Posted on 10/02/2008 1:56:04 PM PDT by llevrok
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 today’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 might have promoted HIV’s initial establishment and early spread.
I didn’t know that the CIA invented HIV that long ago:)
Push it back a few more decades and they can blame the US Confederacy for inventing AIDS.
GROVER CLEVELAND’S FAULT.
Well, there was a Republican President in 1908.
Another theory -
the human genome is getting “weaker”
and our bodies are not able to keep these previously harmless viruses at bay.
Must’ve been about the same time George Bush’s grandparents were planning the 9/11 attacks.
Blame it on those uppity monkeys who moved to the cities.
More than likely the date being given is based on a genetic analysis of the retro-virus. That & they are comparing preserved tissue samples with those taken recently to get a clue.
So what?!?
It is still primarily an STD with intraveinous drug use a strong second for transmission.
Actions have consequences.
AIDS virus has been circulating among people homos for about 100 years,...
There, I fixed it.
Interesting. There was different article about this a day or two ago.
Easy now. Let's not blame macaccas and open that conversation up again...
Post of the day.
Not possible.
We all know nobody had AIDS until Reagan was elected.
And we all know the cure came when Clinton was elected.
And we all know that gay bath houses did not spread AIDS at all. Not a single case.
And there's a whole political party dedicated to making those who act responsibly pay for those consequences.
When did the first science experiments to CREATE AIDS begin? < /Pastor Wright bigoted barking moonbat >
If only Reagan had spent a trillion dollars on AIDS back in the 1980s, this could all have been avoided. Of course, we STILL don’t have a cure and the sex positive agenda says that it is unhealthy to insist that people not act on their homosexual desires or hold to monogamous relationships or use condoms when pregnancy is not a factor...
“Were there male flight attendents back then?”
Yes, two were with the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk..lol
Doesn’t molecular dating assume a contant rate of change, though? Which, if true, might not be a good assumption to make when daing a virus?
I know how this could have stayed contained in the black cities for a long while.
Just read Alan Paton’s, “Too Late the Malethrope”, a novel which talks about how if a white guy had sex with a black then the white guy would spend two years in prison and his whole extended family socially decimated. This was right after WWII.
I would be worried about that too. I know that research into the Human Genome has yielded all kinds of information about human migrations. Some of it surprising, but a lot of it supported by other disciplines (archeology, for instance). But humans are a complex organism. It would seem like a fruit fly or a virus would mutate quite suddenly & with varying frequency due to environmental factors.
That's why I mentioned comparative tests using preserved tissue samples. They've been going back & studying the Spanish Influenza Epidemic of 1919, for instance. They could be doing something similar here.
What would make our genome weaker?
Isn’t that “Too Late the Phalerope”?
That’s it.
Did you read it? What did you think?
Would you agree that poodles are weaker animals than wolves?
That perhaps St Bernards are more prone to some diseases than the diverse gene pool from which they were bred?
Same deal with humans. Breeding, genetic drift, number of generations away from the perfect creation of man and the fall - and despite what evos try to tell you, beneficial information is NOT added to the genome as generations go by, information is LOST.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.