Hot Air » Blog Archive » AIDS 100 years old?

AIDS 100 years old?

posted at 1:10 pm on October 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

This puts a dent in the government-conspiracy theory that claimed AIDS came from a biological weapons program of the 1970s. Researchers now believe that the HIV virus that causes AIDS may have jumped from chimpanzees to humans as long as 100 years ago. The scientific journal Nature published research today that uses several data points to track the course of the mutations from the original virus, and puts the initial infection within a 40-year span between 1884 and 1924 in Africa:

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

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.

In truth, the conspiracy theories were already dead with the proven existence of HIV in Kinshasa in 1959. That would have predated any extensive viral work in biological weapons, and the second discovery in 1960 showed enough genetic variation that it was clear the initial infection came long before either of these two data points. Of course, actual data and science usually has little effect on paranoid conspiracy theorists, but they tend to inoculate many more potential victims of that lunacy.

This new theory fits with the notion that the industrial age and the growth of urban areas have much to do with the incubation of new diseases. The question will be how many other diseases are entering the human population as a result? How do we keep such outbreaks isolated in an era of mass transit, combined with all of the eternal human problems of war, starvation, prostitution, and poverty?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

I know more than you do. I know HIV causes AIDS.

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Proof by assertion…

I guess you’re just like Al Gore: The debate is over, right? Despite the fact that scientists are challenging this assumption, we’re going to ride roughshod over them, eh?

Here, this is from Cwac’s article that he linked:

Duesberg says his critics have failed to provide satisfactory answers to perplexing contradictions about AIDS. For example, he asks, why does Kaposi’s sarcoma, a cancer of the blood vessels, occur almost exclusively in gay males and not in heterosexual drug users? Why is AIDS rarely transmitted by heterosexual contact in Europe but is said to spread rapidly among heterosexuals in Africa? If AIDS is caused by a virus, why has it been impossible for researchers to develop a vaccine after 20 years and millions of dollars spent? Finally, could it be, as Duesberg suggests, that antiretroviral (ARV) drugs used to attack HIV actually do more harm than good, contrary to the common assumption that they have dramatically reduced AIDS deaths?

Sounds just like the Global Warmingists if you ask me. If I’m a troofer, then you’re a lemming.

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM

There is a chance of a false positive for almost every detection test imaginable. In detection theory, the main challenge is to design a test that is sensitive enough to avoid false negatives, but not so sensitive as to produce a false negative. The balanced solution will always leave a chance for false positives and false negatives.

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM

This actually strengthens my point. If blood tests are so unreliable, then you cannot use them as proof of cause.

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM

I’m eager to hear fossten’s theories on the faked moon landing, how the government blew up the levies during Katrina, and the aliens held at Area 52. Is there a newsletter to which I may subscribe?

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM

This actually strengthens my point. If blood tests are so unreliable, then you cannot use them as proof of cause.

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM

You misunderstand me. Almost no test is 100% reliable, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t 98% reliable. As you do multiple tests, if the test is well-designed, the probability of a false negative or a false positive goes to zero.

Proof by assertion…

I guess you’re just like Al Gore: The debate is over, right? Despite the fact that scientists are challenging this assumption, we’re going to ride roughshod over them, eh?

Reducto ad Gore-ium. Nice. That’s a new one.

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Yeah, pretty much. I have to go to edjumacate some microbiology students now.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 2, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Area 52?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Happy Birthday AIDS! gawd.

johnnyU on October 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM

I just called my wife, she’s a research coordinator for HIV studies for the University of Florida at a clinic that also treats HIV patients. She says that they won’t even prescribe antiretroviral drugs until their CD4 count reaches 250 or below, or they develop an opportunistic infection. (Below 200 is AIDS). A normal person’s CD4 count is 1200 or higher. So obviously it wasn’t ARVs that caused these patients CD4 counts to drop so low. This for adults BTW, not children.

Bill Scrunty on October 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM

I’m eager to hear fossten’s theories on the faked moon landing, how the government blew up the levies during Katrina, and the aliens held at Area 52. Is there a newsletter to which I may subscribe?

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM

I’m eager to see any argument that’s actually on topic.

Reducto ad Gore-ium. Nice. That’s a new one.

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM

See Hollowpoint’s post at the top of this one. You forgot to mock his post as well. Or did you?

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Scientific Americans editors on the decision to publish an article by Duesberg in 2007 relating to the hypothesis of the origin of cancer.

Even mentioning the name Peter Duesberg inflames strong feelings, both pro and con. After gaining fame in 1970 as the virologist who first identified a cancer-causing gene, in the 1980s he became the leading scientific torchbearer for the so-called AIDS dissidents who dispute that HIV causes the immunodeficiency disorder. To the dissidents, Duesberg is Galileo, oppressed for proclaiming scientific truth against biomedical dogma. A far larger number of AIDS activists, physicians and researchers, however, think Duesberg has become a crank who refuses to accept abundant proof that he is wrong. To them, he is at best a nuisance and at worst a source of dangerous disinformation on public health.

Readers may therefore be shocked to see Duesberg as an author in this month’s issue. He is not here because we have misgivings about the HIV-AIDS link. Rather Duesberg has also developed a novel theory about the origins of cancer, one that supposes a derangement of the chromosomes, rather than of individual genes, is the spark that ignites malignant changes in cells. That concept is still on the fringe of cancer research, but laboratories are investigating it seriously. Thus, as wrong as Duesberg surely is about HIV, there is at least a chance that he is significantly right about cancer. We consider the case worthy of bringing to your attention, with the article beginning on page 52.

You know what they say about broken clocks….

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 2, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Area 52?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM

51 has No Vacancy.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 2, 2008 at 4:04 PM

See Hollowpoint’s post at the top of this one. You forgot to mock his post as well. Or did you?

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Just out of curiosity, do you think the moon landings were faked?

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Area 52?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM

The media, government and everyone else involved in the coverup just want you to believe it’s Area 51.

Can you prove there are no aliens at Area 52? Didn’t think so.

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 4:12 PM

I’m eager to see any argument that’s actually on topic.

So make one. Dr. Cwac.Cwac has been doing the heavy-lifting on our side, so if you want to debate this on the scientific merits he’s your man, and he’s given everything you’ve asked for: proof that HIV causes AIDS and rebuttals to your token scientist’s objections.

You can’t expect to defend a fringe position (badly) without catching some heat for it.

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 4:15 PM

I just called my wife, she’s a research coordinator for HIV studies for the University of Florida at a clinic that also treats HIV patients. She says that they won’t even prescribe antiretroviral drugs until their CD4 count reaches 250 or below, or they develop an opportunistic infection. (Below 200 is AIDS). A normal person’s CD4 count is 1200 or higher. So obviously it wasn’t ARVs that caused these patients CD4 counts to drop so low. This for adults BTW, not children.

Bill Scrunty on October 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Uh oh. Hate to break it to you, but your wife is in on the conspiracy. If you hear any helocopters approaching, don’t bother turning to see if they’re painted black. Just run.

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 4:16 PM

Uh oh. Hate to break it to you, but your wife is in on the conspiracy. If you hear any helocopters approaching, don’t bother turning to see if they’re painted black. Just run.

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 4:16 PM

I knew she was hiding something! I’m just glad it turned out not to involve the poolboy…

Bill Scrunty on October 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM

Just out of curiosity, do you think the moon landings were faked?

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Of course not. But what makes you ask that question? Is there a correlation between people who are persuaded that Duesberg’s research is sound, and people who believe the moon landings were faked? If so, I’d like to see your source.

As far as making an argument, I don’t care to, if only for the sake of not spamming this thread. But Cwac Cwac has already linked a Discovery magazine article in this thread, and it’s quite informative. Just read that for starters. I’m satisfied that he’s on to something.

Remember, there was a time when scientists believed that the earth was flat, and that eugenics was sound science. Are you so closed minded that you will not examine evidence that goes against your predispositions? Why attack me personally, someone you do not know, just because I take a position that you do not fully understand?

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM

HIV’s grand strategy:

1) Infect a sexy looking monkey in Africa

2) Lie low for 100 years

3) Mutate, baby, mutate!

4) ?????

5) PROFIT!!

pseudonominus on October 2, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Fossten:

Comparing disbeleif in this notion to Al Gore’s global warming nonsense is a bit off, in my opinion.

There is a difference: Anthropogenic Global Warming does not have a clear consensus behind it, and peer-reviewed studies have not been properly done to support it.

Currently, concensus and peer-reviewed work does not support Duesberg’s lone claim.

Until he can produce a good peer-reviewed study, and get some consensus behind him, it ain’t science yet.

The only difference between Duesberg’s and Al Gore’s claims is that Gore ( unfortunately ) has a crowd behind him. No real science has been done to support Gore’s claim … and I don’t see any peer-reviewed research supporting Duesberg, either.

Kristopher on October 2, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Of course not. But what makes you ask that question? Is there a correlation between people who are persuaded that Duesberg’s research is sound, and people who believe the moon landings were faked? If so, I’d like to see your source.
fossten on October 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Both are willing to overlook the evidence opposing their nutty theories while offering none in return to support theirs. Both obsess about easily explained and inconsequential details that they label as discrepancies. Both contend that the “truth” is willfully being hidden and lied about as part of a conspiracy.

Two different hats cut from the same roll of tinfoil.

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 5:46 PM

bbbbut jesus made it to punish gays i thought

Xolom on October 2, 2008 at 6:12 PM

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM

I ask because I’m interested in conspiracy theories, denialism, and all forms of irrational belief-formation. Plus I’m just kind of a smart-aleck. It’s honestly nothing personal. It doesn’t come out well over the internet, but I’m just having fun with the argument.

Technically scientists never believed the Earth was flat, because that belief died out thousands of years (literally thousands, the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round) before what we understand to be science even existed. But was that an unreasonable belief? The Earth actually is approximately flat - walk outside and see for yourself. It’s not that the first philosophers of the natural world were irredeemably wrong. They had a model that fit the available data, and worked well enough to solve the problems of the time. The model has been improved and refined. Pull out any road atlas, and you’ll see that we even still use the flat-earth model when it’s appropriate.

What does any of this have to do with HIV? Nothing really, I don’t know why you brought it up. But if we’re going to guess the trajectory of knowledge about HIV based on the history of human understanding of nature, then the lesson is that our future knowledge will retain and refine, rather than overturn, our current assumptions.

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Well… that kinda punches a huge hole in Obama’s Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s theory: “America created the AIDS to kill black people! God Damn America!”

FlatFoot on October 2, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

You must be logged in to post a comment.