AIDS Virus Now Estimated To Be 100 Years Old

ChazeFroy writes "A new study estimates that the AIDS virus, HIV, started to circulate in the human population between 1884 and 1924, with a more focused estimate at 1908. This is much earlier than the previously-held estimate of 1930. '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 article also speculates that HIV first began to spread in Kinshasa, Congo."

Comments

What new diseases have crossed over recently?

[davidwr]

It took over 70 years for HIV to be named.

What diseases that crossed the species barrier in the last 30 years will we be talking about in 2078?

Re:What new diseases have crossed over recently?

[hey!]

Probably quite a few.

One of the big killers in worldwide mortality statistics (after HIV and malaria) is, if I recall, "acute respiratory infection", which includes just about anything that didn't get an official diagnosis other than the obvious fact the person died of some kind of lung infection. That probably contains countless infectious agents as yet unknown to science.

Infectious agents often develop a kind of symbiotic relationship with their host populations. They are tolerated by the populations, but they are deadly to immunologically naive populations. Move into to take over another population's niche, and you must endure ordeal by disease.

Emerging diseases will be a major story throughout this century, mark my words. As people move into previously "pestilential" habitats, as climate change disrupts and displaces populations, we'll be seeing a lot more the likes of HIV, bird flu, and Ebola (which is probably the least dangerous of the three in a public health sense).

Now is the time for a new Apollo program, but in the biological sciences. Now is the time to pick a family of viruses, like influenza, and learn to attack it, not just by public health and immunization measures, but directly through its genetic, biochemical and biological characteristics. This would not only be of great practical benefit, it would prepare us for new agents, or new strains of old infectious agents.

Re:What new diseases have crossed over recently?

[reverseengineer]

Modern transportation networks, industrialized agriculture/animal husbandry, and globalization all make it less likely that a zoonotic disease will be able to remain contained in a small population for the length of time HIV managed. The construction of road networks deep into the rainforests of the Congo (sometimes described as "the AIDS Highway") connected a huge biological reservoir with the wider world, and the construction of the international air travel network eliminated many of the natural geographic barriers to the spread of disease. It is of note that that Ebola and Marburg both found their way out of the jungle at about the same time as HIV; Marburg is naturally endemic to central Africa, but gets its name from an outbreak in Germany.

As development continues into the high-biodiversity tropics, we will continue to be confronted by new diseases. What will disappear is endemism, where a disease can percolate among a small reservoir for decades before breaking out into the wider world. AIDS is thought to have trickled through a network of truck drivers and prostitutes across central Africa, until it finally made it to people who hopped on planes and spread it to Europe and North America. Now, someone can pick up a disease in a jungle (or a livestock processing plant) and bring it to New York, London, or Shanghai the next morning. On the other hand, reporting and containment of outbreaks has become faster- in large part from painful lessons learned from the spread of AIDS.

To more precisely answer the parent's question though-"What diseases that crossed the species barrier in the last 30 years will we be talking about in 2078?"- my guess is we'll still be dealing with foodborne microorganisms, especially the pathogenic E. coli strains, with the expectation that one of those will pop up with a nasty new enterohemorrhagic strain in the vein of E. coli O157:H7. I think we'll still be talking about prion diseases given their relation to the food supply as well. Their first recorded human cases are earlier than 30 years ago, but I'd argue for the emerging future importance of West Nile virus and dengue fever as the types of mosquitoes that spread them have greatly increased their ranges. Probably some sort of viral respiratory ailment (like SARS)- they just spread so easily.

Factoid about E. coli: the O157:H7 strain, the one which causes the most serious human illness, is nothing new. It is estimated to have picked up its nasty shigatoxin (distinguishing it from the more benign strains) between 2 and 4 million years ago. The first recorded outbreak in humans, however, occurred in 1982.

Maybe Duesberg was right

[R2.0]

I did a study on AIDS for a philosophy of Science class, focussing on the (then) competing disease models: viral cause and lifestyle cause. The main proponent of the latter was Peter Duesberg, a well respected researcher, who put forth the arguement that HIV was simply an opportunistic infection that could catch hold of a person after the damage they had done to their bodies by IV drug use and poor lifestyle choices. The major arguement behind this was that, if AIDS was caused by an infectious agent, it is acting in a manner contrary to everything we know about how diseases work.

Well, it turns out that he was wrong, and indeed HIV is different than what we've seen before. And the therapeutic treatments bear this out - surpress the virus and people don't get AIDS.

But...

Stuff like this pops up, and one really starts to wonder if the AIDS experts really know what they're talking about. A virus hangs around for a hundred years and then BLAMMO - instant deadliness. Yeah, I guess it's possible, but it does reinforce Duesberg's original point - AIDS doesn't act the way we normally believe diseases should act.

Re:Maybe Duesberg was right

[khallow]

I disagree. There were significant changes in the 60's that you aren't getting. First, airline travel was more widespread in the 60's. Second, there were people having unprotected sex with dozens or hundreds of partners. Sure that was going on in the 50's, but by the 70's there was a lot more possibilities for HIV infection to propagate. Finally, heroin use grew dramatically as the Vietnam War dragged on, providing a more reliable means for HIV infection via used needles.

Re:Maybe Duesberg was right

[kurisuto]

Let me give an illustrative anecdote here. Not long ago, I came across the autobiography of a gay man who joined the U.S. Navy in the late 1940's. He recounted the large number of sexual adventures he had in Japan, Korea, Germany, Austria, Italy, and the United States. I doubt very much that his story is unique.

It's true that air travel increased in the 1960's. It's probably also true that the average number sexual partners increased somewhat during that time (although people were also discuss sex more openly, so it's hard to say how much of the apparent increase is real).

Still, the original claim was that HIV requires certain circumstances which didn't exist until relatively recently. I'd claim that the circumstances did exist. The probabilities might have increased somewhat, but I think it could have happened earlier.

If the guy in the anecdote I mentioned had chanced to contract HIV, he very well could have been the vector who led to a larger outbreak much earlier. I think it's just an accident of history that that didn't happen.

Re:Wait, what?

[mcgrew]

I'm skeptical. How could a disease with such a long incubation period not be recognized for over a century? It's not like needles or anal sex were invented in 1965. And then in a period of a few years become a worldwide epidemic? Yeah, I RTFA but I'm not buying the "city" hypothesis; it's not like people in the country don't have anal sex.

Two notes though, the first serious and the second humorous (humoroidous).

When I was in Thailand in the USAF from Aug. 1973 to Aug 1974, there were rumors of a sexually transmitted disease that was being hushed up by the government. The rumor had it that this disease was fatal and had no cure, and if you caught it you would be transferred to Guam and never heard from again. Most of us dismissed these rumors as government propaganda to keep us away from the whores or at least to get us to use condoms (penicillin isn't free) but when AIDS came around in 1981 (killing "free sex" and having women not come up to you asking you "wanna fuck?", damned AIDS!) I started to wonder if the rumor might have been true.

Secondly, a wag I worked with when AIDS started in 1981 said AIDS was an acronym for "Anal Intercourse Death Syndrome". It really isn't an STD but a blood-borne disease, more easily transmitted by blood transfusions, dirty needles, and sex that tears into the flesh. It's damned hard for a man to catch it having sex with a woman unless the sex is anal or while she's on her period, particularly if he's been circumcised.

Re:Wait, read much?

[megamerican]

Please don't mark this as troll or flamebait. It is a serious post about a serious topic.

I'm guessing you've never done any research on the subject.

You've probably never read Dr. Len Horowitz's book Emerging Viruses: AIDS And Ebola : Nature, Accident or Intentional?

You've probably never read NSSM 200 signed by Henry Kissinger where it states that the third world population is a national security threat to the US.

You may not have seen documents from the Congressional Record where people discuss creating "a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired."

2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

Or maybe you haven't read about the 1000's of times our government has tested biologicals, chemicals, radiologicals on its own citizens.

You also might want to read the law that allows the government to experiment on its own citizens just about anytime it wants.

(b) Exceptions
            Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the
        prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a
        test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
                (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
            therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
            research activity.
                (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against
            toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
                (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related
            to riot control.

In 2000 The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) wrote a paper called Rebuilding America's Defenses. It talked about using race specific bioweapons as a useful tool.

advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

PNAC is filled with top Bush administration officials, including Dick Cheney.
If you don't like any of my sources you are free to use google or any other source to verify that what I've said is true.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm skeptical. How could a disease with such a long incubation period not be recognized for over a century? It's not like needles or anal sex were invented in 1965. And then in a period of a few years become a worldwide epidemic? Yeah, I RTFA but I'm not buying the "city" hypothesis; it's not like people in the country don't have anal sex.

It was an order of magnitude difference. Many of the sexual histories of the initial cases in San Francisco had hundreds of sexual contacts per year. Typical bathhouse sexual encounters numbered over 5 per night per person. One case history example is that Gaëtan Dugas claimed to have had 2500 sexual encounters in his life. These types of numbers don't occur in the country. Additionally, country sex is less anonymous and more often with the same partner. Most of the bathhouse encounters were with different people.

Re:Wait, what?

[R2.0]

In another post I mentioned the 2 competing theories of the disease, behavioral and infectious agent, and how the latter "won". The interesting part is that the treatment model that accompanied the behavioral theory - i.e. "stop fucking people you aren't married/monogamous with" - would have had a BETTER societal outcome than the current treatment model. Right now we have lifetime drug therapy and HIV infection has transitioned from "acute" to "chronic", and researchers have noted that the incidence of casual and unprotected sex in increasing because HIV infection is being viewed not as a fatal disease but as a manageble condition. Great for drug companies; but perhaps not so great for society at large.

Conspiracy Paradox

[bill_mcgonigle]

I just find it too hard to believe that we could have the technology to invent something like this and nobody else could figure it out, no scientists involved with the creation got cold feet, etc. It seems too James Bondian.

And that we'd have that technology at least 40 years ago, but still aren't able to do so in a lab today. If you wanted to argue that _today_ a government lab had the tools to build a virus, then you might be stretching the realm of plausibility.

Oh, hey, maybe we'll use the Roswell time machine soon to bring AIDS back to kill victim classes - I guess I didn't think that one through all the way. Oh, but it already exists, so there's no need to build it before we use the time machine. Damn, Conspiracy Paradox.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The risk of contracting HIV from oral sex is approximately 1/10 of contracting it from vaginal sex. And the per-act risk is pretty low to start with. Wikipedia says 1/2000 with no condom use, but I've read the paper it sources from and that states those figures as a relative risk. Regardless, it is not easily transmitted, especially compared to diseases such as HPV, which are estimated to have as high as 40% per-act transmission.

By contrast, anal intercourse carries 5-10x the risk per act. 1/200. Given the unusually long length of disease latency, that can compound rather quickly before someone realizes something is amiss.

All the more reason to insist that any prospective sexual partners get tested and/or to use condoms (which cut HIV risk dramatically).

Re:Wait, what?

[ceoyoyo]

Two things to remember: diseases initially spread in an exponential growth pattern, and AIDS is a syndrome. You don't die of an HIV infection, you die of some other disease that kills you because your immune system is shot.

It's surprising to me that HIV isn't OLDER. A few people get it and die of weird diseases. Every year a few more. The growth rate itself grows, until one day the disease is infecting enough new people each year that someone wonders why so many people seem to be dying of otherwise very rare diseases.

Re:Wait, read much?

[roystgnr]

I hate to risk fueling the conspiracy theory fodder in your other reply, but:

Does anyone know if there's a copy of the US Code (preferably online) that includes a revision history? I think it would be fascinating to see the changelog behind some of our current laws.

Doubtful...

[moxley]

I have seen way too much credible evidence that this disease was likely engineered to give creedence to this particular report - I've done quite a bit of reading about it on both sides of the issue and for now that is what I believe. I have put some links below the appropriations bill that cover some of the information, The records are there, and this appropriations bill is is just one of many, many things that seem to show this - including a flowchart that seems to show the development of AIDS as an engineered disease from 1971.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3280929/Special-Virus-Program-AIDS-Flow-Chart-TOP-SECRET (Flowchart of the "Special Virus Cancer Program")

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970

HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

H.B. 15090

PART 5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Department of the Army
Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency
Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1969
UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY

[pg.] 129 TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS

There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.
MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?
DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.
MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.
MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be, the time and the cost involved?
DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to.
(The information follows:)

The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:
1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the field. Almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC).
The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were plans were made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.

Re:Wait, what?

[hemp]

It is important to note that Chimpanzees will not cross rivers or lakes. There is no way they could have traveled to Leopoldville.

It is also important to note that they are only talking about HIV-1.

HIV-2 ( from the Sootey Mangabe, a simian that lives in Western Africa ) also exploded at the exact same time as HIV-1. Amazing coincidence for these two diseases to appear simultaneously on opposite sides of the African continent.

The River, by Ed Hopperhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/River-Journey-Source-Penguin-Science/dp/0140283773/ has a very interesting argument that HIV-1 & HOV-2 were introduced by accident during the cultivation of Polio vaccines in Chimpanzee livers. Vaccinations and the earliest cases of HIV can be plotted on a map with amazing correlation.

"History of AIDS" book

[602]

Grmek's History of AIDS from 1993 is quite good and interesting.

Re:Wait, what?

[fireboy1919]

It's necessary to "stop fucking people whose HIV status you don't know"

I'm sure that everyone would like to know how to make sure that no one connected to them though a node network of sexual partners has aids. All it would take is one guy/girl lying, and spreading it to all the people who sleep with them, and for the next eight years, everybody they slept with will spread it to everyone else they sleep with (and on, and on).

But you seem to have the answer. How can this be made to not happen?

Some of us just aren't wired for monogamy, and telling people "don't be what you are!" is always a piss-poor recommendation. Especially when it comes to basic drives like sex.

Yeah...well, we're wired to kill, too. It is also a basic drive. Do we let people do that indiscriminately? Apparently telling people "don't be what you are" is a piss-poor recommendation.

We need to fix the education, though. I think it may be time to institute a "guns in schools" program so that they can know how to use them safely. We wouldn't want our youngsters to accidentally hurt themselves while they're off satisfying their basic urges of killing people.

See where I'm going here? There are plenty of valid arguments for non-monogamy. The idea that resisting instincts is somehow bad isn't one of them. Resisting basic instincts is part of what it means to have a civilization.

We take it for granted that we don't kill, steal, rape, despite the extremely natural instinct to do these things. I see no reason why sex isn't exactly like those other things.

I don't want to discount your idea entirely. Do you have a reason why non-monogamous sex is important to have that doesn't revolve around believing that instincts shouldn't be repressed? Do you have any actual facts to support your claim?

Seems to me that it just comes down to the fact that people want it more than they are worried about consequences from it rather than any actual reasoned view that justifies non-monogamy. Which, ironically, is about the same reasoning by people who steal, kill, and rape (i.e., they don't put much thought into justifying it...they just do it).