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

Wait, what?

[DurendalMac]

But I thought it was made back in the 60/70s to wipe out gay and black people! You mean it wasn't the government or the Jews that did it? /loony

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?

[smellsofbikes]

Not to be snide, but:
>How could a disease with such a long incubation period not be recognized for over a century?

I think you've answered your own question.

All you need is for the disease symptoms to take longer to show up than the average lifespan of the victims and you have a basically invisible disease.
Add doctors' general unwillingness to put 'cause of death: unknown' on death certificates, and put your disease in a place where young death from other diseases -- particularly cholera, yellow fever, and smallpox -- was completely rampant, and you have everything you need to make a disease run for fifty years invisibly.
In 1910, there were still widely-respected doctors arguing that bad air was responsible for malaria and yellow fever. The idea that a viral infection could stay latent for 15 years after contraction was completely out of their experience.

Re:Wait, what?

[archen]

I'm skeptical. How could a disease with such a long incubation period not be recognized for over a century

Keep in mind that AIDS doesn't actually kill you. Your immune system is defeated by AIDS and something else kills you. If you have the flu (which can be fatal), then die, the conclusion would probably be that the person died of the flu instead of that their immune system was compromised by some virus that stays dormant for years. Then add onto that the medical technology of the period, and what it was in Africa at that time.

Re:Wait, what?

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

It's not necessary to "stop fucking people you aren't married/monogamous with" to stop the spread of HIV. It's necessary to "stop fucking people whose HIV status you don't know" and "stop fucking without a condom".

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.

Get tested, ask your partners to get tested, and just wear it.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

davidwr's disease!

Re:What new diseases have crossed over recently?

[Bloater]

the GPL

Re:What new diseases have crossed over recently?

[Free the Cowards]

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.

Would this be a program where we focus a good chunk of the national GDP on curing the flu, finally cure it in twelve people, and then never do it again?

Re:Insert Apple joke here...

[DeadManCoding]

Actually, I think the better joke would be, "Eh, it's still not as old as McCain..."

Re:Also known as /.itis

[MightyYar]

I walked right into that one.

Don't do that! That's how you get davidwr's disease!

Re:Wait, read much?

[R2.0]

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.

You might have quoted Sections C and D which are referenced:

(c) Informed consent required
            The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment
        described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed
        consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in
        advance of the testing on that subject.
        (d) Prior notice to Congress
            Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within
        the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to
        be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or
        under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing
        of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense
        shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
        the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a
        report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the
        experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the
        30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by
        those committees.

Hardly "just about anytime it wants". So what else did you cherry pick from your other cites?

Re:Wait, read much?

[R2.0]

"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."

Can you prove the Government DIDN'T custom build AIDS? No? Well there you go - the theory is fully supported.

Re:Wait, read much?

[Shirakawasuna]

You cite Horowitz as a reliable source? Have you ever even heard the man speak? Anyone with *any* rudimentary knowledge of HIV can see through his BS, when they're not laughing at his ignorance and fearing that people will actually listen to him. Just to see what happens what happens when an undergraduate science student can do with his ignorance, when he isn't acting like a raving lunatic, check Infidel Guy's interview with him and SA Smith: http://media.libsyn.com/media/infidelguy/Show14_Origins_of_HIV.mp3

I'm not interested in the inevitable flamewar of debunking each and every one of Horowitz's unsubstantiated rants, but let's just start at some basics hints: the guy sells trinkets and water, a certified kook deluding people, quite likely away from real, effective treatments for HIV. Oh, and it doesn't stop with HIV, he's full-blown antivaccinationist. If anyone is further interested, you can easily go out there and read the many takedowns or hey, I don't know, actually read up on HIV itself and have a truly educated opinion!

In theory, maybe. In practice, absolutely not.

[jbeach]

It would be great if changing people's behaviors were anywhere near that easy. But changing peoples' behaviors is just about the most difficult thing you can try. And especially when you're talking about sex - it's wired directly into the brain, body and mind. So this whole notion of "stop fucking" is in direct conflict with millions of years of hardware **and** software.

For a similar situation, consider how harmful drug addiction is, and how "simple" it is to get off drugs: just stop buying them and taking them. But drugs plug into a lot of the exact same brain and body hardware and software as sex does. As a result, we've found, "Just Say No" doesn't really solve the problem.

I mean hell, a majority of us Americans can't even stop from eating too much. We all consciously know how to lose weight: eat less, exercise more. Doesn't mean we do it - because far more than our conscious mind is involved in that decision.