There's a documentary about the origins of AIDS (https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/origins-aids/ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uywzbRLz5zc) .

The claim is it was an unintended consequence of developing the polio vaccine, where one of the scientists used poor medical practices that led to it (this same scientist used Africa as his human testing ground, hence, it started there).

Wherever testing was done with this experimental polio vaccine, there were pockets of AIDS outbreaks. There are some additional details in the documentary. It seemed like a pretty compelling case.

Here's the kicker. Someone identified what they thought to be the precursor to the AIDS virus, the previous evolutionary step (it was called virus X), but, the US government wouldn't release the evidence to confirm or disprove that theory. They covered it up.

There has been attempts to debunk the documentary as a "conspiracy theory", and they tackle some (but not all) of the points made in the documentary (much like the MSN fact checkers do).

Hard to know for sure if those fact checkers are honest and accurate (would require some technical medical knowledge), stands to reason that like other fact checkers that they aren't.

The debunking attempts "sound" reasonable (one was about how the virus couldn't transmit via the mechanism described in the documentary, another was about how modeling suggests AIDS is decades older than the documentary claims and hence cannot coincide with polio vaccines ... although, we've all seen how bad modeling can be).

However, they don't address one of the bigger "coincidences", of there being pockets of outbursts everywhere that particular vaccine was distributed in Africa, nor do they address the apparent cover up.

Their debunk also mentions meaningless facts (for the debunk), to try to persuade you of the overall debunk attempt. First one is the documentary supposedly resulted in some African countries being more skeptical of vaccines, and this led to outbreaks of other diseases. So, the "anti-vax" fear narrative. The second, was the scientist being accused (of starting AIDS) denies his medical malpractice and is supposedly angry about the accusation.

There's a documentary about the origins of AIDS (https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/origins-aids/ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uywzbRLz5zc) .

The claim is it was an unintended consequence of developing the polio vaccine, where one of the scientists used poor medical practices that led to it (this same scientist used Africa as his human testing ground, hence, it started there).

Wherever testing was done with this experimental polio vaccine, there were pockets of AIDS outbreaks. There are some additional details in the documentary. It seemed like a pretty compelling case.

Here's the kicker. Someone identified what they thought to be the precursor to the AIDS virus, the previous evolutionary step (it was called virus X), but, the US government wouldn't release the evidence to confirm or disprove that theory. They covered it up.

There has been attempts to debunk the documentary as a "conspiracy theory", and they tackle some (but not all) of the points made in the documentary (much like the MSN fact checkers do).

Hard to know for sure if those fact checkers are honest and accurate (would require some technical medical knowledge), stands to reason that like other fact checkers that they aren't.

The debunking attempts "sound" reasonable (one was about how the virus couldn't transmit via the mechanism described in the documentary, another was about how modeling suggests AIDS is decades older than the documentary claims and hence cannot coincide with polio vaccines ... although, we've all seen how bad modeling can be).

However, they don't address one of the bigger "coincidences", of there being pockets of outbursts everywhere that particular vaccine was distributed in Africa, nor do they address the apparent cover up.

Their debunk also mentions meaningless facts (for the debunk), to try to persuade you of the overall debunk attempt. First one is the documentary supposedly resulted in some African countries being more skeptical of vaccines, and this led to outbreaks of other diseases. So, the "anti vax" fear narrative. The second, was the scientist being accused (of starting AIDS) denies his medical malpractice and being angry about the accusation.

There's a documentary about the origins of AIDS.

The claim is it was an unintended consequence of developing the polio vaccine, where one of the scientists used poor medical practices that led to it (this same scientist used Africa as his human testing ground, hence, it started there).

Wherever testing was done with this experimental polio vaccine, there were pockets of AIDS outbreaks. There are some additional details in the documentary. It seemed like a pretty compelling case.

Here's the kicker. Someone identified what they thought to be the precursor to the AIDS virus, the previous evolutionary step (it was called virus X), but, the US government wouldn't release the evidence to confirm or disprove that theory. They covered it up.

There has been attempts to debunk the documentary as a "conspiracy theory", and they tackle some (but not all) of the points made in the documentary (much like the MSN fact checkers do).

Hard to know for sure if those fact checkers are honest and accurate (would require some technical medical knowledge), stands to reason that like other fact checkers that they aren't.

The debunking attempts "sound" reasonable (one was about how the virus couldn't transmit via the mechanism described in the documentary, another was about how modeling suggests AIDS is decades older than the documentary claims and hence cannot coincide with polio vaccines ... although, we've all seen how bad modeling can be).

However, they don't address one of the bigger "coincidences", of there being pockets of outbursts everywhere that particular vaccine was distributed in Africa, nor do they address the apparent cover up.

Their debunk also mentions meaningless facts (for the debunk), to try to persuade you of the overall debunk attempt. First one is the documentary supposedly resulted in some African countries being more skeptical of vaccines, and this led to outbreaks of other diseases. So, the "anti vax" fear narrative. The second, was the scientist being accused (of starting AIDS) denies his medical malpractice and being angry about the accusation.

There's a documentary about the origins of AIDS.

The claim is it was an unintended consequence of developing the polio vaccine, where one of the scientists used poor medical practices that led to it (this same scientist used Africa as his human testing ground, hence, it started there).

Wherever testing was done with this experimental polio vaccine, there were pockets of AIDS outbreaks. There are some additional details in the documentary. It seemed like a pretty compelling case.

Here's the kicker. Someone identified what they thought to be the precursor to the AIDS virus, the previous evolutionary step (it was called virus X), but, the US government wouldn't release the evidence to confirm or disprove that theory. They covered it up.

There has been attempts to debunk the documentary as a "conspiracy theory", and they tackle some (but not all) of the points made in the documentary (much like the MSN fact checkers do).

Hard to know for sure if those fact checkers are honest and accurate (would require some technical medical knowledge), stands to reason that like other fact checkers that they aren't.

The debunking attempts "sound" reasonable (one was about how the virus couldn't transmit via the mechanism described in the documentary, another was about how modeling suggests AIDS is decades older than the documentary claims and hence cannot coincide with polio vaccines ... although, we've all seen how bad modeling can be).

However, they don't address one of the bigger "coincidences", of there being pockets of outbursts everywhere that particular vaccine was distributed in Africa, nor do they address the apparent cover up.

Their debunk also mentions meaningless facts (for the debunk), to try to persuade you of the overall debunk attempt. First one is the documentary supposedly resulted in some African countries being more skeptical of vaccines, and this led to outbreaks of other diseases. So, the "anti vax" fear narrative. The second, was the scientist being accused of starting AIDS denying his medical malpractice and being angry about the accusation.

There's a documentary about the origins of AIDS.

The claim is it was an unintended consequence of developing the polio vaccine, where one of the scientists used poor medical practices that led to it (this same scientist used Africa as his human testing ground, hence, it started there).

Wherever testing was done with this experimental polio vaccine, there were pockets of AIDS outbreaks. Some more details in the documentary, but it seemed like a pretty compelling case.

Here's the kicker. Someone identified what they thought to be the precursor to the AIDS virus, the previous evolutionary step (it was called virus X), but, the US government wouldn't release the evidence to conform or disprove that theory. They covered it up.

There has been attempts to debunk the documentary as a "conspiracy theory", and they tackle some (but not all) of the points made in the documentary (much like the MSN fact checkers do).

Hard to know for sure if those fact checkers are honest and accurate (would require some technical medical knowledge), stands to reason that like other fact checkers that they aren't.

The debunking attempts "sound" reasonable (one was about how the virus couldn't transmit via the mechanism described in the documentary, another was about how modeling suggests AIDS is decades older than the documentary claims and hence cannot coincide with polio vaccines ... although, we've all seen how bad modeling can be).

However, they don't address one of the bigger "coincidences", of there being pockets of outbursts everywhere that particular vaccine was distributed in Africa, nor do they address the apparent cover up.

Their debunk also mentions meaningless facts (for the debunk), to try to persuade you of the overall debunk attempt. First one is the documentary supposedly resulted in some African countries being more skeptical of vaccines, and this led to outbreaks of other diseases. So, the "anti vax" fear narrative. The second, was the scientist being accused of starting AIDS denying his medical malpractice and being angry about the accusation.

There's a documentary about the origins of AIDS.

The claim is it was an unintended consequence of developing the polio vaccine, where one of the scientists used poor medical practices that led to it (this same scientist used Africa as his human testing ground, hence, it started there).

Wherever testing was done with this experimental polio vaccine, there were pockets of AIDS outbreaks. Some more details in the documentary, but it seemed like a pretty compelling case.

Here's the kicker. Someone identified what they thought to be the precursor to the AIDS virus, the previous evolutionary step (it was called virus X), but, the US government wouldn't release the evidence to conform or disprove that theory. They covered it up.

There has been attempts to debunk the documentary as a "conspiracy theory", and they tackle some (but not all) of the points made in the documentary (much like the MSN fact checkers do).

Hard to know for sure if those fact checkers are honest and accurate (would require some technical medical knowledge), stands to reason that like other fact checkers that they aren't.

The debunking attempts "sound" reasonable (one was about how the virus couldn't transmit via the mechanism described in the documentary, another was about how modeling suggests AIDS is decades older than the documentary claims and hence cannot coincide with polio vaccines ... although, we've all seen how bad modeling can be).

However, they don't adress one of the bigger "coincidences", of there being pockets of outbursts everywhere that particular vaccine was distributed in Africa, nor do they address the apparent cover up.

Their debunk also mentions meaningless facts (for the debunk), to try to persuade you of the overall debunk attempt. First one is the documentary supposedly resulted in some African countrise being more skeptical of vaccines (I wonder why? not like they were guinea pigs or anything), and this led to break outs of other diseases. So, the "anti vax" fear narrative. The second, was the scientist being accused of starting AIDS denying his medical malpractice and being angry about the accusation.

There's a documentary about the origins of AIDS.

The claim is it was an unintended consequence of developing the polio vaccine, where one of the scientists used poor medical practices that led to it (this same scientist used Africa as his human testing ground, hence, it started there).

Wherever testing was done with this experimental polio vaccine, there were pockets of AIDS outbreaks. Some more details in the documentary, but it seemed like a pretty compelling case.

Here's the kicker. Someone identified what they thought to be the precursor to the AIDS virus, the previous evolutionary step (it was called virus X), but, the US government wouldn't release the evidence to conform or disprove that theory. They covered it up.

There has been attempts to debunk the documentary as a "conspiracy theory", and they tackle some (but not all) of the points made in the documentary (much like the MSN fact checkers do).

Hard to know for sure if those fact checkers are honest and accurate (would require some technical medical knowledge), stands to reason that like other fact checkers that they aren't.

The debunking attempts "sound" reasonable (one was about how the virus couldn't transmit via the mechanism described in the documentary, another was about how modeling suggests AIDS is decades older than the documentary claims and hence cannot coincide with polio vaccines ... although, we've all seen how bad modeling can be).

However, they don't adress one of the bigger "coincidences", of there being pockets of outbursts everywhere that particular vaccine was distributed in Africa, nor do they address the apparent cover up.

Their debunk also mentions meaningless facts (for the debunk), to try to persuade you of the overall debunk attempt. First one is the documentary supposedly resulted in some African countrise being more skeptical of vaccines (I wonder why? not like they were guinea pigs or anything), and this led to break outs of other diseases. So, the "anti vax" fear narrative. The second, was the scientist being accused of starting AIDS denying his medical malpractice and being angry about the accusation.

There's a documentary about the origins of AIDS.

The claim is it was an unintended consequence of developing the polio vaccine, where one of the scientists used poor medical practices that led to it (this same scientist used Africa as his human testing ground, hence, it started there).

Wherever testing was done with this experimental polio vaccine, there were pockets of AIDS outbreaks. Some more details in the documentary, but it seemed like a pretty compelling case.

Here's the kicker. Someone identified what they thought to be the precursor to the AIDS virus, the previous evolutionary step (it was called virus X), but, the US government wouldn't release the evidence to conform or disprove that theory. They covered it up.

There has been attempts to debunk the documentary as a "conspiracy theory", and they tackle some (but not all) of the points made in the documentary (much like the MSN fact checkers do).

Hard to know for sure if those fact checkers are honest and accurate (would require some technical medical knowledge), stands to reason that like other fact checkers that they aren't.

The debunking attempts "sound" reasonable (one was about how the virus couldn't transmit via the mechanism described in the documentary, another was about how modeling suggests AIDS is decades older than the documentary claims and hence cannot coincide with polio vaccines ... although, we've all seen how bad modeling can be).

However, they don't adress one of the bigger "coincidences", of there being pockets of outbursts everywhere that particular vaccine was distributed in Africa, nor do they address the apparent cover up.