Posted on 01/04/2005 7:21:29 PM PST by blam
GGG Ping.
Perhaps behavioral differences between the two populatons (English and African) would also account for the diffence in HIV infecton rates.
There may have been some isolation of Sub-Saharan Africa, but Egypt was not exempt, and thus East Africa was definitely exposed, and suffered.
How does this data correlate with AmerIndian populations, who certainly did not see exposure in the 14th Century.
This argues against their case. The Black Death devastated India, China and the Middle East as well as Europe. If the genetic mutation is only in Europe, I'd say it has no correlation to any ancestors surviving the plague.
Beat me!
He's an HIV+ carrier. Just lovely.
The important thing to know is that George Bush likely knew this when he loosed the AIDS virus in Africa, lo, those 25 to 30 years ago. Or was it Ronald Reagan?
The virus may not have implanted the mutation in the other areas. It would be a rather rare event. But there is substantial evidence that shows that viri have caused several mutations in humans.
Bush's great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather caused the Black Death in England and Eurpope.
"My ancestry is Irish and German."
Me too! Yay us!
I must note for the record that my (homosexual) brother, depsite his (relatively per his MD) low risk factors died of AIDS.
I don't mean to aks a stoopid question, but aren't Americans from the same Europeans who survived the dark ages? That gene should be as common here as it is in Europe. Sounds like aerian race nonsense..........
Well, that's the sensational explanation. What is a bit more likely is that there may be a common virulence mechanism between Yersinia pestis and the AIDS virus, which is extremely interesting but quite different from the hypothesis that there is a mystery virus behind the Black Death.
Populations through which the Plague ran will naturally have a higher incidence of people resistant due to genetic factors because they're the ones who survived and bred. A higher incidence of resistant people means a lower incidence of AIDS, assuming that the same gene that afforded resistance to the Plague does so for AIDS.
Of course, it isn't impossible that the Black Death incorporated a mystery virus piggy-backing on top of the Plague bacillus, but it isn't apparent either from mortality figures or from this resistance that it existed. It would have to have been a pretty exotic beast - virulent AND mutagenic. Color me skeptical.
First, condolences. Then, you've burst my bubble.
I think that's Aryan. Or maybe it's aeroian. As far as Americans are concerned, I think it would only apply to European-Americans, and as defilers of the orb, they hardly deserve to live.
Yes.
The Dark Ages began around 540AD and was likely caused by an impacting fragment from a comet.
I'm highly suspect of this as well. First, this presupposes that humans either evolved or were miraculously resistant to a pathogen that had mutated a 1000 fold by the time it burned it's way from China to the Atlantic.
Second, How do you PROVE anyone's resistance to HIV, when it takes so long for some to succumb to the virus? It may take decades to accurately track the parameters of it's spread and mortality rate.
Don't know.
Weren't there numerous outbreaks of something like the Black Death in Europe?
Well, insofar as it's meaningful to argue about a historical term... Historians generally consider the Dark Ages to have begun in the fifth century, when a series of barbarian peoples invaded the Mediterranean world and destroyed urban civilization.
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.