The Origin of HIV

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,630
Benin City, Nigeria
I can give my little humble contribution to this thread: I'm a trained NBC operator of Civil Protection [Nuclear Biological Chemical risk]. Regarding the main plagues and epidemics the operators receive a bit of historical background. HIV came from Camerum, along river Sangha in 1920, when a chimp transmitted the BA [biological agent] to a human being. Actually it wasn't HIV yet, for accuracy it was SIV [simian immunodeficiency virus ]. The source of the information we received was Oxford University and honestly I tend to trust such a source.

Now, it was a variant of that virus, the HIV-1 group M to be able to jump totally into the human environment.

A curiosity is that [and this is against conspiracy theories] in Camerun there was a different evolution called HIV group O which remained there. It's the difference about the diffusion of the "winner", group M, to be really interesting from
researchers, as for I know.
This article argues that HIV group O most likely started to spread (not originated due to, but spread) at a much greater rate in Cameroon in the mid-20th century as a result of "iatrogenic amplification".

The Two-Phase Emergence of Non Pandemic HIV-1 Group O in Cameroon

It cites this earlier article from 2008, which is also interesting:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02060.x
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,057
Italy, Lago Maggiore
This article argues that HIV group O most likely started to spread (not originated due to, but spread) at a much greater rate in Cameroon in the mid-20th century as a result of "iatrogenic amplification".

The Two-Phase Emergence of Non Pandemic HIV-1 Group O in Cameroon

It cites this earlier article from 2008, which is also interesting:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02060.x
"Itatrogenic amplification" is among the factors we study as NBC units. It's not rare to meet it. It can be clinical [quite rare], cultural [not so rare] or social [absolutely common]. And it's quite something in case of an outbreak. But the fact that HIV O substantially has remained in Cameroon [not exactly] makes me think to usual social amplification.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,057
Italy, Lago Maggiore
I'm curious. What do you mean specifically by social amplification?
Cultural and traditional habits. I'm an operator, not a sociologist who has studied the societies where HIV started "its adventure". So I keep it on a general layer. I'm thinking to the Medieval European cities where plague found a nice environment to develop ... overall it was the absence of a functional system of sewers and the habit to leave the wastes along the streets to "aid" the outbreak.

I have never been in Africa to face HIV, but if you mention "iatrogenic amplification" my education makes me think overall to social amplification.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,630
Benin City, Nigeria
Cultural and traditional habits. I'm an operator, not a sociologist who has studied the societies where HIV started "its adventure". So I keep it on a general layer. I'm thinking to the Medieval European cities where plague found a nice environment to develop ... overall it was the absence of a functional system of sewers and the habit to leave the wastes along the streets to "aid" the outbreak.

I have never been in Africa to face HIV, but if you mention "iatrogenic amplification" my education makes me think overall to social amplification.
I see. I get what you mean, however the 2015 article suggests a different interpretation of the basis of that amplification, at least for the first growth phase.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,057
Italy, Lago Maggiore
I see. I get what you mean, however the 2015 article suggests a different interpretation of the basis of that amplification, at least for the first growth phase.
It's possible. As I've said, I'm a trained operator, not a scientist, I tend to trust what I've learned on a statistical base. This doesn't exclude that something different [and less obvious] happened.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
It's possible. As I've said, I'm a trained operator, not a scientist, I tend to trust what I've learned on a statistical base. This doesn't exclude that something different [and less obvious] happened.

And it is possible that I h Gay community created HIV to create sympathyand promote gay rights. No evidence has been provided to conclusively show that did not happen either. Lots of things are possible, it doesn't make sense them likely.

Retardless, HIV began to spread not because of a change in life style, not some grand conspiracy. The the sharp rise in very peomiscous and largely unpotected sex in he 1970s and 1980''s helped spread a disease that normally isn't all that easy to spread. And the first large scale AIDs epidemic showed up no I Africa, but in the largely homosexual communities. I know that some claimed that the first epidemic occurred in 1970's, but there has always been a lot of deliberate disinformation about AIDS - health officials insisted at one time there was no evidence that AIDS could be transmitted by blood, which know is a flat out lie that doomed many people to a death sentenced. Health officials flat out refused to implement the same policies as as were used on other sexual transmitted diseases like syphillis. As a direct result, hemophiliacs were the number 2 victims of AIDS just behind homosexuals.

Rather than create theories and that AIDS was somehow transmitted by a vaccine, of which there is no actual evidence, it might be possible that it was transferred by insect bites from an infected animal to a non infected human, or possibly an animal bite. We know other diseases can be transferred this way, and while the medical experts insist that it is not possible and there is no evidence for it, they made the same claims for transmitting HIV through blood transfusions, which we know isn't true. Only when the evidence was absolutely impossible to deny did the medical community final acknowledge what had been obvious from the data for a while, that AIDS could be transimittedEurole by blood transfusions. Insect/animal transmission is obviously a far less likely mode, but that doesn't make it the same as non existent.

HIV probably was periodically transmitted to humans, but before widespread travel, it remainex just a local disease that has at most might wipe out a village. The advrnt of modern transportation allowed AIDS to spread in a way it never could before. What would have just a poblem in local isolated village now become a global problem.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,057
Italy, Lago Maggiore
@Bart Dale

generally speaking the modern transportation has aided almost all the most diffused outbreaks ... human contact is human contact, no way.

But first of all it depends on the BACs [Biological Agent Characteristics]. Going back to the terror diffused by Ebola outbreak ... Ebola is a BA with not impressive BACs. So actually it's not that dangerous in an environment with common sanitary habits like a Western country. On the other end HIV enjoys a great advantage: its transmission can be facilitated by sexual activity and we know that sex is absolutely among the most easy and direct ways to spread an outbreak of a not aerial BA.
 
Mar 2017
873
Colorado
And it is possible that I h Gay community created HIV to create sympathyand promote gay rights. No evidence has been provided to conclusively show that did not happen either. Lots of things are possible, it doesn't make sense them likely.
You don't see the weakness in this argument? Gay scientists were madly working in a laboratory "creating a disease"? A disease that would kill them in a ghastly way but would drum up sympathy?

Even germ warfare guys (I had one as an instructor) don't "invent" diseases, they weaponize existing ones. The gene splicing guys are under strict regulations to prevent them making something new, which might get loose.

There's absolutely no evidence to prove there wasn't a Loch Ness monster, either.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,745
USA
You don't see the weakness in this argument? Gay scientists were madly working in a laboratory "creating a disease"? A disease that would kill them in a ghastly way but would drum up sympathy?

Even germ warfare guys (I had one as an instructor) don't "invent" diseases, they weaponize existing ones. The gene splicing guys are under strict regulations to prevent them making something new, which might get loose.

There's absolutely no evidence to prove there wasn't a Loch Ness monster, either.
Pretty sure Bart was using sarcasm, that negative evidence isn't evidence.