If they are genetically diverse then the pastor has good reason to suspect that hiv targets blacks

905 wrote:

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.

I'd love to fight with you over this 905 but no way. I've already said that there were African cities before colonisation and made the point that race is not a concept that ties in with genetic groups. Your point about genetic diversity in Africa is a good one.

I think that population density appears to be a factor in the spread of HIV ( and presumably all other transmittable infections), rather than urbanisation, and agree that transport is an important factor as essentially it shortens the time it takes for new areas to be affected by an epidemic.

The spread of the bubonic plague or new flu viruses presumably follows the same pattern.

The spread of the Spanish flu at the end of WWI killed more people than the War itself. It seems to have originated in the transit camps in which soldiers were living in very poor cramped conditions after the end of the war. There is a theory that the flu jumped species from poultry kept in the camps. The soldiers were then shipped home all over the world by train, boat and plane with devastating results.

An old lady told me a story of how in a small town near here, her father as a boy had hauled, with his father, a cart full of bodies that were buried in the local famine graveyard at the time of the Spanish flu.

youngdan wrote:

If they are genetically diverse then the pastor has good reason to suspect that hiv targets blacks

Would you care to explain that logic? If 'they' are diverse (and I don't mean to lump the term 'Blacks' and Africans together) and thus have no defining genetic characteristic, what is there to target?

Is there a misunderstanding of the word diverse. Read the article linked by Riadach and you will see that Obama's Pastor has a scientific basis for his suspicions

This is a podcast by Robin Weiss who is one of the authors of the paper Riadach linked. He talks about epidemiology and mankinds infections under the heading 'HIV and the Naked Ape'

http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/go/26/CU-DarwinCollege-DarwinLectures2008-03_Weiss


He talks about "evolutionary biology"

This is pretty darned fascinating stuff.

36 million people (estimate reduced from 40 million) in 2007 were estimated to carry HIV. 23 million people have died from AIDs.
Started in 1930s with one virus source. The oldest specimen is 1959. Kinshasa, the Congo.

6 billion humans are susceptible - had it stuck with chimpanzees it would likely be gone in two generations as chimpanzees are highly endangered.

"A highly variable virus".

One reason we don't have a good vaccine is because the virus is so variable.

It strikes me that it is too unstable a virus for anyone to think that it could be designed to target a population group.

He looked at African Americans - about 70% 'negative' for the receptor you are talking about - that makes a person 1.5% more susceptible to HIV, but the same factor will delay progression to AIDs about 3 years.

1.5% is about the same additional susceptablity as would be associated with not being circumcised.