Patient "Zero" How Aids Came to the US

[+ bigjoey]

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/10/26/498876985/mystery-solved-how-hiv-came-to-the-u-s

 

Interesting correction of history.

[TruthBTold]

It never did make much sense. It fit perfectly into our hate of the French and the Canadians.

[marylander1940]

It never did make much sense. It fit perfectly into our hate of the French and the Canadians.

 

Trump will blame a Mexican or a Muslim for this, but promiscuous French and Canadians with their multiple wives, premarital sex, affairs, hookups, etc. fit the bill. LOL

[TruthBTold]

LOL. I hope he has gotten tested.

[JayCeeKy]

Interesting article. Apparently Gaetan Dugas was a victim and something of a hero, not the promiscuous Typhoid Mary he was made out to be. RIP, Gaetan.

[Rudynate]

I can't remember exactly when I read this, but it was a newspaper account of a gay homicide victim who had been kidnapped and murdered by his kidnapper, in the mid-fifties. Tissue specimens left from his autopsy tested positive for HIV.

[+ Charlie]

I can't remember exactly when I read this, but it was a newspaper account of a gay homicide victim who had been kidnapped and murdered by his kidnapper, in the mid-fifties. Tissue specimens left from his autopsy tested positive for HIV.

This sounds like something from the National Enquirer or a similar rag. The virus would be found in blood, not tissue, and the likelihood of it being casually discoverable in remains from 60 years ago is pretty much nil. The scientific consensus is clear that the virus didn't leave Africa before the 1960s.

[Rudynate]

This sounds like something from the National Enquirer or a similar rag. The virus would be found in blood, not tissue, and the likelihood of it being casually discoverable in remains from 60 years ago is pretty much nil. The scientific consensus is clear that the virus didn't leave Africa before the 1960s.

 

Influenza virus has been detected in autopsy specimens taken from victims of the 1918 flu epidemic.

 

 

It is well known that HIV can be detected in tissue specimens, e.g.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20459560

 

Identifying HIV infection in diagnostic histopathology tissue samples--the role of HIV-1 p24 immunohistochemistry in identifying clinically unsuspected HIV infection: a 3-year analysis.

[+ Charlie]

Influenza virus has been detected in autopsy specimens taken from victims of the 1918 flu epidemic.

 

 

It is well known that HIV can be detected in tissue specimens, e.g.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20459560

 

Identifying HIV infection in diagnostic histopathology tissue samples--the role of HIV-1 p24 immunohistochemistry in identifying clinically unsuspected HIV infection: a 3-year analysis.

Thanks for educating me about this. But why would anyone be doing such a test on the remains of such an old victim? And how would he have become infected back then?

[Rudynate]

This sounds like something from the National Enquirer or a similar rag. The virus would be found in blood, not tissue, and the likelihood of it being casually discoverable in remains from 60 years ago is pretty much nil. The scientific consensus is clear that the virus didn't leave Africa before the 1960s.

 

Things in the living world are never as simple or as tidy as scientists like to describe them as being. For example:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/28/us/boy-s-1969-death-suggests-aids-invaded-us-several-times.html

[Rudynate]

Thanks for educating me about this. But why would anyone be doing such a test on the remains of such an old victim? And how would he have become infected back then?

 

I know it sounds weird, and it was long enough ago so that I may not be remembering the facts clearly. But the story I linked to above documents at least one AIDS case in the US from the 1960s. HIV has been isolated from samples in Africa as early as 1959.

[+ Charlie]

Now I do remember reading that article in the NYT back in 1987, when I was reading so much of Gina Kolata's reporting. But at the time it seemed like such a bizarre outlier that I forgot about it. They never did figure out how the kid got infected. The article said nothing about his ethnic background or history, and his doctors in 1969 wouldn't have been looking for an African connection.

[Rudynate]

Now I do remember reading that article in the NYT back in 1987, when I was reading so much of Gina Kolata's reporting. But at the time it seemed like such a bizarre outlier that I forgot about it. They never did figure out how the kid got infected. The article said nothing about his ethnic background or history, and his doctors in 1969 wouldn't have been looking for an African connection.

 

I sort of remember this effort. They were trying to pin-point the occurrence of the earliest AIDS cases. They want back and looked for deaths like Rayford's that had never been fully explained and reviewed the chart. If there was a fit, they tested the autopsy samples for HIV. I had a friend who was one of the earliest casualties in Colorado. He died without ever having been diagnosed with AIDS because he never developed KS or any of the characteristic OIs.

[+ Charlie]

I had a couple of gay friends in NYC who died of strange infections in 1979-1981, before AIDS was identified, and in retrospect it was pretty obvious what they had.

[Rudynate]

I had a couple of gay friends in NYC who died of strange infections in 1979-1981, before AIDS was identified, and in retrospect it was pretty obvious what they had.

 

I remember two or three guys who developed lymphoma almost overnight and were gone in no time.

[+ nycman]

Yeah, in retrospect there were several bizarre deaths in NYC among young gay men in the mid-1970's.

 

It's basically an open secret that those were all early AIDS cases before we even knew anything was happening. And if they were

dying in the mid-70's they most likely got infected in the 1960's. The "patient zero" theory never held much water because with

these cases in the mid-1970's the timeline just didn't work. In fact I'm pretty sure I remember there being NYC blood samples from

as far back the 1950's that later tested positive for HIV.

 

Not saying he didn't contribute to the early spread of the disease. It seems clear he did.

He's just not "patient zero"...if such an individual even existed.

[+ azdr0710]

sorry to be dense here, but I've always vaguely wondered if this only became a "gay disease" because, by pure chance, a gay person in early 20th century Africa happened to be the first human handling (thru research, hunting, butchering) the body of an infected African animal and, thus, it spread to other gays the "first person" had contact with.....could it have been just as much a straight "first" person handling the "first" infected animal way back then???....

 

or do I have this all wrong?.....doctors?

[kewtex]

sorry to be dense here, but I've always vaguely wondered if this only became a "gay disease" because, by pure chance, a gay person in early 20th century Africa happened to be the first human handling (thru research, hunting, butchering) the body of an infected African animal and, thus, it spread to other gays the "first person" had contact with.....could it have been just as much a straight "first" person handling the "first" infected animal way back then???....

 

My thoughts…

 

From the New York Times article link posted by @Rudunate (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/28/us/boy-s-1969-death-suggests-aids-invaded-us-several-times.html): "The virus spreads through sexual intercourse or infected blood's entry into the body. Since it is not transmitted in every act of intercourse by a virus carrier, experts said, the disease might not spread widely from a small number of carriers unless they engaged in frequent intercourse with a large number of partners, a condition that was met among male homosexual populations in some cities in the 1970's."

 

In the early 80s, the majority of patients presenting with symptoms of AIDS were homosexual men. This led many to believe it was a gay disease. The fact that GRID, gay-related immune deficiency, was proposed as a name for the disease did little to dispel that notion.

[+ azdr0710]

My thoughts…

 

From the New York Times article link posted by @Rudunate (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/28/us/boy-s-1969-death-suggests-aids-invaded-us-several-times.html): "The virus spreads through sexual intercourse or infected blood's entry into the body. Since it is not transmitted in every act of intercourse by a virus carrier, experts said, the disease might not spread widely from a small number of carriers unless they engaged in frequent intercourse with a large number of partners, a condition that was met among male homosexual populations in some cities in the 1970's."

 

In the early 80s, the majority of patients presenting with symptoms of AIDS were homosexual men. This led many to believe it was a gay disease. The fact that GRID, gay-related immune deficiency, was proposed as a name for the disease did little to dispel that notion.

 

so is it possible it may've had originally heterosexual origins (it's never been a "gay" disease in Africa, apparently) back in the early 20th century, but because of the promiscuous nature of sexually-active gay men, it spread quickly (after some early encounter between a gay man and an infected heterosexual??) in that population and, thus, became known as a "gay" disease??????

[+ Funguy]

Does the word, "Zika," ring a bell?

[kewtex]

HIV originated from mutated SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus), and was introduced to humans by contacted with infected chimp blood or meat. The origins of the virus have nothing to do with sex, hetero- or homosexual. A virus has no conscience. A virus has one goal - to replicate itself.

[Rudynate]

so is it possible it may've had originally heterosexual origins (it's never been a "gay" disease in Africa, apparently) back in the early 20th century, but because of the promiscuous nature of sexually-active gay men, it spread quickly (after some early encounter between a gay man and an infected heterosexual??) in that population and, thus, became known as a "gay" disease??????

 

Also, it much more easily transmitted through anal sex than it is through vaginal sex. And guess what population REALLY likes anal sex?

[josh282282]

sorry to be dense here, but I've always vaguely wondered if this only became a "gay disease" because, by pure chance, a gay person in early 20th century Africa happened to be the first human handling (thru research, hunting, butchering) the body of an infected African animal and, thus, it spread to other gays the "first person" had contact with.....could it have been just as much a straight "first" person handling the "first" infected animal way back then???....

 

or do I have this all wrong?.....doctors?

 

My (hopefully taken in a respectful manner) reply is yes, you are VERY much mistaken regarding the demographics of the global pandemic. HIV/AIDS is very much NOT a Gay disease at all. It is primarily a heterosexual/childhood disease in the world, mostly in sub-Sahara Africa and Asia. It is only in some industrialized nations that the first demographic to be infected was the gay community and IVDA community. From a global perspective, Gay men make a small portion of those infected by the virus.

[+ azdr0710]

My (hopefully taken in a respectful manner) reply is yes, you are VERY much mistaken regarding the demographics of the global pandemic. HIV/AIDS is very much NOT a Gay disease at all. It is primarily a heterosexual/childhood disease in the world, mostly in sub-Sahara Africa and Asia. It is only in some industrialized nations that the first demographic to be infected was the gay community and IVDA community. From a global perspective, Gay men make a small portion of those infected by the virus.

 

thanks for the note....yes, I certainly do know it's primarily a heterosexual concern in Africa and Asia (see my post #19 above).....

[josh282282]

My apologies, azdr710, I'm still not sure what you mean with your original question..

Could you rephrase it?