I think I feel more uncomfortable now, than before I read that.

I was concerned the article might have also referred to the homosexual anal rape of young male primates by dominant members of their (insert favourite collective noun for monkeys here). I remember seeing that and having some difficulty with it.

I don't buy it. Didn't they say at first, that it came from humans having sex with monkeys? I won't say that Illuminati created HIV or AIDS for sure; but I think that there's a strong case for it.

Put the words HIV, AIDS, Africa, Visna, virus, sheep and laboratory, into a search engine and see what you can find.


ONE

[Edited on 14-6-2003 by Tamahu]

so why is it so prominent in homosexuals?

Byrd,
as a man who critiques the scientific standards of others on this board, surely you understand that this article is too short and vague... In one or two sentences, the authors talk about gene splicing through ingestion (!?)... now, doesn't that seem rushed to a man of science like yourself??? Yes, Newscientist is a cool sciencemag, but this article is far from explaining the origing of HIV. If I've misread the under-tones of this article, please correct me

Jim

Helen

HIV+ and homosexual community in the west? My uneducated guess is that being more liberal and having multiple partners, before extensive safe sex publicity, created a more observablr rapid spread. But I don't think it would be sensible to apply a wrath of God hypothesis to that.

If you travelled through Africa today, where in some countries 30%+ of the population is HIV+, you would dispense with your notion that it is in some way a gay disease.

helen that is mostly because they are exsposeing them selves to the risk more than most people. It has to do with how easy one is and getting around. not to mention some people are spreadingit on purpose. Actively trying to infect others. It's scary and should be a sign that we as a people have lost our dignity.

So did some guy # a chimpanze in the 1930s?

"So did some guy # a chimpanze in the 1930s?"

That's what they used to say. Sounds like B.S. to me.


ONE

Originally posted by Tamahu
I don't buy it. Didn't they say at first, that it came from humans having sex with monkeys?

Yes, that was the first rumor put out by anti-gay white supremicist groups. In fact, the transmission vehicle was (as the article says) was blood and uncooked/undercooked monkey meat.

(now, honestly... compare the size and strength of chimps and monkeys to humans. The anatomy ain't that compatable and the first male chimp you tried that with would have ripped you limb from limb (they are that strong.) There are not gangs of guys, roaming around the African jungles, offering hot monkey sex with apes in exchange for banannas.)

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Byrd,
as a man who critiques the scientific standards of others on this board, surely you understand that this article is too short and vague..

Mea culpa. I picked that one because it was in plain English rather than the original papers and evidences which would put you to sleep in six seconds and would be fairly incomprehensible without a good background.

In one or two sentences, the authors talk about gene splicing through ingestion (!?)... now, doesn't that seem rushed to a man of science like yourself???

It's a web article. They have word length limits for articless that they accept. They gloss over techniques and explainations, assuming that their audience is savvy enough to google unfamiliar terms. The focus of the article wasn't the methodology but the results.

Yes, Newscientist is a cool sciencemag, but this article is far from explaining the origing of HIV. If I've misread the under-tones of this article, please correct me

It gave a good and concise "smoking gun" evidence for the ancient origin of the disease. This is something that scientists have been pursuing ever since it was discovered that the disease crossed from other anthropoids into men. Because the anthropoids didn't die off from it, the search for possible cures is in that genetic lineage.

I frequently complain that belief in the incredible blinds folks to reality. The "illuminati created it" ignores a lot of research and evidence, including good evidence that it's been in the anthropod lineage for years, that outbreaks of it HAVE occurred many times in the past (but were contained because it's not that infectuous (not everyone having sex gets it)) and that the disease exists in a number of monkeys and apes.

...but I'm getting into the Epidemiology 101 lecture here, and I'll stop. (I get too tempted by epidemiology topics; my research papers for my first Masters' were in epidemiology, and one of my first grant requests for my PhD in medical anthropology (which I start this fall... I"m nuts, I tell ya... NUTS! (because I'll be working full time at my regular job AND getting the degree so I can change careers in 6 years)) will be for a retrospective epidemiology study on missionary families.)

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
My uneducated guess is that being more liberal and having multiple partners, before extensive safe sex publicity, created a more observablr rapid spread. But I don't think it would be sensible to apply a wrath of God hypothesis to that.

Exactly so. It was far underreported in Africa, with its poor education (where the common myth is that you can cure it by having sex with a virgin woman. This has resulted in a tragic number of rapes of young women and female toddlers and babies (yes, babies.))

And, of course, in Africa it's a disease of heterosexuals.

If you travelled through Africa today, where in some countries 30%+ of the population is HIV+, you would dispense with your notion that it is in some way a gay disease.

Spot on -- and actually, the population percentage with HIV+ is much higher in some areas.

I think HIV was transferd from ape to human origanly from the eating of monkeys in africa, Cannibalism starts all kids of crazy new viruss look at mad cow desises, and since chimps are only 2%give or take differnt from a human, thats the closet your gunna get to cannibalism with out chown down on ur neighbor, What do u think?

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Byrd,
as a man who critiques the scientific standards of others on this board, surely you understand that this article is too short and vague... In one or two sentences, the authors talk about gene splicing through ingestion (!?)... now, doesn't that seem rushed to a man of science like yourself??? Yes, Newscientist is a cool sciencemag, but this article is far from explaining the origing of HIV. If I've misread the under-tones of this article, please correct me

Jim

Take a look at how Mad Cow Disease came about. Very much the same way as the article describes. Cows where feed minced up other cows and the disease spread the the heards pof cows that ate the meal. Humans the ingested the cows and the disease was passed to us humans. Nowadays, not saying it never occured in the pased, but virus appear to have a very fast mutation rate. Take a look at the very way flu epidemics occur and the SARS break out. This is not really new neas as scientists have beleived this to be the origins for HIV.

In the western world HIV is more predominant in the Gay homosexual cultures due to many of the reasons stated here in other posts. But I will also point out that there is a greatly increased risk of transmitting HIV during Anal sex than Vaginal sex mainly due to the concentration of blood supply around the rectum, hence the reason it is predominate amoung gay men as compared to the hetrosexual swinger and lesbians. Also worthy of noting is the probability of a man transmitting HIV to a woman is greater than a woman infecting a man.