Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 09-16-2002, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:
The HIV that some Europeans are testing positive for is NOT the same variant that is causing AIDs in the US (or China or India) but seems to be closely related to the variant in Africa. Note that they are not exactly the same but that the tests so far cannot easily differentiate between different variants.

Let's not overestimate the practical significance of microbial variance: the variant of gonorrhea that sailors acquire in Manilla is not always identical to the one that they can get in New York, but they still all require antibiotic therapy.

Quote:

The hypothesis here is that these HIV+ people have always had HIV but are resistant to AIDs itself (like Lions and Tigers), this indicates that northern Europe may have been the origin of the HIV virus (from some far earlier epidemic) but evolved resitance to it.

Most human viruses cannot infect other animals, though some can, and most animal viruses cannot infect humans, though some can. Lions and tigers don't get AIDS because they are not humans, and humans don't get feline distemper because they are not cats.

Quote:

The only way to prove or disprove the hypothesis is to initiate a policy of global testing for HIV variants and map the pattern worldwide.

Every single HIV-infected person is destined to get AIDS unless they die of something else, first. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post or link it.

Rick

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Amen-Moses · 09-17-2002, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
Most human viruses cannot infect other animals, though some can, and most animal viruses cannot infect humans, though some can. Lions and tigers don't get AIDS because they are not humans, and humans don't get feline distemper because they are not cats.

As I thought you completely misunderstood me, FID is the feline equivelent of AIDs (i.e Feline Immuno Deficiency) and is caused in domestic Cats by a virus similar to HIV. The same virus is present in ALL cat populations all over the world but does not cause FID in them.

The conclusion is that at least 1 MYA the feline HIV probably decimated the cat population and only those with resistance to the virus survived.

For some reason the domestic cat virus has mutated and now overcomes the natural resistance so that now more and more cases of FID are being diagnosed but a test for the original virus is pointless becasue all cats have it! All they can now do is produce a test that can only pick out the mutated variant.

The exact same is found in SIDs the simian version, monkeys have the virus (which is almost identical to HIV) but do not contract full SIDs because they have evolved resistance.

The same thing is happening with our old friend Tuberculosis, even though everyone in my country is now either immune to the old type or are vaccinated at school age the new variant coming out of Russia is still lethal, and it is immune to all but the strongest drug cocktails. The new Tuberculosis has now been found in NY and the CDC are extremely worried about it.

Amen-Moses

Godless Dave · 09-17-2002, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoddyM:
It's easy to find people that fit the criteria for HIV infection.

AFAIK, the sole criterion is testing positive for HIV anti-bodies.

Quote:

Originally posted by RoddyM:
Anomalies, cases that might cause a person to wonder about the paradigm are just brushed aside as false positives, long term non progressors etc.

Got any examples of these anomalies?

Quote:

Originally posted by RoddyM:
I think it's nothing. I think the diagnosis is way more lethal than so called HIV.

In what ways is the diagnosis lethal?

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]

MrDarwin · 09-17-2002, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:


Every single HIV-infected person is destined to get AIDS unless they die of something else, first. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post or link it.

Rick

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Rick, I don't have time to dig up references right now, but I believe this statement is premature. Certainly the vast majority of those infected with HIV will go on to develop full-blown AIDS, but 20-odd years into the epidemic there are enough people who are HIV+ but have not developed yet developed symptoms of AIDS to suggest that some people (if a very small number) may very well be resistant or even immune to the disease.

Dr Rick · 09-17-2002, 06:56 AM

I think I understand what you are getting at; please correct me if I'm wrong.

Studies of the feline immune deficiency virus subtypes and its host populations reveal that FIV has likely been infecting feline populations for some time; subsequently, a certain degree of tolerability and/or resistance to the virus has evolved in many cats. Perhaps HIV has been infecting humans for a longer time than we've appreciated, and there might be tolerability or resistance in certain human populations that we need to discover and explore?

Unfortunately, the same type of evidence used to determine the natural history of FIV suggests that HIV is a much more recent infection and that humans have probably not evolved or adapted to the virus.

There are many HIV subtypes. Nonetheless, the subtypes of human immunodeficiency virus exhibit a degree of similarity that is not seen among FIV subtypes. The shape and symmetry of the HIV phylogenetic tree is unlike the feline immunodeficiency virus tree; in other words, the observable impact in the evolution of FIV subtypes by host (cat) influences is not evident in HIV.

These findings, the lack of a resistant human model, and the meteoric rise of AIDS in the past 3 decades all indicate that HIV infection is a relatively new phenomena. Cats have had time to evolve and adapt to FIV, but humans have not had the same amount of time to deal with HIV.
Rick

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Dr Rick · 09-17-2002, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
Rick, I don't have time to dig up references right now, but I believe this statement is premature. Certainly the vast majority of those infected with HIV will go on to develop full-blown AIDS, but 20-odd years into the epidemic there are enough people who are HIV+ but have not developed yet developed symptoms of AIDS to suggest that some people (if a very small number) may very well be resistant or even immune to the disease.

MrDarwin, you might be referring to the small number of HIV-infected long-term nonprogressors (LTNPs) who have been infected for approximately 20 years and yet still have normal T-cell counts and very low serum viral loads. To date, there has been no discernable difference found in the immune reponses to HIV between this group and those that have progressed to AIDs. The ultimate fate of LTNPs is unknown.

Rick

Dr Rick · 09-17-2002, 02:18 PM

A literature search revealed this just published article:

AIDS 2002
HIV-specific CD8 T-cell activity in uninfected injection drug users is associated with maintenance of seronegativity.
Makedonas G, Bruneau J, Lin H, Sekaly RP, Lamothe F, Bernard NF.
Immunodeficiency Treatment Center, Montreal General Hospital Pavilion McGill University Health Centre, the bResearch Center of the Centre hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal and the cUniversity of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Quote:

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether HIV-exposed, uninfected subjects EUs having HIV-specific effector activity are at a reduced risk for seroconverting compared with EUs with no HIV-specific effector responses. DESIGN: Twenty-eight intravenous drug users IVDU with documented risk for HIV infection over a 1-year period were screened for the presence of HIV-specific CD8+ effector cell activity. Group I included 18 IVDUs who remained seronegative despite exposure to HIV through needle sharing with partner(s) known to be HIV infected. Group II included 10 IVDUs who seroconverted after similar HIV exposure. METHODS: The enzyme-linked immunospot ELIspot; Mabtech AB, Nacka, Sweden assay was used to measure the frequency of HIV-specific interferon-gamma secreting cells. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells PBMC were stimulated with a panel of synthetic HIV peptides in a major histocompatibility complex class I antigen-restricted fashion. PBMC from group II were obtained from timepoints 7 months or less before seroconversion. RESULTS: Twelve of 18 66.7% persistently seronegative subjects versus none of 10 seroconverters exhibited detectable HIV-specific effector responses at the sampling date P < 0.001; Fisher's exact test. This represents an odds ratio of 40.38 95% confidence intervals 2.95 to > 3000. CONCLUSION: EUs who have developed HIV-specific effector responses are at a reduced risk for seroconversion compared with EUs who do not develop this type of immunity. This observation supports the hypothesis that HIV-specific effector responses are a correlate of immune protection from HIV infection.

It appears that some of these high-risk individuals have developed a cellular immune response without an antibody response (seroconversion); this finding is intriguing, but we shouldn't forget that seroconvertors ultimately develop a cellular immune response, too, and that in time it fails to prevent AIDS.

Rick

Dr Rick · 09-17-2002, 02:29 PM

...also, and as an aside, it's hard to fully comprehend the thinking-processes of the study subjects. They were basically told "we're going to keep a close eye on you because we're sure a good number of you are going to get HIV infection sometime soon by sharing needles" and yet they just kept right on doing what they always do.

Rick

Ut · 09-17-2002, 02:53 PM

Being hooked on intraveinous drugs isn't really a factor promoting rational thinking.

P.S. Hey I just saw that study was produced by the university where I study! w00t!

beausoleil · 09-17-2002, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:


Every single HIV-infected person is destined to get AIDS unless they die of something else, first. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post or link it.

Rick

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Same is true of every single non HIV-infected person. For instance, I am destined to get AIDS unless I die of something else first. I'm also destined to win the lottery and visit Mars unless I die first.

I guess you mean 'within 10 [say] years'?

09-17-2002, 06:56 AM	#55
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	I think I understand what you are getting at; please correct me if I'm wrong. Studies of the feline immune deficiency virus subtypes and its host populations reveal that FIV has likely been infecting feline populations for some time; subsequently, a certain degree of tolerability and/or resistance to the virus has evolved in many cats. Perhaps HIV has been infecting humans for a longer time than we've appreciated, and there might be tolerability or resistance in certain human populations that we need to discover and explore? Unfortunately, the same type of evidence used to determine the natural history of FIV suggests that HIV is a much more recent infection and that humans have probably not evolved or adapted to the virus. There are many HIV subtypes. Nonetheless, the subtypes of human immunodeficiency virus exhibit a degree of similarity that is not seen among FIV subtypes. The shape and symmetry of the HIV phylogenetic tree is unlike the feline immunodeficiency virus tree; in other words, the observable impact in the evolution of FIV subtypes by host (cat) influences is not evident in HIV. These findings, the lack of a resistant human model, and the meteoric rise of AIDS in the past 3 decades all indicate that HIV infection is a relatively new phenomena. Cats have had time to evolve and adapt to FIV, but humans have not had the same amount of time to deal with HIV. Rick [ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-17-2002, 02:29 PM	#58
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	...also, and as an aside, it's hard to fully comprehend the thinking-processes of the study subjects. They were basically told "we're going to keep a close eye on you because we're sure a good number of you are going to get HIV infection sometime soon by sharing needles" and yet they just kept right on doing what they always do. Rick

09-17-2002, 02:53 PM	#59
Ut Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 828	Being hooked on intraveinous drugs isn't really a factor promoting rational thinking. P.S. Hey I just saw that study was produced by the university where I study! w00t!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.