Quote: (09-21-2011 11:47 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:
Quote: (09-21-2011 05:02 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:
Though controversial, and unproven, I will simply ask a few questions. I can asuure you, there will be more questions to come, and, more evidence.The consensus is that the first recorded event of A.I.D.S. in the western world, as opposed to reverse transcriptase activity in cells , (retroviruses to the scientific community) took place in the 1980's . Now, they are enough records to support that in 1959 plasma samples in the congo were showing up with reverse transcriptase activity.
I didn't see those "enough records", but it could be explained. Remember that people do not die from AIDS per se, they typically die from some infection like pneumonia which their body cannot fight off. So it may be that there were some people who died from AIDS, it is just the diagnosis was "pneumonia".
Now the spread of AIDS is mostly fueled by IV drug users (very high transfer rate) and men who have (anal) sex with men (in this case the transfer rate is much lower, but it is compensated by the fact that one gay dude can buttfuck ten other dudes in a night). Both groups were, let's say, not very popular in the society. In the IV group the doctors just said, well, he had so much chemical shit in his body so we have no idea what's happening. And there was - and still is - some stigma against gay men. So I'd speculate their deaths from AIDS rarely received a lot of medical attention, and didn't often trigger the research.
Quote:Quote:
Question.... How long have the people of Congo hunted for the Macaque monkey? I am assuming this date should be way before 1959. This is where I will start from as opposed to 1999 . You could rebut this by saying it doesn't matter, because from its inception to cellular death, no one knows the life expectancy of a virus.
Wiki says the transmission happened somewhere in early 20th century. Maybe the life expectancy was so low that they didn't really have a chance to develop AIDS (it takes some time before a person can actually infect another person). Then the "normal" infection rates are quite low, and I doubt they have a lot of gays or IV drug users back there.
Wiki also states what is not resolved yet:
"It is not yet explained why only four HIV groups (HIV-1 groups M and O, and HIV-2 groups A and B) spread considerably in human populations, despite bushmeat practices being very widespread in Central and West Africa,[10] and the resulting human SIV infections being common.
It remains also unexplained why all epidemic HIV groups emerged in humans nearly simultaneously, and only in the 20th century, despite very old human exposure to SIV (a recent phylogenetic study demonstrated that SIV is at least tens of thousands of years old)."
O.N.,
I like the way you are dissecting points. This is grounds for a nice healthy debate to determine "Ground Zero" and I hope we can accomplish that.
In terms of the plasma samples of 1959, see ZHU,T et.al (1998,5th February) "an African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and implications for the origin for the Origin of the epidemic" Nature 391 (6667) I was having trouble posting the link but the site is:www.ncbi.nim.gov/pubmed/9468138. Seems that subtype B and D were more prevalent but it didn't explain how the initial strain came to be which is what has been bugging me. There's also the Norwegian family in that report who seemed to have been infected earlier than 1971 but had similar viral sequence to the plasma sample. I can post more examples of others who were not in the Congo but had HIV like symptoms and died rapidly.
To your second point, in terms of life expectancy, I had looked up the population of the Congo lets say for 1959 .(http://www.urome.be/en/econgchiff.html) Put that roughly around 14m 14,000,000. Non African 156 thousand. This is in a density of roughly 5,47 km. Pretty tight quarters. Also, 22.1 of them were farmers and settlers. Life expectancy for the Congo is around 47 for men , 50 for women. Pretty damn low. The question you posted concerning "it takes some time for a person to become infected", is a burning one. In my opinion it has never really been quantified, since there is wild and varying evidence that the potency of the infection and its rate, affect each person differently. Some die in months, some in years. Let's say we wanted to call this Ground zero , my question is how much of the population in such a dense area should have been wiped out considering the rate of infection now? Think of it this way, if we start with a date of 1959, or even further back,( with no cure, no education, resources, ) in the Congo, we are going to have a serious mathematical problem to contend with simply because we allegedly "know" how many millions are killed today by the virus. Per the life expectancy of a Congolese , you have roughly a generation to work with, but, we have seen how fast the virus have wiped out untold millions in less than a generation. Coupled that with the fact that bush meat wasn't tested by the Congolese for HIV back then, yet ,remains a part of their stable diet today and you have another problem. Drop some seasoning on it and serve it with some garnish, is still quite popular. Now, the population today is roughly 50- 71m , or 18th largest in the world, yet for me the point is the diet has remained stable. THis is what leads me to believe that the poor monkey was/is getting a bad rap. How is it since we understand that Sub-Sahara Africa carries the most deadliest strains , that the original site ( Congo) has not seen an astronomical explosion in deaths within a generation of people who eat the same damn thing day in day out?? Not to diminish the fact, Congo does have a very high HIV prevalence, but , again , it's not like they are eating caviar for breakfast ,lunch ,and dinner today. Even if we factor in heterosexual transmission,which seems to be the most likely mode of transmission in this region, what happened to the monkeys? Did they stop producing SIV in their system? If this is what you eat, then all hell should break loose regardless of who you fuck.
Having said all of that, your last paragraph/statement "it remains unexplained why all epidemic HIV groups emerged in humans simultaneously" is the fucking missile that breaks the theory to shit. This was a powerful thing you wrote there. This is the burning question. THis tells me that perhaps you too don't buy into this "monkey gave me HIV" theory. I could be wrong on what you think and you could clarify that for me.We know its here, we know it kills, but how did it get here? I will post some other info, and believe me its not even conspiracy. These are facts of other people not in the Congo, having the same exact symptoms, same genetic mutations wherein reverse transcriptase is quite evident. Funny thing is, it is right around the same time the epidemic took off. Great start man, appreciate the input.