HIV emerged at the turn of the 20th century

Very interesting article

I wonder have any other strains of a particular virus been traceable to one particular source.

I remember reading about 'Typhoid Mary' but then she was from Tyrone after all.

I hadn't realised it was so old but maybe it's been around for a lot lot longer just undocumented?



Global View of HIV Infection - WHO

This is a bit rough and ready in that one map is physical and the other averaged on political boundaries, but the correlation is there all right.

Very interesting article, indeed, Seathrun. Will buy Nature for the first time ever this week. Am not a scientist but it is an interesting question in itself.

Despite having done about 13 yrs of voluntary work with a couple of London HIV charities, I have felt burnt out in the last 18mths so have opted out. However, you have prompted me to check out some current and depressing figures on the THT website -

http://www.tht.org.uk/binarylibrary/stats/11-07/ukandworldwide.pdf

About 13 yrs ago, I was a Buddy with THT - the first chap I buddied was from Uganda, educated (inevitably) by Irish missionaries. The scale of loss was unbearable - his wife, his baby son, one sister, one aunt, couple of uncles, he himself plus one brother were HIV+.

I myself have lost a couple of friends and a number of acquaintances to this. I have a number of friends now living (yes being honest, unexpectedly) long lives with it.

... am too personally involved in this subject to get in any way Malthusian but will be v interested to read the full Nature article ...

One of the depressing aspects of this is that the statistics we have probably underestimate the problem. In some Eastern countries the concept of loss of face and shame is difficult for Europeans to comprehend.

It always dismays me that we can find money for war but in a cavalier manner allow slaughter through disease almost as though it is unpreventable.

Atticus wrote:

Very interesting article, indeed, Seathrun. Will buy Nature for the first time ever this week. Am not a scientist but it is an interesting question in itself.

Despite having done about 13 yrs of voluntary work with a couple of London HIV charities, I have felt burnt out in the last 18mths so have opted out. However, you have prompted me to check out some current and depressing figures on the THT website -

http://www.tht.org.uk/binarylibrary/stats/11-07/ukandworldwide.pdf

About 13 yrs ago, I was a Buddy with THT - the first chap I buddied was from Uganda, educated (inevitably) by Irish missionaries. The scale of loss was unbearable - his wife, his baby son, one sister, one aunt, couple of uncles, he himself plus one brother were HIV+.

I myself have lost a couple of friends and a number of acquaintances to this. I have a number of friends now living (yes being honest, unexpectedly) long lives with it.

... am too personally involved in this subject to get in any way Malthusian but will be v interested to read the full Nature article ...

Very sorry for your losses, Atticus and my respect for your practical support for people ill with HIV. You must deserve a break.

Indeed, Squire. God knows what the real figures for China and India are. I have a Pakistani acquaintance who knows for a fact that nobody in Pakistan is HIV+ !!

Funny enough, Bush is reckoned to have done at least some good in Africa on the HIV issue - yeah, of course, the Administration stipulated all kinds of stuff about virginity and whatever else. However, fair dues to the Africans, they said "yessir" to him, took the money and got on with the job in hand, not worrying too much about said stipulations.

Thank you Cactus, though one has of course lots of losses in life. The only difference is that some illnesses are more socially acceptable than others. I have certainly experienced the days when HIV was not as socially or medically integrated as it might be today... memories of the HIV ward in St Marys in Paddington are not necessarily all good, though the staff there were wonderful ...

My screen does not allow me to see Pakistan. Africa looks to be riddled. I do not believe that blacks in Africa are any more promiscous than anyone else. Obama's pastor thinks Aids is a manufactured biological weapon which is race specific. He says there are 2 different types of Aids. Should Obama get elected maybe we will learn more.

youngdan wrote:

My screen does not allow me to see Pakistan. Africa looks to be riddled. I do not believe that blacks in Africa are any more promiscous than anyone else. Obama's pastor thinks Aids is a manufactured biological weapon which is race specific. He says there are 2 different types of Aids. Should Obama get elected maybe we will learn more.

didn't realise we were so scientifically advanced in 1908 as to be able to create a race specific disease. you'd a thunk that they'd be able to cure cancer then, given that its a white mans disease!

Yes, it is a white man's disease, created by the dirty jews to maintain their hegemony over the world! They have a cure too, but it's only given to whites who can prove fidelity to Israel.

That was an interesting link coc. I'm off topic, but the question of whether McCain is or is not still alive must be one that crosses all our minds from time to time.

Personally I'd be more bothered with the mental health than the physical fitness of Presidents of the USA.

The point of the density map is that SeathrúnCeitinn's link suggests that AIDS has been around a long time but only had the opportunity to spread with urbanisation in Africa. It makes sense that someone leading an isolated life in a small community would be less likely to get AIDs or to pass it on. I remember reading that transport routes used by truck drivers in Africa had high rates of AIDS. But so much of what has been written seems to be unreliable.

Does this urbanisation factor mean that colonialism is the cause? Surely not public enemy no.1, or is that just me stretching things?

More specifically we could blame the Belgians.

905 wrote:

Does this urbanisation factor mean that colonialism is the cause? Surely not public enemy no.1, or is that just me stretching things?

More specifically we could blame the Belgians.

That didn't occur to me. Africa had cities before colonialism. What roughly correlates between the maps is the number of people living in each square mile and the incidence of HIV. More people within reach, more spread of body fluids. The other factor appears to be time, as the places closest to the first cases have the highest incidence. The exception is Russia that is in a terrible state generally.

As there are claims of both over and underestimation of HIV: the issue is so politicised that it is hard to get a clear picture.

I don't think the argument here is that colonialism caused HIV merely that urbanisation, a consequence of colonialism, helped the spread of the disease. One would presume that had the colonial period not occurred there still would have been urbanisation in Africa just in a different model - it happened in most other parts of the world through trading or otherwise.

It wouldn't be surprising if major transport routes had a higher prevalence of disease - whatever the disease. Travel and urbanisation have a generally approved history of increasing the prevalence of disease. Whether that be during the construction of the Panama Canal or whether it be the huge pravelence of water borne disease in 19th century cities both in Ireland and England which led to the creation of the various Public Health provisions eventually leading to the NHS. I did a course on Medical History (including all this stuff) for my undergraduate with Dr Catherine Cox in UCD - it was fascinating.

As Squire says it is a disgrace to humanity that the scourge of AIDS has not been dealt with by the international community. Disease should not be politicised. It is incredible how little it would cost to actually rid ourselves of alot of this, or at least control it. I think it takes a visit to see AIDs orphans in Africa, as I have, to make it really hit home.

So Obama's pastor is a looni-tune then to believe this. Be that as it may, if you think that research into race specific biological weapons is not being conducted then that is something else.

youngdan wrote:

So Obama's pastor is a looni-tune then to believe this. Be that as it may, if you think that research into race specific biological weapons is not being conducted then that is something else.

I got into an argument on genetics on Politics.ie once and did a fair bit of reading up. If you think about it, a kidney from someone in Thailand can find its way into a person who can afford to pay for it in Florida. There might be some minor reduction in compatibility, but it is worth the punt for the guy who needs the kidney. Genetically, there is not much difference between people. The idea of race specific biological weapons does not seem to be based on science.

How do you think dna testing works. I don't know,- but to think the top minds in this field are not working hard is naieve indeed

youngdan wrote:

How do you think dna testing works. I don't know,- but to think the top minds in this field are not working hard is naieve indeed

What people think of as racial groups aren't necessarily distinct dna groups. There are some populations that are slightly more resistant to certain illnesses than others, or slightly more prone, but it is only marginal.

I remember reading somewhere, that genetically Africans were more susceptible to HIV than non-Africans. It nearly throws the promiscuity argument out the window.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008056217_hiv17.html

This is what I believe. If biological weapons labs were trying to produce weapons that would kill their own side it defeats the whole purpose. Don't give me the anti-dote story because that assumes the other side to be stupid.

Also why would anyone think that the blacks are any more promiscous than anyone else. I will admit that I know very little about these blacks in Africa.
I have met
a lot of Haitians though and have a high opinion of them. Why should that country be riddled.

Look at the maps. The big picture is time (taking a point of origin in Africa and allowing for gradual spread over decades) and population density.

Russia is a horrendous exception - was it infected blood supplies along with lowered immunity because of the post IMF collapse ? Studies seem to say intravenous drug use - surely that can't account for the extent of it?

Lads, lads, lads. Yis are all wrong.

First, there is no reason to think that cities would have emerged in the middle of the Congo any more than they might have emerged in the Mourne mountains. I'm sure Africa as a continent had plenty of cities before colonisation. But it's a gross generalistaion to think of Africa as a single cultural or urban entity. Incidentally I think the transport thing had much more to do with it than urbanisation.

Speaking of generalisations, it is very unscientific to think of Africans as having a homogenous genetic identity. Africans are as genetically diverse as any other continent of people. There are those in Africa that are genetically closer to the inhabitants of other continents than they are to other Africans.

Very few people on the thread are disagreeing with what you said above, 905.

Both urbanisation and transport have been mentioned as possible contributing causes to the spread of disease, both this disease and more generally. There has been little claim that it is a case of either or and that they are mutually exclusive. Nor has there been much claim that there were not cities prior to colonialism - of course there were and it has been clearly stated that they would have developed in some guise or another regardless of whether colonialism has occurred.