AIDS virus 100 years old...

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Oct 6, 2005
1,497
4
0
43
#1
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.

Previously, scientists had estimated the origin at around 1930. AIDS wasn't recognized formally until 1981 when it got the attention of public health officials in the United States.

The new result is "not a monumental shift, but it means the virus was circulating under our radar even longer than we knew," says Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona, an author of the new work.

The results appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Researchers note that the newly calculated dates fall during the rise of cities in Africa, and they suggest urban development may have promoted HIV's initial establishment and early spread.

Scientists say HIV descended from a chimpanzee virus that jumped to humans in Africa, probably when people butchered chimps. Many individuals were probably infected that way, but so few other people caught the virus that it failed to get a lasting foothold, researchers say.

But the growth of African cities may have changed that by putting lots of people close together and promoting prostitution, Worobey suggested. "Cities are kind of ideal for a virus like HIV," providing more chances for infected people to pass the virus to others, he said.

Perhaps a person infected with the AIDS virus in a rural area went to what is now Kinshasa, Congo, "and now you've got the spark arriving in the tinderbox," Worobey said.

Key to the new work was the discovery of an HIV sample that had been taken from a woman in Kinshasa in 1960. It was only the second such sample to be found from before 1976; the other was from 1959, also from Kinshasa.

Researchers took advantage of the fact that HIV mutates rapidly. So two strains from a common ancestor quickly become less and less alike in their genetic material over time. That allows scientists to "run the clock backward" by calculating how long it would take for various strains to become as different as they are observed to be. That would indicate when they both sprang from their most recent common ancestor.

The new work used genetic data from the two old HIV samples plus more than 100 modern samples to create a family tree going back to these samples' last common ancestor. Researchers got various answers under various approaches for when that ancestor virus appeared, but the 1884-to-1924 bracket is probably the most reliable, Worobey said.

The new work is "clearly an improvement" over the previous estimate of around 1930, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland. His institute helped pay for the work.

Fauci described the advance as "a fine-tuning."

Experts say it's no surprise that HIV circulated in humans for about 70 years before being recognized. An infection usually takes years to produce obvious symptoms, a lag that can mask the role of the virus, and it would have infected relatively few Africans early in its spread, they said.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#2
I was going to make a thread about this, but I only had the Nature paper and not a popular article...

There was also a very interesting article last week on the 1918 flu virus where they found that people who survived the pandemy still have immunity against it...

Paleomolecular biology can be very interesting
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#3
So they still only *think* it came from chimps? Where did they come up with that?

If AIDS was around that long, wouldnt the death toll from it be huge in the earlier yers, especially during an era like the 60's when "free love" was in?

I dont know how accruate they are with this.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#4
If AIDS was around that long, wouldnt the death toll from it be huge in the earlier yers, especially during an era like the 60's when "free love" was in?

Perhaps the virus had not yet been introduced to populations that were in the "Free Love" movement, such as within the US.


It sounds as though even though it was around 100 years ago, it didn't spread very far for a while.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#5
So they still only *think* it came from chimps? Where did they come up with that?

If AIDS was around that long, wouldnt the death toll from it be huge in the earlier yers, especially during an era like the 60's when "free love" was in?

I dont know how accruate they are with this.
No, because populations in Central Africa were relatively isolated from the rest of the world and from each other at that time. The virus began spreading only after prostitutes and truckers appeared in the area and even then it must have taken some time. There has never been any "free love" movement in Africa, don't forget that. And it is still perfectly valid to assume that the virus came from monkeys, because the SIV virus is quite similar, and the transmission (through sexual intercourse with monkeys or some other means) could have happened at any time, 19th century, early 20th century, it does not really matter.
 
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
45
#14
I'd say the assumption is accurate, however, when the 80/20 theory is applied and its the corrupt scientist aligned with the political interest/marketing groups the info. that is presented to the public gets spewed is skewed, chopped and screwed. (perfect example global warming)
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#16
I don't think so

In this case there is a lot of published evidence supporting one hypothesis and no published evidence supporting the other.
There may be reasons why this occurs. Could be one side has been paid money or coerced to keep their mouth shut and not report the findings. We've had articles about that posted here before.

The assumption that scientist are honest in communicating with each other is very similar to our court system and how the courts believe police officers are honest because they are officers.

A couple of years back I watched a movie on aids/hiv, but I forgot the name of the movie. In that movie there was a lot of political bullshit, backstabbing, faulty research and madness in regards to the study of aids, and this movie was based on a true story. Monday I'll get in contact with the person who showed it to me and I'll get the title and post it.

In the meantime, maybe we should watch this. I found it while trying to do a search for the movie I was referring to. I have not watched the vids contained in this link, have no opinion of them, and don't know if any information contained in them is fact or fiction (opinion.)

http://www.archive.org/details/aids_scam
 
May 20, 2008
1,387
0
0
36
#17
i have had family memebers that was in the military that told me that the government does have the cure for aids but they only give itto the top elite mafuckas in command or sum shit
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#20
AIDS WAS INVENTED IN THE LATE 70'S AND GIVING TO AFRICANS AS A VACCINE SHOT "W.H.O. Murdered Africa".... population controlllllll ya dig?
evidence?

molecular biology was not advanced enough for this to be possible in the 70s, people didn't know what exactly the differences between the different T cells are, the various CDs (1 through 300+) were only identified in the 80s with the advancement of monoclonal antibody technologies (that's why they are called CDs) and nobody had a clue what chemokines and CCRs and CXCRs are