General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

AIDS - prospects

Started by Tim Tyler · · Last activity · 10 posts · 1,334 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
30 December 2003
Last activity
30 December 2003
Original author
Tim Tyler
Posts
10
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,334
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–10 of 10
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. AIDS is obviously proving to be one of the major killer of our time.

    The fate of most such viral infections is to make peace with their hosts - and to become less life-
    threatening. This is what has happened to the equivalent of HIV in our cousins - for example.

    However it seems possible that the AIDS epipdemic could get much worse before it gets better.

    If medicine fails to come up with an adequate response to it, that is.

    The HIV virus has done a good job of learning to hide from the immune system. However it has not
    done a very good job of mastering its own transmission - in particular it is poor at spreading
    through coughs and sneezes, and doesn't yet know how to make boils and warts.

    I suspect the virus would find it advantageous to explore these routes at some stage - even if it
    means activating the host's defenses more than usual.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  2. AIDS is obviously proving to be one of the major killer of our time. The fate of most such viral
    infections is to make peace with their hosts
    - and to become less life-threatening. This is what has happened to the equivalent of HIV in our
    cousins - for example. However it seems possible that the AIDS epipdemic could get much worse
    before it gets better. If medicine fails to come up with an adequate response to it, that is. The
    HIV virus has done a good job of learning to hide from the immune system. However it has not done
    a very good job of mastering its own transmission - in particular it is poor at spreading through
    coughs and sneezes, and doesn't yet know how to make boils and warts. I suspect the virus would
    find it advantageous to explore these routes at some stage - even if it means activating the
    host's defenses more than usual.
    --
    __________
      |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to
    reply.

    I don't think it is accurate to state AIDS hasn't mastered its own
    transmission if one means by how it is transmitted. I've included a few
    articles to read. The first points out how AIDS is and isn't
    transmitted. Apparently you disagree but authoritative sources state
    AIDS is not caused by coughing or sneezing. The second article talks
    about symptoms of AIDS and as you can see the list is long. But right
    under "early disease progression" it states warts and boils may develop
    over the body. Rather than these warts and boils being modes of
    transmission they are symptoms..unless you want to bite off a boil with
    your teeth and suck out the pus.

    It seems to me there needs to be a widespread effort at education and
    funding as well as political pressure to outlaw human hunting of
    chimpanzees, monkeys, etc. Apparently the reason why SIV in monkeys and
    chimpanzees is not lethal is because they have had tens of thousands of
    years to adapt to it. We humans have not had that time.

    Reading about what AIDS can do to the human body I don't see how it
    could get much more lethal. The modes of transmission for this disease
    is not like smallpox. I suppose it could mutate into a deadlier more
    strain i.e. more severe symptoms and killing people quicker...but the

    fluids and in rare cases breast milk.

    Michael Ragland

    AIDS is short for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. It is a disease
    that damages the body's immune system (the system that helps fight off
    illnesses). When a person's immune system is damaged, he or she is more
    likely to become sick from illnesses that might not hurt a person who
    has a healthy immune system. The person's body with AIDS cannot defend
    itself, and it isn't able to fight off infections and some kinds of
    tumors.

    Although AIDS is contagious, it is much harder to get than a cold or the
    flu. In fact, it's very important to know how people don't get AIDS: you
    can't get it from hugging, kissing, or holding hands. You can't get it
    from sitting next to someone who has AIDS or by being in school with
    someone who has AIDS. It's not spread by coughing or sneezing, and it's
    not carried by mosquitoes or other bugs.

    AIDS is transmitted when the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is
    spread from the inside of an infected person's body into the inside of
    another person's body. The germ can do this in three main ways:

    infected person's blood, a man's semen, and secretions from the vagina
    of a woman. Some doctors and researchers think that HIV can get into the
    bloodstream through cuts or sores on the vagina, penis, rectum (anus),
    and possibly even the mouth. Some of these cuts can be so small that a
    person might not even know they were there.
    When needles or syringes are shared with an HIV-infected person. People
    who inject drugs are at risk of infecting themselves with HIV - this
    includes intravenous drugs (drugs that are injected into a vein) as well
    as injected steroids. Many people who use needles to take drugs share
    the needles with other drug users. When a person infected with HIV does
    this, the virus can be spread to another person through tiny amounts of
    blood attached to the needle.

    Quoted message said:

    From mother to child, either before or during the child's birth. A


    newborn baby can get HIV from his mother if she has the virus in her
    body. This can happen before the baby is born or while the baby is being
    delivered. In rare cases, mothers can pass HIV on through breastfeeding.
    Sometimes, the mother doesn't know that she has HIV until she is already
    pregnant. Luckily, scientists have found that pregnant women with HIV
    who receive treatment for HIV are much less likely to spread the virus
    to their babies when they are born. Babies who are born to HIV-infected
    mothers are also given medicine to prevent HIV infection.

    In the past, some people became infected with HIV from blood
    transfusions. This is very rare today - since 1985, blood has been
    examined for HIV. If there is any evidence of the virus, the blood is
    thrown away. The blood supply in the United States is very safe.

    doesn't have to worry about having HIV or AIDS. There is no way for
    someone to tell if a person is infected with HIV, so if  person does

    If you have more questions about AIDS, talk to an adult you trust - your
    doctor, your parents, a health teacher, or another teacher. Don't rely
    on your friends for information about AIDS because they may not know the
    right answers. If you feel too embarrassed to talk to an adult you know,
    there are many people you can talk to without having to say who you are.
    Check your telephone book for AIDS hotline numbers or health clinics.

    For more detailed information on AIDS, read our kids' article HIV and
    AIDS.
    Updated and reviewed by: Cecilia DiPentima, MD
    Date reviewed: June 2002
    Originally reviewed by: Neil Izenberg, MD, and Joel Klein, MD

    Note:  This chapter of The Truth about AIDS by Dr Patrick Dixon is the
    original text as published by Kingsway in 1994 updated 2002 and may be
    reproduced with acknowledgment.

    First signs of illness

    The first thing that happens after infection is that many people develop
    a flu-like illness. This may be severe enough to look like glandular
    fever with swollen glands in the neck and armpits, tiredness, fever and
    night sweats. Some of those white cells are dying, virus is being
    released, and for the first time the body is working hard to make
    correct antibodies. At this stage the blood test will usually become
    positive as it picks up the tell-tale antibodies.

    This process of converting the blood from negative to positive is called
    `sero-conversion´. Most people do not realise what is happening,
    although when they later develop AIDS they look back and remember it
    clearly. Most people have produced antibodies in about twelve weeks.

    Latent infection

    Then everything settles down. The person now has a positive test, and
    feels completely well. The virus often seems to disappear completely
    from the blood again. However, during this latent phase, HIV can be
    found in large quantities in lymph nodes, spleen, adenoid glands and
    tonsils. We do not know how many people will go on to the next stage. As
    we saw in an earlier chapter, at first doctors thought it might only be
    one in ten, then two or three out of ten. Now it looks as though at
    least nine out of ten will develop further problems.

    San Francisco studies show that in developed countries, without use of
    the latest therapies, 50% with HIV develop AIDS in ten years, 70% in
    fourteen years. Of those with AIDS, 94% are dead in five years. The rate
    of progression can be much faster in those with weakened immunity from
    other causes---drug users or those in developing countries, for
    example.  It can be far slower in those on various treatments.

    Most scientists and doctors are convinced that if we follow up infected
    people for long enough---maybe for twenty years or more---then all or
    nearly all will die of AIDS, unless they have died of something else in
    the meantime such as a heart attack or cancer. How long can someone live
    before some infection triggers production of more virus and death of
    more white cells?

    The next stage begins when the immune system starts to break down. This
    is often preceded by subtle mutations in the virus, during which it
    becomes more aggressive in damaging white cells. Several glands in the
    neck and armpits may swell and remain swollen for more than three months
    without any explanation. This is known as persistent generalised
    lymphadenopathy (PGL).

    Early disease progression

    As the disease progresses, the person develops other conditions related
    to AIDS. A simple boil or warts may spread all over the body. The mouth
    may become infected by thrush (thick white coating), or may develop some
    other problem. Dentists are often the first to be in a position to make
    the diagnosis.

    People may develop severe shingles (painful blisters in a band of red
    skin), or herpes. They may feel overwhelmingly tired all the time, have
    high temperatures, drenching night sweats, lose more than 10% of their
    body weight, and have diarrhoea lasting more than a month. No other
    cause is found and a blood test will usually be positive. Some used to
    call this stage ARC, or AIDS related complex.

    You can easily panic reading a list of symptoms like this because all of
    us tend to read about diseases and think instantly we've got them.
    Chronic diarrhoea does not mean you have AIDS. Nor do weight loss, high
    temperatures, tiredness and swollen glands. These things can be
    particularly common in many developing countries.

    At the moment in many countries there is an epidemic of viral illnesses
    which cause fevers, tiredness, rashes and other symptoms that last a
    long time, always go away completely, and have nothing to do with AIDS.

    (STD) or genito-urinary medicine (GUM) if you are unsure.

    Late HIV illness---AIDS

    The final stage is AIDS. Most of the immune system is intact and the
    body can deal with most infections, but one or two more unusual
    infections become almost impossible for the body to get rid of without
    medical help---usually intensive antibiotics.

    These infections can be a nightmare for doctors and patients. The
    desperate struggle is to find the new germ, identify it, and give the
    right drug in huge doses to kill it. The germ may be hiding deep in a
    lung requiring a tube (bronchoscope) to be put down the windpipe into
    the lung to get a sample. The person is sedated for this. It may be
    hiding in the fluid covering the brain and spinal cord, requiring a
    needle to be put into the spine (lumbar puncture). It may be hiding in
    the brain itself. It may hide in the liver or gall-bladder or bowel. It
    can hide anywhere.

    Chest infections are common

    The most common infection is a chest infection. A twenty-three-year-old
    man walks into his doctor's office with a chest infection not responding
    to antibiotics. He is flushed and has a high temperature. He has been
    increasingly short of breath with a dry cough for several weeks. He
    becomes breathless and has an emergency chest X-ray. The X-ray is
    strange. No one has seen anything like it before. Could this be AIDS?
    Samples are taken from the lung. The man is rushed to intensive care and
    is too ill to ask if he would agree to a blood test. Within two days he
    is dead. A strange germ is found in his lung: pneumocystis carinii. This
    is incredibly rare except in AIDS.

    He may or may not be reported as a statistic to the centre collecting
    information on AIDS. This is voluntary and doctors are busy. If he had
    died a day or two earlier, the cause of death would have been thought to
    be pneumonia. Yet another silent victim, unnoticed and unrecorded. Our
    statistics may be incomplete, and remember, no test was done for HIV.

    He was unlucky. Average life expectancy if you develop your first
    pneumocystis pneumonia is just over two years. 78% survive the first
    episode, only 40% survive the second. You could live for over three
    years, or you might be dead in three months. Each new chest infection
    could be your last. Often people seem only an hour or two from death,
    then pull around, recover completely, and go home for several months
    until the next crisis.

    We know that eighty-five out of a hundred people with these chest
    infections in Western nations are infected with pneumocystis carinii,
    but many are infected with several things at once. Worldwide, the
    commonest HIV-related chest infection is tuberculosis. As HIV spreads,
    TB is on the increase, with possibly a million extra cases a year at
    present as a result of HIV. Latent TB infection is common in the general
    population. HIV damage to CD4 white cells allows reactivation, rapid
    deterioration and death.

    Damage to nervous system

    Half of the people with AIDS will develop signs of brain impairment or
    nerve damage during their illness. In one person out of ten it is the
    first symptom. HIV itself seems to attack, damage and destroy brain
    cells of the majority of people with AIDS who survive long enough.

    The virus is probably carried into the brain by special white cells
    called macrophages, which then produce more virus there. Brain cells
    have a texture on their surfaces similar to CD4 white cells which
    enables the virus to latch on and enter.

    The damage happens gradually and often is not noticed until a
    significant part of the brain has been destroyed: a brain scan shows a
    shrunken appearance with enlarged cavities. The signs can be threefold:
    difficulties in thinking, difficulties in co-ordinating balance and
    moving, and changes in behaviour. Sometimes the problems are caused by
    other infections spreading throughout the body, or by tumours, all
    brought on by AIDS.

    Brain damage affects children as well. In one study, sixteen out of
    twenty-one children with AIDS developed progressive brain destruction
    (encephalopathy). But any part of the nervous system can be damaged in
    adults or children, not just the brain, and AIDS can mimic just about
    any other disease of nerves.

    The 1993 AIDS Surveillance Case Definition of the U.S. Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention A diagnosis of AIDS is made whenever a
    person is HIV-positive and:
    he or she has a CD4+ cell count below 200 cells per microliter OR his or
    her CD4+ cells account for fewer than 14 percent of all lymphocytes OR
    that person has been diagnosed with one or more of the AIDS-defining
    illnesses listed below.

    AIDS-Defining Illnesses

    Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs (see Fungal Infections)
    Candidiasis, esophageal (see Fungal Infections) Cervical cancer,
    invasive‡ Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated (see Fungal Infections)
    Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary (see Fungal Infections)
    Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal (>1 month duration) (see Enteric
    Diseases) Cytomegalovirus disease (other than liver, spleen, or lymph
    nodes) Cytomegalovirus retinitis (with loss of vision) Encephalopathy,
    HIV-related† (see Dementia) Herpes simplex: chronic ulcer(s) (>1 month
    duration) or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis Histoplasmosis,
    disseminated (see Fungal Infections) Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal
    (>1 month duration) (see Enteric Diseases) Kaposi's sarcoma Lymphoma,
    Burkitt's Lymphoma, immunoblastic Lymphoma, primary, of brain (primary
    central nervous system lymphoma) Mycobacterium avium complex or disease
    caused by M. Kansasii, disseminated Disease caused by Mycobacterium
    tuberculosis, any site (pulmonary‡ or extrapulmonary†) (see
    Tuberculosis) Disease caused by Mycobacterium, other species or
    unidentified species, disseminated Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
    Pneumonia, recurrent(see Bacterial Infections) Progressive multifocal
    leukoencephalopathy Salmonella septicemia, recurrent (see Bacterial
    Infections) Toxoplasmosis of brain (encephalitis) Wasting syndrome
    caused by HIV infectionAdditional Illnesses That Are AIDS-Defining in
    Children, But Not Adults
    Multiple, recurrent bacterial infections† (see Bacterial Infections)
    Lymphoid interstitial pneumonia/pulmonary lymphoid hyperplasia

    Children with HIV

    Worldwide, over 3 million children have HIV infection and half a million
    die every year.  Altogether, 83% of children with HIV will show some
    kind of abnormality in their white cells, or will have symptoms, by the
    time they are six months old. Problems seen can include large lymph
    nodes, enlarged liver and spleen, failure to thrive (small for age),
    small head, ear infections, chest infections, unexplained fever,
    encephalopathy (brain deterioration).
    Of those showing symptoms within the first year of life, half die before
    the age of three.

    However, with improved treatments children are surviving longer. A
    common pattern is beginning to emerge of a child who becomes unwell in
    the first year or two of life with different chronic or acute
    infections, yet with treatment carries on for many years, possibly even
    into adolescence with many ups and downs. Pain and other symptoms are
    often overlooked in these children.
    Blood tests are often confused by the presence after birth of the
    mother's own antibodies.

    All babies of infected mothers will test positive for around the first
    year, whether infected or not. Most babies who test positive at birth
    turn out to be uninfected.  The greatest risk to the baby is the birth
    process itself and breast milk.  Dramatic reductions in infection
    rates can be made if the mother is given anti-viral medication before
    and immediately after birth.  This is one of the  most appropriate
    occasions to use anti-viral drugs in the poorest nations.  But it
    should always be done under strict medical supervision.

    There is a very slight risk that children who later test negative may
    still carry HIV. If first infected in the womb, the child may regard HIV
    as part of itself and not react to it. We are still in the early stages
    of learning about HIV in children.

    Skin rashes and growths

    The majority of people with AIDS develop skin problems which are usually
    an exaggeration of things common to most people, such as acne and rashes
    of various kinds. Cold sores and genital herpes may develop, or warts.
    Athlete's foot in severe forms, ringworm and thrush are common. Rashes
    due to food allergy are also common---no one knows why. Hair frequently
    falls out. Drug rashes frequently occur, often due to life-saving
    co-trimoxazole used for treatment or prevention of the pneumocystis
    carinii pneumonia.

    Kaposi's sarcoma develops in up to a quarter of the people with AIDS
    (depending on the country and route of infection). This produces blue or
    red hard painless patches on the skin, often on the face. In the
    majority of these people it is the first sign of AIDS. Tumours can
    spread to lymph nodes, gut lining and lungs where they can be confused
    with pneumocystis pneumonia. The growths may be caused by a second virus
    that is allowed to grow more easily if you have AIDS. Treatment consists
    mainly of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including injections of the
    lesions.

    Because it often affects the face or may be visible elsewhere on the
    body and is so distinctive, people who develop Kaposi's sarcoma often
    feel especially vulnerable. In fact people usually live longer if they
    first develop this tumour than if they first develop a pneumonia.
    Kaposi's sarcoma is less common in drug users with AIDS, presumably
    because it is caused by a second virus also found in , which is then
    activated by HIV.
    The other common cancer is a tumour (lymphoma) which develops in the
    brain or elsewhere in the body.

    Problems in gut, eyes and other organs

    Almost all people with AIDS have stomach problems from strange
    infections and cancers caused by AIDS and HIV attacking the gut
    directly. All three cause food to be poorly digested resulting in
    diarrhoea and weight loss. Stool samples can be examined or samples can
    be taken from within the gut using special tubing (endoscopy) to see if
    there is a second treatable infection in addition to HIV.

    AIDS can also seriously affect sight in up to a quarter of all those
    with HIV by allowing an infection of the back of the eye (retinitis).
    This is usually caused by cytomegalovirus and is sometimes amenable to
    treatment. In addition, the virus can cause damage to other organs of
    the body such as the heart.

    Changing disease pattern in adults

    In different parts of the world, AIDS tends to have its own
    characteristics. This may be due to the pattern of other illnesses
    present in different communities, which explains why TB is the commonest
    cause of death from AIDS in Africa and Asia. Different patterns may be
    related to different co-factors ( compared to drug injectors, for
    example), viral differences or possibly genetic differences.

    However, patterns are changing. For example, the incidence of Kaposi's
    sarcoma is falling among with HIV in a number of countries, while it is
    rising among drug users. Some of these changed patterns are because of
    altered treatments; others are due to other factors.

    As survival times have increased, other problems have emerged which are
    far more difficult to treat. These include blindness due to
    cytomegalovirus, progressive multifocal leucoencephalopathy (weakness,
    muscle wasting, difficulty thinking), cryptosporidiosis (causes various
    infections), mycobacterium infections and cryptococcal meningitis.

    In addition, as we have seen, advanced Kaposi's sarcoma can bring its
    own problems, with lung involvement causing shortness of breath and
    triggering chest infections, gut involvement causing obstruction or
    sudden bleeding, and with blockage of lymphatic drainage causing swollen
    limbs or face, skin ulceration and infection.

    In a quarter of those dying with AIDS, the exact cause of death may be
    difficult to establish, with profound weakness, loss of weight and
    multi-system failure. Many infections can be chronic, low grade and
    difficult to diagnose, and when diagnosed can be hard to treat. Indeed,
    post-mortem examinations show that half of all HIV-related diseases
    found at autopsy have not been diagnosed during life.

    In the early days in many countries, those with AIDS often spent a long
    time in hospital as doctors battled to get to grips with the complex
    spectrum of illnesses. Now people with AIDS are usually able to spend
    more time at home, with many treatments given in clinics or in the home.
    However, many have multiple problems and need practical help, backed by
    nursing care and symptom control, to stay at home in comfort and in
    control of their own lives. Later on in this book we will look at the
    practicalities of setting up community care programmes.
    Many people who are ill are now opting not to have every symptom
    investigated, when the price is valuable time spent in hospital,
    unpleasant tests, and treatments that may have side effects.

    AIDS diagnosis in developing nations

    In developing countries it can be hard to make an accurate diagnosis of
    AIDS because of the lack of HIV testing facilities. The World Health
    Organisation proposed a clinical case definition, combining symptoms and
    signs common in AIDS (see table below). This has been used as the basis
    for AIDS statistics in many countries, but is inaccurate.

    A study of hospital patients in Zaire showed that the case definition
    missed 31% of AIDS cases (definition not very sensitive), and 10% of
    those it identified as having AIDS were errors.

    The case definition misses people dying with severe HIV illnesses which
    do not fit the definition. For example, deaths from streptococcal
    pneumonia are far more common in those with HIV, yet such deaths were
    not included.

    The commonest manifestations of AIDS in Africa are gross weight loss,
    chronic diarrhoea and chronic fever---the picture of `slim disease´ as
    AIDS is known in African countries. However, it is difficult to exclude
    other causes for the same symptoms and signs.

    Deaths from tuberculosis are another problem. TB is probably the most
    important infection in those with HIV in Africa. High rates of TB
    infection are found in those with HIV and the risk of death from TB is
    greatly increased in those with HIV. However, it is questionable whether
    all those with TB and HIV can be diagnosed as AIDS cases, since many
    have TB anyway. Many with TB lose weight and have fever as well as a
    cough. Therefore in the absence of HIV testing, many with advanced TB
    are likely to be labelled as AIDS cases using the WHO case definition.

    In the light of all these problems, a revised case definition has been
    agreed. You may wonder how it is possible to be sure of the right
    diagnosis at all without laboratory facilities, and the answer is that
    it is very difficult.

    Some have pounced on this difficulty to suggest that there is no AIDS in
    Africa at all. As we see elsewhere, this is not very convincing for two

    groups as HIV infection rates have risen. TB and other illnesses have
    been around and studied in detail for decades. Something new is
    happening. Secondly, when people with AIDS from African nations are
    cared for either in countries like the UK, or in very well-equipped
    hospitals nearer home, it is clear that there are gross abnormalities of
    their immune systems indicative of AIDS, with positive antibodies for
    HIV and damaged white cells.

    You are in: Health24 : News : HIV/AIDSHIV/AIDS

    Missing Aids link found13/6/2003Researchers say they've discovered
    evidence that an early form of Aids infected two monkey species before
    moving on to chimpanzees and then to humans. The findings boost theories
    suggesting that the virus has a history of jumping from species to
    species and may have moved into man through the simple act of hunting.

    The report comes as the Sars and monkeypox outbreaks attract attention
    to the transmission of disease between animals and people. People don't
    like the idea that this can happen because it's a very scary thought.
    You can't control it, said study co-author Dr Beatrice Hahn, a professor
    of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

    SIV similar to HIV-1

    Scientists suspect that chimpanzees transmitted Aids to humans because
    their strain of SIV, or simian immunodeficiency virus, is very similar
    to HIV-1, the most common strain of the Aids virus in humans. What we
    don't know is how this transmission occurred, Hahn said.

    HIV is, of course, a devastating epidemic in humans. But while SIV
    infects chimpanzees and monkeys, it doesn't appear to hurt them. The
    hypothesis is that these species have had their infections for a long,
    long time. They have simply learned to adapt, Hahn said.

    Some experts suspect that humans became infected by eating chimpanzees,
    while others have blamed manmade factors, like the polio vaccine, for
    making people more susceptible.

    Genetic links in chimpanzees and monkeys studied

    Hahn is a member of a team of international researchers who have spent
    nearly a decade investigating HIV and its precursors in apes. In the new
    study, they examined genetic links between SIV in chimpanzees and in two
    kinds of monkeys - red-capped mangabeys and greater spot-nosed monkeys.
    (Chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys.)

    Mangabeys are already well-known to Aids researchers because they appear
    to have transmitted the virus that became HIV-2 to humans. (HIV-2 is
    milder than the more common HIV-1 and found mainly in West Africa.)

    According to the researchers, the genetic analysis suggests that strains
    of SIV in the monkeys appear to have combined in the chimpanzees to
    create a new strain. The theory makes sense, they say, because
    chimpanzees hunt the monkeys, and the disease is spread through blood.

    Disease probably spread naturally

    It's not clear when the disease jumped from the monkeys to chimpanzees,
    but it was probably tens of thousands of years ago, Hahn said.
    If SIV can jump from monkey to chimpanzee through hunting, it adds
    support to the theory that the disease could have spread from
    chimpanzees to humans naturally instead of due to an unusual factor like
    human vaccination, she said. The monkeys and chimpanzees weren't
    vaccinated, I can tell you that, she said.

    While the study findings don't appear to have any immediate relevance
    for efforts to fight Aids in people, an expert said it's vital to
    understand how the disease evolved, especially considering that monkeys
    and chimpanzees aren't sickened by it.

    HIV is here to stay

    We will never be rid of HIV. It will be in our population forever. It's
    not like smallpox that can be eliminated, said Dr Shawn O'Neil,
    assistant professor of pathology at the New England Primate Research
    Center. We have to control its transmission and figure out how to
    control it so it doesn't kill us. It's important to learn how these
    other species have lived with this virus.

    On the other hand, the study findings suggest the possibility that more
    deadly diseases could move from monkeys and chimpanzees to humans
    through hunting, said Murray Gardner, professor emeritus of pathology at
    the University of California at Davis and an expert in Aids-like disease
    in monkeys. Will it happen again? Let's hope not, but this raises the
    potential. - (HealthDayNews)

  3. "Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:


    The fate of most such viral infections is to make peace with their hosts - and to become less life-
    threatening. This is what has happened to the equivalent of HIV in our cousins - for example.


    This is a bit of a fallacy, that parasites eventually evolve to mutually beneficial relationships
    with their hosts. All the virus cares about is getting out of that host and into a new one so it can
    complete its lifecycle. If this is achieved by making the host live longer then mutualism will
    evolve. However if the virus multiplies massively are tries to flood the environment with copies,
    then probably the host will be killed in the process.

  4. Malcolm said:

    "Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:


    The fate of most such viral infections is to make peace with their hosts - and to become less
    life-threatening. This is what has happened to the equivalent of HIV in our cousins - for
    example.


    This is a bit of a fallacy, that parasites eventually evolve to mutually beneficial relationships
    with their hosts. All the virus cares about is getting out of that host and into a new one so it
    can complete its lifecycle. If this is achieved by making the host live longer then mutualism will
    evolve. However if the virus multiplies massively are tries to flood the environment with copies,
    then probably the host will be killed in the process.

    There's a good and extended discussion of the Burnet-Medawar Hypothesis in Ewald's book. In summary,
    he thinks that the only time mutual symbiosis evolves is when the genetic fitness of the
    parasite/pathogen is linked closely to that of the host's - i.e., when it is hard to spread the
    disease. If the vectors are such that fitness of the pathogen and fitness of the hosts and vectors
    are not linked, they can be expected to become *more* virulent, not less. So the best thing to do
    with something like AIDS/HIV is, reduce the frequency of transmission.

    Ewald, P. W. (1994). Evolution of infectious disease. Oxford [England]; New York, Oxford
    University Press.

    --
    John Wilkins DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT? wilkins.id.au

  5. Michael Ragland <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted me as saying:

    Quoted message said:

    "If medicine fails to come up with an adequate response to it, that is. The HIV virus has done a
    good job of learning to hide from the immune system. However it has not done a very good job of
    mastering its own transmission - in particular it is poor at spreading through coughs and
    sneezes, and doesn't yet know how to make boils and warts. I suspect the virus would find it
    advantageous to explore these routes at some stage - even if it means activating the host's
    defenses more than usual."

    I don't think it is accurate to state AIDS hasn't mastered its own transmission if one means by
    how it is transmitted. I've included a few articles to read. The first points out how AIDS is and
    isn't transmitted. Apparently you disagree but authoritative sources state AIDS is not caused by
    coughing or sneezing. [...]

    I think you must have misinterpreted what I wrote (quoted above).
    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  6. John Wilkins <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:
    Malcolm said:

    "Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The fate of most such viral infections is to make peace with their hosts - and to become less
    life-threatening. This is what has happened to the equivalent of HIV in our cousins - for
    example.

    This is a bit of a fallacy, that parasites eventually evolve to mutually beneficial relationships
    with their hosts. All the virus cares about is getting out of that host and into a new one so it
    can complete its lifecycle. If this is achieved by making the host live longer then mutualism
    will evolve. However if the virus multiplies massively are tries to flood the environment with
    copies, then probably the host will be killed in the process.

    There's a good and extended discussion of the Burnet-Medawar Hypothesis in Ewald's book. In
    summary, he thinks that the only time mutual symbiosis evolves is when the genetic fitness of the
    parasite/pathogen is linked closely to that of the host's - i.e., when it is hard to spread the
    disease. If the vectors are such that fitness of the pathogen and fitness of the hosts and vectors
    are not linked, they can be expected to become *more* virulent, not less.

    I can't agree with that. The most important factor is whether the virus benefits from killing
    the host or not - not anything to do with the fitness of the host - or how hard it is to spread
    the disease.

    Viruses very often benefit from keeping their host alive - since they can use a living host to
    infect others. The most common scenario where it doesn't pay is when the host is near the end
    of its life - and it is better to use the host's resources to make as many virus copies as
    possible rapidly.

    In this instaince - HIV - we have a compelling reason for thinking that AIDS will eventually become
    much more benign - since there is a simian equivalent - SIV - where the host population has been
    exposed for a lot longer - and the disease has indeed turned into a relatively benign form.

    Quoted message said:

    Ewald, P. W. (1994). Evolution of infectious disease. Oxford [England]; New York, Oxford
    University Press.


    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  7. Tim Tyler said:

    John Wilkins <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:
    Malcolm said:

    "Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > The fate of most such viral infections is to make peace with their hosts - and to become less
    > life-threatening. This is what has happened to the equivalent of HIV in our cousins - for
    > example.

    This is a bit of a fallacy, that parasites eventually evolve to mutually beneficial
    relationships with their hosts. All the virus cares about is getting out of that host and into
    a new one so it can complete its lifecycle. If this is achieved by making the host live longer
    then mutualism will evolve. However if the virus multiplies massively are tries to flood the
    environment with copies, then probably the host will be killed in the process.

    There's a good and extended discussion of the Burnet-Medawar Hypothesis in Ewald's book. In
    summary, he thinks that the only time mutual symbiosis evolves is when the genetic fitness of
    the parasite/pathogen is linked closely to that of the host's - i.e., when it is hard to spread
    the disease. If the vectors are such that fitness of the pathogen and fitness of the hosts and
    vectors are not linked, they can be expected to become *more* virulent, not less.

    I can't agree with that. The most important factor is whether the virus benefits from killing the
    host or not - not anything to do with the fitness of the host - or how hard it is to spread the
    disease.

    Viruses very often benefit from keeping their host alive - since they can use a living host to
    infect others. The most common scenario where it doesn't pay is when the host is near the end of
    its life - and it is better to use the host's resources to make as many virus copies as possible
    rapidly.

    But that is what I said - or rather what Ewald said. If killing a host is of no matter to the
    pathogen, because the pathogen spreads quickly and easily, then the competition for hosts will be
    won by the most infectious and the one that exploits the host's resources most effectively, which is
    pretty good as a definition of virulence.

    Quoted message said:


    In this instaince - HIV - we have a compelling reason for thinking that AIDS will eventually
    become much more benign - since there is a simian equivalent - SIV - where the host population has
    been exposed for a lot longer - and the disease has indeed turned into a relatively benign form.

    But you overlook the relative rates of evolution - in the longer term, the behaviours that make it
    harder for the pathogen to spread (in this

    species. Simians will tend to pair bond or preferentially mate within-group, inhibiting the spread
    of the SIV, and so setting up the conditions for it to evolve into a symbiotic or non-virulent form
    (as those forms will be fitter than the virulent ones). Bu tthere is no reason to think this will
    occur on a shorter term with HIV unless we take *non*-genetically-determined steps to inhibit the
    spread of the virus. Condoms being a useful and cheap method of doing just that.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Ewald, P. W. (1994). Evolution of infectious disease. Oxford [England]; New York, Oxford
    University Press.

    --
    John Wilkins DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT? wilkins.id.au

  8. John Wilkins <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:
    Tim Tyler said:

    John Wilkins <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:

    Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > "Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > The fate of most such viral infections is to make peace with their hosts - and to become
    > > less life-threatening. This is what has happened to the equivalent of HIV in our cousins -
    > > for example.
    >
    > This is a bit of a fallacy, that parasites eventually evolve to mutually beneficial
    > relationships with their hosts. All the virus cares about is getting out of that host and into
    > a new one so it can complete its lifecycle. If this is achieved by making the host live longer
    > then mutualism will evolve. However if the virus multiplies massively are tries to flood the
    > environment with copies, then probably the host will be killed in the process.

    There's a good and extended discussion of the Burnet-Medawar Hypothesis in Ewald's book. In
    summary, he thinks that the only time mutual symbiosis evolves is when the genetic fitness of
    the parasite/pathogen is linked closely to that of the host's - i.e., when it is hard to spread
    the disease. If the vectors are such that fitness of the pathogen and fitness of the hosts and
    vectors are not linked, they can be expected to become *more* virulent, not less.

    I can't agree with that. The most important factor is whether the virus benefits from killing the
    host or not - not anything to do with the fitness of the host - or how hard it is to spread the
    disease.

    Viruses very often benefit from keeping their host alive - since they can use a living host to
    infect others. The most common scenario where it doesn't pay is when the host is near the end of
    its life - and it is better to use the host's resources to make as many virus copies as possible
    rapidly.

    But that is what I said - or rather what Ewald said. If killing a host is of no matter to the
    pathogen, because the pathogen spreads quickly and easily, then the competition for hosts will be
    won by the most infectious and the one that exploits the host's resources most effectively, which
    is pretty good as a definition of virulence.

    That makes more sense ;-)

    I'm still inclined to think that such situations will tend to gravitate towards less antagonistic
    relationships as time passes - unless perhaps the parasite has mutliple host species - and doesn't
    mind wiping a few of them out.

    Basically, killing off your hosts is too self-destructive to be allowed to persist for very long.
    The pathogens under discussion - that:

    * spread quickly and easily - and...

    * kill their hosts;

    ...will tend to either rapidly wipe themselves out - or decimate the numbers of their host
    population to the point where speading "quickly and easily" is impossible - so that we can expect to
    not see very many of them around.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  9. Quoted message said:

    Michael Ragland <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted me as saying:

    Re: [HIV] has not done a very good job of mastering its own transmission -
    in particular it is poor at spreading through coughs and sneezes [...]

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Apparently you disagree but authoritative sources state AIDS is not caused by coughing or
    sneezing. [...]

    Quoted message said:

    I think you must have misinterpreted what I wrote (quoted above).

    You state, "I think you must have misinterpreted what I wrote." How so?

    I never claimed AIDS was spread through coughs and sneezes.

    I pointed out how poor it was at spreading using these techniques.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  10. Malcolm said:

    There seem to be a few HIV resistant African prostitutes who must have been exposed to the virus,
    yet reamin immune. So HIV won't wipe us out, though it might kill 95% of the population.

    The Delta 32 mutation. Some people lack the CD4 coreceptor sites that HIV needs to attach to; some
    people lack one of the sites, some both (they're both CD4 coreceptor sites; one is CXCR4, I forget
    what the other is). Having one gives partial immunity to HIV; having none gives total immunity. This
    is the same mutation that, hundreds of years back, gave our ancestors partial or total immunity to
    the black plague. If HIV really becomes a pandemic *killer* (unlike now, where HIV is spreading, but
    the rates of it becoming AIDS - and thus, more lethal - are shrinking), then this mutation will be
    selected for.

    And yes, it scares me a little bit to think of the human race undergoing such a darwinian trial
    during my lifetime.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.