Gorilla HIV/AIDS - new strain or disinformation?

I will keep my OP short and rather let the claimed facts of the mainstream media speak for themselves. HIV/AIDS has been spread to humans in Africa via Chimps and Green Monkeys. Some conspiracies claimed this was not the case, and a few went even further in claiming HIV was a harmless carrier-virus, or simply didn't exist, or that ARV medicines actually caused AIDS.
I always thought that AIDS was laboratory created to kill homosexuals and blacks, but that ARVs worked for those who had access to them. I figured that putting people on various herbal or vegan diets was the true conspiracy, and I still think it divided and undermined scientific treatment.

HIV asks a question of science that is pretty similar to what evolutionists ask.
What happened to all the in-between species - where is the link between a chimp and a man? Where are the missing links? When is something an "evolved species" or an "intermediate species"? Similarly, officially science tells us HIV/AIDS is a former monkey disease. On the other hand it is only three decades old in popular culture.
Could it be that HIV is not set, and that it continues to spread from Simians to humans? Is it evolving? Is the HIV we've seen so far just an intermediary step to something worse? Does the continuing bush-meat industry in Africa mean new strains are being introduced to humans all the time? Consider that smallpox came from cattle, and it could spread agian, as we lose immunity.
In any case, HIV is still spread to humans, this time from gorillas.
If this is true, stopping the African bush meat industry and its deforestation is more crucial to our survival than stopping global warming.

www.newscientist.com...

[edit on 16-5-2010 by halfoldman]

If the allegations of a new HIV strain from gorillas is true, then the whole "lenti-virus" sheep conspiracy is busted, or not?
The question is will it spread again, like green monkey and chimp originating HIV? Doubtlessly, thousands of dirty needles helped to spread HIV in anti-Polio innoculations in the Congo. I think our free and donated "frontline" ARVS in SA will not handle this:

A new strain of HIV has been discovered in a woman from Cameroon. It differs from the three known strains and appears to be closely related to a form of the virus recently discovered in wild gorillas, researchers reported today in the journal Nature Medicine.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Doesn't it all also say that curbing human sexuality, or "morality-based" HIV-cures are a waste of time, or just a palliative? The real problem is environmental, and most of our current religious groups ignore the environement, because they think the world will end soon in any case. They see HIV/AIDs as a kind of "moral ammunition".
Radically, on the other hand - maybe we should wipe out the monkeys and apes - hey, no more Ebola, HIV or other human sickness?

[edit on 16-5-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


HIV poses more questions than that of evolution. The whole existence of HIV is predicated on the presence of anti-bodies in the blood stream. These anti-bodies are what indicate that HIV is present and the source of a threat that can lead to AIDS, but with all other viruses, the presence of anti-bodies indicates that the immune system has done its job and handled the threat of the virus, not so with the so called HIV virus that acts in the complete opposite way. Further, when Robert Gallo first began working with the HIV virus he advocated it as a source of a strain of leukemia. Leukemia is a cancer and cancer is generally accepted to be a rapid cell growth, or massive cell growth, yet when Gallo then advocated HIV as the source of AIDS, suddenly the same virus he believed was causing massive cell growth, now is causing cell depletion. This so called retro-virus HIV acts like no other virus on the planet, and in terms of a theory, fails to predict at every step, which keeps this from truly being anything more than a hypothesis.

Originally posted by halfoldman
If the allegations of a new HIV strain from gorillas is true, then the whole "lenti-virus" sheep conspiracy is busted, or not?
The question is will it spread again, like green monkey and chimp originating HIV? Doubtlessly, thousands of dirty needles helped to spread HIV in anti-Polio innoculations in the Congo. I think our free and donated "frontline" ARVS in SA will not handle this:

A new strain of HIV has been discovered in a woman from Cameroon. It differs from the three known strains and appears to be closely related to a form of the virus recently discovered in wild gorillas, researchers reported today in the journal Nature Medicine.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Doesn't it all also say that curbing human sexuality, or "morality-based" HIV-cures are a waste of time, or just a palliative? The real problem is environmental, and most of our current religious groups ignore the environement, because they think the world will end soon in any case. They see HIV/AIDs as a kind of "moral ammunition".
Radically, on the other hand - maybe we should wipe out the monkeys and apes - hey, no more Ebola, HIV or other human sickness?

[edit on 16-5-2010 by halfoldman]

Maybe but.....HIV can still be sexually transmitted....so maybe we do need "morality-based" cures. such as...dont screw anything that moves. Dont have casual sex. Dont have sex without a condom. Quit glorfiying sex on television. Quit sexualizing the youth.

That would curb HIV thats sexualy transmitted, We could then focus on environmental HIV.

or whatever.

You dont have to be a christian to find the way sex is viewed today as morally repulsive.

You dont have to be christian to think casual sex is wrong and risky.

its just common sense.

Thats why people will figh it and it wont be implimented.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

From what I hear HIV actually hijacks the immune cells, injects its own genetic code, and eventually destroys them by using them as HIV factories.
Before the body sero-converts (or tests positive with common anti-body tests) it puts up a major fight - which is usually unsuccessful. This is called "sero-conversion sickness".
Strangely, it is said that the severity of this initial sickness will reflect the progression and onset of AIDS, and how fast it moves to death.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

HIV poses more questions than that of evolution. The whole existence of HIV is predicated on the presence of anti-bodies in the blood stream. These anti-bodies are what indicate that HIV is present and the source of a threat that can lead to AIDS, but with all other viruses, the presence of anti-bodies indicates that the immune system has done its job and handled the threat of the virus, not so with the so called HIV virus that acts in the complete opposite way. Further, when Robert Gallo first began working with the HIV virus he advocated it as a source of a strain of leukemia. Leukemia is a cancer and cancer is generally accepted to be a rapid cell growth, or massive cell growth, yet when Gallo then advocated HIV as the source of AIDS, suddenly the same virus he believed was causing massive cell growth, now is causing cell depletion. This so called retro-virus HIV acts like no other virus on the planet, and in terms of a theory, fails to predict at every step, which keeps this from truly being anything more than a hypothesis.

People who get HIV have their cd4 counts go dangerously low and then begin to get different infections...where is the hypothesis? I don't have that problem...there has to be a problem for that to occur. And not everyone takes meds, and they weren't taking it in the 80's when it first appeared and was particularly virulent.

reply to post by tauempire

Well, sex and sexuality have been stigmatized for ages. I remember one quote from the Hindu scriptures where it talks of a saint speaking of people "enjoying themselves like elephants", and simply rubbing their urinary parts together. Putting it like that doesn't make it sound so hot.
Yet, the gods enjoyed sex, and even the Bible is very sexual.
It is the religious injunctions aginst condoms that are really shocking.
Since condoms weren't even invented when scriptures were written, how can people say this???

In any case, since HIV seemingly stems from bush-meat, then religion needs to re-inforce dietery and environmental laws!!!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Just a bit confused - are you saying that the HIV/AIDS information is a hypothesis (and not proven)?

Currently there are many "immune-boosters" available. Many people think that upping the immune system will suppress AIDS.
However this is very questionable. If HIV hijacks immune cells, than more of these cells could mean more HIV. Hence I've avoided any concoction that promises to "boost" the "immune system".
It's a huge industry though.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by halfoldman

 

HIV poses more questions than that of evolution. The whole existence of HIV is predicated on the presence of anti-bodies in the blood stream. These anti-bodies are what indicate that HIV is present and the source of a threat that can lead to AIDS, but with all other viruses, the presence of anti-bodies indicates that the immune system has done its job and handled the threat of the virus, not so with the so called HIV virus that acts in the complete opposite way.

You're misunderstanding what the antibodies are doing here. We always use antibodies as a test to determine the presence of a virus. This is one of the most common medical tests for viral infections. Also, just because your body is producing antibodies to a virus doesn't mean the immune system has "done it's job". Antibodies are created with varying affinities and potencies, depending on the isotype being produced. Some viruses are more adept at eliciting a certain class of antibody response, which is essentially useless against the virus. Thus, you would have a high antibody titer, but you wouldn't be actively fighting the virus.

Further, when Robert Gallo first began working with the HIV virus he advocated it as a source of a strain of leukemia. Leukemia is a cancer and cancer is generally accepted to be a rapid cell growth, or massive cell growth, yet when Gallo then advocated HIV as the source of AIDS, suddenly the same virus he believed was causing massive cell growth, now is causing cell depletion.

Again, you're misunderstanding a very basic concept. Leukemia is a cancer, yes, but the "massive cell growth" it produces is in the form of immature or dysfunctional white cells. Thus, they will not work as they are supposed to. This leaves leukemia patients vulnerable to a wide variety of normally harmless conditions and infections. The same disease process occurs in HIV/AIDS, though it is due to a systematic killing of one specific class of leukocytes, the CD4+ T cells, causing leukopenia. So, Gallo wasn't too far off. Given the era in which he was describing HIV, I think it was a good first step. Leukemia and leukopenia produce similar effects on the body.

This so called retro-virus HIV acts like no other virus on the planet, and in terms of a theory, fails to predict at every step, which keeps this from truly being anything more than a hypothesis.

That's not true. We understand perfectly how HIV acts, we can predict it's behaviour (apart from random mutations which are, by nature, random and can occur in any virus). The problem with treating HIV is that the rate of mutation leaves very few conserved proteins, a necessity for developing a vaccine. Additionally, it's cellular target (CD4+ T cells) makes it a very potent virus. The latency period also makes it difficult to treat, as the virus can infect a large portion of your T cells while remaining relatively asymptomatic, only to awaken 10 years after infection and quickly wreak havoc on your immune system.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

When our former President Thabo Mkeki adopted "denialist" views, the accuracy of the anti-body test was heavily questioed.
However, the DNA based tests already existed, and the info always corrolated.

reply to post by halfoldman


Not to mention, Mbeki's denialist views killed hundreds, possibly thousands of HIV+ patients, including children who contracted it from HIV+ mothers.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

It is accepted that 300 000-350 000 people died direcltly from Mbeki's policies. Some medical workers have even mooted a possible "truth commision" to find out how and why this needlessly happened.

Strange isn't it - when a major leader loses the plot there is nothing one can do?

reply to post by halfoldman


I honestly had no idea the estimate has climbed to high, and it absolutely sickens me that so many had to suffer because of one man's ignorance. PArtly to blame is a man named Peter Duesberg, who was a close confidant of Mbeki and is still crusading for HIV denialism. He is a despicable man with a tenuous grasp on science.

Originally posted by halfoldman

What happened to all the in-between species - where is the link between a chimp and a man? Where are the missing links?

There are no missing links between humans and chimpanzees because humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Both humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

Many missing links have been found between the common ancestor and chimps, and between the common ancestor and humans.

When is something an "evolved species" or an "intermediate species"?

All species are intermediate species. Evolution never stops; there is only change, (however gradual,) or extinction.




Re AIDS, I've spent years reading up on various people's versions of the history, and come to the conclusion that there are two diseases, both called AIDS, one made in Africa to kill blacks, and another made later in America to kill homosexuals.

They are both real diseases which respond to appropriate treatment. However you need to be healthy and on a good diet to live with HIV without it progressing to AIDS, and this has led to a belief that it's all about lifestyle.

This belief (that there is no infectious agent involved,) is encouraged by:
- those who want to blame the victims,
- those who want to cover up the role of the scientists who created these diseases,
- those who don't want to spend money on medications,
- those who want more people to die, and
- wishful thinkers.

reply to post by Kailassa

Good points.
So on chimps and man: there are no intermediate species? Then why bother with Lucy and Australopithecus? Why bother with fossils at all?

With HIV/Aids - so it is a "lifestyle" disease?
One won't progress to AIDS with a certain lifestyle?

Originally posted by Kailassa

Re AIDS, I've spent years reading up on various people's versions of the history, and come to the conclusion that there are two diseases, both called AIDS, one made in Africa to kill blacks, and another made later in America to kill homosexuals.

In order for this to be true, the government would have to have science about 75 years more advanced that we currently know it. DNA and RNA weren't discovered until 1969 and 1959, respectively, with the first known cases of HIV having been seen in 1959. This suggests that about the time we were discovering HIV, we were also just discovering DNA and RNA. So, using your idea that HIV was "created" by scientists, they would have had to go from discovering DNA/RNA to being able to sequence, manipulate, package, test, and disseminate HIV in less than one year.

I don't think this is likely.

[edit on 5/16/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Personally I'm a conspiracy theorist when it comes to the origin and spread of AIDS. However I will not question it's current science or treatment.
I mean anyone can tell from history how slow and lack-lustre the Reagan response was, and some Christian fundamentalists actively applauded the disease.
So it was probably something "natural" (like human evolution) that happened, but when it did it assumed all types of social stigmas.

reply to post by halfoldman


I agree. It's entirely natural, but the mode of spread favored certain population, which added even more stigma to the homosexual community, as well as IV drug users. The social stigma made it very hard to get widespread support and research funding for quite some time.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

And of course, while it took its toll in the West - eventually being isolated as a new virus - in African countries like Uganda it was not recognized as a seperate cause of disease.
That is the Western "history" we get.
It is incorrect, AIDS was recognized as a seperate "Slim's disease" long before Weterners would listen.
It was known, even its sexual cause.
White doctors just refused to listen.
In fact, the isolation of the virus was probably cultural theft by both French and US researchers.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Good points.
So on chimps and man: there are no intermediate species? Then why bother with Lucy and Australopithecus? Why bother with fossils at all?

With HIV/Aids - so it is a "lifestyle" disease?
One won't progress to AIDS with a certain lifestyle?

Somehow you've misunderstood me on both points.

re evolution:
Man did not evolve from chimps.
Both chimps and man evolved from an earlier primate which no longer exists except as fossils.
There are fossils of intermediate species linking man to this earlier primate, and there are fossils of intermediate species linking chimps to this earlier primate.


Re AIDS:
AIDS is man-made, it is caused by a rotovirus, and it can respond to the appropriate medication.

However, like all diseases, a healthy lifestyle with good nutrition is necessary in order to have the best outcome.

It's like TB, which is also an infectious disease, needing appropriate medication, and which also is far more lethal if the infected person is undernourished and has poor living conditions.

I believe the myth, that AIDS is just the result of certain lifestyle factors, was invented to cover up the fact that it is man made.