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

Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always found it really hard to believe that even thus people have been having sex for thousands of years in the same way as we do now, the aids virus can be only 100 years old. There is more to it that their letting us to believe. The virus cant have just come out of know where,

The truth will come out some day , and no I dont believe elvis is alive or adolf is living in the north pole.

---------
liberta-togo.com

Re:Wait, what?

[master5o1]

no no this is just another cover-up story to try and make people forget about that and so that people can try to trust the government or jews a bit more

Re:Wait, what?

[d3ac0n]

Indeed, with the exception of AIDS babies (Infants born with AIDS because their mothers had it, or caught it during pregnancy) and those very rare cases of transfusion-borne AIDS (almost impossible these days), AIDS is a disease that is ENTIRELY related to your behavior.

IE: If both you and your partner were virgins until your first sexual encounter with each other, and have a lifelong, drug-free relationship until both of your natural (or accidental) deaths, the chance of either of you contracting AIDS is statistically zero.

On the other hand, if you engage in sex with multiple partners, live a homosexual lifestyle, or engage in intravenous drug use, you stand a very high chance of AIDS infection. Please keep in mind, AIDS has an incubation period of up to 8 years, during which tests cannot detect the inactive infection. Thus you can NEVER be 100% certain of someone's AIDS infection status. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something, or is a moron.

In addition, homosexual males can have up to 10 times more sex partners than heterosexuals of both sexes. (Lesbians somewhat less, although still higher than heterosexuals, on average.) As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, Anal sex is particularly dangerous in regards to the chances of infection from AIDS. There is a reason why AIDS was known as the homosexual's disease, it has always been most rampant in that community, and still is.

All discussions of morality aside, there is a legitimate question to ask regarding the public financing of AIDS drugs being given out to most AIDS infectees. With the exceptions I listed at the beginning of this thread, the vast majority of AIDS infectees are 100% responsible for their own condition. They consciously engaged in behavior they knew was dangerous, why should the public pay for it? if we were talking about people with cancer from smoking, I doubt anyone here would raise an eyebrow if the suggestion were make to never use public funds for their treatment. But if it's AIDS, suddenly there is some kind of right? that makes no sense.

Ultimately, the "I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want and don't ever tell me not to" attitude of many people has to stop. We simply can't afford it anymore. The responsible people in society end up having to foot the bill so irresponsible morons who make excuses like "I'm not predisposed to monogamy" and can't keep it in their pants and go around making babies, wrecking lives, causing trouble, getting AIDS and then expecting the rest of society to just pay for their waste of a life.

There has to be a choice: Live responsibly, and society will reward you. Live a life of dissipation, and you are on your own.