Jump to content

Asian without HIV infection, but with AIDS like disease


W_L

Recommended Posts

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=120006S9RJMO

 

This is really fascinating, it's a rare disease that only affects Asians, is not communicable through a virus or other carrier agent, and yet it bears a striking resemblance to the bane of GLBT people, AIDS.

 

As a gay Asian male, it hits close to home on two fronts. Also, due to the misdiagnosis of the disease to Tuberculosis, there could have been many people of Asian descent, who suffered. Seeing a natural form of the HIV-AIDS issues, any type of religious connotation about the disease being God's wrath on gays should never have been levelled.

 

I know this might seem like a long-shot hypothesis, but what if AIDS did not originate in Africa as infectious disease experts believe for the last 30 years, what if AIDS was naturally formed, then a virus copied genetic codes within Asians, who held the immunity issue.

 

If this disease has been present in the Asian population under the misdiagnosis of Tuberculosis, then there could have been a large base for a rogue virus to work with.

 

This isn't a conspiracy theory (I've read the stuff about the US government secret genocide against gays, too, which I am skeptical towards), it is plausible alternative to the African theory. Biologist have been trying to link up West African chimps to humans for years through SIV (SIV however when in human bodies dies very quickly and cannot manifest the AIDS symptoms that we see today), but cross species infection might not be the real reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Heres my problem with that theory. As far as I'm aware, you don't have any medical or infectious disease credentials. Every scientist I've ever heard of believed it started in Africa, and theres no hard proof to dispute that fact. I think you just had a little too much time on your hands to think about random stuff like this.

Link to comment

Heres my problem with that theory. As far as I'm aware, you don't have any medical or infectious disease credentials. Every scientist I've ever heard of believed it started in Africa, and theres no hard proof to dispute that fact. I think you just had a little too much time on your hands to think about random stuff like this.

 

Rude. Disgraceful. Arrogant.

Link to comment

Heres my problem with that theory. As far as I'm aware, you don't have any medical or infectious disease credentials. Every scientist I've ever heard of believed it started in Africa, and theres no hard proof to dispute that fact. I think you just had a little too much time on your hands to think about random stuff like this.

 

And where are your medical or infectious disease credentials I wonder?

Link to comment

Heres my problem with that theory. As far as I'm aware, you don't have any medical or infectious disease credentials. Every scientist I've ever heard of believed it started in Africa, and theres no hard proof to dispute that fact. I think you just had a little too much time on your hands to think about random stuff like this.

 

Rude. Disgraceful. Arrogant.

 

I did say it's a long-shot hypothesis. Posted Image

 

I work with doctors, but I am not a doctor. I am simply an upper management accountant, who doe doesn't sit in his office waiting for people to deliver numbers to me Posted Image I like hearing them debate medicine and information between disciplines.

 

It would be fascination, since we spent several hundred billion dollars on African HIV research and experimentation thinking it was a cross species viral mutation based on a evolutionary link with chimps, when this disease was present in Asian population and it could have been a inter-species viral transcription issue.

 

I am not discounting evolutionary theory that SIV to HIV are linked under standard origin ideas, but posing a possible alternative that it was a inter-species.

Edited by W_L
Link to comment

Rude. Disgraceful. Arrogant.

 

I simply pointed out a fact. If you want to get your panties in a bunch over it, thats your own problem.

 

And where are your medical or infectious disease credentials I wonder?

 

I don't have any whatsoever, hence why I accept the mainstream theory put forth by those who do have such credentials.

Link to comment

http://www.sci-tech-...id=120006S9RJMO

 

This is really fascinating, it's a rare disease that only affects Asians, is not communicable through a virus or other carrier agent, and yet it bears a striking resemblance to the bane of GLBT people, AIDS.

 

As a gay Asian male, it hits close to home on two fronts. Also, due to the misdiagnosis of the disease to Tuberculosis, there could have been many people of Asian descent, who suffered. Seeing a natural form of the HIV-AIDS issues, any type of religious connotation about the disease being God's wrath on gays should never have been levelled.

 

I know this might seem like a long-shot hypothesis, but what if AIDS did not originate in Africa as infectious disease experts believe for the last 30 years, what if AIDS was naturally formed, then a virus copied genetic codes within Asians, who held the immunity issue.

 

If this disease has been present in the Asian population under the misdiagnosis of Tuberculosis, then there could have been a large base for a rogue virus to work with.

 

This isn't a conspiracy theory (I've read the stuff about the US government secret genocide against gays, too, which I am skeptical towards), it is plausible alternative to the African theory. Biologist have been trying to link up West African chimps to humans for years through SIV (SIV however when in human bodies dies very quickly and cannot manifest the AIDS symptoms that we see today), but cross species infection might not be the real reason.

 

I remember reading about this in the news and I think your idea is interesting. (I don't have medical credentials either, but since this is the GA Lounge forum and not a medical journal, I don't see where it matters :P) It'll be interesting to see what else science will discover about this disease.

Link to comment
  • Site Administrator

I remember being at a seminar on Type 1 Diabetes back 27 years ago, and one of the leading researchers presenting had mentioned that they believed that Type 1 diabetics seemed to not be affected by the HIV virus. He went into some technical babble about the protein needed to trigger the the Type 1 diabetes they at the time believed was similar to the one needed to allow the HIV virus to grow as well. At the time, there was no Type 1/HIV positive people.

 

Sadly, that is no longer the truth and the research was dropped several years later. Posted Image

 

I do think that AIDS and other diseases will be eventually cured by out of the box thinking. So W_L, don't stop thinking and hoping. Yes, it will happen from people with a lot more letters after their name, but if you thought it, I'm sure others have too Posted Image

Edited by wildone
Link to comment

Okay, try not to make this into a fight. Anyways, try not to speculate something we don't know is a good practice. As you know, Internet is very good at spreading maybe not HIV but misinformation, so do restrain from making unfounded theory is good practice. If you want to speculate, do make sure that everyone knows you're only making speculation.

 

That said, here is what I do know about HIV (I was in pre-med before, studied some stuff to be a radiologist, and being an AIDS nurse was one of the area that interested me also, though I didn't do it).

 

HIV is the virus that caused AIDS. AIDS is the symptom, not a disease. People infected with HIV can become immuno-compromised, if triggered. People don't die from HIV, but usually from other diseases that healthy people's immune system can fend off easily. Pneumonia is a common cause of death. But often some "opportunistic pathogens" can take advantage of the situation and kill people when those bacteria/viruses/fungi etc., usually aren't strong enough to poses threat to healthy human beings. BUT when they do strike, some of them can be very nasty. That's why AIDS patients tend to die without dignity, with their skins all infected with all sort of fungi, hideous looking marks, ruptures and stuff that are caused by these opportunistic pathogens (skin is our first line of defense to pathogens. Our skins have loads of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus and many other germs at all time, but they don't pose any threat to us because our healthy immune systems take care of them, so it's business as usual, but not to an immuno-compromised person)

 

That said, the article doesn't say anything specific about the cause of the new disease. It's a very general article talking about a new phenomenon. It says it's not genetic, nor is it contagious. The part that's interesting is it affects elderly people more. This is already not very HIV-like. HIV, like all other viruses, attaches itself to healthy body cells and make them abandon their normal functions. In HIV's case, it attacks T-cell, like the article said, but the article is super simplified about how it works. It affects T-cell that is responsible to signal other white blood cells to produce antibody. Without it functioning normally, no antibody is produced. Though other types of white blood cells are still working, but the immune system is extremely compromised, because specific immune system, like antibody (which one type of antibody is specialized in neutralize only one type of pathogen), is much more effective than non-specific immune system.

 

The article does say it affects interferon... We don't know which interferon it affects (there are many types of interferon) since the article doesn't say.

 

BTW, you can google how HIV works. I just want to mention one thing, genetic engineering uses gene splicing techniques to reproduce DNAs we want. Some vaccines are also produced this way. Scientists "invented" this technique from studying how virus work. In other words, the process of gene splice is exactly the same how HIV works, except we use gene splice to produce things we want, but HIV destroy what we want. It's possible the new "HIV-like disease" is a result of genetic engineering gone wrong, and then it mutated and then mutated, until the newly mutated virus can start to reproduce itself. There is a good reason why high-tech stuff like this are highly classified info that we don't want anybody/any country to do it, especially people with low moral/ethical practice, because it can easily become bio-weapons if the wrong person got the hold of it, and start to sell to enemy nation to unleash terror even scarier than nuclear bombs.

Link to comment

Oh, and another thing I need to add. Just because it gives AIDS like symptoms, doesn't mean it's incurable like HIV. HIV is very stubborn because unlike many other viruses, it actually uses part of the host white cell's membrane to disguise itself, so even before it starts to become a problem, your body thinks these HIVs are actually normal T-cells..., so they don't attack HIVs.

 

That said, if the new disease doesn't use GP120 to disguise itself (the surface protein that is used to tell your body which cell is which, in this case GP120 tells your body this cell is T-cell), then it's possible to target the virus and neutralize it.

Link to comment

Looks like it affect autoantibodies and blocks chemical interferon gamma for the body.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/aids-like-disease-asians-immune-system_n_1823296.html

 

(Yes, I will use Huffington post outside the Soapbox :P )

 

My thinking is more along the lines of viral origin for HIV. Viruses are still mysterious. Under most theories right now, retroviruses, specific to the group which HIV is part, are believed to be a RNA based chemical entity (no, it's not living; though it shares similarities to life), it is possible for RNA to transcribe incorrectly and create DNA that holds the incorrect chemical keys for a human bodies natural functions i.e. the immune response as HIV does.

 

The articles also said that the disease was misdiagnosed as TB, so I wonder how many other times have people made that mistake. Maybe, the disease is far older and more chronic than 2004, when it was first identified.

 

The origin theory right now on HIV is that SIV or Simian Immunodeficiency Virus was the starting point for HIV from Africa due to human beings eating monkey meat infected with SIV (West Africans have been doing that for centuries with no issue and the apes are not affected by SAIDS originally, which makes me wonder.). The species of primates in Africa that were infected with SIV did not get AIDS like syndromes and lived normally. However, outside African primates, Asian and indian primates would get AIDS like symptoms, if they were infected with SIV.

 

For me, it was just a hypothesis, sorry to get everyone into angry protest.

Link to comment

For me, it was just a hypothesis, sorry to get everyone into angry protest.

 

I am not angry at you, nor I think TetRefine was angry. We're merely pointing out try not to speculate too much.

 

Viruses are mysterious critters. What you said about them is right. However, some viruses are single-strand DNA or incomplete DNA, on top of the RNA you mentioned. Virus's original is still in theory stage only. What stops virus from considered as a life form is because they cannot reproduce on their own (must have a host cell to replicate the DNA/RNA/structures of virus for them). Some virus can move! A famous type of virus is bacteriophage. Click on the link to see the structure of it. The virus itself cannot make all those structures, but it uses the unlucky bacteria it injects its RNA/DNA into to make create more images of itself (bacteriophage means "bacteria eater").

 

Some theories of virus's origin including: they're mutated organisms, mutated body cells, or part of our body's DNA (made by mistake or merely a fragments of it that has turned loose). Some cancers are said to be virus-induced (some are known to be genetically linked, but not all. Cancer is a very general/loose term of disease with different causes). Keep in mind "mutated" is the keyword here. It's not just monkey practice that can give disease. Harmless practice like feeding squirrels or seagulls can also cause genetic mutation by crossing breeding bacteria on human with bacteria on the wild animals you feed, so those once squirrel-only disease can now become contagious to humans. That's the reason why there are signs in parks telling you "do not feed animals." All those avian flu or pig flu are results of such success in crossbreeding mutation. Whether viruses can mutate/crossbreed the same way as bacteria is debatable.

Edited by Ashi
Link to comment

Before we say there is no micro-organism causing this, remember how long it took to isolate and identify the HIV virus.

 

It could be a variation on the HIV virus or something completely different. There is not enough information- at this point it could literally be anything.

 

"AIDS-like disease" simply means a suppression of the immune system that allows for opportunistic infections that the immune system usually quashes. There could be a whole range of conditions that could cause this from genetics, infections that cause temporary suppression of the immune system to various sorts of failures at a systemic level that are rare and we don't know a whole lot about.

Link to comment

Having worked for the likes of GSK a decade or so ago, unless there is money to be made then research will either be altruistic or philanthropic at best. 1994 - research into Nicotine as an aid to preventing short term memory loss had its funding pulled because nicotine was perceived as 'bad image' etc.

 

Kill the speculation (and the problem) with concerted and organised research - rather than a race to see who can cash in first, or claim exclusivity.

 

http://www1.american.edu/ted/aidstrips.htm

 

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/South%20Africa.pdf

Link to comment

I simply pointed out a fact. If you want to get your panties in a bunch over it, thats your own problem.

 

I didn't say you're wrong, or call you a liar. Out of the infinite ways to point out that fact, you chose to be abrasive and inflammatory. Besides, raw speculation is often where we find inspiration in science. A typical research group meeting for my lab starts with "Well what if [blah blah blah] is causing [this effect]? Nah, that's ridiculous, but [blah blah blah offshoot] might have something to do with it."

Link to comment

Hypothesis is fine, but be ready to support the hypothesis with some legitimate basis. A speculation has no basis. I believe a scientist who makes the hypothesis are ready to defend their argument with their existing knowledge. Sometimes the differences between speculation and hypothesis is a fine line apart, so what W_L isn't all that shocking or majorly offensive. He didn't do it with malicious intent, but a gentle reminder or a question raised out of skepticism is generally a good practice. Even when a scientist made a perfectly legitimate hypothesis, other peers will ask him/her very difficult questions to check if the theory is sounding (nothing personal, really).

 

When I wrote my speculation reply, I did my best to do some preliminary research just to make sure the information out of my memory is correct. Fortunately I found some mistakes before posting, or it would be giving misinformation. Don't know if you have heard of the saying something like, "When you hear it once, it's easy to dismiss it. When you hear it twice, you treat it with skepticism. When you hear it three times, it shakes your belief." That's the thing about Internet, anyone can have their three minutes (which can be both good and bad). When people post and repost misinformation, even a fictional account may appear to be a well-founded principal just because something has been repeated by many different people with the aid of the Internet, though the origin of the misinformation was stemmed from one single source (that's the danger of plagiarism, or citing from a tertiary source). I wrote my response as a precautionary reminder. It's not meant to be a personal attack. I think maybe TetRefine is the same, but I am not him, so I cannot speak on his behalf.

 

Also noted, a well-written sci-fi (and other genre) fiction, the author would do their research so the story is believable.

Link to comment

Well, you do know I am a science fiction writer, so I do take my scientific research as deeply as I can get it. :D

 

I am a huge fan of scientific development.

 

I noticed there was a strange correlation in SIV infections of primates with AIDS like symptoms in Asia and India, not Africa where it originated, so perhaps there is an environmental factor that has led to a genetic factor in Asian populations that could be part of HIV origin into AIDS after centuries of SIV dormancy in primates in Africa without issue.

 

Maybe, we might cut down the time to find a working cure for AIDS (the current prototype is based on a limited and prohibitive research development of stem cell blood treatment) I think prohibiting stem cell research is ludicrous, when it is currently the best means we have to fight AIDS.

 

Of course, I also am writing a science fiction story with the idea as background, so there's a reason why I do know an amount about viral origin theory and some AIDS research.

Link to comment

Maybe, we might cut down the time to find a working cure for AIDS (the current prototype is based on a limited and prohibitive research development of stem cell blood treatment) I think prohibiting stem cell research is ludicrous, when it is currently the best means we have to fight AIDS.

 

Of course, I also am writing a science fiction story with the idea as background, so there's a reason why I do know an amount about viral origin theory and some AIDS research.

 

There are two sides of the argument on stem cell research of course. While in general it's a good thing, but I think it's a good idea to let people think about the issue for a little longer and let moral arguments be discussed a little more extensively before people realize what it means to have a life before we can let people take life for granted.... You don't have to be religious to talk about moral, and I don't think all moral arguments must arise from religion.

 

Don't know if you have read a manga called Phoenix. In one of the chapters it talks about human cloning. In that chapter (one of the future chapters) people are bored with current reality TV shows, so the newest idea of a show is to hunt down clone human beings. The twist at the end of the story is, the reality TV show host was hunted down, because nobody knows which one is real and which one is the clone anymore. So yeah, there are a lot of issues to be worked out before something of this complexity can be carried out. Do you think people will value life more if death is no longer a threat? Do think a successful stem cell research that leads to the end of many diseases will increase quality of life? Do you think such research may lead to even more unemployment and aging population? Will there people who make artificial organs and sell them in black markets, though they have no license to make them (and could cause more problem to the person who receive the organ more than it benefits?). There are tons of details much be sorted out. Don't be blinded by the initial optimism. History tells us human beings are not to be trusted, if you give them new knowledge. That's why Nobel Prize was formed in the first place isn't it? And the reason why Einstein didn't want to unleash the knowledge of nuclear power.

Link to comment

The risk in that is over-analyzing and inhibiting research due to our fears.

 

I think the term you are looking for Ash is Bioethics, something I brought up with Phoenix a while back about the nature of passive euthanasia, which in my view should be fine with consent of the patient. However on the flip side, I am a pro-life person based on choice (Don't want this to turn into an abortion topic, so let's not start up that here, it's merely my statement of mindset.)

 

Ethics serves the needs of the greater good with the individual person's consent. The peripheral blood stem cells that the AIDS patient got was from a live consenting donor, not what you imagine that Stem cell research sounds like based on horror stories of media. Stem cell research is not about unborn fetuses, but people make this dangerous mistake in assuming it is. Here's part of the study

 

Human constraints and fears are reasons why we do not progress further with artificial intelligence, why we have the ability to cure many diseases though cannot open up vaccines or drugs to more people, and why fossil fuels are still dominant, when hydrogen fuel sources are more plentiful.

 

We're limiting human endeavors, because of the immediate needs of human social constraints, we fear machines will overthrow us (I actually welcome seeing artificial intelligence take over and try to become better than its creators, but that's my inner Asimov talking)..

 

Pharmaceutical companies are actively inhibiting drug mass production from generic research firms trying to create low cost alternatives to the expensive brand names, which would cut down their profit margins.

 

As for Fossil Fuels, we've got more than enough hydrogen to breath, swim, and even consume, it's the most abundant resource in the universe, so why are our research focus in the billions of dollars focused so solidly on fossil fuel efficiency and dependency, when hydrogen research is significantly smaller in comparison.

 

Beyond morality, science should be operating under the concept of exploration beyond taboos or constraints. While there should be limits to human experimentation, I agree with that, but we cannot be driven by our fears in science and technology. Our future is not back in the stone halls of our ancestors, but in the titanium will that we establish today and will last for a thousand years to come.

Edited by W_L
Link to comment

I am not against the research. I am for educating the public first, and advocate let's think thoroughly and critically about the implication before we say go ahead. I am very against regulation of any kind, but for things of this nature, it's like giving a key to a child and tell them to drive. The technology is so immature at this point, people haven't thought thoroughly about the responsibility that's given. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. I am arguing let's set the rules and let the general public debate about the issue (therefore, open up thinking process) before we let open the Pandora's Box. Hopefully by the time the tirades on both sides end, everyone is smarter with the issue and know pros and cons.

 

If you give a fool some knowledge, they're out to wreck the world. I think I've said this before. Right now everyone is in the naive optimism stage, and people have yet to think deeply about the possibility how this can seriously cheapens the meaning of life. Like when Nobel invented dynamite, he thought he was making the life better (but people used it to kill each other). When Industrial Revolution began, it was to improve quality of life by making things more affordable to all people (did it happen?). Or when Marx thought communism is going to make people more equal (did that happen?). No, none of those ideals fulfilled their original prophecy because the execution was incorrect. Human races are not as intelligent as we'd like to think. As long as there are selfishness and greed, there will be evil, even when the original concept is well-intended. No, I am not saying we should abolish all activities of advancement all together, but we should try to understand our own conducts.

 

Many genetically modified foods are already made with deeply troubling conducts. Do you know genetically modified soy beans is a result of connecting a soy DNA with a fish's DNA? That is not a natural food. It's neither plant nor animal. That's why even the pests that used to eat soy beans do not eat it (that's the whole purpose of such genetic engineering, supposedly to reduce chemicals we ingest). A lot of people are allergic to genetic engineered foods, and now you know why. If you were vegan for religious reason, shouldn't you know that the soy beans you eat aren't exactly vegetables? People are already doing things that are very close to "human centipede" and how low should human race fall until life is no longer life? Let's not even talk about hormone chicken and antibiotics in meat we eat. People will find a way to abuse every technological "advance."

 

Despite of all that, I am not completely against the possible benefit the stem cell research. All I am asking for is, people (entire human race) should discuss the issue fully. Every single solution to a problem will create a new problem, but one needs to know whether the new problem is better than the old one (i.e., the fundamental concept of decision making). Once people fully understand the whole issue, people will make a smarter decision. A concept that's not thoroughly thought out before the execution will make life more miserable, not better.

 

When I was in business school, I thought why the companies simply don't install some price checking machines, and instead hire people to do such meaningless, menial jobs nobody wants to do (and as a customer, it's more convenient). But once I am actually working, I know there is a point of NOT using machines, because it creates jobs (aren't we all still need money to survive?). Life isn't all about efficiency. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nation is actually talking about government's role in creating jobs. If you believe humanity has no value and can/should be replaced by machines, then are you truly living? It says more about your cynicism about people than anything.

 

By the way, the most abundant gas in the air is nitrogen. We need oxygen as part of respiratory system. We need a little bit of hydrogen, but mostly it's a waste product we urinate out of our body (Hydrogen ion increases acidity level in chemistry, and our body constantly monitors hydrogen ion level to keep blood pH level to keep everything in homeostasis). (nitrogen's role in human metabolism is still unknown. Human race isn't as sophisticated as you think. While we are able to send man-made object to Mars, we are still yet to figure out some fundamental stuff about human body)

Edited by Ashi
Link to comment

Thinking critically is fine, but there's a difference between "informed consent" and endless polemic debates. People will go around in circles a dozen times over one issue, until someone takes the initiative and makes the decision.

 

As for a machine versus a human being, why keep employing people to do the same things over and over again, when a machine can do it faster? People have this really flawed notion that machines are stealing their jobs, but you don't need to fear the machine or fight them. Learn about the machine, work with it, and understand how it is doing the things that you did by hand, get certified in its functions, and you're now its partner, not the replaced worker. Man and Machine outside in science fiction stories are sometimes partners and equals, not adversaries like Terminator series. I see artificial intelligence as mankind's future children, not our tools or our foils. When our species becomes extinct as all species do eventually, what will we leave to carry on our legacy? We may have probes and other objects floating through space, but they really hold nothing more than a static image of mankind. I see silicon based life forms as something more if we can allow our creativity to grow and not allow our fear to cloud our judgment.

 

Basically, Ash, give the machine a chance to be your friend.

 

As for genetically altered food, wonder if that means I can grow gills :P Seriously, I do know, which is why I buy food from farmer's markets. Meat though, I buy from a local place that's cheap and caters to the college crowd in Cambridge. I still go to Shaws and Stop & Shop for things, if they are cheaper.

 

As for the Stem Cells, while blood transplant stem cells have the potential to not be compatible and fatal if complications occur; we should continue this research line and maybe even offer AIDS patients with compatible physiology to a donor an experimental option. It might be dangerous, but in a world without a cure for AIDS, a 1 in 10 risk of death can be an option for patients, if they choose it.

 

In medicine, your goal should be to offer patients a chance for a better life, it's not cheapening life, it's embracing hope by choice.

 

Think about Penicillin and the lives it touched, because scientists and doctors took to the course of fighting bacteria to save lives. They did not always succeed, but they gave their patients a better chances. I think in terms of medical technology, there's a need to give people options that should be part of treatment if applicable.

 

I think beyond debate, knowledge should not be held up, nor repressed due to erroneous fears. As I told you before, there are many types of stem cell research, this particular line is based on blood, which comes from a living donor.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here: Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..