URL: http://prince.org/msg/105/187323

Date printed: Sat 1st Nov 2014 6:49am PDT

independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 1st Nov 2014 6:49am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forums > Politics & Religion > 1969 AIDS DEATH OF 15 YR OLD BLACK "STREET"(?) BOY
AuthorMessage
Thread started 04/29/06 5:29pm

kdj997

1969 AIDS DEATH OF 15 YR OLD BLACK "STREET"(?) BOY

Anyone hear about this story? For those too lazy to read the cut and paste (it is a lot) it basically concerns a 15 yr old boy in St. Louis, who never been outside of the midwest, comes in the hospital pale, swellin, with kaposi's sacoma on his thigh. Obviously baffles the doctors. He dies and flash forward to 1987 the doctors get the brilliant idea of testing the blood and tissue samples for HIV and the results come back positive. The biggest question is how did the kid get AIDS. It seems this case has been ignored since the initial media wave in 1987-1988. I believe this case should be studied inside out because it may give some insight on the origins of the disease. They concluded the kid may have been a homosexual from a postmortum rectal exam. The kid didn't talk much, I've read some places that he was mildly retarded.

The thing about him being retarded and gat smacks of racism to me because 1. he never said he was gay. The doctors seem to have pushed that theory and used flimsy evidence of hemmroids and anal leisions to support it. He himself said he had sex with a neighborhood girl and in some reports it says he actually associated his illness with that. It's funny that the doctors wanted to push the gay angle even though he gave no indication of that even though it is reasonable to believe the neighborhood girl may have been a guy. Even so having sex with a guy is a far cry from being a male prostitute which the doctors speculated (keep in mind, speculation based on nothing he said or did) The retarded comment comes cause he didn't talk a lot. Which one of the doctors attributed to her being white and him being a young black kid in 1969 more than anything else. (off my racial, moral high horse)

I definitely think it's an interesting case and hate that there's been little follow up information over the years. They know the guys name (Robert R. the doctors refused to release his full last name publicly). Maybe his family could've provided some clues.

Heres the article followed by a link to one of the stories:

Case Shakes Theories of AIDS Origin

Chicago Tribune (CT) - Sunday October 25, 1987
John Crewdson, (copyright) 1987 Chicago Tribune


-----
ST. LOUIS - Long before Robert R. finally entered the hospital, his body had begun to fail him in many ways.
For nearly two years his lower legs and genitals had been swollen. Since then the black teenager had grown thin and pale, fatigued and short of breath, and now his bloodstream swarmed with the microbe called Chlamydia.

Just when Robert's condition seemed to have stabilized, his breathing became more labored and his white blood cell count began to plummet. He developed a fever, went into a convulsion and died.

The parade of doctors who examined the young man in life, who poked and prodded and photographed him for their archives, agreed that Robert's immune system had somehow ceased to function. But none of them could offer a clue as to why.

None, that is, until Dr. William Drake, the pathologist who performed the autopsy, discovered something odd: a small, purplish lesion on the boy's left thigh, and several similar growths in the soft tissue inside his body.

In his autopsy report, Drake concluded that the lesions were a malignant tumor called Kaposi's sarcoma, a rare brand of cancer once confined mostly to elderly Jewish and Italian men.

According to contemporary diagnostic criteria, Kaposi's sarcoma in a patient younger than 60 is almost certain to signal a case of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. But on May 16, 1969-the day that Robert died-nobody had ever heard of AIDS.

The doctors who attended Robert R., (and who agreed to talk about the case in exchange for an agreement to withhold his last name) and for whom his case has presented a continuing puzzle, now believe the 15-year-old youth from the St. Louis ghetto was infected with the same human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that has since been linked to AIDS.

If they are correct-and laboratory evidence obtained just last week indicates strongly that they are-it means the AIDS virus has existed in this country for at least two decades, a full 10 years before the first cases of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma began showing up in white, male homosexuals in New York City.

The implications of such a conclusion are profound, for the length of time that the AIDS virus has been present may not only determine how many Americans have been exposed to it but reveal much that so far is unknown about the past and future course of the disease.

At the moment, however, the case of Robert R. raises more questions than it answers. From whom did he acquire the AIDS virus, and how? To whom might he have passed it? Most important of all, when did the AIDS virus arrive in this country, and where did it come from?

Before he died, Robert was unable to contribute much to the solution of the mystery that surrounds him. "He was the typical 15-year-old who is not going to talk to adults, especially when I'm white and he's black," said Dr. Memory Elvin-Lewis, a microbiologist at Washington University in St. Louis who followed Robert's decline for more than a year.

"He was not a communicative individual. He knew the minute I walked into the room that I wanted something more from him-more blood, more lymph fluid, more something."

Between extractions and injections, Robert did tell his doctors a few key facts: that he had been born in St. Louis and had never traveled outside the Middle West, much less the country. Nor, he said, had he ever received a blood transfusion.

He also admitted having had heterosexual relations; according to his autopsy report, "the patient dated his physical disability from an instance of sexual relations with a neighborhood girl."

Robert was never asked about the possibility of homosexuality, but circumstantial evidence suggests that he may have been the recipient of anal sex, the variety of intercourse believed most likely to transmit HIV.

"We knew from the very first that he wouldn't let us do a rectal examination on him," recalled Dr. Marlys Hearst Witte, a professor of surgery at the University of Arizona who was closely involved with the case of Robert R.

"We knew that he had genital edema and severe proctitis, which is an unusual problem in a 14-year-old boy-the stigmata, almost, of homosexuality. At autopsy he had Kaposi's sarcoma of the rectum and anus, which is an unusual place for Kaposi's sarcoma to be.

"So if you're asking me, do I think this boy lived in an environment or engaged in practices that one would now associate with transmission of AIDS, I would say I think that was rather likely. He could have been a male prostitute. He certainly lived in the environment where that was possible."

However Robert acquired the virus, he must have gotten it from someone, since no viruses can exist for long outside the human body. And whether he passed it on or not, the presence of HIV in this country as early as 1968 raises important questions about the current thinking on the genesis of AIDS.

Most researchers now believe that HIV assumed its present shape somewhere in Central Africa and arrived in this country during the middle 1970s. The theory is bolstered by the discovery, two years ago, of HIV antibodies in a blood sample dating from 1959 in Kinshasa, the capital of Zaire.

Because the incidence of AIDS in Haiti is high, and because some of the first cases in this country occurred among Haitian emigres in Florida, it has been assumed that the virus probably passed through that island nation on its way from Africa to the United States.

One theory suggests that French-speaking Haitians, imported to Zaire and other French-speaking African nations as servants during the 1960s and 1970s, brought the virus back to Haiti, where it was picked up by vacationing American homosexuals in the mid-1970s.

Another holds that HIV first came ashore in south Florida with the successive waves of Haitian boat people who began landing there in 1978.

But however it is constructed, there are a number of gaps in the Africa- Haiti theory. One is that the per capita incidence of AIDS in other Caribbean nations, including the Bahamas, Barbados and Bermuda, is even higher than in Haiti.

Another is the question of why, since nearly equal numbers of Haitian men and women appear to be infected with HIV, the virus was not also acquired by heterosexual American tourists in Haiti-or, for that matter, in Miami.

If some other explanation for the passage of HIV to the United States must be constructed on the strength of Robert R's case, an explanation will also have to be found for the fact that white male homosexuals, who make up two-thirds of all AIDS victims, did not begin to sicken and die in large numbers until the late 1970s.

So perplexing was the case of Robert R. that two of the doctors who attended his autopsy took samples of his blood and tissue back to their laboratory freezers, along with the faint hope that science might someday tell them what to look for.

One was Dr. Elvin-Lewis, then a newly minted Ph.D. who had just finished a doctoral dissertation on a little-known sexually transmitted disease named, like the microbe, Chlamydia.

"He was my first patient," Elvin-Lewis recalled in a recent interview, "and I couldn't believe what I was seeing. He was a bag of producing Chlamydia. His antibodies were so low that nobody could understand it."

"The case sure was consistent with some kind of virus knockdown of the immune system," said Drake, the pathologist, who is now retired. "The Chlamydia, for instance, shouldn't have been in his blood. Chlamydia should stick to the site where it enters the body."

Another who watched Robert's progress with great interest was Marlys Witte, then a young thoracic surgeon who, with her physician husband, Charles, had become intrigued by the apparent obstruction of the boy's lymphatic system.

"When he died, Marlys and I just stood there and took everything," said Elvin-Lewis. "Blood and lymph and tissue and you-name-it."

For two decades the samples were kept in cold storage, some of them in Elvin-Lewis' laboratory in St. Louis, the others by Witte at the University of Arizona.

The case remained sufficiently perplexing that Elvin-Lewis, the Wittes, Dr. William Cole and some of the others involved reported the enigma in a 1973 medical journal article. And there it might have ended, as the co-authors followed their separate career paths to teaching and research.

Elvin-Lewis became chairman of the microbiology department at the Washington University Dental School. The Wittes moved to Tucson. Cole gave up his post as chief of surgery at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis to open a small- town practice in Sedalia, Mo., and Drake went on doing autopsies.

But the case of Robert R. stayed in the back of Marlys Witte's mind. "I'm not someone who's devoted my whole life to AIDS," she said in a recent interview. "This was an incidental patient, coming in with something I deal with on a regular basis-lymphedema. But I have always thought this was an important case, and I did the best thing. I saved everything."

In 1984, as AIDS was moving to the forefront of American medical research, Witte decided that some of Robert R.'s samples should be thawed and tested.

Antibodies were found to Herpes simplex, Cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr disease, three viruses that, along with bacterial Chlamydia, are common among homosexual men, especially those with AIDS.

But there was then no way to test for antibody to HIV, which represents nearly irrefutable evidence of exposure to the virus.

"I thought that I would just sit until techniques were better, so that I would have my best shot at really documenting it," Witte said. "We felt we had so little fluid that we were going to save what we had and do everything at once."

Early last year, after sensitive HIV antibody tests had become available, Witte called Elvin-Lewis to ask whether she had saved any of the samples she took from Robert R.

"She turned out to be as much of a pack rat as I am," Witte said. "So I said, 'Send me everything you've got.' "

In June, Witte sent a half-teaspoon of Robert's blood and a few specks of tissue to Dr. Arthur Gottlieb, a friend and colleague who heads the microbiology department at the Tulane University Medical School in New Orleans.

"I thought that things were at a stage where, if there was going to be something to be found, we would be able to find it now," Witte said.

The decision to test Robert's remains for HIV was first disclosed by Witte, who is secretary general of the International Society of Lymphology, in the opening address to a special AIDS seminar last month at the 11th International Congress of Lymphology in Vienna.

There she told an astonished audience, "We are currently testing body fluids and tissues preserved for nearly 20 years for evidence of HIV or related retroviruses, to see whether this perplexing case was actually HIV infection before its time. Preliminary determinations are suspicious." Antibodies and viruses are mainly made up of proteins, long chains of amino acids that have a biochemical attraction for one another.

In the human body, molecules of antibody produced in response to an invasion by a specific virus fight off the disease by binding themselves to, and then killing, virus molecules in the bloodstream.

If a blood sample is mixed with several of the major proteins that make up HIV, and if the sample contains HIV antibody, the same kind of binding will occur in the laboratory.

At Tulane, the samples from Robert R. were given over for testing to Dr. Robert Garry, an associate professor of microbiology and colleague of Gottlieb.

The test chosen by Garry to search for the presence of HIV antibody was the Western Blot, the most specific and sensitive of the antibody tests now in general use.

The Western Blot is so sensitive that the Pentagon, which is testing millions of new recruits and in-service personnel for AIDS, requires evidence of antibody to just two of the nine main viral proteins before rendering a positive diagnosis. The Red Cross insists on three.

The blood of Robert R. contained antibodies to every one of the nine HIV proteins used in the test. "We found very good reactivity," Garry said. "We also got positive reactions to two of the tissue samples from his spleen."

Gottlieb agreed that "there's no question that it's positive," but he said the test would be repeated this week out of an abundance of scientific caution.

Steve Alexander, director of immunology for Biotech Research Laboratories of Rockville, Md., the firm that manufactures the test, said positive reactions for all nine HIV proteins made the presence of HIV antibody virtually certain.

"The only alternative would be if someone contaminated the sample," he said. But he added that in cases of contamination it was unlikely that antibodies to all nine viral proteins would be detected.

Asked whether the age of the blood sample might make the possibility of a false positive more likely, Dr. Alexander said he had used the Western Blot on some 15-year-old blood samples "and as long as they're preserved, they're okay."

CAPTION: Photo: Photo for The Tribune by Cheryl Pendleton. Dr. William Drake Jr. performed an autopsy on Robert R. in this room at Deaconess Hospital in St. Louis in 1969. The 15-year-old may have had AIDS long before the disease became known.

Photo: Photo for The Tribune by Cheryl Pendleton. Dr. Memory Elvis- Lewis, microbiologist who worked on the Robert R. case at Washington University in St. Louis.


http://www.aegis.org/news/ct/1987/CT871003.html
Reply #1 posted 04/29/06 5:47pm

VoicesCarry

Yes, I've heard about this case. The virus was in America long before the CDC noticed it; it will not surprise me if epidemiological case reviews lead to more and more retrospective diagnoses dating back to the mid- and late 1960's. In its initial form, it was quite virulent; by the late 1970's, it had attenuated somewhat. I do not think this young man had been asymptomatic for long (certainly not the 10+ years many patients experience today).

The virus has been found in frozen African plasma samples dating back to 1959. Cases have now been confirmed in Scandinavia as early as 1971.

AIDS epidemiology is certainly fascinating.

P.S. Interesting to note that they consider the Western Blot the most specific test. The literature would disagree. For the past five years or so, the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) has been much more useful. In 2006, Yeom and researchers analyzed the efficacy of a new third generation sandwich ELISA (LG 1/2 anti-HIV plus ELISA) which effectively detects both HIV-1 and HIV-2 variants. This assay exhibited high sensitivity and specificity for positive sera and showed little potential for cross-reaction with other disease antigens (sometimes a problem with Western Blot). I'm sure as detection methods are enhanced and simplified, we'll see a lot more tests on aged blood samples.

I don't think Western Blot analyses produced a false positive here, though, since Gottlieb knows his shit. He's a major pioneer in AIDS research and epidemiology.
[Edited 4/29/06 17:58pm]
Reply #2 posted 04/29/06 6:07pm

kdj997

VoicesCarry said:

Yes, I've heard about this case. The virus was in America long before the CDC noticed it; it will not surprise me if epidemiological case reviews lead to more and more retrospective diagnoses dating back to the mid- and late 1960's. In its initial form, it was quite virulent; by the late 1970's, it had attenuated somewhat. I do not think this young man had been asymptomatic for long (certainly not the 10+ years many patients experience today).

The virus has been found in frozen African plasma samples dating back to 1959. Cases have now been confirmed in Scandinavia as early as 1971.

AIDS epidemiology is certainly fascinating.


I believe I read he showed symptoms for 2 and a half years before he died and was treated for the last 16 months of that time. So you can definitely assume he caught it before he showed symptoms...hmmm, I wonder if he took the polio vaccine? Maybe he received a batch that wasn't sufficiently tested for monkey viruses and that's how he got it. That wouldn't explain why no one else showed up with AIDS during that period though.

The polio vaccine was responsible for the SD40 simian virus which doesn't appear tro do anything but the people who have it are more prone to brain tumors and other cancers. Also Herpes B (or monkey Type B virus) killed lab researchers who handled chimps swiftly. It's definitely isn't far fetch to consider a simian virus jumping species vebacuse it happens all the time. It isn't far fetched to think that win creating vaccines (such as the polio vaccine which was created from monkey liver cells) they weren't thorough with detecting simian viruses. I believe it was only after many were vaccinated that they started to check for viruses from the lab monkeys they used. The only hole in that is why didn't anyone else develop AIDS during the incubation period after. Though a case can be made that it showed up in Africa after that. The African vaccinations were less regulated. The biggest question is that they were vaccinated by a spray, orally. It's debatable if AIDS can survive swallowing but it's reasonable to assume the spray left a mist which was inhaled which would reach the blood stream. Over 500,000,000 Africans were vaccinated that wasy over a 6 week period.

Anyways, I don't personally think the polio vaccine can be responsible for AIDS in America. The Hep B vaccine trials are a different story though. Time wise it kind of fits and once again simians as well as blood from gay men were used to create the vaccine. To take part in the trials the qualifications were being gay and promiscuos, the early AIDS demo. Also extensive vaccinations took place in Africa as well.
Reply #3 posted 04/29/06 6:16pm

VoicesCarry

kdj997 said:

VoicesCarry said:

Yes, I've heard about this case. The virus was in America long before the CDC noticed it; it will not surprise me if epidemiological case reviews lead to more and more retrospective diagnoses dating back to the mid- and late 1960's. In its initial form, it was quite virulent; by the late 1970's, it had attenuated somewhat. I do not think this young man had been asymptomatic for long (certainly not the 10+ years many patients experience today).

The virus has been found in frozen African plasma samples dating back to 1959. Cases have now been confirmed in Scandinavia as early as 1971.

AIDS epidemiology is certainly fascinating.


I believe I read he showed symptoms for 2 and a half years before he died and was treated for the last 16 months of that time. So you can definitely assume he caught it before he showed symptoms...hmmm, I wonder if he took the polio vaccine? Maybe he received a batch that wasn't sufficiently tested for monkey viruses and that's how he got it. That wouldn't explain why no one else showed up with AIDS during that period though.

The polio vaccine was responsible for the SD40 simian virus which doesn't appear tro do anything but the people who have it are more prone to brain tumors and other cancers. Also Herpes B (or monkey Type B virus) killed lab researchers who handled chimps swiftly. It's definitely isn't far fetch to consider a simian virus jumping species vebacuse it happens all the time. It isn't far fetched to think that win creating vaccines (such as the polio vaccine which was created from monkey liver cells) they weren't thorough with detecting simian viruses. I believe it was only after many were vaccinated that they started to check for viruses from the lab monkeys they used. The only hole in that is why didn't anyone else develop AIDS during the incubation period after. Though a case can be made that it showed up in Africa after that. The African vaccinations were less regulated. The biggest question is that they were vaccinated by a spray, orally. It's debatable if AIDS can survive swallowing but it's reasonable to assume the spray left a mist which was inhaled which would reach the blood stream. Over 500,000,000 Africans were vaccinated that wasy over a 6 week period.

Anyways, I don't personally think the polio vaccine can be responsible for AIDS in America. The Hep B vaccine trials are a different story though. Time wise it kind of fits and once again simians as well as blood from gay men were used to create the vaccine. To take part in the trials the qualifications were being gay and promiscuos, the early AIDS demo. Also extensive vaccinations took place in Africa as well.


From all my readings, I will tell you that the SV40 theory doesn't hold up, and is completely disregarded in the scientific community. But every mystery has its conspiracy theories. Samples of SV40/Hep B have been tested but yielded no contamination of macaque cell lines or HIV.

Being gay and promiscuous was not the early AIDS demo - only in San Francisco, LA and New York outbreaks that were first noticed. Certainly not in the global community. Promiscuity in general was a risk factor, but attention was focused on the gay demographic then and now due to prejudice. The CDC wouldn't even listen to doctors who were sending them reports of IV drug users, their children, and straight female prostitutes being infected. It was a "gay disease" and Kaposi's was "gay cancer". They thought the virus was in poppers; they sent out agents to buy as many poppers as possible and wasted a few months pursuing that "lead". Early 80's AIDS research was really really really poorly handled, and sadly that period is when something could really have been done to contain the virus in America. It is easy to think that in America only gays were getting the disease in the 70's and 80's, but what we're getting is a biased view from the research of the period, and most certainly not the whole picture. Global HIV epidemiology doesn't show a similar pattern of the promiscuous homosexual.

You know, if SARS had really been a massive epidemic, we would have gotten the conspiracy theories, too. It shows no homology to existing human coronavirus strains OC43 and 229E, so there must be an explanation! And you can go from there.... But it was effectively contained and we don't have a need for conspiracy. The bottom line is we know very little about viruses, their origins and patterns of emergence.
[Edited 4/29/06 18:44pm]
Reply #4 posted 04/29/06 6:45pm

Moonwalkbjrain

kdj997 said:

VoicesCarry said:

Yes, I've heard about this case. The virus was in America long before the CDC noticed it; it will not surprise me if epidemiological case reviews lead to more and more retrospective diagnoses dating back to the mid- and late 1960's. In its initial form, it was quite virulent; by the late 1970's, it had attenuated somewhat. I do not think this young man had been asymptomatic for long (certainly not the 10+ years many patients experience today).

The virus has been found in frozen African plasma samples dating back to 1959. Cases have now been confirmed in Scandinavia as early as 1971.

AIDS epidemiology is certainly fascinating.


I believe I read he showed symptoms for 2 and a half years before he died and was treated for the last 16 months of that time. So you can definitely assume he caught it before he showed symptoms...hmmm, I wonder if he took the polio vaccine? Maybe he received a batch that wasn't sufficiently tested for monkey viruses and that's how he got it. That wouldn't explain why no one else showed up with AIDS during that period though.

The polio vaccine was responsible for the SD40 simian virus which doesn't appear tro do anything but the people who have it are more prone to brain tumors and other cancers. Also Herpes B (or monkey Type B virus) killed lab researchers who handled chimps swiftly. It's definitely isn't far fetch to consider a simian virus jumping species vebacuse it happens all the time. It isn't far fetched to think that win creating vaccines (such as the polio vaccine which was created from monkey liver cells) they weren't thorough with detecting simian viruses. I believe it was only after many were vaccinated that they started to check for viruses from the lab monkeys they used. The only hole in that is why didn't anyone else develop AIDS during the incubation period after. Though a case can be made that it showed up in Africa after that. The African vaccinations were less regulated. The biggest question is that they were vaccinated by a spray, orally. It's debatable if AIDS can survive swallowing but it's reasonable to assume the spray left a mist which was inhaled which would reach the blood stream. Over 500,000,000 Africans were vaccinated that wasy over a 6 week period.

Anyways, I don't personally think the polio vaccine can be responsible for AIDS in America. The Hep B vaccine trials are a different story though. Time wise it kind of fits and once again simians as well as blood from gay men were used to create the vaccine. To take part in the trials the qualifications were being gay and promiscuos, the early AIDS demo. Also extensive vaccinations took place in Africa as well.


theres a documentary called the origin of aids and they talk the polio theory. they they used chimp (kidneys i think) for the cultures and that the kidneys were infectecd and that when it got in2 the humans it mutated in2 aids
Yesterday is dead...tomorrow hasnt arrived yet....i have just ONE day...
...And i'm gonna be groovy in it!
Reply #5 posted 04/29/06 6:50pm

VoicesCarry

Moonwalkbjrain said:

kdj997 said:



I believe I read he showed symptoms for 2 and a half years before he died and was treated for the last 16 months of that time. So you can definitely assume he caught it before he showed symptoms...hmmm, I wonder if he took the polio vaccine? Maybe he received a batch that wasn't sufficiently tested for monkey viruses and that's how he got it. That wouldn't explain why no one else showed up with AIDS during that period though.

The polio vaccine was responsible for the SD40 simian virus which doesn't appear tro do anything but the people who have it are more prone to brain tumors and other cancers. Also Herpes B (or monkey Type B virus) killed lab researchers who handled chimps swiftly. It's definitely isn't far fetch to consider a simian virus jumping species vebacuse it happens all the time. It isn't far fetched to think that win creating vaccines (such as the polio vaccine which was created from monkey liver cells) they weren't thorough with detecting simian viruses. I believe it was only after many were vaccinated that they started to check for viruses from the lab monkeys they used. The only hole in that is why didn't anyone else develop AIDS during the incubation period after. Though a case can be made that it showed up in Africa after that. The African vaccinations were less regulated. The biggest question is that they were vaccinated by a spray, orally. It's debatable if AIDS can survive swallowing but it's reasonable to assume the spray left a mist which was inhaled which would reach the blood stream. Over 500,000,000 Africans were vaccinated that wasy over a 6 week period.

Anyways, I don't personally think the polio vaccine can be responsible for AIDS in America. The Hep B vaccine trials are a different story though. Time wise it kind of fits and once again simians as well as blood from gay men were used to create the vaccine. To take part in the trials the qualifications were being gay and promiscuos, the early AIDS demo. Also extensive vaccinations took place in Africa as well.


theres a documentary called the origin of aids and they talk the polio theory. they they used chimp (kidneys i think) for the cultures and that the kidneys were infectecd and that when it got in2 the humans it mutated in2 aids


lol I know all the theories. My virology prof loves discussing them over coffee.
Reply #6 posted 05/05/06 7:33pm

TotalAlisa

do you guys really think aids started in africa and they came from monkeys.... anyways.. i just think that people should be careful.. and stop sleeping around... if more people were willing to wait until marriage... then the spread of AIDS would decrease somewhat..... its so sad that there are diseases with NO cures... i dont think there will ever be a man made..cure.. even if there is... it would probably take over a 100 year find... thats why i believe in prayer and having faith... to cure everything
Reply #7 posted 05/05/06 9:04pm

sosgemini

TotalAlisa said:

do you guys really think aids started in africa and they came from monkeys.... anyways.. i just think that people should be careful.. and stop sleeping around... if more people were willing to wait until marriage... then the spread of AIDS would decrease somewhat..... its so sad that there are diseases with NO cures... i dont think there will ever be a man made..cure.. even if there is... it would probably take over a 100 year find... thats why i believe in prayer and having faith... to cure everything




huh? we need to research and find cures for all deseases..what happens if AIDS mutates into an airborn virus? this has nothing to do with moral values and everything to do with scientific research. solve the problem and keep the judgement spewing to God.

cha know what i mean?
Space for sale...
Reply #8 posted 05/05/06 11:35pm

EmbattledWarrior

sosgemini said:

TotalAlisa said:

do you guys really think aids started in africa and they came from monkeys.... anyways.. i just think that people should be careful.. and stop sleeping around... if more people were willing to wait until marriage... then the spread of AIDS would decrease somewhat..... its so sad that there are diseases with NO cures... i dont think there will ever be a man made..cure.. even if there is... it would probably take over a 100 year find... thats why i believe in prayer and having faith... to cure everything




huh? we need to research and find cures for all deseases..what happens if AIDS mutates into an airborn virus? this has nothing to do with moral values and everything to do with scientific research. solve the problem and keep the judgement spewing to God.

cha know what i mean?

Aids can not thrive outside the human body,
can it mutate to an airborne disease, highly unlikely
but possible.
Aids gets most of its power from being a plasma transferred virus...
It it did become mutate into an airborne disease, it wouldn't be harmful
If aids mutated to be airborne it would be easily cured
and would lose its staying power increasingly
Aids becoming airborne would basically turn into a flu...

the Virus is fascinating when it attacks a host
ir works like a supremely sophistocated biological weapon, hiting the major defenses, it changes shape constantly, undetectable to antibodies.


their can be no cure for aids, because aids is simply a complete shut down of your bodies defense systen
the cure would have to be for the virus itself in the stages of HIV.
im sure the virus can be cured, (or has been in my opinion)
its just a matter of whether humanity "wants" it to be cured...

their are two sides to aids...
one is a large number of human loss...
the otherside is disposing of humans in an already overpopulated society...
The Aids Epidemic, will never harm more than a fraction of humanity
can't wipe us out
but it does get rid of alot of "waste"
not to sound so cold hearted....

neutral
I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
Reply #9 posted 05/06/06 6:28am

sosgemini

EmbattledWarrior said:

sosgemini said:





huh? we need to research and find cures for all deseases..what happens if AIDS mutates into an airborn virus? this has nothing to do with moral values and everything to do with scientific research. solve the problem and keep the judgement spewing to God.

cha know what i mean?

Aids can not thrive outside the human body,
can it mutate to an airborne disease, highly unlikely
but possible.
Aids gets most of its power from being a plasma transferred virus...
It it did become mutate into an airborne disease, it wouldn't be harmful
If aids mutated to be airborne it would be easily cured
and would lose its staying power increasingly
Aids becoming airborne would basically turn into a flu...

the Virus is fascinating when it attacks a host
ir works like a supremely sophistocated biological weapon, hiting the major defenses, it changes shape constantly, undetectable to antibodies.


their can be no cure for aids, because aids is simply a complete shut down of your bodies defense systen
the cure would have to be for the virus itself in the stages of HIV.
im sure the virus can be cured, (or has been in my opinion)
its just a matter of whether humanity "wants" it to be cured...

their are two sides to aids...
one is a large number of human loss...
the otherside is disposing of humans in an already overpopulated society...
The Aids Epidemic, will never harm more than a fraction of humanity
can't wipe us out
but it does get rid of alot of "waste"
not to sound so cold hearted....

neutral



no need, i was just using an extreme example to point out the necessity to find a solution/cure/whatever the hell you want to call it.

neutral
Space for sale...
Reply #10 posted 05/06/06 8:01am

SlamGlam

sosgemini said:


no need, i was just using an extreme example to point out the necessity to find a solution/cure/whatever the hell you want to call it.



the world is looking for a cure. and the US is very invilved in research and our goverment is also giving tons of money to the cause...and has been doing so since Regan.

the problem is that the is HIV is a single strand RNA virus the hardest to kill (without killing thr host) and it is also the fastest mutating.

what is really going to be a shock are bugs that are smaller than virusv (viroids and prions) some are just a random string of RNA that could cause major problems.
[Edited 5/6/06 8:05am]
Reply #11 posted 05/06/06 10:32am

EmbattledWarrior

SlamGlam said:

sosgemini said:


no need, i was just using an extreme example to point out the necessity to find a solution/cure/whatever the hell you want to call it.



the world is looking for a cure. and the US is very invilved in research and our goverment is also giving tons of money to the cause...and has been doing so since Regan.

the problem is that the is HIV is a single strand RNA virus the hardest to kill (without killing thr host) and it is also the fastest mutating.

what is really going to be a shock are bugs that are smaller than virusv (viroids and prions) some are just a random string of RNA that could cause major problems.
[Edited 5/6/06 8:05am]

thats another reason why its unlikely for it to mutate airborne
RNA viruses are no joke
i remember learning about a spanish flu (RNA) that killed an estimated 20 million people
a cure was found
but it was devastating
I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
Reply #12 posted 05/06/06 1:18pm

kdj997

EmbattledWarrior said:[quote]

sosgemini said:







their can be no cure for aids, because aids is simply a complete shut down of your bodies defense systen
the cure would have to be for the virus itself in the stages of HIV.
im sure the virus can be cured, (or has been in my opinion)
its just a matter of whether humanity "wants" it to be cured...

neutral


It's just semetics, AIDS/HIV. AIDS is just the result of advance HIV infection due to ones immune system being so weak> SO yeah you can find a cure for AIDS. In the sense you referred to it, AIDS has already been cured because there's cases of people going from HIV to AIDS status back to HIV status t-cells.

On the subject of a cure though, HIV can be cured as much as rabbiescan be cured, Attacking the virus as soon as it enters the body. This is effective if a lab worker accidentally exposes themselves. If that happens you're basically put through extensive antibody treatment as soon as possible and no longer than one week after exposure. I believe the success rate is in the 80 percentile. It's not so useful for the causal person unless someone taunts you and tell you after the fact that they're HIV+. Keep in mind I read about that wikipedia while reading about the rabbies vaccine and how it works.
Reply #13 posted 05/06/06 2:11pm

kdj997

Someone asked if AIDS came from monkeys and the answer is probably yes. We get HIV and monkeys get SIV (because we're Humans and they're Simians). So yes it probably mutated and jumped species. I don't think it's a point to worry about if it came from Africa, because you can't blame AFricans for the high monley population. If it wouldn't have been Africa it would've been Asia or somewhere else with a high monkey population. At the sametime many ask why now when Africans have been in cross proximity to simians for thousands of years. I think that's a silly question because who can say when a virus will evolve enough to jump sepcies.

To play devils advocate, SIV wasn't first observed until 1982 or 83, well after HIV appeared in humans. If you believe in eugenics and combine that with all the talk of government officials worrying about overpopulation. Who's to say SIV wasn't implanted in to chimps to have something to point to when questions about the disease are brought up. The SIV implanted in monkeys theory is my own personal one, you can't read that anyone else.

What you can read elsewhere is about how a biological warfare lab was converted in to the National cancer center under the Nixon administration. Those who support point to talk of inventing a communicable cancer as a weapon. They point to leaked sources who claimed they worked on weakening chimps immune system and noticed that it brought on conditions Kaposi's Sacoma (the "gay cancer" from the early days of AIDS) that in combination with the eugenics theory. Some even say it may have been accidentally leaked.

On second thought the biological weapon theory and the eugenics seemed very plausible to me. I say 2nd thought because I first thought it was incredibly stupid because HIV takes too long to incubate and kill. Wouldn't it make more sense to use one of the many deadlier viruses that kill quicker? Then it hit me, that's why HIV would be perfect. Once you infect a large group ofpeople they'll spread it primarily within their own community without even knowing it. Think about it, ebola kills quickly, so quickly that it's recognized and contaioned fairly soon after an outbreak occurs. That's not the case with HIV. Also and less importantly, attacking the immune system will be a good way to kill people. Things that wouldn't harm the average person would be fatal to them. As far as taking out communities, HIV is the perfect killer.


Let me just add that those people who believe the eugenics theory actually even have scientific evidence from researchers. They just don't throw out that HIV was created but gives a theory how. They claim the HIV virus was created by combining the Visna (affects sheep) virus and the HTLV-I virus or the Visa and BLV (bovine leukemia cattle virus) . It seems simple enough to prove and those theorist should put their money where their mouth is and try to create AIDS based on that.
[Edited 5/6/06 15:50pm]
Reply #14 posted 05/06/06 4:01pm

kdj997

Just a side note on the "cure" to HIV I spoke of. It's called Post-exposure prophylaxis. Here's a link to the wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-exposure_prophylaxis
Reply #15 posted 05/06/06 4:06pm

VoicesCarry

kdj997 said:

To play devils advocate, SIV wasn't first observed until 1982 or 83, well after HIV appeared in humans. If you believe in eugenics and combine that with all the talk of government officials worrying about overpopulation. Who's to say SIV wasn't implanted in to chimps to have something to point to when questions about the disease are brought up. The SIV implanted in monkeys theory is my own personal one, you can't read that anyone else.


There are similar diseases in other species, e.g. FIV, with global distributions. As with HIV and SIV, these are closely linked with multiple cancers.

The reason these viruses were not observed until the 1980's is that they require sophisticated culture and detection techniques which had not been previously available. Attempts to culture HIV were at first unsuccessful; when the host range was elucidated and the proper cell lines were developed, it became possible and also opened up ideas about similar viruses in other species. Hence SIV in the early 1980's and FIV in 1986. The majority of viruses are in fact unculturable.
[Edited 5/6/06 16:08pm]
Reply #16 posted 05/06/06 4:11pm

VoicesCarry

kdj997 said:

Just a side note on the "cure" to HIV I spoke of. It's called Post-exposure prophylaxis. Here's a link to the wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-exposure_prophylaxis


Well, yeah, all you do is give them a shitload of anti-retrovirals and anti-HIV Ab. If the host cell count is kept low, it's possible to eradicate the virus in the early stages. But, as you pointed out, this is not a practical cure.
[Edited 5/6/06 16:12pm]
Reply #17 posted 05/06/06 4:23pm

VoicesCarry

kdj997 said:

Let me just add that those people who believe the eugenics theory actually even have scientific evidence from researchers. They just don't throw out that HIV was created but gives a theory how. They claim the HIV virus was created by combining the Visna (affects sheep) virus and the HTLV-I virus or the Visa and BLV (bovine leukemia cattle virus) . It seems simple enough to prove and those theorist should put their money where their mouth is and try to create AIDS based on that.


But not credible researchers. If you brought up this theory in a proper academic setting, you'd be laughed out of the place. That's just the way it is. I find it incredibly amusing that this particular conspiracy theory is set in the Nixon administration, probably for the reason that that particular administration is known for its "leaks", and so it makes comments like "My dad's cousin twice removed used to work on monkeys and said they had Kaposi's" seem less ludicrous. This is an incredibly old story with its roots in some interesting history. Dr. Robert Gallo, one of the HTLV-I pioneers, was also one of the leading HIV researchers in the US in the early 1980's. He was intent on proving that HTLV was responsible for AIDS - out of self-interest, not out of any actual scientific purpose. In 1983, the French trio (Montagnier, Francoise-Barre, etc.) at the Pasteur Institute sent him samples of their virus, which was HIV-I (they had named it LAV - Lymphadenopathy-Associated Virus), and Gallo switched their samples with his isolate, an HTLV strain which he had named HTLV-III. Thus it would appear that he discovered the cause of AIDS first, and he would therefore claim the credit. This is one of the biggest academic dishonesty scandals in scientific history, but Gallo emerged relatively unscathed due to Reagan's influences at the NIH and CDC. It took a meeting between Mitterand and Reagan in 1986 to square the record and decide on a neutral name for the virus.

P.S. Proving evolutionary relationships among viruses is extremely difficult, and proving that one virus evolved from manipulation of two different viral genomes would be exceedingly difficult (certainly not "simple enough"). We simply do not know enough about viral origins, reservoirs, and in vivo interactions. As I have pointed out, SARS is a human coronavirus with no homology to any known human CoV strains, and it emerged virtually out of nowhere, following the pattern of many influenza viruses from the past. If there had been a global SARS epidemic, I'm sure we'd be hearing reports about how some terrorists had cooked it up in a lab somewhere, with the obvious and logical being completely ignored. Furthermore, the technology and understanding required to genetically engineer a ss(+)RNA virus from two different species certainly did not exist in the 1950's, when HIV infections are confirmed. Molecular clock studies show SIV likely made a species jump in the early 1930's.
[Edited 5/6/06 16:59pm]
Reply #18 posted 05/06/06 5:00pm

kdj997

VoicesCarry said:[quote]

kdj997 said:


Furthermore, the technology and understanding required to genetically engineer a ss(+)RNA virus from two different species certainly did not exist in the 1950's, when HIV infections are confirmed. Molecular clock studies show SIV likely made a species jump in the early 1930's.
[Edited 5/6/06 16:32pm]


Yeahm that alone dismisses the eugenics theory, since most claim it happened sometime in the 70's. Even Corky from life goes on can figure out that the 1959 sample disproves that. Because 59 is before 70 lol... wait I don't know if Corky would know that but that's cool, he still rocks anyway.
Reply #19 posted 05/06/06 5:03pm

VoicesCarry

kdj997 said:[quote]

VoicesCarry said:

kdj997 said:


Furthermore, the technology and understanding required to genetically engineer a ss(+)RNA virus from two different species certainly did not exist in the 1950's, when HIV infections are confirmed. Molecular clock studies show SIV likely made a species jump in the early 1930's.
[Edited 5/6/06 16:32pm]


Yeahm that alone dismisses the eugenics theory, since most claim it happened sometime in the 70's. Even Corky from life goes on can figure out that the 1959 sample disproves that. Because 59 is before 70 lol... wait I don't know if Corky would know that but that's cool, he still rocks anyway.


lol I do love conspiracy theories, though! They are endlessly fascinating nod

On a side note, I think sos mentioned that the virus could become airborne, but that is exceedingly unlikely because much of its transfer requires cell-cell fusion. It would have to alter its life cycle drastically to go the airborne route. I can't think of a known STD that has accomplished this hmmm
[Edited 5/6/06 17:04pm]
Reply #20 posted 05/06/06 6:54pm

TotalAlisa

its just so hard to believe there will ever be a cure for AID/HIV.. if there is.. it will probably take 100 years... ... you just have to not sleep around....
Reply #21 posted 05/07/06 9:54am

EmbattledWarrior

kdj997 said:[quote]

EmbattledWarrior said:

sosgemini said:







their can be no cure for aids, because aids is simply a complete shut down of your bodies defense systen
the cure would have to be for the virus itself in the stages of HIV.
im sure the virus can be cured, (or has been in my opinion)
its just a matter of whether humanity "wants" it to be cured...

neutral


It's just semetics, AIDS/HIV. AIDS is just the result of advance HIV infection due to ones immune system being so weak> SO yeah you can find a cure for AIDS. In the sense you referred to it, AIDS has already been cured because there's cases of people going from HIV to AIDS status back to HIV status t-cells.

On the subject of a cure though, HIV can be cured as much as rabbiescan be cured, Attacking the virus as soon as it enters the body. This is effective if a lab worker accidentally exposes themselves. If that happens you're basically put through extensive antibody treatment as soon as possible and no longer than one week after exposure. I believe the success rate is in the 80 percentile. It's not so useful for the causal person unless someone taunts you and tell you after the fact that they're HIV+. Keep in mind I read about that wikipedia while reading about the rabbies vaccine and how it works.


You made an interesting point...!
The magic johnson theory as i like to call it is
that the only cure for HIV-Aids is the Treatment!.
Johnson along with others is quite remarkable
because doctors can't find any traces of the virus in his blood
and his immune system is rebuilding itself....

Perhaps their is no Miracle cure to destroy the virus itself
the real problem is that the treatment is overly expensive that the real people
who need it can't afford it...
now this is bleeding into world issues...

and i don't wanna go there....
cause it just makes me mad of the stupidity of western government.
I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
Reply #22 posted 05/07/06 10:26am

SlamGlam

i think it is reasoable to assume that some people will shead it on there own. some people are just immune to some germs. the problem is there are few cases were we can really KNOW what a person was exposed to.

but it is also needed to be said that most virues can go dorment for many years... most of them never pop back up... but who KNOWS what can happen.
Reply #23 posted 05/07/06 11:32am

kdj997

EmbattledWarrior said:

kdj997 said:



It's just semetics, AIDS/HIV. AIDS is just the result of advance HIV infection due to ones immune system being so weak> SO yeah you can find a cure for AIDS. In the sense you referred to it, AIDS has already been cured because there's cases of people going from HIV to AIDS status back to HIV status t-cells.

On the subject of a cure though, HIV can be cured as much as rabbiescan be cured, Attacking the virus as soon as it enters the body. This is effective if a lab worker accidentally exposes themselves. If that happens you're basically put through extensive antibody treatment as soon as possible and no longer than one week after exposure. I believe the success rate is in the 80 percentile. It's not so useful for the causal person unless someone taunts you and tell you after the fact that they're HIV+. Keep in mind I read about that wikipedia while reading about the rabbies vaccine and how it works.


You made an interesting point...!
The magic johnson theory as i like to call it is
that the only cure for HIV-Aids is the Treatment!.
Johnson along with others is quite remarkable
because doctors can't find any traces of the virus in his blood
and his immune system is rebuilding itself....

Perhaps their is no Miracle cure to destroy the virus itself
the real problem is that the treatment is overly expensive that the real people
who need it can't afford it...
now this is bleeding into world issues...

and i don't wanna go there....
cause it just makes me mad of the stupidity of western government.



Yeah, he definitely did have a Magic Johnson because the virus isn't at a detectable level in his blood. It hasn't been completely eradicated like a Post-exposure prophylaxis treatment though. I dodn't think it can ever be completely eradicated after it's been in the body that long because it spreads so rapidly. Within 72 hours of exposure, more often than not, you can put a lid on it and wipe it out completely. In Magics case he may be physically fine and the virus levels are so low that the test cant even detect it but if you have sex with him you'll probably be infected. For someone who potentially goes through PEP soon after exposure, you can have sex with them and wont be infected.

I don't know if it can be cured either. A vaccine isn't technically a cure, it's prophylaxic too in a sense. If a vaccine is developed all of the people in Africa dying from it are still gonna die, it won't do them any good. There always seem to be AIDS vaccine trials going on somewhere in the world, obviously non of them have panned out yet lol but who knows maybe some of the trials going on now will be successful. It's funny that there never seems to be vaccine trials going on in Africa though. I won't even start on that, lol becaus if vaccine trials were going on in Africa I'd probably be bitching about how scientist are using them as guinea pigs.
Reply #24 posted 05/11/06 5:49pm

kdj997

Just to add something that I thought of earlier (and that most of you have already considered) I would assume that the boy dated his illness to the sexual encounter, not because the "girl (or man or whoever he had sex with) had AIDS but whether because she/he had the CLAP!!! lol (not to make light of what he went through) and the Chlamydia helped bring the onsluaght of AIDS. He was already HIV poistive though. So let's do the math. He had the symptoms for 2 years before his death in 1969 so that's 1967 and he would've been 13 or maybe even 12. We must assume he contracted HIV before then so that definitely puts it in the range of him being 7 or 8 and years 1961-1963 about.

Even if he were a prostitute it's hard to believe that he would have contracted it in that way at 7 or 8. At the same time it is possible that the clap forced premature AIDS which puts me back at square one lol thus making this post useless. But something to think about like always now back to Smallville.

URL: http://prince.org/msg/105/187323

Date printed: Sat 1st Nov 2014 6:49am PDT