Patient "Zero" How Aids Came to the US

[+ Charlie]

Exclusive homosexuality is much less common in African societies, where most "gay" men are likely to be functionally bisexual in conduct. So it would be nearly impossible to pinpoint HIV/AIDS as originating from a gay man. It probably started from a man (or more likely a number of men) who were infected by contact with infected chimps, and then spread it to men and women who spread it to other men and women. Eventually, it got into Western urban areas--like New York and San Francisco--with large communities of gay men who were sexually promiscuous mostly with other gay men; there it spread more quickly and visibly than in Africa and the Caribbean, where it had passed under the radar of modern medicine and media. Since no one was sure at the beginning how the disease was spread, it was assumed at first that it had something to do with being gay, hence GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency).

[+ azdr0710]

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

Could you rephrase it?

 

thanks for your patience with me, josh!....

 

Charlie, just above, mostly answered my question, which is more regarding the "history" of HIV/AIDS.....wondering how it took a "gay" turn in the 1970s (in first-world countries) if it had been festering for several decades previous in Africa as very much NOT a gay virus......specifically, do we presume an infected African (gay, bi, or straight, man or woman - doesn't matter) infected a gay "Western" man FIRST (perhaps in the 1950s or 60s) rather than a heterosexual person?.....or did it fester among a random set of gay/straight/whatever first-world populations in those early 1950s years?....and THEN did it only become a "gay" concern in the industrialized countries only because of the promiscuous lifestyle of gays in those 60s/70s years - thus spreading it among the gay population much, much quicker (thus making it seem like a "gay disease")???......

 

thanks again....the history and "logistics" of the origins of this is very interesting.....and how it came to be seen as a "gay" disease in North America/Europe.....

[josh282282]

.or did it fester among a random set of gay/straight/whatever first-world populations in those early 1950s years?...

 

Yes, I agree with you. HIV/AIDS is a fascinating field.

 

Current studies suggest that there have been multiple HIV virus attempted crossovers into America from the Caribbean/Africa before the 1970s. But scientists consider those attempts as viral "dead ends". Meaning, the virus infected an individual(s) in the US but that individual died before being able to pass the infection onto the next individual. The sexual revolution/Gay civil rights movement of the 1970s with the climate of multiple sexual partners without the use of condoms provided the background for the HIV virus to infect multiple men before their passing. This enabled the virus to take hold without any viral dead ends, infect a community and overtime spread itself to the entire US.

 

That appears to be the most current belief on the migration of the HIV to the US.

[TruthBTold]

Other than this particular fascination regarding its origin into the U.S. (by the way did Canada experience the same sort of HIV infestation?), has determining its origin here done anything to help develop medications or care for patients?

[+ Charlie]

Other than this particular fascination regarding its origin into the U.S. (by the way did Canada experience the same sort of HIV infestation?), has determining its origin here done anything to help develop medications or care for patients?

No, because the purpose of epidemiology is to find ways to prevent the spread of a disease, not to treat those who have it.

[TruthBTold]

Thanks Charlie, that makes sense.

[Rudynate]

Other than this particular fascination regarding its origin into the U.S. (by the way did Canada experience the same sort of HIV infestation?), has determining its origin here done anything to help develop medications or care for patients?

 

The Reagan policy toward AIDS was that it was a homosexual problem and that they had chosen that fate as a result of their deviant lifestyle, and it was officially ignored until very late in the epidemic, so an opportunity to get out in front of the epidemic was lost. Now, we have lots of treatment options for HIV but no cure because treatment (as opposed to cure) provides a better revenue stream for big pharma.

[josh282282]

Now, we have lots of treatment options for HIV but no cure because treatment (as opposed to cure) provides a better revenue stream for big pharma.

 

I respectfully but vigorously disagree with such conspiracy beliefs.

 

At this point in time we do not have the scientific technology to eradicate HIV from the body's own DNA. I am aware most participants in this forum are not physicians, biomolecular researchers, etc so I will be as plain as possible. The HIV might be the single smartest pathogen that has ever invaded humans. Once the HIV enters the human cell, it copies itself, cuts a hole in the strand of DNA, and inserts itself there. This is the foundation of its awesome power to evade the hosts immune system and then kill the host.

 

Heres an analogy: imagine a long steel ladder, one that can go up 20 feet. Now imagine up comes a 3 foot steel ladder (but its cut in half longways so its missing half of all the steps- it cant stand up by itself) which magically doubles it's missing half, cuts a hole all the way thru the 20 foot ladder, inserts itself into the ladder, and seals itself in. You now have a 23 foot ladder but it all looks the same. Just by looking at it, one has no idea what just happened. That's how HIV is. It INSERTS itself into the human DNA, the very core of humanity. We simply do not have the technology to first find every infected cell that is infected with HIV, then safely cut out only the HIV portion, and now claim s/he is cured. This is unlike other infectious pathogens which once invading the human, the body not only becomes aware of it, but kill's it. Our immune system simply can't find the virus. Cuz it's imbedded in us. Hidden.

 

There are no phenomenally well-orchestrated global conspiracies executed by Big Pharma that is preventing the search for the cure. Quite the contrary. There is a huge rush among scientists worldwide for one of them to discover the vaccine and the cure. The scientist that finds the cure gets the Nobel prize. And would become quite rich. Even now, there are scientists all over the globe painstakingly seeking a cure. Do you really think in this day and age with WikiLeaks, cell phones, social media etc that a Big Pharma conspiracy could be kept secret for long? It could be possible for several organizations to work covertly to hide, well, anything. But every single pharmaceutical company on the planet? Every government? Every lab all successfully working in cahoots? Really?

 

Please do not listen to idle fears, give way to bitterness, or succumb to useless strategies to manage the (very understandble) disappointment that after decades of this horrible scourge we call HIV/AIDS hasn't been cured. Yes, we have lost too many brothers and sisters to the pandemic, but take Hope that we are More Brilliant and More Beautiful than HIV and Someday Soon we will find for everyone a vaccine and a cure.

 

Love to all,

Josh

[Rudynate]

I respectfully but vigorously disagree with such conspiracy beliefs.

 

At this point in time we do not have the scientific technology to eradicate HIV from the body's own DNA.

 

 

No, it's not a conspiracy. Big pharma did not sit down around some secret conference table and conspire with each other not to not seek a cure for HIV to safeguard their revenue stream from HIV anti-virals. It's simply a question of priorities. Yes, we don't have the scientific technology to eradicate HIV from the body's own DNA - BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PRIORITY. The anti-virals are so lucrative and work so well that they would rather develop new anti-virals than look for a way of eradicating virus from an infected host. It's the invisible hand of the marketplace in operation - not a conspiracy.

 

Part of Bill Clinton's platform when he ran for president was a "Manhattan Project for AIDS." Guess what? It never happened. Once he was elected, it was no longer a priority.

[josh282282]

we don't have the scientific technology to eradicate HIV from the body's own DNA - BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PRIORITY.

 

Rudynate,

 

First, I must inform that I am not only a physician, but an HIV Specialist (yes, for real) for many years. Although I am not a researcher, I am a clinician in the HIV field. I've seen a lot. It's been quite a journey.

 

Second, I resonate with you in the underlying urgency of finding a cure/vaccine for HIV. It is paramount.

 

Nevertheless, I am a loss to understand what support you have for your claims that the scientific community (and I mean it its entirety: academia, the private sector, governmental agencies, and yes, even Big Pharma) has not made finding the cure a priority. From my (seemingly very educated and experienced) professional observations I have made over the years, I see the scientific communities race to the cure with heroic efforts. Sadly, that cure has still proven to be evasive. But I see that we are closer than we ever have been.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I fear you are transferring what you desperately want into what you think it should be, with no support for such thoughts. Specifically, because you feel finding a scientific cure is essential (I do, too, btw), you believe since we have not yet found it, it could only be because the scientific community has not made it into a priority. Surely, if it was that important, we would have found the cure, you reason.

 

Unfortunately for all of us, not matter how hard we want something, it doesn't mean we can achieve it. The list of very desirable scientific breakthroughs is extensive (for example: curing cancer) but just wanting the breakthrough is insufficient. We need tremendous advances in science to achieve it.

 

Currently, despite all our best efforts, we do not have the technology to eradicate HIV from the human cell once infected. But it is has nothing to do with it NOT being a priority. We just don't know how. Yet.

 

But I am a man of Science. Is there any medical literature, any evidence, any smoking gun that supports your assertion that although there is not a global conspiracy per se, there exists a financial (indirect) conspiracy that significantly slows down & diminishes progress towards finding the cure? Could you site your source(s)? This is an honest debate. I am open to changing my mind. I hope you are too.

 

When you want something bad enough from someone, and don't get it, it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a priority from that someone. There may be other reasons.

 

Respectfully yours,

Josh