Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

KellyHogan · Jun 5, 2002, 03:41 AM

The news reports that cases of HIV will triple in Russia in the next five years. Prior to 1989 there was only one person in Russia with AIDS.

Some scientists say that AIDS came about from eating or mating with monkeys. Some don't have an answer. But we know that if it occured from eating or mating with monkeys then it should have appeared thousands of years ago and decimated the human race by now. It appears however during the Cold War during the height of scientific exploration into biological warfare.

smacintush · Jun 5, 2002, 03:48 AM

Well, God is a figment of Man's imagination, so that option is out.

I've NEVER EVER heard ANYONE with any credibility suggest or offer evidence that it is man made, so I can't vote for that.

It isn't too touchy for ME.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> But we know that if it occured from eating or mating with monkeys then it should have appeared thousands of years ago and decimated the human race by now. <hr /></blockquote>This just isn't true. Viruses mutate all the time on their own.

KellyHogan · Jun 5, 2002, 03:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> But we know that if it occured from eating or mating with monkeys then it should have appeared thousands of years ago and decimated the human race by now. <hr /></blockquote>This just isn't true. Viruses mutate all the time on their own.<hr /></blockquote>But in this case the host doesn't seem to be able to adapt to the virus and the virus can keep mutating as if engineered to do so. There have been very very few cases of people being immune to AIDS though. Something like less than 5 cases.

smacintush · Jun 5, 2002, 04:39 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> But we know that if it occured from eating or mating with monkeys then it should have appeared thousands of years ago and decimated the human race by now. <hr /></blockquote>This just isn't true. Viruses mutate all the time on their own.<hr /></blockquote>But in this case the host doesn't seem to be able to adapt to the virus and the virus can keep mutating as if engineered to do so. There have been very very few cases of people being immune to AIDS though. Something like less than 5 cases.<hr /></blockquote>Influenza does the same thing. every year there is at least one new strain.

The common cold is utterly incurable because of constant mutation.

There are only 5 major strains of AIDS.

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 5, 2002, 06:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> But we know that if it occured from eating or mating with monkeys then it should have appeared thousands of years ago and decimated the human race by now. <hr /></blockquote>This just isn't true. Viruses mutate all the time on their own.<hr /></blockquote>But in this case the host doesn't seem to be able to adapt to the virus and the virus can keep mutating as if engineered to do so. There have been very very few cases of people being immune to AIDS though. Something like less than 5 cases.<hr /></blockquote>Its a lot more than 5 cases. In the strain common in North America its more like 10% of the population.

Kelly Hogan. AIDS is an extremely sensitive subject to many people who know people who live with HIV. Applying your wacked conspiritorial worldview to it is extremely offensive. Please choose something else.

Cipher13 · Jun 5, 2002, 06:46 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
The news reports that cases of HIV will triple in Russia in the next five years. Prior to 1989 there was only one person in Russia with AIDS.

Some scientists say that AIDS came about from eating or mating with monkeys. Some don't have an answer. But we know that if it occured from eating or mating with monkeys then it should have appeared thousands of years ago and decimated the human race by now. It appears however during the Cold War during the height of scientific exploration into biological warfare.<hr /></blockquote>One person? Haha. Yeah, right.

Where'd you hear that?

One KNOWN case, maybe.

By the same merits, a whole lot of people have it and don't know it; and even more are immune and don't know it.

The VAST majority of people have no idea at all whether they're immune, or whether they have it, or what.

juanvaldes · Jun 5, 2002, 06:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Its a lot more than 5 cases. In the strain common in North America its more like 10% of the population.<hr /></blockquote>He means 5 variants of AIDS, not 5 people with it.

Personally I don't buy that 10% have aids in north america, more like 1%. Otherwise alot of people I know are walking around right now..

M�lum · Jun 5, 2002, 07:06 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Kelly Hogan. AIDS is an extremely sensitive subject to many people who know people who live with HIV. Applying your wacked conspiritorial worldview to it is extremely offensive. Please choose something else.<hr /></blockquote>Oh F@!k off!
I know several HIV positive person, I knew several people who died from AIDS and I'm not offended at all. Scruw your political correctness.

Asking questions is an OBLIGATION to every person with some brains.

But Kelly, Virii can be dormant and "wake-up" due to whatever reason.
Also, as you indicate, the AIDS virus mutates. so It can have mutated froma harmless virus into a harmfull one. And we discovered AIDS only when it became harmfull because their was no need (and no instuments) to look for it when it was harmless.

(Scientists have found a 1959 HIV+ blood sample that they say proves there was human AIDS in Africa prior to WWII -- and before the widely suspected "bad" polio vaccine was given, so long before the cold war)

[ 06-05-2002, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: M�lum ]

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 5, 2002, 07:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Its a lot more than 5 cases. In the strain common in North America its more like 10% of the population.<hr /></blockquote>He means 5 variants of AIDS, not 5 people with it.

Personally I don't buy that 10% have aids in north america, more like 1%. Otherwise alot of people I know are walking around right now..<hr /></blockquote>I didn't say anything about the infection rate. I was only responding to to the assertion that only 5 documented cases of natural immunity have been documented. It's far more.

[ 06-05-2002, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: SimeyTheLimey ]

Spheric Harlot · Jun 5, 2002, 07:11 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
Personally I don't buy that 10% have aids in north america, more like 1%. Otherwise alot of people I know are walking around right now..<hr /></blockquote>...and that would a REALLY good attitude to have. HIV infection has risen sharply over the last few years, *especially* among heterosexual under-25-year-olds, who often seem to think it's a generational or minority problem and don't protect themselves, or whose parents didn't see to proper sex-ed in the firm assurance that education towards chastity actually works.

-s*

Cipher13 · Jun 5, 2002, 07:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Kelly Hogan. AIDS is an extremely sensitive subject to many people who know people who live with HIV. Applying your wacked conspiritorial worldview to it is extremely offensive. Please choose something else.<hr /></blockquote>Oh F@!k off!
I know several HIV positive person, I knew several people who died from AIDS and I'm not offended at all. Scruw your political correctness.

Asking questions is an OBLIGATION to every person with some brains.

But Kelly, Virii can be dormant and "wake-up" due to whatever reason.
Also, as you indicate, the AIDS virus mutates. so It can have mutated froma harmless virus into a harmfull one. And we discovered AIDS only when it became harmfull because their was no need (and no instuments) to look for it when it was harmless.

(Scientists have found a 1959 HIV+ blood sample that they say proves there was human AIDS in Africa prior to WWII -- and before the widely suspected "bad" polio vaccine was given, so long before the cold war)<hr /></blockquote>"Young" deaths were the norm a while ago, anyway.
Nobody would have seen somebody dying at 30 suspiscious; or, they would have blamed it on some other disease.

Believe me, AIDS has been around for a long, long time.

juanvaldes · Jun 5, 2002, 07:41 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
Personally I don't buy that 10% have aids in north america, more like 1%. Otherwise alot of people I know are walking around right now..<hr /></blockquote>...and that would a REALLY good attitude to have. HIV infection has risen sharply over the last few years, *especially* among heterosexual under-25-year-olds, who often seem to think it's a generational or minority problem and don't protect themselves, or whose parents didn't see to proper sex-ed in the firm assurance that education towards chastity actually works.

-s*<hr /></blockquote>I normaly have great respect for you man but for that, **** YOU!!!

You know very little about me so don't go saying that I have sex with whoever and don't have protection or do anything about it. A very close friend of mine has/d aids and it's ****ing ****ed. I'm not ****ing 50 or some ****, people are people, dont' ****ing matter where we come from or what our background is, were all the same to a virus. **** it....

Tigerabbit · Jun 5, 2002, 01:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
Some scientists say that AIDS came about from eating or mating with monkeys. Some don't have an answer. But we know that if it occured from eating or mating with monkeys then it should have appeared thousands of years ago and decimated the human race by now. It appears however during the Cold War during the height of scientific exploration into biological warfare.<hr /></blockquote>This is a textbook case of false trichotomy. You've confused source with cause (HIV may have spread to humans via monkey sex, but HIV is not CAUSED by said sex). You've also forgotten that mutations occur randomly, and HIV has relatives that are non-virulent to humans .Additionally, you have a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, along with associating coincidence with conspiratorial factors.

Now, if you want a conspiracy, try this. It is diametrically opposed to your theory, and yet has many of the same players and some actual science behind it. I'm not saying it's true, but it's more plausible that the drivel you spew. <a href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm</a>

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 01:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
Personally I don't buy that 10% have aids in north america, more like 1%. Otherwise alot of people I know are walking around right now..<hr /></blockquote>...and that would a REALLY good attitude to have. HIV infection has risen sharply over the last few years, *especially* among heterosexual under-25-year-olds, who often seem to think it's a generational or minority problem and don't protect themselves, or whose parents didn't see to proper sex-ed in the firm assurance that education towards chastity actually works.

-s*<hr /></blockquote>The soapboxing at the end not withstanding, you're right about the sharp rise in infection rate.

The following is not to pass specific judgement on the gay-community.

I have many connection with some folks at the Rollins School of Public Health (next to the CDC on Emory's campus) who say that the "risky" behaviours are starting to increase again.

The old AIDS "Die-ins" and awareness rallies of the mid-to-late eighties worked very well. It scared the sh*t out of a couple of generations. High risk behaviour was curbed significantly, and infection rates leveled out....

Enter the AIDS drugs. They had pretty good initial success, and those who can get them have a much better prognosis. The problem came with the perception in much of the community that AIDS was cured (or at least could be controlled). Couple this perception with the lack of effective AIDS awareness campaigns now (in the US at least) and the problem is starting to get out of hand again. This is not idle speculation, it is now epidemiological fact (bonus points for those who see the oxymoron there).

So, my point is just to support that it is becoming a bigger problem again. Hopefully, the newer generations will be able to find a way to educate/scare the hell out of each other so that high-risk activities are curbed once again.

daimoni · 08:59 AM

.

Sven G · Jun 5, 2002, 01:59 PM

Regardless of the various hypotheses pro/against HIV/AIDS, one thing is certain: like 9/11, it has been a formidable excuse for "authority" to try to "legislate" human sexual behaviour - in an oppressive and limiting manner, of course, and often by those themselves who were *very* active sexually (and sometimes also "politically", and even drug-wise) during the '60s/'70s...

Personally, I think that "polyamory" is one of the best possible forms of present and future of human relationships - see, for example, <a href="http://www.lovemore.com" target="_blank">http://www.lovemore.com</a> - in a "modern" way: of course, also in response to the AIDS hysteria, one should always have "protected" intercourse - but, IMO, nothing more and nothing less, as otherwise one eventually becomes victim of irrational phobias and oppressive individual/social relations...

The "psychological AIDS" that comes from fear and repression might be far more dangerous for individuals and society as a whole (see also W. Reich's studies, for example) than the small risks associated with a reasonably healthy and free sexual life (with universal use of condoms, of course!).

BTW, quite interesting site, Tigerabbit!

[ 06-05-2002, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Sven G ]

TNproud2b · Jun 5, 2002, 02:26 PM

careful!

don't start suggesting that teaching kids abstinence will protect them from AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases...

these liberals here at MacNN will not hear of such lunacy.

"Just use a condom and you'll be fine.", they'll say.

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 02:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TNproud2b:
careful!

don't start suggesting that teaching kids abstinence will protect them from AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases...

these liberals here at MacNN will not hear of such lunacy.

"Just use a condom and you'll be fine.", they'll say.<hr /></blockquote>Just for the record, I do believe in teaching kids abstinance. I also am realistic enough to know that they will be confronted with situations that they are not equiped to deal with if we don't give them the tools to do so. Keeping kids in the dark about the realities of sex is problematic on ethical grounds, but more importantly it is problematic because it simply doesn't work. The statistics comparing "just abstinance" programs with abstinance AND proper sex ed show overwhelmingly that a balanced combination approach works best. In fact, these are the only programs that have any evidence of working. (We had this discussion last fall, I think.) That's not a "liberal vs. conservative" notion, its just plain old pragmatic to do what works.

KellyHogan · Jun 5, 2002, 02:40 PM

So far 12 people versus 11 don't think it is natural. I've known four people who died of AIDS, two were teachers at my secondary school and had all the typical red lessions on the face, then their nervous system broke down and they started shaking, then they lost weight, etc. I'm also a bit worried about a guy I used to work with. I saw him about a month ago and it looks like he got involved with drugs and now his seems to have lost weight and motor/nerve control. Without telling him what I thought I just told him I would kick his ass if I saw him like that again.

But this brings me to my next point. History typically records all these things, the way diseased people behave and how they die. AIDS has also taken the lives of so many people in modern times when there is proper contraception readily available. But I can't find anything to describe AIDS symptoms in older records before man started tampering with the bio-chemistry and genetics. And if it has been around for so long, the cases of AIDS in the past would have been so high we should have records of whole cities of diseased people. If AIDS is from Africa and very old, the records should be in history because during the colonialist period and even long before that there was more contact with Africans than there has been during the post-imperialist/colonialist period since WWII ended.

Can anyone point to any records?

driven · Jun 5, 2002, 02:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Kelly Hogan. AIDS is an extremely sensitive subject to many people who know people who live with HIV. Applying your wacked conspiritorial worldview to it is extremely offensive. Please choose something else.<hr /></blockquote>Oh F@!k off!
I know several HIV positive person, I knew several people who died from AIDS and I'm not offended at all. Scruw your political correctness.

Asking questions is an OBLIGATION to every person with some brains.

But Kelly, Virii can be dormant and "wake-up" due to whatever reason.
Also, as you indicate, the AIDS virus mutates. so It can have mutated froma harmless virus into a harmfull one. And we discovered AIDS only when it became harmfull because their was no need (and no instuments) to look for it when it was harmless.

(Scientists have found a 1959 HIV+ blood sample that they say proves there was human AIDS in Africa prior to WWII -- and before the widely suspected "bad" polio vaccine was given, so long before the cold war)<hr /></blockquote>I think the problem some folks have with KH is that everything is a conspiracy of some form.

Look ... a lightbulb! It must be a conspiracy to eliminate darkness by some secret oppressive governmental organization! I mean it's so obvious only an idiot would miss it! Let me go investigate further ....

[ 06-05-2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: driven ]

Sven G · Jun 5, 2002, 02:50 PM

... And kids should be so "stupid" as to not understand anything about, for example, sex and love by themselves...? Well, lacking positive examples from the "adult" population, maybe...

When I was a kid/(pre-)teenager, I knew quite a lot about sex (without having ever practised it, and certainly without asking any "adults"!) - but that was also about 20 years ago, when people were perhaps generally a little more liberal and open-minded... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Anyway, kids should, IMO, simply and as spontaneously as possible be lead towards the condition to decide by themselves - that's the meaning of "education", i.e. to "pull out" (in a positive way) what is already inside them...

[ 06-05-2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Sven G ]

Sven G · Jun 5, 2002, 02:52 PM

(Please ignore.)

[ 06-05-2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Sven G ]

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 02:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Kelly Hogen posted:
But this brings me to my next point. History typically records all these things, the way diseased people behave and how they die. AIDS has also taken the lives of so many people in modern times when there is proper contraception readily available. But I can't find anything to describe AIDS symptoms in older records before man started tampering with the bio-chemistry and genetics. And if it has been around for so long, the cases of AIDS in the past would have been so high we should have records of whole cities of diseased people. If AIDS is from Africa and very old, the records should be in history because during the colonialist period and even long before that there was more contact with Africans than there has been during the post-imperialist/colonialist period since WWII ended.

Can anyone point to any records?<hr /></blockquote>While I understand your point, lack of evidence against something does not mean evidence for the "opposing" view.

There are a number of cases of "wasting sickness" that we now know are cancer. The problem with aids is that you don't die from aids itself. You die from the infections that your body can no longer fight. Carposes Sarcoma (sp) was the odd thing that tipped the scales here in the US. There may very well be records of deaths attributed to normal diseases (like the flu) that could have been facilitated by Aids.

I agree that it is odd that we don't see epidemic outbreaks such as we have currently in Africa. But I don't know that that oddity is enought to link with a concurrent development in a somewhat relevant science. Our actual knowlege of viruses is actually still pretty limited. It has greatly increased since AIDS has become of such intense intrest. So in a way, AIDS has actually helped advance the microbiology rather that the other way around.

Hell, for all I KNOW, you could be right. I find it very unlikely, however.

[ 06-05-2002, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: boots ]

Sven G · Jun 5, 2002, 02:52 PM

(Please ignore.)

[ 06-05-2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Sven G ]

KellyHogan · Jun 5, 2002, 02:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M�lum:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[qb]

Look ... a lightbulb! It must be a conspiracy to eliminate darkness by some secret oppressive governmental organization! I mean it's so obvious only an idiot would miss it! Let me go investigate further ....<hr /></blockquote>That's really ****ing childish you know. It's like saying we should not even consider something like that because the military has never done biological experiments on the public, they don't create biological weapons and that the world is one fine and dandy place that nobody should question.

**** off.

Sven G · Jun 5, 2002, 02:57 PM

(Sorry for the triple post. :o )

[ 06-05-2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Sven G ]

driven · Jun 5, 2002, 03:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
[QB][QUOTE]
I agree that it is odd that we don't see epidemic outbreaks such as we have currently in Africa. But I don't know that that oddity is enought to like with a concurrent development in a somewhat relevant science. Our actual knowlege of viruses is actually still pretty limited. It has greatly increased since AIDS has become of such intense intrest. So in a way, AIDS has actually helped advance the microbiology rather that the other way around.
QB]<hr /></blockquote>Boots,

How much of this outbreak in Africa vs. No-Outbreak in the west would you attribute to the general populations access to education on these matters? How much would you attribute to cultural lifestyle differences between Africa and the west?

(Just curious)

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 5, 2002, 03:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M�lum:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[qb]

Look ... a lightbulb! It must be a conspiracy to eliminate darkness by some secret oppressive governmental organization! I mean it's so obvious only an idiot would miss it! Let me go investigate further ....<hr /></blockquote>That's really ****ing childish you know. It's like saying we should not even consider something like that because the military has never done biological experiments on the public, they don't create biological weapons and that the world is one fine and dandy place that nobody should question.

**** off.<hr /></blockquote>I think you can be pretty sure that nobody would invent a bio weapon as ineffective as HIV.

As a weapon, it fails in every respect: its very hard to catch (requires the exchange of bodily fluids) and it has around a ten year incubation period. If you want to kill the enemy, you want to do it today not ten years from now.

Of course, I imagine the idea of something messing with your "precious bodily fluids" probably would wierd you out, wouldn't it Kelly? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

driven · Jun 5, 2002, 03:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M�lum:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[qb]

Look ... a lightbulb! It must be a conspiracy to eliminate darkness by some secret oppressive governmental organization! I mean it's so obvious only an idiot would miss it! Let me go investigate further ....<hr /></blockquote>That's really ****ing childish you know. It's like saying we should not even consider something like that because the military has never done biological experiments on the public, they don't create biological weapons and that the world is one fine and dandy place that nobody should question.

**** off.<hr /></blockquote><sigh>

Lerkfish · Jun 5, 2002, 03:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you can be pretty sure that nobody would invent a bio weapon as ineffective as HIV.

As a weapon, it fails in every respect: its very hard to catch (requires the exchange of bodily fluids) and it has around a ten year incubation period. If you want to kill the enemy, you want to do it today not ten years from now.

Of course, I imagine the idea of something messing with your "precious bodily fluids" probably would wierd you out, wouldn't it Kelly? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>hear, hear. AIDs is a horribly inefficient (albeit brutal) killer. Even anthrax, which was the fodder of conspiracy theorists in decades past has proven to be largely inefficient, even when used at weapons grade.

More efficient weapon virii would have to be a great deal more transmittable through universal means (preferably airborne) and with a much shorter incubation period. Heck, influenza has killed more people.

KellyHogan · Jun 5, 2002, 03:48 PM

AIDS is actually a very effective way at killing off a fast growing population in a developing nation while making it look like nature is to blame. If I was a mad western scientist with tons of money at my disposal and a government funding me that doesn't mind selling weapons to third world nations where the weapons will be used by people with little respect for human rights, then logically I might even decide to do a little experimenting without thinking of the consequences.

I think we really got to fess up to the fact that many people in the military and military science community are anti-socials with little compassion for humanity in the first place. That's how they do what they do and get the jobs that they do.

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 03:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
[QB][QUOTE]
I agree that it is odd that we don't see epidemic outbreaks such as we have currently in Africa. But I don't know that that oddity is enought to like with a concurrent development in a somewhat relevant science. Our actual knowlege of viruses is actually still pretty limited. It has greatly increased since AIDS has become of such intense intrest. So in a way, AIDS has actually helped advance the microbiology rather that the other way around.
QB]<hr /></blockquote>Boots,

How much of this outbreak in Africa vs. No-Outbreak in the west would you attribute to the general populations access to education on these matters? How much would you attribute to cultural lifestyle differences between Africa and the west?

(Just curious)<hr /></blockquote>Quite a bit, actually. For one thing, I don't think there is any major political or social figure in the west denying the link beween HIV-AIDS.

I think it also has to do with permiscuity. The US is a very voyueristic society. We are "voyueristcally permiscuous." We like explicit movies and visual images. In the Bedroom, however, were are really a bunch of stuck-up-sticky-beat prudes. That's a cultural oddity in the US that seems to be missed by a lot the world.

Some countries have far fewer Taboos around sex and multiple partners. Other countries have different taboos. All of these things kind of come together in the right times and places (or wrong, if you will) to provide the perfect place for a disease like aids to fluorish. For example: I was reading a report about the epidemic in India, and they made the direct link to the high social acceptance of prostitution and the lower rights of women (specifically those who are prostitutes). When you put the two together, you have permiscuity and men (who won't where a condom for whatever reason) userping a womans right to protect herself. Then the man goes home and does his wife. And the cycle continues through her to her children.

Obviously this is a gross oversimplification. It may even sound like I'm suggesting that the US is superior in it's attitudes on sex. That is not my intent. I simply wanted to illustrate that differing views on acceptable sexual practices (and who gets to define "acceptable") when combined with less effective awareness campaigns and/or fewer resources to effect "reform" can change a situation.

It gets messy quickly. In the end, I think the collective "uptightness" that I find so unhealthy in the American psyche may be one of the things that helped in this matter. If you look at the groups who have shaken off that particular constraint (historically the gay male demographic)the picture changes in the West.

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 03:50 PM

$#%@#$#%#$%@ double post!

[ 06-06-2002, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: boots ]

cdhostage · Jun 5, 2002, 04:00 PM

I don't know much aboutt AIDS in the bilogical sense other than the fact that it mutates with every generation, usually drastically.
I imagine that this is the reason they can't make a vaccine for it : the virus you make a vaccine for doesn't exist the next day - it's children are barely recognizable.

driven · Jun 5, 2002, 04:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by M�lum:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[qb]

Look ... a lightbulb! It must be a conspiracy to eliminate darkness by some secret oppressive governmental organization! I mean it's so obvious only an idiot would miss it! Let me go investigate further ....<hr /></blockquote>That's really ****ing childish you know. It's like saying we should not even consider something like that because the military has never done biological experiments on the public, they don't create biological weapons and that the world is one fine and dandy place that nobody should question.

**** off.<hr /></blockquote>Actually I want to elaborate on my earlier <SIGH>.

Kelly ... others have opinions too. Your don't have the exclusive rights to the soap-box.

If you want to have the opinion that AIDS and every other weird thing in the world is related to a vast martian conspiracy then that's fine, and you have every right to express it. However, I reserve the right to express my opinion that you are potentially paranoid but occasionally entertaining.

If you want to be sensitive about others holding opinions that differ from yours, then you are hypocritical at best.

... like a wax covered sponge, you are floating along and absorbing nothing.

WildZero · Jun 5, 2002, 04:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
I agree that it is odd that we don't see epidemic outbreaks such as we have currently in Africa.<hr /></blockquote>Just wanted to add that common sexual contact in Africa is more risky because of cultural habits. I read in a credible print source (Time?) that the sexual ideal in Africa is for the woman to have dry sexual organs during intercourse. Many women actualy dry their vaginas with dirt or other foreign substances prior to sexual contact.
This leads to an increased chance of tearing of the skin and bleeding which leads to a higher chance of infection. Condoms are also culturally taboo throughout most of Africa.

driven · Jun 5, 2002, 04:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
[QB][QUOTE]
I agree that it is odd that we don't see epidemic outbreaks such as we have currently in Africa. But I don't know that that oddity is enought to like with a concurrent development in a somewhat relevant science. Our actual knowlege of viruses is actually still pretty limited. It has greatly increased since AIDS has become of such intense intrest. So in a way, AIDS has actually helped advance the microbiology rather that the other way around.
QB]<hr /></blockquote>Boots,

How much of this outbreak in Africa vs. No-Outbreak in the west would you attribute to the general populations access to education on these matters? How much would you attribute to cultural lifestyle differences between Africa and the west?

(Just curious)<hr /></blockquote>Quite a bit, actually. For one thing, I don't think there is any major political or social figure in the west denying the link beween HIV-AIDS.

I think it also has to do with permiscuity. The US is a very voyueristic society. We are "voyueristcally permiscuous." We like explicit movies and visual images. In the Bedroom, however, were are really a bunch of stuck-up-sticky-beat prudes. That's a cultural oddity in the US that seems to be missed by a lot the world.

Some countries have far fewer Taboos around sex and multiple partners. Other countries have different taboos. All of these things kind of come together in the right times and places (or wrong, if you will) to provide the perfect place for a disease like aids to fluorish. For example: I was reading a report about the epidemic in India, and they made the direct link to the high social acceptance of prostitution and the lower rights of women (specifically those who are prostitutes). When you put the two together, you have permiscuity and men (who won't where a condom for whatever reason) userping a womans right to protect herself. Then the man goes home and does his wife. And the cycle continues through her to her children.

Obviously this is a gross oversimplification. It may even sound like I'm suggesting that the US is superior in it's attitudes on sex. That is not my intent. I simply wanted to illustrate that differing views on acceptable sexual practices (and who gets to define "acceptable") when combined with less effective awareness campaigns and/or fewer resources to effect "reform" can change a situation.

It gets messy quickly. In the end, I think the collective "uptightness" that I find so unhealthy in the American psyche may be one of the things that helped in this matter. If you look at the groups who have shaken off that particular constraint (historically the gay male demographic)the picture changes in the West.<hr /></blockquote>This makes quite a bit of sense ....

Your argument is strengthened if you use Thailand as a case study. They had similar issues to India. As you mentioned, prostitution is/was accepted and woman have (in practice) reduced rights. HIV/AIDS began to take off drastically in that country.

The government (and UN) followed up with a MASSIVE social and health education program for the ladies (and to a lesser extent, the men). Condom use skyrocketed along with mandatory health checks for prostitutes. The result was that the spread of HIV / AIDS was arrested to levels close to the USA within a relatively short period of time.

Good reply. Thanks.

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 04:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
I don't know much aboutt AIDS in the bilogical sense other than the fact that it mutates with every generation, usually drastically.
I imagine that this is the reason they can't make a vaccine for it : the virus you make a vaccine for doesn't exist the next day - it's children are barely recognizable.<hr /></blockquote>Not knowing about something is very easily fixed. The problem isn't really that it mutates with every generation, that is just a result of the fact that it has sloppy DNA relication enzymes. If that were the only problem, we would have it beat. Most of the drugs target the transcription of the RNA that he the virus injects into the cell. That means that if we had a drug that could effectively take it out, the sloppy replication wouldn't be a problem... the drugs act before replication even happens. So the drug would work before the mutation could happen. The problem is in drug specificity. Basically, when the dominant strain (and usually there is a domonant strain) of virus is challenged with a drug that is specific enough to shut it down effectively, the very minor sub-strain can now take over. It's a catch-22. Either the drug is not specific enough to be effective, or it is so specific that it doesn't knock out all the minor strains.

(Was that at all understandable?)

[ 06-05-2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: boots ]

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 5, 2002, 04:13 PM

Any idea what role the different strains might play in transmissibility?

Since the strain in Africa isn't the same one that predominates in North America and Western Europe it seems logical that it might play a part.

Lerkfish · Jun 5, 2002, 04:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
Actually I want to elaborate on my earlier <SIGH>.

Kelly ... others have opinions too. Your don't have the exclusive rights to the soap-box.

If you want to have the opinion that AIDS and every other weird thing in the world is related to a vast martian conspiracy then that's fine, and you have every right to express it. However, I reserve the right to express my opinion that you are potentially paranoid but occasionally entertaining.

If you want to be sensitive about others holding opinions that differ from yours, then you are hypocritical at best.

... like a wax covered sponge, you are floating along and absorbing nothing.<hr /></blockquote>Its especially bothersome when many individuals absolutely demand that this forum be tolerant of KellyHogan or we are against free speech, but that tolerance is never displayed in the opposite direction.

curious.

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 04:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Any idea what role the different strains might play in transmissibility?

Since the strain in Africa isn't the same one that predominates in North America and Western Europe it seems logical that it might play a part.<hr /></blockquote>Although I'm not a pathologist, I think it probably has little effect.

One of the major differences I see is that (with little exception) the strains in Africa (or any third world country) have not been challenged by any effective pharmaceuticals.

In the US, they have. The implactions are scary. The African strain is probably more of a natural strain than the current US strain. Why? Because we haven't forced it to mutate by challenging it with drugs. This new rise in infection rate (here in the US) has public health official pretty worried.

Here's the senario:

Person A in US has contracted AIDS. Person A now avoids most high risk activity (to prevent spread) and starts on insurance covered AIDS drugs.

Person A is now living a relatively normal life.

Person B meets Person A. Person A and Person B start getting intimate and there is a false sense of safety because Person A "feels" fine. Risky behaviour ensues and now Person B has contracted a strain of HIV that the AIDS drugs didn't block.

Person B now is carrying a drug resistant form of HIV....horror ensues.

Remember, AIDS drugs are not a cure. They supress the disease, but it almost always comes back at some point.

The situation in Africa is different. Without drugs to challenge the virus, the naturally most fit virus is predominant. It's a perfect example of evolution. The one most suited to the environment thrives. When challenged, another strain, more suitable to the new conditions, thrives.

I think that in the log run, drugs are not the answer. The most promising work is currently being done in immunology...a field that I have yet to be able to really understand.

[ 06-05-2002, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: boots ]

driven · Jun 5, 2002, 04:33 PM

Do you (or anyone else) believe that we will have this AIDS "problem" solved in our lifetimes?

Lerkfish · Jun 5, 2002, 04:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
Do you (or anyone else) believe that we will have this AIDS "problem" solved in our lifetimes?<hr /></blockquote>depends a great deal on medical advancement, which is difficult to predict, who'da thunk Pasteur would have found out about bread mold, for example.

Having done a graphic on the AIDs rna transcriptase and how it harvests cells and makes them a manufacturing plant for more virii (as do most viruses), all that would really need to happen, I think, is to find a way to interrupt that process on a genetic level.
Of course, how? I have no idea.

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 04:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
Do you (or anyone else) believe that we will have this AIDS "problem" solved in our lifetimes?<hr /></blockquote>That's a tough call. There is a lot of excitement in the immunology community. There have been a suprising number of absolutely steller successes in lower animal models. Almost of them them have been problematic in primates.

I recall an article in nature, about 4 or 5 months ago,that said a group of researchers has recently had success in primates. That (if it turns out to be reproducible) would be a major milestone. But I don't know enough people in that community to know the real feelings. The sense I get is "cautious optimism."

The pharmaceutical companies are trying to (and I know that abbot has had some success) find drugs that are less strain specific but more effective. This may work, but may simply exacerbate the problem in the long run.

From a drug design perspective, the most effective place to target HIV in in the reverse transcriptase enzyme. This happens to be an aspartate protease (an enzyme that uses an aspartic acid residue to catalyze the hydrolysis of another peptide). Most of what we know about aspartate proteases we learned in the 70's from attempts to come up with renin inhibitors. Nothing every really came of the renin research, but it gave us a jump start on the AIDS drug R&D. There are certainly other approaches being looked at, but this is the one we already knew alot about, so we went with it (we as in the pharma community).

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 04:44 PM

sorry, double post. Man the boards are sure acting funny for me today. really slow! And I don't think it's ever double posted me before.

[ 06-05-2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: boots ]

M�lum · Jun 6, 2002, 03:27 AM

Yes, we will see a solution. In the next 50 years we'll see a huge evolution in medicine (according to my brother who is a renowned genetic researcer, I'm so sorry, but I'm proud of him)

driven · Jun 6, 2002, 08:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
Yes, we will see a solution. In the next 50 years we'll see a huge evolution in medicine (according to my brother who is a renowned genetic researcer, I'm so sorry, but I'm proud of him)<hr /></blockquote>That's encouraging.
(And there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with being proud of him.)

Spheric Harlot · Jun 6, 2002, 08:50 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
Personally I don't buy that 10% have aids in north america, more like 1%. Otherwise alot of people I know are walking around right now..<hr /></blockquote>...and that would a REALLY good attitude to have. HIV infection has risen sharply over the last few years, *especially* among heterosexual under-25-year-olds, who often seem to think it's a generational or minority problem and don't protect themselves, or whose parents didn't see to proper sex-ed in the firm assurance that education towards chastity actually works.

-s*<hr /></blockquote>I normaly have great respect for you man but for that, **** YOU!!!

You know very little about me so don't go saying that I have sex with whoever and don't have protection or do anything about it. A very close friend of mine has/d aids and it's ****ing ****ed. I'm not ****ing 50 or some ****, people are people, dont' ****ing matter where we come from or what our background is, were all the same to a virus. **** it....<hr /></blockquote>I'm really sorry I seem to have hit a nerve - I wasn't talking about you. I saw the sentence I quoted and felt I had to hook into that. I've seen a lot of kids who really *do* consider AIDS somebody else's problem. And they're at high risk because of it.

I honestly wasn't implying in the LEAST that you personally are ignorant or irresponsible in your sexual behavior - I was making a general statement based upon figures I'd read elsewhere.

My apologies, juan.

-spheric*

Spheric Harlot · Jun 6, 2002, 09:16 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by boots:
[qb]Condoms are also culturally taboo throughout most of Africa.<hr /></blockquote>we ran a pretty cool short piece on that a little while ago.

apparently, a fairly large portion of uneducated Africans (facilitated, perversely enough, by their own politicians) believe that the AIDS scare is just a ploy to get them to buy condoms and [insert hoax theory here].

A very large problem (not kidding) also appears to be that the cheap kind of free latex condoms are *white*. They are percieved as alien, as belonging to white man, and thus a manifestation of colonialism, of sorts. Studies have shown that dark condoms are much more readily accepted.

Of course, the upshot of condoms not being accepted is that anal sex is *much* more common to reduce the risk of pregnancy. With, of course, disastrous effects upon HIV infection rates.

-s*

P.S.: <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by daimoni:
 I think Spheric is pretty right on... and I don't she was talking about you.<hr /></blockquote>I be a "he". (Not that it's that important.)