Scientists trace AIDS virus origin back 100 years

Scientists trace AIDS virus origin back 100 years

www.cnn.com

NEW YORK (AP) -- The AIDS virus has been circulating among people for about 100 years, decades longer than scientists had thought, a new study suggests.

Genetic analysis pushes the estimated origin of HIV back to between 1884 and 1924, with a more focused estimate at 1908.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org

What else occured in 1908? Anyone ever heard of the Tunguska Event? As I read the CNN article, the 1908 year stuck out (not just because that was the last time the Cubs won the World Series) but because I remembered something interesting also happend in that year.

Could these two things be connected - AIDS and Tunguska?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I doubt it. It's more likely it was caused by Tesla, IMO.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
I doubt it. It's more likely it was caused by Tesla, IMO.

Can you provide links to any info supporting this claim? I've been looking and I can't seem to find any.

I was always under the impression that AIDs was just a new name or designation for 29 previously known diseases and conditions?

www.aliveandwell.org...

[edit on 2-10-2008 by RemusUK]

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


it's more likely what was caused by Tesla, Tunguska or aids?


Personally I think that's a very good idea/explanation, some kind of extraterrestrial meteor carrying foreign virus hits the earth and voila, the only problem is we would have to see if that origin in 1908 as they claim is anywhere near where the Tunguska event occurred which according to the article it's not because they still say it originated from Africa.

My bad, I thought CC Benjamin was claiming that AIDs was brought about by Tesla!

It makes much more sense for him to have been involved in the Tunguska event I must admit!

I think the poster meant that Tesla was responsible for Tunguska, not AIDS.

I fail to see how moving the date back to 1908 from the 1930's doesn't change things. It seems that the theory that virus spread from infected chimps in Africa still holds true, even with the new date. Although it would be interesting if researcher could track down patient zero.

This would blow the whole theory that the CIA developed AIDS in a laboratory. I still kinda like that theory. I was told that the DNA of AIDS contains parts of goat and chicken DNA.

reply to post by RemusUK


very interesting reading on the link you provided to alive and well
put all this together, and its conceivable that the virus we've labeled "HIV" is just one of the many we've lived with since times unknown, and the phenomenon of AIDs may have no relation to that particular retrovirus at all.
I am thinking that is a hopeful thing. We haven't found a cure because we've been barking up the wrong tree.
wouldn't be the first time the whole medical community has been wrong about something ...
Just a thought,

Actually it is just example of poor journalism. AIDS is Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome this in turn is a illness that is caused in final stages of HIV - (human immunodeficiency virus) infection. No AIDS virus exists. Person can be infected by HIV and not have AIDS, and if treated with modern drug cocktails AIDS conditions might take loooong time to develop.
I am actually puzzled by one thing - if this virus is that old (and actually can be older) why it took so long for current epidemics? Its action that insures survival of individual long enough to reproduce and the fact that it takes usually years for AIDS conditions to develop and be noticed the spread should be pretty quick. There were Europeans/Middle Easterners in Africa for centuries, Africans were brought to all continents by slave traders. So its spread in last decades is pretty weird. At least to me. If to look at similar example - syphilis - first contacts with its carriers and the desease was brought to Europe. Matter of few years. And now, with "global village", it took a century?

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


I think part of why it took so long is that HIV is relatively difficult to spread, compared to syphilis for example.

For one thing, although both can be transmitted sexually, HIV is (I think, but I'm no expert) only transmitted when there is a direct pathway into the bloodstream - a cut or tear in the skin or in the lining of the vaginal or anal cavity. One consequence of this is that it is much less common for the virus to be transmitted from a woman to a man during heterosexual intercourse than from a man to a woman.

And I'm only guessing, but I think that in the situation of a slave trade, it's probably more likely for male slavers to have sex with female slaves, than for female slavers to have sex with male slaves. So that could slow the spread.

[edit on 10/2/08 by americandingbat]