Rev. Wright says that the white man created AIDS to kill off blacks. I have also heard others on the left (and a few on the right) argue something similar. Either it was to kill off blacks, or gays, or drug addicts. Some have suggested that its African origins suggest a CIA testing of viral warfare in that war torn area during the heyday of CIA activity in the early 1970's.

Not one of those theories makes any sense.

Unless your goal is to eradicate humanity, or to create a nuisance for all mankind, germ warfare agents have a few very definite characteristics, and AIDS has none of them.

To be useful as a weapon in warfare, a germ must fit the following criteria:

1. Easily spread so as to infect the maximum number of enemies.
2. Possessing a short incubation period so the effects will be quickly felt
3. Fatal after a short time so as to incapacitate or kill the greatest number in a reasonable time.
4. Controllable with either a vaccine or antibiotics, so that our own troops do not succumb to it.

AIDS is about the worst germ warfare weapon imaginable in all of these regards. It does not spread easily, it takes years to actually present, even then it takes another year or more to kill or even incapacitate those infected, and it is not cured by known antibiotics or antivirals. We also have no vaccine, and, for those who argue that maybe the CIA is just keeping it secret, we have had very little success with vaccines for viral diseases in general, a bacterial or parasitic disease would be a better choice. In fact, that raises another issue: Most germ warfare agents are bacterial for that reason, they are much easier to control. Viral diseases are deadly, but they are also harder to contain, and, in wartime, containment is a characteristic we desire in a weapon.

But let us suppose that AIDS was not developed as a traditional germ warfare agent, but as a terror weapon, or specifically to kill blacks, as Rev. Wright suggests.

First, we have to assume that there are research projects specifically established to design terror weapons, apart from the normal germ warfare research. It seems unlikely, but for this argument I will grant the possibility of a secret lab, deep under CIA headquarters, where such work is done.

So, if the CIA, or maybe the secret US Genocide Agency, or someone, is developing a weapon to target specific groups, would AIDS be their ideal weapon?

I must say, no. AIDS just does not fit the bill. It does not spread that easily, it is not sufficiently targeted, it takes too long to kill anyone, and it still does not allow a cure for those the agency wishes to protect. Let me explain each point in turn.

AIDS, despite all the PSAs, does not spread all that easily. If you want to infect vast numbers, you use an airborne agent. Sexual and blood transmission means a very slow spread of a disease. Admittedly, if the malefactors behind AIDS wanted to kill IV drug users only, then the transmission route may be a good one, but only then.* If the target is anyone other than junkies, the transmission route is a bad choice. And even for junkies it is far from ideal, as sharing needles is not universal, leaving a number of addicts untouched. And, while the sexual transmission route may seem good for targeting homosexuals, the existence of bisexuals and closeted gays means that an STD will not be limited to the gay community for long.

Which brings me to targeting. If the CIA wished to kill only blacks, or gays, or drug addicts, then AIDS was a bad choice. Being an STD it was inevitable it would spread outside of the group supposedly intended. Not one of these groups has sex exclusively within the group, interracial couples, bisexuals, and junkies who sleep with non-junkies would guarantee no group listed would have a contained outbreak.

And there are better choices. Drug addicts have compromised immune systems already, so a disease which required lowered immunity, or exploited hepatitis infections, which are common among drug addicts, would tend to stay within the community of junkies better than AIDS. Likewise, blacks have enough biological differences (sickle cell anemia, body fat percentages and distribution, etc.) that could theoretically be exploited to keep a disease within the black community, that a scatter-shot disease like AIDS seems a bad choice. Again,  only in the case of gays does AIDS seem to be possibly effective, as transmission via anal sex is much higher than other routes. But if it was intended for a group other than homosexuals, AIDS seems very poorly designed.

Nor does the outcome of AIDS seems to be desirable. If the goal was to exterminate a specific group, the designers did a bad job. AIDS can take up to a decade to present after infection and even after someone develops the full disease it can still take years to die. Not only is that a remarkably inefficient way to kill off any group, it is also expensive. If we assume the government is behind AIDS, they picked a means sure to bankrupt the state. Something swift and deadly, such as ebola or a resistant strain of staph would be a much better choice.

Lastly, assuming AIDS was a sinister plot, the plotters would pick a disease against which they could inoculate themselves. Even if it was very narrowly targeted, they would still worry about possible spread. In that case, AIDS is a very bad choice, as our record in immunizing against viruses** and treating them is quite bad. So, were they trying to kill off any subpopulation while protecting themselves, I would think a bacterial agent far more likely.

So, given these considerations, I just don't see the argument that AIDS is manufactured holding much water. Even if we accept for a moment this far-fetched premise, it seems more ideal for targeting gay populations than black ones, but even there it falls short. It just seems to be both too inefficient and too efficient. It takes too long to kill and spreads too slowly, but it is too hard to cure and there is no good vaccine, so it will never kill everyone in the target group, and it will take a long time to kill those it does infect, but it also can infect those who are not a target and there is no way to cure them if it does. It just seems a remarkably poor candidate for use as a weapon.

I never expected to believe in the engineered AIDS myth, but having given it some thought, I can now say it is even less plausible than the 9/11 truther tales or the myth of the blown levees, and that is saying something.

----------------------------------

* By the way, I find it a bit offensive that Rev. Wright says the government picked an STD to kill blacks. Is he arguing that blacks are sexually uncontrolled? Prone to promiscuity? When whites say such things they are pilloried as the most vile of racists, so why can Wright call blacks sexually uncontrolled and be lauded by a large congregation? Or is he saying most blacks are IV drug users? That seems just as offensive. I just don't understand racial politics sometimes.

** I use viruses as it appears to be the accepted English plural. The very late Latin word from which it derives does not appear to have a plural, and, in any case, it is not clear to which declension it belongs. Many who only took a year of Latin assume -us equals second declension, and toss out "virii" as a plural (not "viri", as that means "men"). But -us could also be fourth declension, making "virus" the singular and plural. So, for simplicity, I just use viruses. My favorite site (with which I do not always agree) agrees with me.