune one I believe, can't remember but both are archived online).

Maybe you should be a lil' more educated before you attempt a response. It does wonders really.

[–] jsanderson3-1 18 years ago

A prostitute? Why a prostitute? Could only a prostitute have had the disease in the US at that time?

[–] wendy-joy 18 years ago

No doomsday my thinking is not "flawed".

If you re-read my post you will see that the statement that you refer to as being "flawed" is in QUOTATION MARKS.

It is not my statement, it was a statement that was made in one of the reviews of this film on this site. I am referring to it in order to reply to it, hon.

Of course I am completely aware that the allegedly infected vaccine was never tested in America. That is basically the entire thesis of the film.

[–] doomsday_defense2k4 18 years ago

Yeah, you're totally right, I should've read a lot closer.

[–] moviegoingcat 17 years ago

You say: "Also it wasn't a "program" to "vaccinate" the Congolese people, it was only an experiment to see if the vaccine worked. The fact that western scientists could "experiment" on a population of one million Congolese is no small scandal in itself."

In a sense any use of a vaccine anywhere could be called an experiment to see if the vaccine worked. What about scientists in any country experimenting in any way on its own populations without anyone being able to say no? Or are the Congolese holier than others? And we could ask about how much force might be used by tribal chiefs to get compliance from the members of tribes.

Needless to say, the chimpanzees could not say no to having their organs removed while they were alive. Face it..there's a lot wrong with the religion that contains both medicine and medical and pharmaceutical research.
(these comments are by June)( So don't yell at Joe)