Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Early Proof Of A Difference in Test Results In Africa versus Europe and America

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Alex - 25 Sep 2005 17:55 GMT
The idea that these tests are universally applicable is shown
to fallaceous. I'm sure they will claim that tests today are
"better" than those used in the 1980s, however, the difference
in results remains the same. Much higher positive test numbers
in Africa, than in Europe or North America.

It is easy to postulate that the cause of these results is the same.
The tests still are not suitable to Africa. How this virus is
supposed to behave so differently in African from anywhere
else (being a question about epidemiology instead of virology)
is of course _not their department_.

Alex

http://www.aegis.com/aidsline/1989/mar/M8930501.html

Seroepidemiology of human immunodeficiency viruses in Africa.

Biomed Pharmacother. 1988;42(5):309-20. Unique Identifier :
AIDSLINE MED/89051147 Fleming AF; Department of Tropical
Medicine and Infectious Diseases,; Liverpool School of
Tropical Medicine, UK.

Abstract: *The first generation of serological tests for anti-HIV-1 gave
so many false positives with African sera that it was wrongly postulated
that the virus was endemic in Africa.* As there is no simian or other
virus sufficiently closely related to HIV-1 as to suggest a recent
common ancestor, the evolution of HIV-1 is obscure and there
is no current evidence to support the hypothesis of an African origin.
However, the similarity of HIV-2 to SIV and its geographical
distribution do suggest an evolution of this virus in west Africa.

The earliest anti-HIV-1 positive serum was from a subject in
Kinshasa in 1959.

Seroprevalence rose in pregnant women in Kinshasa from 0.25%
in 1970, to 3.0% in 1980 and 5.7% in 1986. When two sexually
promiscuous groups are compared, seropositivity rose sharply in
female prostitutes in Nairobi from 4% in 1981, to 59% in 1984
and 64% in 1986, a curve which is approximately parallel to, but
three years later than that of homosexual males in San Francisco.
In central and east Africa, HIV-1 is now epidemic from Congo to
Kenya and from Uganda to Zimbabwe.

In West Africa, both HIV-2 and HIV-1 are epidemic: seroprevalence
of HIV-2 is highest in southern Senegal, Guinea-Bissau and
Cote d'Ivoire: HIV-1 has the highest frequency in Cote d'Ivoire
and Ghana. HIV-2 has not been reported, and HIV-1 is
pre-epidemic in Africa north of the Sahara, Nigeria, Angola,
Mozambique and southern Africa, being found at significant
frequency only in female prostitutes, patients with STD, or, in
Morocco and South Africa only, in male homosexuals.

Seroprevalence is greatest in female prostitutes and patients with
STD: infection is more frequent in urban than in rural populations,
except in Uganda. The peak frequency is at 30-34 yr in males and
20-24 yr in females. Other groups at risk are infants born to infected
mothers, and those requiring blood transfusions, especially pre-school
children, patients with sickle-cell disease and pregnant women. The
doubling time for seropositivity is about one year in the sexually active
age range in some populations. Even at existing seroprevalence,
decimation or worse of the most productive age groups is inevitable
during the next few years in certain countries.

(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
GMCarter - 26 Sep 2005 14:36 GMT
>The idea that these tests are universally applicable is shown
>to fallaceous.

What?
greg78 - 29 Sep 2005 11:50 GMT
Of course Carter will attempt to downplay the relevance of this abstract.
However, to those of us with some savvy, we will immediately see that what
it is showing is the lack of predictive power of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
The last sentence: "Even at existing seroprevalence,
decimation or worse of the most productive age groups is inevitable
during the next few years in certain countries." That was in 1988. So
where are all these decimated countries in Africa? Seventeen years on
Africa is NOT decimated. In fact, in South Africa, where I live, we have
had 27 quarters of uninterrupted growth. Now ain't that strange for a
country that is in the process of being "decimated". Or were researchers
just stupid then? Or is it that they didn't "understand" HIV? Is HIV a
"different" kind of virus or is it a very simple, ordinary virus? We hear
such confusing things from our esteemed experts all the time, I never know
what to think.

"The earliest anti-HIV-1 positive serum was from a subject in
Kinshasa in 1959." Hmmm, 1959? I thought HIV was a NOVEL retrovirus. So
either HIV did exist in 1959 OR the tests are not accurate indicators of
the presence of HIV. So which is it? If HIV did exist in 1959 it took its
merry time making people sick back then, didn't it? And what's also
strange is that people didn't know about condoms then, so I wonder what
was holding the virus back then? Shouldn't we have seen AID far sooner
than 20 years later? And then they saw it in America first. Then when it
became obvious that only gay people were getting sick there, did they
notice that it was about to "decimate" Africa.

I can hear it now: "but the new tests use recombinant proteins blah blah
blah and the older tests didn't" If they were using inaccurate tests back
then, then someone should be held accountable for putting people on
unnecessary medication in some (well I think all) cases. And anyway, we
were told back then that the tests were VERY accurate. Now suddenly the
tests are MORE than VERY accurate. Yeah, right.

"Seroprevalence rose in pregnant women in Kinshasa from 0.25%
in 1970, to 3.0% in 1980 and 5.7% in 1986." Okay, so here we have again
evidence of "seropositivity" in 1970 already? I thought HIV didn't exist
then? Or is the test inaccurate again? If it's inaccurate then how do they
know if the 3% and 5.7% incidence was from HIV or from the same "cross
reactions" or whatever that caused the 0.25% back in 1970?

Alex, you are quite right. This abstract DOES demonstrate that the "tests"
are not universally applicable. Either that or the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is
not applicable. The truth is that probably both of them are inapplicable.
Alex - 07 Oct 2005 04:37 GMT
> Of course Carter will attempt to downplay the relevance of this abstract.
> However, to those of us with some savvy, we will immediately see that what
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Africa is NOT decimated. In fact, in South Africa, where I live, we have
> had 27 quarters of uninterrupted growth.

Right now, the population of South Africa is estimated at
46.9 million in mid-year 2005 (Stats SA). In 2001 it
was 44.8 million, and in 1996 40.6 million. So the
population grows about 2,000,000 people per 5 years.

> Now ain't that strange for a
> country that is in the process of being "decimated". Or were researchers
> just stupid then? Or is it that they didn't "understand" HIV? Is HIV a
> "different" kind of virus or is it a very simple, ordinary virus? We hear
> such confusing things from our esteemed experts all the time, I never know
> what to think.

And, have they ever apologized for their 1980s predictions?
Oprah, are you out there?

> "The earliest anti-HIV-1 positive serum was from a subject in
> Kinshasa in 1959." Hmmm, 1959? I thought HIV was a NOVEL retrovirus. So
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> are not universally applicable. Either that or the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is
> not applicable. The truth is that probably both of them are inapplicable.

Thanks and cheers,

Alex
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.