courage89:

@ texazzpete

I used Pfizer because it pertains to the situation where there is an adverse effect of certain theories. I guess you will rather I use genetically modified organism as an example. Their drugs include GMO or genetically engineered organism whose genetic material has been altered to create what they want (I guess you know that already). Do we know fully the adverse effect of these new organisms?

And I’m pretty sure that you don’t know that “ebola virus” also came from Africa (based on their claim).

Sorry, luca. Most modern antibiotics are synthetic.
In fact, Trovan, the drug used by pfizer, is purely synthetic.

courage89:

And I’m pretty sure that you don’t know that “ebola virus” also came from Africa (based on their claim).

Considering the fact that the virus got its name from the Ebola River Valley in Congo (formerly Zaïre), near the site of the first recognized outbreak in 1976, i would say everyone knows that the ebola virus came from Africa.

The fact that a pathogen originated from our continent does not mean it's a slur against us. You haven't seen the English trying to pin the Black Death on africans, have you?


But it it makes you feel better, i'll publish 'research' showing that malaria actually was brought to Africa by white men. Better?

texazzpete:

Sorry, luca. Most modern antibiotics are synthetic.
In fact, Trovan, the drug used by pfizer, is purely synthetic.


Considering the fact that the virus got its name from the Ebola River Valley in Congo (formerly Zaïre), near the site of the first recognized outbreak in 1976, i would say everyone knows that the ebola virus came from Africa.

The fact that a pathogen originated from our continent does not mean it's a slur against us. You haven't seen the English trying to pin the Black Death on africans, have you?


But it it makes you feel better, i'll publish 'research' showing that malaria actually was brought to Africa by white men. Better?

LOL!

texazzpete:

Tuskegee and positivism as a concept have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, unless you can prove that all scientist involved with research into the origins of HIV are al positivists. Naturally you'd have to explain why magazines like Rolling Stone which did a piece on the origins of HIV did not identify rampant positivism amongst all the researchers.

i never said tuskegee had anything to do with it,ayiba whaever was replying your comment and mentioned tuskegee,and i picked up on her comment and wrote that it was possible for scientists to conduct controlled experiments and back each other up and propound their theories and assertions as literarily the holy grail especially if people are willing to believe and the perception is there already,and i gave examples of a group of scientists who did exactly that and added that even till this present time their ideals are still being propagated even though it has been proven to be false and of no scientific basis whatsoever,ill repeat again that i was not replying to either the hiv topic directly neither did i connect positivists with hiv in my comments,having said that however  the same way i cant hands on heart say that there are no racial undetone as regards the hiv strain/virus is the same way you cant say so in all certainty that there are no racial undertones,dont forget even though lombroso s theories were in the 1800s to early 1900s other disciples of biological percpectives continually revived the eugenics movement up untill this very moment,also it took a very long time before the experiment or researchs findings of the eugenics were finally dissproved,im not a scientists neither do i know that much about genetics or whaever but i know for sure that theres not 100% conclusive no questions asked findings yet about the origin of hiv

texazzpete:



Mentioning the Tuskegee experiment is even less intelligent. HIV origin research has no need for any human test subject. The HIV virus has long been analysed and dissected. What remains is a historical research into the historical facts on the emergence of HIV ,a s well as a detailed study of the SIV for similarities to HIV -1.
How does an experiment conducted on humans inthe 1930s become an analogy for that?

well then guess you ll have to direct that to whoever mentioned the tuskegee experiment,but like i said before try and read through comments and understand them before clicking on the reply button so u dont mix your replies up cause i certainly didnt say anything about tuskegee experiment,all i did in my last reply was mention that i knew what it meant as a response to your earlier comment casting aspersions on my knowledge of the tuskegee experiment,and again i didnt say hiv needed any test subject so dont patronise me,even a jss3 student knows that the origin of hiv is the bone of contention.
ill ignore your last sentence because it has no bearing at all and i have explained what needs explaining

texazzpete:

Sorry, luca. Most modern antibiotics are synthetic.
In fact, Trovan, the drug used by pfizer, is purely synthetic.

see what i mean about you chilling out,take a couple of deep breaths,read through comments and knowing who wrote what,then clicking on the reply button,whats luca's name go to do with this reply now?

@Luc,

Thanks for the clarification.

@texape

Research happy? And wikipedia?? You can surely do better than that. It is obvious, isn't it. What criteria did you apply to your quoted references?
You are not the authority on this topic. Lashing out at people who do not agree with you does not change the fact. This, for me, has nothing to do with race but more to do with truth.

Feel free to believe what you will, in a few years, more papers will be published that tell the truth about HIV.

ayinba1:



@texape



Feel free to believe what you will, in a few years, more papers will be published that tell the truth about HIV.

exactly,after all how many years has it been since hiv was discovered,either we disagree with them or not,there have been contrary views disagreeing with the hunter theory e.t.c

ayinba1:

@Luc,

Thanks for the clarification.

@texape

Research happy? And wikipedia?? You can surely do better than that. It is obvious, isn't it. What criteria did you apply to your quoted references?
You are not the authority on this topic. Lashing out at people who do not agree with you does not change the fact. This, for me, has nothing to do with race but more to do with truth.

Feel free to believe what you will, in a few years, more papers will be published that tell the truth about HIV.

Please google what 'research' means.
and yes, it's perfectly accurate for me to quote wikipedia. Each salient point in that article has references to back it up, reference that point to major international journals.
Scroll down to the bottom of that article and you'll see a section containing references to trustworthy sources.

Truth? There are loads of studies pointing to the origin of HIV in African animals. Unless you disprove this with an acceptable study, it remains the best acceptable theory.

So tell me, if it isn't about 'race' and you maintain it is not the truth, what, in your 'learned' opinion, is the reason for the lie?

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
Main Entry: sci·en·tist
Pronunciation: 'sI-&nt-&st
Function: noun
: a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator

Scientist? You wouldn't know science even if it jumped up and bit you in the ass

lucabrasi:

exactly,after all how many years has it been since hiv was discovered,either we disagree with them or not,there have been contrary views disagreeing with the hunter theory e.t.c

Luca, I have nothing against you. But i cannot keep correcting your flawed arguments. The hunter theory, the OPV theory et al are not disputing the origins of the HIV. What they concern themselves with is how the virus became zoonotic (crossed over from being an african chimp disease to being a human virus).
For example the Hunter theory states that the virus may have crossed over when African hunters killed and ate ape meat.
The OPV theory alleges that the virus crossed over when ape tissue was used to incubate a batch of the Oral Polio vaccine.

All these theories deal with how the virus crossed over from african ape species to human beings. NOT DISPUTES ON IF THE APES WERE THE ORIGINAL CARRIERS OF THE SIV.


Hope this helps.

texazzpete:

Luca, I have nothing against you. But i cannot keep correcting your flawed arguments. The hunter theory, the OPV theory et al are not disputing the origins of the HIV. What they concern themselves with is how the virus became zoonotic (crossed over from being an african chimp disease to being a human virus).
For example the Hunter theory states that the virus may have crossed over when African hunters killed and ate ape meat.
The OPV theory alleges that the virus crossed over when ape tissue was used to incubate a batch of the Oral Polio vaccine.

All these theories deal with how the virus crossed over from african ape species to human beings. NOT DISPUTES ON IF THE APES WERE THE ORIGINAL CARRIERS OF THE SIV.
Hope this helps.

you have not corrected a single argument of mine so pls dont patronise me,you mixed up your replies and mixed everything together,rather than man up and admit you r going on a merry go round breaking down what the hunter theory is,any primary school kid who is computer literate and knows google can have acess to information on the meaning and definition of the hunter theory so please spare me,and like i said almost 3/4 times already,read through comments and if you dont understand what people mean ask,theres no shame in asking,as for what that particular phrase you singled out out of the rest of your cock ups

lucabrasi:

exactly,after all how many years has it been since hiv was discovered,either we disagree with them or not,there have been contrary views disagreeing with the hunter theory e.t.c

what i meant about this is that either you agree with the scientists research/experiment whatever that the origin of hiv was somewhere in cameroon,there are other eminent scientists who either agree partly or disagree wholly and have their own explanations as to what happened and their concerns just like the cause of 9/11(its an example so pls dont lecture me about what happened in 9/11),an example is this link who partly disagree and have concerns
http://www.postnewsline.com/2006/09/cameroon_and_th.html
also,hiv was discovered first around 20smthing years ago,so as far as im concerned and other scientists will say the same which is to keep an open mind as researches est are still ongoing,as for disputing if apes are the carriers or not,theres no single phrase or sentence on here disagreeing with that so unless you will like to show me,the only conclusion i can arrive at is that your r psychic,just google it and you will find many equally eminent scientists who dont think the researches hav been fool proof
hope this helps

lucabrasi:

you have not corrected a single argument of mine so please don't patronise me,you mixed up your replies and mixed everything together,rather than man up and admit you r going on a merry go round breaking down what the hunter theory is,any primary school kid who is computer literate and knows google can have acess to information on the meaning and definition of the hunter theory so please spare me,and like i said almost 3/4 times already,read through comments and if you don't understand what people mean ask,theres no shame in asking,as for what that particular phrase you singled out out of the rest of your cock upswhat i meant about this is that either you agree with the scientists research/experiment whatever that the origin of hiv was somewhere in cameroon,there are other eminent scientists who either agree partly or disagree wholly and have their own explanations as to what happened and their concerns just like the cause of 9/11(its an example so please don't lecture me about what happened in 9/11),an example is this link who partly disagree and have concerns
http://www.postnewsline.com/2006/09/cameroon_and_th.html
also,hiv was discovered first around 20smthing years ago,so as far as im concerned and other scientists will say the same which is to keep an open mind as researches est are still ongoing,as for disputing if apes are the carriers or not,theres no single phrase or sentence on here disagreeing with that so unless you will like to show me,the only conclusion i can arrive at is that your r psychic,just google it and you will find many equally eminent scientists who don't think the researches hav been fool proof
hope this helps

Please. You've pointed out the error i made in replying you instead of courage89. Was there any denial from me? Is that not done and dusted with? What's the sense in bringing this up repeatedly in this discussion?

We are curently discussing the origins of HIV. The accepted belief is that HIV originated from Africa. Scientists have provided sound research to prove this.
All the debates you're referring to concern the mode of transmission from Animals to humans. Not the origins as per Africa. Please take a look at the original post and understand what is up for discussion here.

lucabrasi:

either you agree with the scientists research/experiment whatever that the origin of hiv was somewhere in cameroon,there are other eminent scientists who either agree partly or disagree wholly and have their own explanations as to what happened and their concerns just like the cause of 9/11(its an example so please don't lecture me about what happened in 9/11),an example is this link who partly disagree and have concerns
http://www.postnewsline.com/2006/09/cameroon_and_th.html

What the hell has cameroon got to do with this? The original poster is railing against Mr Cooper for saying that Africa was the origin of the virus. You're providing a link in which the article writer ACCEPTS that HIV-1 originated from African chimps. in fact, all the writer is saying is that the chimps may not neccessarily have come from cameroon.

You accepted ayinba's theory that there is some element of untruth in the HIV origin story, now you're trying to change your position. You've insinuated multiple times about 'falsehoods' and 'conspiracies', now you're subtly softening your position. Why?


Throughout this topic you have set up many red-herrings (positivism, hunter theory etc) to mask the fact that not only did you not know what you were talking about, you had fallen to the terrible nairaland failing; refusing to admit when your facts and logic fall through just for the sake of winning an argument. You have even openly identified with conspiracy theories, despite the lack of adequate scientific proof. Tragic

Truth be told, the original poster had alleged that Mr Cooper had erred by saying things with no scientific basis. I have since proved that wrong with strong scientific evidence. that is the crux of the matter. As long as multiple research has confirmed my point, all you can do is enter the realm of conspiracy theory.


i'll be waiting for you when you start insisting the earth isn't round.

texazzpete:


i'll be waiting for you when you start insisting the earth isn't round.

Which University degrees do you have? You are making your argument against by arbitrarily making statements like this. What has belief in the origin of HIV have to do with whether or not the earth goes round? You are engaging in fallacious associations.

Can I please see a journal article that demonstrates the infection of a variant of SIV from chimpazees to Humans in central Africa? Specifically, at the very least, can I please see a journal article that was able to demonstrate that variants or mutations of SIV from Chimpazees were able to reproduce their genetic material and package themselves in human cells, enough to support the claim of the hunter theory? Thanks in advance for providing me with the proof you use to dispute the so called fools who posted to you.

If you cannot understand the above questions and/or provide resources demonstrating the above, this debate is over, you are owned and you are a small fry who doesn't know what you are talking about.

lucabrasi:

just google it and you will find many equally eminent scientists who don't think the researches hav been fool proof
hope this helps

Kindly provide proof of these 'equally eminent scientists' that are convinced that HIV didn't originate from Africa via the SIV.
i'm waiting.

lucabrasi:

also,hiv was discovered first around 20smthing years ago,so as far as im concerned and other scientists will say the same which is to keep an open mind as researches est are still ongoing

Multiple researches have been made already, each one submitted to scientific panels and publications and thoroughly scrutinized by scientists all over the world. What else do you people want?!
Unless you can provide research of your own disproving this

lucabrasi:

theres no single phrase or sentence on here disagreeing with that so unless you will like to show me,the only conclusion i can arrive at is that your r psychic,

This is hilarious, considering the fact that the original poster made his claims disagreeing that HIV came from african chimps. In your first post, you agreed with his position. Why degenerate into lies now? GO back and read what you wrote.

ayanfe:

Which University degrees do you have? You are making your argument against by arbitrarily making statements like this. What has belief in the origin of HIV have to do with whether or not the earth goes round? You are engaging in fallacious associations.

Can I please see a journal article that demonstrates the infection of a variant of SIV from chimpazees to Humans in central Africa? Specifically, at the very least, can I please see a journal article that was able to demonstrate that variants or mutations of SIV from Chimpazees were able to reproduce their genetic material and package themselves in human cells, enough to support the claim of the hunter theory? Thanks in advance for providing me with the proof you use to dispute the so called fools who posted to you.

If you cannot understand the above questions and/or provide resources demonstrating the above, this debate is over, you are owned and you are a small fry who doesn't know what you are talking about.

Here you go

Generation of Infectious Molecular Clones of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus from Fecal Consensus Sequences of Wild Chimpanzees -- Takehisa et al
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/81/14/7463.pdf


The Molecular Population Genetics of HIV-1 Group O
Philippe Lemey,*,1 Oliver G. Pybus,† Andrew Rambaut,† Alexei J. Drummond,†
David L. Robertson,‡ Pierre Roques,§,** Michael Worobey††
and Anne-Mieke Vandamme*
http://evolve.zoo.ox.ac.uk/papers/Lemey%20et%20al%20(2004)%20Genetics.pdf

This one starts by saying
ABSTRACT
HIV-1 group O originated through cross-species transmission of SIV from chimpanzees to humans and
has established a relatively low prevalence in Central Africa. Here, we infer the population genetics and
epidemic history of HIV-1 group O from viral gene sequence data and evaluate the effect of variable
evolutionary rates and recombination on our estimates.

Finally

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/8/1853

Adaptation of HIV-1 to Its Human Host
Louise V. Wain¹, Elizabeth Bailes¹, Frederic Bibollet-Ruche², Julie M. Decker², Brandon F. Keele², Fran Van Heuverswyn³, Yingying Li², Jun Takehisa², Eitel Mpoudi Ngole⁴, George M. Shaw², Martine Peeters³, Beatrice H. Hahn² and Paul M. Sharp¹

1 Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom
2 Departments of Medicine and Microbiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham
3 Laboratoire Retrovirus, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement and Department of International Health, University of Montpellier, 34394 Montpellier cedex 9, France
4 Projet Prevention du Sida au Cameroun (PRESICA), Yaounde, Cameroun

Accepted for publication May 22, 2007.

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) originated from three independent cross-species transmissions of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIVcpzPtt) infecting chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) in west central Africa, giving rise to pandemic (group M) and non-pandemic (groups N and O) clades of HIV-1. To identify host-specific adaptations in HIV-1 we compared the inferred ancestral sequences of HIV-1 groups M, N and O to 12 full length genome sequences of SIVcpzPtt and four of the outlying but closely related SIVcpzPts (from P. t. schweinfurthii). This analysis revealed a single site that was completely conserved among SIVcpzPtt strains but different (due to the same change) in all three groups of HIV-1. This site, Gag-30, lies within p17, the gag-encoded matrix protein. It is Met in SIVcpzPtt, underwent a conservative replacement by Leu in one lineage of SIVcpzPts but changed radically to Arg on all three lineages leading to HIV-1. During subsequent diversification this site has been conserved as a basic residue (Arg or Lys) in most lineages of HIV-1. Retrospective analysis revealed that Gag-30 had reverted to Met in a previous experiment in which HIV-1 was passaged through chimpanzees. To examine whether this substitution conferred a species specific growth advantage, we used site-directed mutagenesis to generate variants of these chimpanzee-adapted HIV-1 strains with Lys at Gag-30, and tested their replication in both human and chimpanzee CD4+ T lymphocytes. Remarkably, viruses encoding Met replicated to higher titers than viruses encoding Lys in chimpanzee T cells, but the opposite was found in human T cells. Taken together, these observations provide compelling evidence for host-specific adaptation during the emergence of HIV-1 and identify the viral matrix protein as a modulator of viral fitness following transmission to the new human host




That Good enough for you?

I'm waiting. Have a nice read.
pop back in when you're done. you ARE a scientist too, aren't you?

texazzpete:

Please. You've pointed out the error i made in replying you instead of courage89. Was there any denial from me? Is that not done and dusted with? What's the sense in bringing this up repeatedly in this discussion?

the reason for bringing it up repeatedly is that it wasnt the only time,i never reffered to the tuskegee experiment yet you said i did,i mentioned positivisim as an example of how a group of scientist can gather together to propound theories and make the general public believe it,yet you made it the main issue and started going on about the definitions of the hiv and theories surrounding it

texazzpete:



We are curently discussing the origins of HIV. The accepted belief is that HIV originated from Africa. Scientists have provided sound research to prove this.
All the debates you're referring to concern the mode of transmission from Animals to humans. Not the origins as per Africa. Please take a look at the original post and understand what is up for discussion here.

you started the discussion on the origin of hiv,i never discussed the origin of hiv,in addittion i stated it in my comments that i know nothing about hiv and all that and was only making a comment to back up ayiba's assertion that scientists and their research/experiment cant be totally trusted as being the final authority,if i was to take a look at the original post them you are totally digressing as well so whats your point really

texazzpete:



What the hell has cameroon got to do with this? The original poster is railing against Mr Cooper for saying that Africa was the origin of the virus. You're providing a link in which the article writer ACCEPTS that HIV-1 originated from African chimps. in fact, all the writer is saying is that the chimps may not neccessarily have come from cameroon.

there you go again picking up single phrases up from a whole paragraph soon as it suits you,yes but the posters grouse reading from the whole article is about the west and by extension caucasian whites using all amoury at their disposal to put the africans down as the cause of everything negative,he wasnt talking about hiv/aids as the main issue,there you go again coming to conclusions diffrent from mine,i stated it in the articles i posted that,contrary to what the bbc or others might  be saying,its not a 100% accepted scientific fact

lucabrasi:

i meant about this is that either you agree with the scientists research/experiment whatever that the origin of hiv was somewhere in cameroon,there are other eminent scientists who either agree partly or disagree wholly and have their own explanations as to what happened and their concerns just like the cause of 9/11(its an example so please don't lecture me about what happened in 9/11),an example is this link who partly disagree and have concerns
http://www.postnewsline.com/2006/09/cameroon_and_th.html
also,hiv was discovered first around 20smthing years ago,so as far as im concerned and other scientists will say the same which is to keep an open mind as researches est are still ongoing,as for disputing if apes are the carriers or not,theres no single phrase or sentence on here disagreeing with that so unless you will like to show me,the only conclusion i can arrive at is that your r psychic,just google it and you will find many equally eminent scientists who don't think the researches hav been fool proof

as you can see from my comments above,i explained myself and the context i posted the article,so please read and understand what i meant before jumping to your own personal conclusions,just for the record yet again,i said just like 9/11,even though many eminent scientists have made assertions to the fact that they have identified the origin of the hiv strain and how humans were infected so also will other scientists who are equally eminent in their own right disagree with them in one way or another,the operative word here is DISAGREE AND HAVING CONCERNS, that is not all the scientists are saying from the article i posted,what they are saying is that the research conducted was not conclusive and strong enough to be declared so,pls i am not addressing this particular issue again if you still dont get my point by now

texazzpete:

You accepted ayinba's theory that there is some element of untruth in the HIV origin story, now you're trying to change your position. You've insinuated multiple times about 'falsehoods' and 'conspiracies', now you're subtly softening your position. Why?

i dont think you have been reading my comments before posting,the fact that i said it loud and clear without mincing words that i do not know anything about the hiv virus or its origin other than what i v read means i wasnt getting into either you or anyone's argument or discussion,what i said in connection with ayiba's theory was that,theres no 100% absolute guarantee that these scientists were right because its not the first time they have done so and be wrong,and i provided examples of how caucasian scientists have been wrong before in their assertions of  painting africans in bad light, why would i soften my position when you have not disproved me on the issues i personally raise though not connected to the topic which is that examples of caucasian scientists duplicity in the past is the positivist,and also that no matter how neat or widely accepted the scientists findings are there are some disagreements and not everybody totally agrees with them,in my books a grain of doubt means doubt,positivism is falsehood and conspiracy s i dont need to soften anything

texazzpete:

Throughout this topic you have set up many red-herrings (positivism, hunter theory etc) to mask the fact that not only did you not know what you were talking about, you had fallen to the terrible nairaland failing; refusing to admit when your facts and logic fall through just for the sake of winning an argument. You have even openly identified with conspiracy theories, despite the lack of adequate scientific proof. Tragic

the only theory i have posted on here is the only one i know and i am sure of and will defend and i challenge you to prove me wrong on it is the positivist theory,even though it has nothing to do with the topic itself,i have said it again and again and again that i mentioned it as an example of a concerted agenda against the african/black man,instead of going round in circles,why dont you prove me wrong that the eugenics meant well and are not racist and didnt mean any harm bla bla bla,you should have noticed from my past postns that i dont give two potatoes about any nairaland failings or whaever,if anyone has to admit wrong,its yourself my god man,first you jump to wrong conclusions,and when u had nothing really to talk about you keep on going round in circles and madesomething that was used in the context of an instance a main issue and for curry and tomatoes you erroneously added hunter theory and what not,i have identified my own conspiracy theory which is the eugenics and how some groups of caucasians believe in the purity of the white race,i think you should go back and do some reading about positivism and you ll discover its a grand conspiracy,and it was also the bedrock of hitlers aryan race e.t.c i wasnt banging on about it like u were about the origin of hiv in every paragraph and the hunter theory because it wasnt the main issue here,if u need scientific proof for positivisim then start by reading the link i posted and i will post more if u want the link between the eugenics movement and white conspiracy,which is the only theory i ll repeat again that i posted on here and wholeheartedly stand by it,the tragedy should be you not knowing about the eugenics which a college student here will talk about in detail

texazzpete:

Truth be told, the original poster had alleged that Mr Cooper had erred by saying things with no scientific basis. I have since proved that wrong with strong scientific evidence. that is the crux of the matter. As long as multiple research has confirmed my point, all you can do is enter the realm of conspiracy theory.
i'll be waiting for you when you start insisting the earth isn't round.

there u go,so as soon as i said it loud and clear that i do not know about the hiv or origin of hiv and all that,you should have ignored the aside where i posted the link of the positivists shouldnt you?i didnt involve myself in the main discussion because i dont talk about issues that i dont have an indepht knowledge of,all i did like others was to post a comment supporting a part of ayiba's comment not concerning the origin of hiv directly and you picked up on it and started going on and on

Lucabrasi
I have no desire to argue with you, i'll say again. i'll accept your explanation that your first post in support of the original poster's view (i.e Cooper was pursuing a racist agenda, no scientific basis for the Africa-as-HIV-origin theory) was based on an uninformed view on the matter, and that after that as you've said several times, you did some reading up on the issue.

Fair enough.

I for one know little about positivism which is why i've avoided discussing it so far.

i never at any point agree or disagree about the origin of hiv because like i said before i know nothing about it,all i said in support of ayiba's comment was that i believe it is very possible for caucasian scientists to target africans as opposed to saying its not possible because they came out with some findings,and i gave past examples to show it was possible, i said it loud and clear im a complete novice on hiv and its origins right from the beginning that is why i didnt pick up on any of your posts or anyone disagreeing untill i agreed with a part of ayiba's posts

Luca,
Fine. So we are agreed then.

meanwhile, it seems ayanfe is still submerged with all the journals i provided. Still waiting for his reply. . .

lol @ayanfa
was insightfull for me too as i v never really bothered about hiv and its attendant controversies before

You really believe the half baked stuff you try to peddle. None of the articles conclusively demonstrates any direct link between HIV and SIV in the form of a sequence of mutations. I will now move to floor your argument.

PS: I was away because I am actually DOING science while you are MISQUOTING science. Finding articles that happen to have HIV and SIV in the same text does not prove anything.

Lets begin with first article:

Generation of Infectious Molecular Clones of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus from Fecal Consensus Sequences of Wild Chimpanzees -- Takehisa et al
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/81/14/7463.pdf

Wrong answer. From the article, there is no admission of a connection only statements of propensity. They have not obtained "medically significant SIV" from the standpoint of HIV. The article's own abstract clearly states the following:

"These results provide the first direct evidence that naturally occurring SIVcpz strains already have many
of the biological properties required for persistent infection of humans, including CD4 and CCR5 dependence
and neutralization resistance. Moreover, they outline a new strategy for obtaining medically important “SIV
isolates” that have thus far eluded investigation. Such isolates are needed to identify viral determinants that
contribute to cross-species transmission and host adaptation."

Next article:

This one starts by saying
ABSTRACT
HIV-1 group O originated through cross-species transmission of SIV from chimpanzees to humans and
has established a relatively low prevalence in Central Africa. Here, we infer the population genetics and
epidemic history of HIV-1 group O from viral gene sequence data and evaluate the effect of variable
evolutionary rates and recombination on our estimates.

My friend, that is not how science is carried out. We don't just engage in accepting truths simply because an article stated it without reference or without studies. They made that statement, but have they attributed a source to those statements? Can you provide a source for their statements?


Final article:

Adaptation of HIV-1 to Its Human Host
Louise V. Wain1, Elizabeth Bailes1, Frederic Bibollet-Ruche2, Julie M. Decker2, Brandon F. Keele2, Fran Van Heuverswyn3, Yingying Li2, Jun Takehisa2, Eitel Mpoudi Ngole4, George M. Shaw2, Martine Peeters3, Beatrice H. Hahn2 and Paul M. Sharp1

1 Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom
2 Departments of Medicine and Microbiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham
3 Laboratoire Retrovirus, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement and Department of International Health, University of Montpellier, 34394 Montpellier cedex 9, France
4 Projet Prevention du Sida au Cameroun (PRESICA), Yaounde, Cameroun

Accepted for publication May 22, 2007.

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) originated from three independent cross-species transmissions of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIVcpzPtt) infecting chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) in west central Africa, giving rise to pandemic (group M) and non-pandemic (groups N and O) clades of HIV-1. To identify host-specific adaptations in HIV-1 we compared the inferred ancestral sequences of HIV-1 groups M, N and O to 12 full length genome sequences of SIVcpzPtt and four of the outlying but closely related SIVcpzPts (from P. t. schweinfurthii). This analysis revealed a single site that was completely conserved among SIVcpzPtt strains but different (due to the same change) in all three groups of HIV-1. This site, Gag-30, lies within p17, the gag-encoded matrix protein. It is Met in SIVcpzPtt, underwent a conservative replacement by Leu in one lineage of SIVcpzPts but changed radically to Arg on all three lineages leading to HIV-1. During subsequent diversification this site has been conserved as a basic residue (Arg or Lys) in most lineages of HIV-1. Retrospective analysis revealed that Gag-30 had reverted to Met in a previous experiment in which HIV-1 was passaged through chimpanzees. To examine whether this substitution conferred a species specific growth advantage, we used site-directed mutagenesis to generate variants of these chimpanzee-adapted HIV-1 strains with Lys at Gag-30, and tested their replication in both human and chimpanzee CD4+ T lymphocytes. Remarkably, viruses encoding Met replicated to higher titers than viruses encoding Lys in chimpanzee T cells, but the opposite was found in human T cells. Taken together, these observations provide compelling evidence for host-specific adaptation during the emergence of HIV-1 and identify the viral matrix protein as a modulator of viral fitness following transmission to the new human host

Good. But have they identified, not inferred the sequence of adaptation of the viral matrix protein from SIV to HIV-1? The statement of origin has until now been based on similarities. There is still a search for the missing links. Identifying possible points of the missing link is all good and dandy. But have they demonstrated the evolution of the protein that constitutes this missing link?

@ayanfe.

Thank you for your insightful post. Recently, there was a release about the FDA requiring that Pharmaceutical companies should publish results that prove that their products work and those researches that prove no effectiveness and a lot of side effects. We were taught to believe that resistant strains of bacteria arise from non compliance or abuse of antibiotics, but in scientific circles, discussion abound about lab created resistant strains.

I do not know any poster personally on this thread, but I do take exception to foul language when a person disagrees with me (or anyone).

I willnot be debating further with texapette. I hope he is content in his belief in wikipedia.
As a scientist not blinded by colour, (I was raised in Nigeria), I know there is a lot more to the HIV story than is currently made known to "ogberi"

ayanfe:

You really believe the half baked stuff you try to peddle. None of the articles conclusively demonstrates any direct link between HIV and SIV in the form of a sequence of mutations. I will now move to floor your argument.

PS: I was away because I am actually DOING science while you are MISQUOTING science. Finding articles that happen to have HIV and SIV in the same text does not prove anything.

Lets begin with first article:

Wrong answer. From the article, there is no admission of a connection only statements of propensity. They have not obtained "medically significant SIV" from the standpoint of HIV. The article's own abstract clearly states the following:

"These results provide the first direct evidence that naturally occurring SIVcpz strains already have many
of the biological properties required for persistent infection of humans, including CD4 and CCR5 dependence
and neutralization resistance. Moreover, they outline a new strategy for obtaining medically important “SIV
isolates” that have thus far eluded investigation. Such isolates are needed to identify viral determinants that
contribute to cross-species transmission and host adaptation."

Next article:

My friend, that is not how science is carried out. We don't just engage in accepting truths simply because an article stated it without reference or without studies. They made that statement, but have they attributed a source to those statements? Can you provide a source for their statements?


Final article:


Good. But have they identified, not inferred the sequence of adaptation of the viral matrix protein from SIV to HIV-1? The statement of origin has until now been based on similarities. There is still a search for the missing links. Identifying possible points of the missing link is all good and dandy. But have they demonstrated the evolution of the protein that constitutes this missing link?

ayanfe:

You really believe the half baked stuff you try to peddle.

Half baked? Despite seeing names of eminent scientists behind these reports? Interesting. . .

ayanfe:

PS: I was away because I am actually DOING science while you are MISQUOTING science. Finding articles that happen to have HIV and SIV in the same text does not prove anything.

Lol. All the articles i provided did not only have HIV and SIV in the same text, they provided an outcome of their research that SIV mutated into HIV in humans. Only blind silliness and the typical Nigerian attitude of not wanting to admit a losing point keeps you spewing this self-deceit.

ayanfe:


My friend, that is not how science is carried out. We don't just engage in accepting truths simply because an article stated it without reference or without studies. They made that statement, but have they attributed a source to those statements? Can you provide a source for their statements?

This was in response to

The Molecular Population Genetics of HIV-1 Group O
Philippe Lemey,*,1 Oliver G. Pybus,† Andrew Rambaut,† Alexei J. Drummond,†
David L. Robertson,‡ Pierre Roques,§,** Michael Worobey††
and Anne-Mieke Vandamme*
http://evolve.zoo.ox.ac.uk/papers/Lemey%20et%20al%20(2004)%20Genetics.pdf

This one starts by saying
ABSTRACT
HIV-1 group O originated through cross-species transmission of SIV from chimpanzees to humans and
has established a relatively low prevalence in Central Africa. Here, we infer the population genetics and
epidemic history of HIV-1 group O from viral gene sequence data and evaluate the effect of variable
evolutionary rates and recombination on our estimates.

In your haste to save face, did you miss the heading containing the names of the scientists involved and a link to the paper? I provided a source from the start. It's a pity ignorance has clouded you rmind so you do not see it.

ayanfe:

Good. But have they identified, not inferred the sequence of adaptation of the viral matrix protein from SIV to HIV-1? The statement of origin has until now been based on similarities. There is still a search for the missing links. Identifying possible points of the missing link is all good and dandy. But have they demonstrated the evolution of the protein that constitutes this missing link?

This was in response to

Adaptation of HIV-1 to Its Human Host
Louise V. Wain1, Elizabeth Bailes1, Frederic Bibollet-Ruche2, Julie M. Decker2, Brandon F. Keele2, Fran Van Heuverswyn3, Yingying Li2, Jun Takehisa2, Eitel Mpoudi Ngole4, George M. Shaw2, Martine Peeters3, Beatrice H. Hahn2 and Paul M. Sharp1

1 Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom
2 Departments of Medicine and Microbiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham
3 Laboratoire Retrovirus, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement and Department of International Health, University of Montpellier, 34394 Montpellier cedex 9, France
4 Projet Prevention du Sida au Cameroun (PRESICA), Yaounde, Cameroun

Accepted for publication May 22, 2007.

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) originated from three independent cross-species transmissions of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIVcpzPtt) infecting chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) in west central Africa, giving rise to pandemic (group M) and non-pandemic (groups N and O) clades of HIV-1. To identify host-specific adaptations in HIV-1 we compared the inferred ancestral sequences of HIV-1 groups M, N and O to 12 full length genome sequences of SIVcpzPtt and four of the outlying but closely related SIVcpzPts (from P. t. schweinfurthii). This analysis revealed a single site that was completely conserved among SIVcpzPtt strains but different (due to the same change) in all three groups of HIV-1. This site, Gag-30, lies within p17, the gag-encoded matrix protein. It is Met in SIVcpzPtt, underwent a conservative replacement by Leu in one lineage of SIVcpzPts but changed radically to Arg on all three lineages leading to HIV-1. During subsequent diversification this site has been conserved as a basic residue (Arg or Lys) in most lineages of HIV-1. Retrospective analysis revealed that Gag-30 had reverted to Met in a previous experiment in which HIV-1 was passaged through chimpanzees. To examine whether this substitution conferred a species specific growth advantage, we used site-directed mutagenesis to generate variants of these chimpanzee-adapted HIV-1 strains with Lys at Gag-30, and tested their replication in both human and chimpanzee CD4+ T lymphocytes. Remarkably, viruses encoding Met replicated to higher titers than viruses encoding Lys in chimpanzee T cells, but the opposite was found in human T cells. Taken together, these observations provide compelling evidence for host-specific adaptation during the emergence of HIV-1 and identify the viral matrix protein as a modulator of viral fitness following transmission to the new human host



I have come to the conclusion that your command of English language is severely lacking. there is no mistaking the certainty in the tone of this report, and the caliber of scientists involved from various world class institutes of research.

ayanfe :


PS: I was away because I am actually DOING science while you are MISQUOTING science. Finding articles that happen to have HIV and SIV in the same text does not prove anything.

It's a pity that your definition of 'actual science' involves merely reading the abstracts of scientific journals.

But here's your chance. you've spent some time babbling about wordplay. it seems you have dissenting views. Simply open your email and contact any of these scientific journals, telling 'em that you plan to write a refutal. After all, you're a scientist, eh?

ayinba1:

@ayanfe.

Thank you for your insightful post. Recently, there was a release about the FDA requiring that Pharmaceutical companies should publish results that prove that their products work and those researches that prove no effectiveness and a lot of side effects. We were taught to believe that resistant strains of bacteria arise from non compliance or abuse of antibiotics, but in scientific circles, discussion abound about lab created resistant strains.

What the heck has tis got to do with the subject matter under discussion?!

ayinba1:

I do not know any poster personally on this thread, but I do take exception to foul language when a person disagrees with me (or anyone).

I willnot be debating further with texapette. I hope he is content in his belief in wikipedia.
As a scientist not blinded by colour, (I was raised in Nigeria), I know there is a lot more to the HIV story than is currently made known to "ogberi"

Don't worry. You aren't the first person to use this line to stealthily escape from a losing argument.
Please ease up on the 'scientist' word. Just because you read a natural science course, it does not make you a scientist. You have so far been unable to logically put any decent point across.
It's evident even in your post. You 'know' that there is a lot more to the HIV story, yet you cannot say it. Ergo, you have no proof. without proof and facts, where is the logic behind your 'knowledge'?!

Why a scientist should forsake well documented research for conspiracy theories baffles me.