Is this where HIV came from?
2014-10-06 09:04
Abuja - A new study into the origins of the
AIDS virus suggests one strain of HIV
appeared in the early 20th century in the
western region of Congo and spread
through a swath of Africa over the next
several decades without notice by the rest
of the world.
The researchers say the findings support,
but don't prove, the theory that the virus
expanded its reach in Africa due to social
factors such as railroad expansion,
changing sexual habits and unsafe medical
practices.
How HIV became a pandemic
The study adds to our understanding of
"how a virus that is less transmissible than
other pathogens like malaria and the
common cold can still become established in
the human population and eventually grow
into a devastating pandemic," said study co-
author Philippe Lemey, from the Rega
Institute for Medical Research at Catholic
University of Leuven, Belgium.
"The fact that social changes were critical in
the rise of the virus suggests that such
changes may also be an important factor in
combating epidemic spread," Lemey said.
The origins of HIV, the sexually transmitted
virus that causes AIDS, are still hazy.
Scientists believe variations of the virus
migrated from primates, possibly monkeys
and chimps, to humans in Africa. Then two
strains of the virus, known as HIV-1 and
HIV-2, developed in people.
The new study, published in the Oct. 3 issue
in the journal Science, looks at a form of
HIV-1, the prevalent strain in the world
today. Scientists previously determined that
it existed in heterosexual populations in the
first half of the 20th century, but exactly
where and when it appeared wasn't clear.
Initial appearance of HIV
Now, the study authors say analysis of virus
samples suggests this form of HIV emerged
in Kinshasa, the capital of what is now
known as the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, in the early 1920s. The researchers
relied on a "molecular clock" model to
determine the timing.
"Its initial spread followed the Democratic
Republic of Congo's transport links, in
particular its railways, that made Kinshasa
one of the best connected of all central
African cities," Lemey said. This new ease of
movement, coupled with prostitution (a
byproduct of development) and use of
unsterilized needles by medical workers
treating sex workers may have boosted
transmission of the virus, he said.
Why these findings matter?
Lemey said the research reveals a "perfect
storm" of social changes that may have
fostered HIV's spread. This matters now, he
said, because "knowledge of the
circumstances that facilitated the expansion
of the epidemic can assist the development
of effective education and prevention
programs."
According to Lemey, the virus may have
gone undetected because few people were
infected at first and because the symptoms
caused by the AIDS-related decline of the
body's immune system were "definitely not
new to Africa." AIDS wasn't formally
recognized until 1981 after it had spread
across the world. Since then about 75
million people have been infected, according
to a United Nations report.
Lemey cautioned that the findings don't
offer insight into how a variation of the
virus leaped from animals to people, or what
might have happened if the virus had been
recognized decades ago. There's no way to
know if medical officials could have stopped
its spread.
Still, the study authors say the findings could
be a template for understanding the spread
of other blood-transmitted diseases such as
hepatitis C.
Currently, researchers around the world are
struggling to contain Ebola infections in
Africa.
William Schneider, a professor who studies
the history of medicine at Indiana
University-Purdue University Indianapolis,
praised the study for providing "a
fascinating and helpful framework" to
understand the origins of HIV/AIDS.
Schneider is part of a team of historians and
anthropologists exploring the roots of the
disease in Africa.
However, Schneider said the authors'
theories about the spread of the disease
aren't convincing because they're based on
questionable information from a time when
Europeans controlled much of Africa.
"Colonial records are well-known by
historians and anthropologists to be biased,
selective and above all in need of broader
understanding of historical and cultural
circumstances to evaluate their usefulness,"
he said.b

Are u kidding me?

too short...pls elaborate

Long talk who wan read all that?