Talk:History of HIV/AIDS/Archive 1

News

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1783649,00.html for new information on AIDS origin.

See http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/194/2/ for Ed Hooper's refutation. SmithBlue 04:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Not a copyvio. From the page in question:

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
Source: Original text from the article in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: AIDS.

It appears that some work is being done on the main AIDS article, which involves splitting some sections off to seperate articles. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 12:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The so called copyright violation is one of the many pages online that mirros Wikipedia articles. If we deleted all material on Wikipedia that has been mirrored on other webpages, there would be nothing left. Fred2005 13:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• It's been noted and corrected. 's all right. A bit funny, when you look at it. Labelling a wikipedia article as a copyvio of another wikipedia article. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Clean-Up

I tagged this article, because it needs to be organized. Subversive 18:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In some places, the reference number is before the punctuation, in others, it is after. Didn't know which is right, so I left it.

(Group O). [11] [12] punctuation before reference

immigrants [17]. punctuation after

(anonymous) 10:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am working on the spelling and coherence in this article. Let me know if there are any questions about edits. Swilk 04:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it even needed? It doesn't seem to say much that's not in the main AIDS article, which is a Featured Article no less. --kingboyk 22:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I do think the article is needed, it gives a good scope on the history of the discovery of AIDS that is not included (and shouldn't; it's too long) in the main AIDS article.[1]

Monkeysex

Sometime ago one of my teachers told us that HIV started when someone in Africa actually had sex with a monkey, is it true? Do they have this custom of raping monkeys? 201.23.64.2 19:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Read this for more details. — Philwelch t 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your indicated article, Philwelch, does not explain why it is extremely unlikely that the zoonosis (inter-species transfer of a disease) of HIV occurred through sexual intercourse since between humans this is a very likely way to tranfer the disease. Combox 11:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Humans kill chimpanzees and other primates a lot. They kill them for food, they kill adults to capture the infants for pets or to sell to zoos, circuses, or for biomedical research. Bushmeat remains a multi-million dollar per year industry even when most of the species sold cannot be legally killed because they are protected by laws. Blood-blood contact between primate blood and human blood during butchering of killed animals is nearly a certainty. HIV-1 M, N and O groups are not the only viruses that have been trasnfered. Humans have also been infected many times with T-cell leukemia viruses, simian foamy viruses, and dozens of other viruses over the past 100 years or so since rifles made the hunting and killing of primates much easier. Fewer simian to human transmission events occurred in the thousands of years prior to this, but still a significant number. HIV-2 was transferred from Sooty mangabeys to hhumans at least seven times in the past 100 years. People keep Sooty mangabeys for pets, and they sometimes scratch or bite. Many other simian immunodeficiency viruses do not replicate well in human cells, so even if there was significant blood-blood contact between humans and baboons or African green monkeys, for example, the SIV that they carry cannot be transferred to humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocontroversy (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. Although the theory is unpopular, chimpanzee males have raped women in Africa, and I would be very surprised if no man in Africa ever had sex with a chimpazee. The case of an organgutan being shaved and held captive as a sex slave in Borneo has been widely reported; of coruse, that's Asia, so Americans won't cry "racism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.209.129 (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Refs clean up and adding section headings

I changed all the refrences to use the <ref> syntax, for purly URL links this is not a significant improvment. The superscripts look nicer but it takes two clicks to follow the link, so its a wash. It does however provide for some better naming of the refrences and I did a few of them at the bottom. We shoudl follwo the links and at least include the title of the page linked to if nothign else. I also added some headings though I am not 100% happy with my choices here it was just a sort of off the cuff "this is what is contained here" sort of naming so someone should probbly rethink them and change to somethign mroe encyclopedic. In doing the headings I moves some paragraphs around and added a little bit of wording. I am slightly (but not significantly) concerned about the POVness of assuming the Zoonosis origen is correct. It is my understanding that this is overwhelmingly the prevaliant view, and I head on NPR last week talk of a study (in nature?) where they actually tracked down likley populations in the wild that had the right forms of the viruses and the right location near population centers to have been the sources. They devloped a way to test for the simian vairant of the virus in feces. Either way we should be carful about wording and also someon shoudl track down that study. Dalf | Talk 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Origin

Why isn't there a section on alternative origins(i.e. government created)? Hempeater 08:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you want AIDS conspiracy theories though I do agree that it could at least get a mention here (and a link to AIDS conspiracy theories) for people who want more details. Dalf | Talk 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

Can we move this to Origin of AIDS? Zocky | picture popups 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am unopposed to that move. Dalf | Talk 05:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin in Cameroon

This material was recently cut from Cameroon because it was felt it would fit better in this article. I present it here for perusal by this page's maintainers first before incorporation into the main article. — BrianSmithson 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Researchers announced in May 2006 that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV, the virus which causes AIDS) most likely originated in wild chimpanzees in the southeastern rain forests of Cameroon (modern East Province) rather than in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), as had previously been believed.

Seven years of research and 1,300 chimpanzee genetic samples led Dr. Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama, Birmingham, to identify chimpanzee communities near Cameroon's Sanaga River as the most likely originators. The researchers say that transference from chimp to human most likely occurred when a human was bitten by a chimp or was cut while butchering one, and the human became infected.[2] Calculating based on a fixed mutation rate, the jump from chimpanzee to human likely occurred during the French colonial period. Comparative primatologist Jim Moore suggests that this may have been the result of colonial practices of forced labour, which could have suppressed the immune system of the initial hunter enough to allow the virus to infect and take hold. Likewise, forced immunisations (using one needle on many patients) may have sped the virus's spread through Cameroon and beyond.[3]

As no one has responded or added the information, I shall now do so. — BrianSmithson 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

uncited

Although AIDS was first recognized and named as a disease in 1981 and the first confirmed death from HIV was in 1959, it is possible that HIV may have spread from chimpanzees to humans as early as the late 1600s.

This claim was removed from the main page. It appears to be wildly speculative, but if there's a reputable source to attribute it to... ??^anetode?? 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Veracity of data on early cases

This article is a mess. The 1959 sailor and the boy in St Louis was disproved in the early 90s. WHY is it still in this article. The HIV was from lab contamination. — 4.142.93.88

Incorrect. Your source for this information is Alan Cantwell's book "Queer Blood." However, it never states that the St. Louis samples were ever questioned or that the original findings were disproven. In that case, I believe three samples were all found to contain HIV, therefore, the 1969 case is a definite instance of HIV infection, and the earliest known case in the United States. This is an important piece of information for the appropriate Wikipedia articles to contain, and as such, it is best that you read your sources more carefully before editing articles and compromising the veracity of what is published.

Reread the Cantwell source. You'll find that it never says anything about the 1969 St. Louis case being disputed, only the 1959 Manchester case. Cantwell states, as do other sources, that the samples of David Carr, the sailor from Manchester who died in 1959, were initially found to contain HIV, but it was subsequently determined that the samples were contaminated and the findings were therefore refuted. You somehow lumped the St. Louis case into that one. Finally, Cantwell is a fringe source—hardly an authority on anything—whose work should probably be taken with a grain of salt, and should not serve as a basis for any Wikipedia additions.

• 1 One of the earliest documented HIV-1 infection dates from 1959, and was discovered in the preserved blood sample of a man from Leopoldville, Belgian Congo (now Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo Link gives 404 so no source

• 2 The oldest documented case of the then-unknown syndrome was detected that same year, when a 25-year-old British sailor ...covers about four inches of text only to find out"their claim was retracted in a letter in the January 20, 1996 issue where they admitted that the tissue sample was contaminated in the laboratory" - its bogus why bother
• 3 another early case was probably detected that same year.... blah blah and we come to the old duff saying "I think it's such a strong possibility that I've often thought about getting them to send me the tissue samples" !!! lame speculation batting zero here so "1969, a 15-year-old African-American male died at the St. Louis City Hospital from aggressive Kaposi's sarcoma. AIDS was suspected as early as 1984, ...finding HIV-1 in his preserved blood and tissues. seems like first confirmed case in this article Just pointing this out for whomever is working on this as I do not cut from articles I haven't contributed a lot to (everybody's a censor nobody's a writer)68.60.68.203 13:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

True origin

Can someone with more expirience in the topic than me help with this?

From what I can dicern, between 1956 and 1960 there was a camp at Lindi in the Belgian Congo that was reached by a ferry where between 400 and 600 chimpazees were captured by african native hunters, male chimpazees were killed while the females and children were kept. Around 400 chimpanzees were killed, their blood was collected and kept in glass jars, while their bodies were autopsied to remove several organs like the liver and kidneys in particular, this was performed by african nurses under the direction of medical officials from a large medical research centre (the name of which I cannot remember, something like Stanleyville?) where cultures of chimpanzee organs (particularly kidneys) were used in the research and production of the polio vacine. Lapse in scientific procedure led to this vacine being given to around 1million people without it first being tested for infections, etc, that could potentially have been transferred from animal to human. The resulting polio vacine was sent to philedelphia, places in Belgium, France, among others, where it was produced on mass.

The vacine gaurded against polio but also enabled the means to which HIV/AIDS could transfer between animal and human. Debates between Edward Hooper and the Royal Society in 2000 led to this theory being "disproven", however, evidence was not considered and several medical officials and members of the scientific community gave contradicting evidence. Evidence of the existance of the camp at Lindi exists and proof of the use of chimpanzee organ cultures in production of the polio virus has been proven. There are many people, (particularly africans who worked at the camp and the research facility) who have given evidence and are willing to testify. The research of Edward Hooper has been well documented and many documentaries have been created. A well known british scientist died of malaria upon returning to the africa to collect data to seek the truth of the theories. A book of Hoopers research was released by himself.

It has been said that as long as the medical officials involved (including Hilary Koprowski) remain silent as to the full extent of their knowledge of the issue, there will always be doubt. It is noted that the only holes in Hoopers 17 year research are those of these people who continue to keep silent. Now I don't know much about science or medical research or polio or AIDS or any of the people involved, but it would appear to me that this must be mentioned because it is as valid as any other theory until one in particular is properly proven or disproven, nothing has been properly proven or disproven to date. The debate in 2000 involving the royal society was a farse from my perspective, and the people who know and are keeping silent must supply the world with the truth. If you were Hilary Koprowski would you want to admit that you had a hand in transfering AIDS from animals to humans when he's already praised for producing the polio vacine?

I'm posting this here on the talk page to force discussion especially from people who know what they're talking about, and to suggest that it warrants the same ammount of validity as the current beliefs as to the origins of AIDS, therefore warrants the same ammount of attention within the article itself. Nick carson 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What you outline above (except for 1 very important error) is called the OPV AIDS hypothesis. Its most visible champion is Edward Hooper. "Hooper rejects the 1930's date on the basis that phylogenetic dating of "the most recombinogenic organisms known to medical science", immunodeficiency viruses, is "inherently incapable of making any allowance for recombination". (The "Wikipedia: AIDS origin" article uses a range of dates "1915 and 1941" in place of "1930s".) The OPV AIDS hypothesis is seen as "a very ugly theory" in immunology circles. Your error is that the vaccine allegedly produced in Stanleyville is not claimed to have been used outside Africa. At present the article gives minimal space to any theory of the initial crossover, focussing more on other areas. If it mentioned Hoopers discounting of DNA sequence analysis (above) I'd see it as wholey neutral. As it is, it seems pretty close. SmithBlue 04:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So the theory has a name and is recognised, is anyone investigating further? I for one would like to know if we humans transferred AIDS from chimpanzee to human, and I imagine the implications would be massive. I did however hear that samples of that particular polio vacine were sent to philedelphia, that is a reoccuring place in my research. I'll check out OPV AIDS hypothesis. Thanks again. Nick carson 13:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A curse from God?

I most certainly do not advocate this hypothesis, but I think it should at least be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia as people really believe in this hypothesis for AIDS. Of course, there is no evidence for this hypothesis, and it should not deserve any serious consideration. I think it is worth mention that some people believe HIV as created by God to punish homosexuals for their "sinful lifestyles". LinkinPark 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a curious when comparing title and content. The title suggests that all theories on AIDS' origin would be mentioned. However the content briefly mentions the 2 most mainstream scientific theories and then moves on to a description of how AIDS spread, etc. There are separate pages for AIDS conspiracy theories (which some editors find a very problematic name) and Oral Polio Vaccine AIDS Hypothesis. Strangely I think this article works fairly well. But yes "Gods punishment" is a common POV on the creation of AIDS and needs space somewhere.SmithBlue 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the origin of AIDS. There appears to be no evidence that a ‘curse from God’ has anything to do with that, so it shouldn't be here. Shinobu (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Monkey testicle operations

Anyone want to take a look at this theory? It concerns the monkey testicle tissue transplantations carried out in the 1920s by the Russian-French surgeon Serge Voronoff. It warranted a letter to Nature, though the theory seems to have remained no more than that. I think it might be worth a mention here - anyone want to add a sentence and source? (I can't access the actual Nature letter). Carcharoth 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Follow the external links at Serge Voronoff for more details. I'm currently expanding the article, so there's not much in there at the moment. Carcharoth 19:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Forced labour!?!?

What is the source stating forced labour was a cause in AIDS? What is the source stating there WAS forced labour in the colonies during that period? Truth is there was no forced labour (it may have been used during war or as a punishment but not as in slavey which had been abolished for more than 100 years in France by then). There were really bad working conditions but it is absurd to blaim the French for the spread of AIDS. Please remove that sentence or provide a source and a well researched one. Thank you. 86.104.216.79 20:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The French did use forced labor in colonial Cameroon. I can find several sources to back this up, if you still dispute it. However, the immediate source for the statement you question is a piece from NPR, which can be found here. — Brian (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That link does not show that forced labor in the colonies was a cause of AIDS. I suggest that before you post something to backup your point of view, you actually read what it says on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.118.118 (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious paragraph

I think the following paragraph, from the "History of known cases and spread" section, needs to be reviewed. Its tone and lack of copy-editing caught my attention. Could someone with more experience take a look at it and decided if it belongs here?

According to research of old bloodsamples HIV did not exist before year 1978 in United States of America. A very rapid spread of HIV-infections is still officially unexplained phenomenon but HIV-infections appeared exactly the same time in different areas of world and they also matched exactly the smallbox vaccine program of World Health Organisation (WHO) in Haiti, Brazil and Africa, within Zaire (nowadays Democratic Republic of the Congo) the most vaccinated state had also most HIV-infections. WHO it-self started to suspect was there really somekind of connection with its vaccine program and AIDS-epidemic. To find it out WHO hired a outsider investigator who did spotted a very clear connection with HIV-infections and vaccine program. WHO did not ever published the report it ordered and has kept it contents secret. [21] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.92.224.252 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Sources need clean-up

Many of the sources point to dead links.--Vidkun 20:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The French Connection (?)

Hey. Many long years ago I read an article in a magazine that purported to be about the history of AIDS. In it, there was a discussion of a Frenchman who lived (I think I'm remembering this correctly, but am not sure) during either the latter part of the 19th century or the early part of the 20th, and who died of what afterward came to be called (by someone, anyway) the "gay cancer". I particularly remember the image of him reprinted in the magazine as being very sepia-toned, or Daguerreotype-looking (bolstering my memory of this as being something that went way back).
In the years since reading that article, I've heard and read at least a few references to this man, or to such a man, or to there being at least some French connection re the origin of AIDS.
What brought it to mind recently was hearing (after not hearing it for many years) Prince's song "Sign O' The Times" (1987), the first line of which runs, "In France a skinny man died of a big disease with a little name...". I'm certain that that line is a reference to both AIDS and to the story that AIDS originated with or was first discovered to exist in a single Frenchman.
The story always struck me as being strange and intriguing, so I thought, "I'm gonna look that up"; the next part is predictable: I come here and find no reference to him or to a story of a similar man. The Robert R story, which I'd never heard of before now, is terrifying, but I'm still interested in the French thing. Can anyone lift the fog? Thanks. - Electric Larry

HIV virus only 'identified' 4 times?

Part of the controversy, skepticism, and even denialism about HIV/AIDS stems from the fact that nobody seems to have identified the virus itself. The last section of this article deals with the original identifications of the virus. Have there not been subsequent identifications? Rfwoolf 19:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course the virus has been identified, cultured, photographed, what-have-you. Claims to the contrary are both incorrect and based on, shall we say, idiosyncratic criteria for "identification". MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have reverted the page to an older version due to vandalism. The vandalized area was as follows; "..."

--N.B. Someone edited the page just now, citing 'removal of vandalism' as cause, however please note that they left the above sentence intact; "The most widely accepted theory is that an African negro raped a chimpanzee, and got infected", which was part of the vandalism-- apart from the sentence being rather obvious racism, the citation listed says no such thing. It instead points to the Hunter Theory. This is why I have reverted to the last version that makes sense.-- Dee 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

New research on origin of key strain

From the BBC: Key HIV strain came from Haiti. Dan100 (Talk) 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw-man "From Congo macaques via OPV? (Contested)"

OPV AIDS hypothesis does not claim "From Congo macaques via OPV?" so who does? Why is it included as one of 2 options? SmithBlue 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We can retitle the section if you object; however, immediately slapping a tag on the article before attempting to resolve the issue via discussion is improper. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The section was misleading/inaccurate - to leave it untagged would be improper in my view. SmithBlue 12:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC) By ommitting the evidence in documentary "The Origin of AIDS" and that published by 2 national science conferences (Royal Society and the Italian counterpart) that amplification of the vaccine occured in Stanleyville and including the negative results from the CHAT tests we mislead naive readers. Sure OPV AIDS is rejected by mainstream science - but not for the reason we give here. SmithBlue (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)