AIDS more destructive than first thought

[Menydh]

AIDS virus initially more destructive than first thought

News-Medical.net
March 28, 2005

The AIDS virus destroys more than half of the immune cells that might recognize and help fight it, within days of infection according to US researchers, and this revelation might necessitate a re-evaluation of how the deadly infection should be tackled.

In two separate studies in monkeys Dr Mario Roederer, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Dr Ashley Haase and colleagues at the University of Minnesota Medical School, made similar findings which could mean a rethink of strategies to design HIV drugs and vaccines is needed.

The studies found that SIV, the monkey version of the human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, attacked CD4 memory T-cells right away and wiped out more than half of them which could mean a rethink of strategies to design HIV drugs and vaccines is needed. Not only did the virus directly kill the CD4 cells, they found, but it also caused them to them to commit cell suicide.

The virus immediately attacked the CD4 T-cells that had the correct configuration for the virus. Normally during an infection such cells would recognize and latch onto an invader, helping other components of the immune system destroy it.

HIV is different because it targets the immune system, and the two studies have revealed how quickly it makes it impossible for its victims to launch a defense.

Both teams, worked with monkeys that they infected with SIV and then monitored what happened to their immune cells.

Although the findings will be difficult to replicate in people, SIV is a good model and works in a similar way.Most people do not know the moment they are infected with the AIDS virus and their immune system is gradually destroyed leaving them vulnerable to numerous infections.

Dr Roederer's team used new, sensitive tests to show just how the virus moved so quickly and they found that 30 per cent to 60 per cent of CD4 memory T-cells throughout the body are infected by SIV at the peak of infection, and most of these infected cells disappear within four days.

Their data also demonstrated that the depletion of memory CD4 T-cells occurs to a similar extent in all tissues. As a consequence, over one-half of all memory CD4 T-cells in SIV-infected macaques are destroyed directly by viral infection during the acute phase that heralds subsequent immunodeficiency.

Any attempt to vaccinate against HIV or to provide efficient treatment must stop this process right away. There is no cure for HIV infection, which killed more than 3 million people globally last year.

Drug cocktails can control the infection, but it comes back quickly if they are stopped. More than two dozen vaccines are being tested, but experts do not expect any of them to prevent HIV infection in substantial numbers of people.


[source]

[anaktas]

I have read that HIV was created by American doctors in 1979, as a biological weapon.

[Menydh]

Would anyone be surprised?

The latest scientific evidence strongly supports the OPV theory

More information on the origins of HIV here.

[Agrippa]

The original virus should be African and be transmitted by "Bush Meat". The first Europid HIV-positive individuals we know of were homosexuals, one flight attendant is very well known for his behaviour in the homosexual scene around the globe, even after being informed about having a severe disease. He survived many people he infected and still infected more until he finally died as well.

Though it was never cleared up where this first homosexuals get the virus from, it seems they got it from African homosexuals...

[Menydh]

Well, the latest research seems to reject the OPV theory.



Polio researcher innocent of HIV pandemic

HIV is widely believed to have appeared when the closely related simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) jumped from a chimpanzee to a human, probably in West Africa in the early twentieth century. Exactly how the first human was infected is not known, but one theory that incited particularly vigorous debate has now been laid to rest.

The theory claimed that HIV was inadvertently introduced during tests of a new oral polio vaccine (OPV), which was allegedly prepared using chimpanzee kidney cells and was administered to over a million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1958. First appearing in Rolling Stone magazine in 1992, the central tenet of the HIV/OPV theory is one of circumstance — the earliest known example of HIV was found in blood taken from a man in Kinshasa in 1959.

Stanley Plotkin, who led the OPV study, has always denied that any chimpanzee material was used in the preparation of the vaccines. However, his detractors, notably Ed Hooper, who popularized the theory with his book The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS, were undeterred. Finally, last summer, samples of the original vaccine were tested in three laboratories; no evidence of contamination by HIV or SIV was found, and nor was any trace of chimpanzee tissue detected.

Even this was not sufficient to satisfy Hooper, who pointed out that some samples had not been tested, including some that are known to have been administered in the trial. Three short papers in this week's Nature (see below) and one in Science (292, 743-744; 2001) examine these remaining vaccines and finally exonerate Plotkin and colleagues.

Blancou et al. and Berry et al. both used the polymerase chain reaction to amplify traces of DNA and RNA in the vaccine sample. Neither group was able to detect HIV, SIV or chimpanzee sequences, though they did correctly identify material from macaque monkeys, which were used to prepare the vaccines.

Holmes et al. used a different approach, examining the phylogeny (the so-called 'family tree') of Congo HIV samples. The tree has a 'starburst' structure, indicating a rapid increase in the diversity of strains, which proponents of the HIV/OPV theory claim is due to multiple infections from vaccines during the trial. Holmes disagrees, and shows that the genetic variation found in HIV samples arose within the human population, from a common ancestor that was present well before the 1958 trials.

The most plausible remaining theory for the origin of HIV — the 'cut hunter' theory — holds that SIV was passed directly from chimpanzee meat to a human through an open wound in the early part of the twentieth century. However, as the saga of the HIV/OPV theory has shown, speculation must remain clearly distinct from fact.


[source]

[Agrippa]

Never heard of the OPV theory before but it sounds highly unlikely to me and the last posting of you seem to prove my original assumption which is just the most likely since so many aggressive viruses had its origin in the African tropical fauna, mainly in the local primate populations.

[Scoob]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

... so many aggressive viruses had its origin in the African tropical fauna, mainly in the local primate populations.

This is one more reason to oppose open borders and unlimited free trade with tropical nations.

HIV is relatively benign because it is transmitted only through (mainly unprotected) sexual intercourse. So long as condoms are available, it poses little threat. Affected populations are generally highly promiscuous (Western homosexual communities) or else don't use condoms at all for other reasons (unavailability, Catholic doctrine). There is no reason this virus should still be spreading in the West, since people have adequate education and access to cheap condoms. Affected Western populations, especially homosexuals and blacks, have only their own irresponsible sexual behavior to blame.

Of course, it is just a matter of time and chance before a more virulent disease emerges from the tropics and causes a pandemic in a major Western city (as likely to start amongst illegal immigrants as anywhere else).

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Scoob

or else don't use condoms at all for other reasons (unavailability, Catholic doctrine).

WTF? A Catholic who doesn't use condoms because of the Catholic doctrine, it is 100% that he is not going to practice sex with anyone but his partner.. namely his wife!

What's next? Accusing Catholic families of spreading sex through their beliefs? The cloister monks and nuns who live in celibate and chastity and never abandon their monasteries and convents?

[Scorpion]

What about FIV? (feline/cat aids). Where did this come from?

It is passed on through the saliva (bites from infected cats due to cat fights) and Not usually passed on via sexual activity. (opposite of humans??!).
Also there is a vaccine for cats to protect against contracting FIV. Where's the human one?..

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Originally Posted by Scoob

This is one more reason to oppose open borders and unlimited free trade with tropical nations.

HIV is relatively benign because it is transmitted only through (mainly unprotected) sexual intercourse. So long as condoms are available, it poses little threat. Affected populations are generally highly promiscuous (Western homosexual communities) or else don't use condoms at all for other reasons (unavailability, Catholic doctrine). There is no reason this virus should still be spreading in the West, since people have adequate education and access to cheap condoms. Affected Western populations, especially homosexuals and blacks, have only their own irresponsible sexual behavior to blame.

Of course, it is just a matter of time and chance before a more virulent disease emerges from the tropics and causes a pandemic in a major Western city (as likely to start amongst illegal immigrants as anywhere else).

In sub-Saharan African, multiple wives are the goal if not the rule. Spouses cheat a great deal and it is even scantioned in some cultures. So, if a wife or the husband picks up AIDS on the outside of the marriage it is spread to the husband and the other wives and any children thereafter. Also, anal intercourse is their method of birth control, not condoms. This increases the transfer rate.