How and why did HIV/AIDS spread so quickly?

[A Karenina]

I can't remember the name of it, but there was a movie several years ago that portrayed a doctor from the CDC (Center for Disease Control). He was trying to determine if AIDS was a new disease, how it spreads, and how to contain it.



Does anyone know the name of this movie? It's driving me batty!



There are some very good articles in National Geographic, the CDC website, and the BBC has put out some informative documentaries as well. I guess I'd start there for more information.

[lady cop]

is the movie you are thinking of the "Boys in the Band"? it was quite accurate. not certain about etiology, there are theories about animal to human in Africa. then of course the beginnings in San Francisco gay community with the appearance of karposi's syndrome. i know that today we consider most arrestees to carry it if they are drug abusers. at least we make that assumption for our own protection. it is an equal-opportunity disease and not confined to only one segment of the population or demographic. combine IV drug use with crack and prostitution and it's still rampant. the modern plague, despite drug cocktails that slow down its progress in individuals.

[Paula]

i think when the gay generation became popular between men, it got out of control...the 80's, every Tom, Dick & Harry had it? :wah: i believe the majority of it was created by the gay men, then the prostitutes, it is a sexually transmitted disease? thats what i thought?? bad blood... :-3

[capt_buzzard]

A Karenina wrote: I can't remember the name of it, but there was a movie several years ago that portrayed a doctor from the CDC (Center for Disease Control). He was trying to determine if AIDS was a new disease, how it spreads, and how to contain it.



Does anyone know the name of this movie? It's driving me batty!



There are some very good articles in National Geographic, the CDC website, and the BBC has put out some informative documentaries as well. I guess I'd start there for more information.
I think the title to that movie was " Out of Control", but I maybe wrong

[Paula]

i believe if it was an animal it was a monkey? what other animal could it be? the most closely related animal to humans is the MONKEY, right? if believe the virus is related :rolleyes: (similar) to E-COLI? it is tranmitted in that area? yes, it is!

[capt_buzzard]

Some people in Europe believe it "Aids" was started in laboratory in the US. Then when the media got wind of it. The great coverup was started. :-2

[aravella]

The movie is "And The Band Played On"

[pantsonfire321@aol.com]

Hasn't it got to be unprotected sex

[Carl44]

pantsonfire321@aol.com;444214 wrote: Hasn't it got to be unprotected sex




no it bummed a lift





sorry

[guppy]

actually it can be spread by any body fluids. tears, blood, urine, sexual intercourse, semen.

saliva is a lower risk but dont rule it out.

[telephoto lens]

First and foremost AIDS is not a moral issue or a disease that is isolated to homosexuals, prostitutes or needle drug users. All you have to do is look at Africa's AIDS pandemic to realize it is being spread on this continent through hetersexual sex.

Also, this is an issue I have been studying for years and think the best explanation for AIDS is the documentary called The Origins of AIDS and here is the link:

http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/193/28/

I tried to use the link to watch the video but could not find it. If you can find the video it is worth your while and will answer your questions.

[Bill Sikes]

jimbo;444235 wrote: no it bummed a lift





sorry lips:


Um... "How did AIDS get into America?" "Up the Hudson". A crudity from the '80s.

[Bill Sikes]

telephoto lens;444799 wrote: First and foremost AIDS is not a moral issue or a disease that is isolated to homosexuals, prostitutes or needle drug users. All you have to do is look at Africa's AIDS pandemic to realize it is being spread on this continent through hetersexual sex.


The fast spread of AIDS is put down to sexual promiscuity as well as drug

use involving people sharing injection equipment, this seems born out by

its prevelance in certain populations.

[Supersilly@rse]

Paula;11209 wrote: i think when the gay generation became popular between men, it got out of control...the 80's, every Tom, Dick & Harry had it? :wah: i believe the majority of it was created by the gay men, then the prostitutes, it is a sexually transmitted disease? thats what i thought?? bad blood... :-3


If you're serious (and I hope this is just a misplaced smirk) then I must strenuously disagree, and point you in the direction of Tanzania (for just one example)

The spread of AIDs in countries like that is down to poverty and ignorance - pure and simple. Even now with such an epedemic, the basics of the disease are not known by the mass population. The young, who's parents have died from the disease are forced into prostitution to earn the money to look after their younger siblings, who are no doubt already showing symptoms, as they contracted it in the womb....

Doctors from Tanzania are studying in the UK, to take back the knowledge to try to get it across to the impoverished communities over there - but it's on such a scale now....

Bloody terrible - it really pains me to think about it!

There is one (and only one that I know of) large company that owns an anti HIV drug, who is working with various governments to try to control the spread in 3rd world countries. I think that all drugs companies should be forced to donate a percentage of their obscene profits to charities to help this situation (and others)

[guppy]

It no longer matters how it got here. the fact is, it is here. and we as a people are not controlling it very well. it is rediculous that hiv positive women are still having children. twenty years ago the blood supply was not tested well enough and it is true alot of people got hiv that way. as a visiting nurse i saw alot of elderly patients that had surgery and contracted it by blood supply. the risks of this happening now is almost zero. i went into homes that the grandparents ,parents, and children all tested positive. (nobody ever could figure out how all of them became infected). it was sad . i held alot of hands of full blown aids patients that died at home , no family or friends by them, because at that time , nobody told . it was the equivelent of telling you were the anichrist or soemthing. alot of innocent people suffered and died alone because so many people, doctors, family, friends, and neighbors were afraid and or thought these people brought it on themselves.

[DesignerGal]

I know in Africa's rural regions it spreads because of rape. Women arent regarded as anything other than meat there.

[Katy1]

telephoto lens;444799 wrote: First and foremost AIDS is not a moral issue or a disease that is isolated to homosexuals, prostitutes or needle drug users. All you have to do is look at Africa's AIDS pandemic to realize it is being spread on this continent through hetersexual sex.

Also, this is an issue I have been studying for years and think the best explanation for AIDS is the documentary called The Origins of AIDS and here is the link:

http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/193/28/

I tried to use the link to watch the video but could not find it. If you can find the video it is worth your while and will answer your questions.


Re the African crisis, in many parts of Africa men and women regularly use anal sex as a form of contraception (well, I'd guess it would be the men that would gain the most from this but hey...). Many women in these places have no real say in whether they have sex as the patriarch rules supreme. In many cases the men contract HIV from extra marital affairs and then give it to the family, sadly often the women are then disowned by the family and end up destitute.

Whatever is bandied about, the most likely way to contract HIV is blood/blood, blood/bodily fluids, which is way more likely in anal sex than vaginal, whatever your sexual orientation. There was a real problem with 'gay bashing' and the like as a reaction to the virus in the '80's and so the emphasis was put on all types of sex as so not to isolate the homosexual community (which is of course sensible but not proportionally correct).

Also, I'd like to add that with regards to Africa the ONLY way anyone will successfully tackle the immense problem is by singling out and changing the attitude of the men. It's their denial and willful ignorance of the situation that is causing this crisis....but how do you do that?!

[spot]

Katy1;448421 wrote: Re the African crisis, in many parts of Africa men and women regularly use anal sex as a form of contraception (well, I'd guess it would be the men that would gain the most from this but hey...). Many women in these places have no real say in whether they have sex as the patriarch rules supreme.Come on, Katy, I think you should show a bit of background evidence for something so sweeping. The following quote is slightly overlong perhaps, but it does discuss your allegation - I bolded the specific sentences:When AIDS was recognised in sub-Saharan Africa in the early 1980s it was apparent that the pattern was very different to that observed in North America and Western Europe. There were approximately as many women as men affected, and transmission appeared to be primarily heterosexual. The commentators leapt to their conclusions, using the same logic that blamed “unnatural” practices for AIDS amongst gay men in the west, to blame “primitive” practices for AIDS amongst Africans. Racism and prejudice led to assumptions about the causes for heterosexual transmission being so common. Firstly, there was the idea that all Africans practiced anal sex as a form of contraception, making them guilty of the same “unnatural” act as gay men in the west. No-one ever produced any evidence for this claim, which is now totally discredited. But this is the kind of racist theory which gets widely reported in the press and never repudiated. Next came the idea that all Africans are promiscuous, based on the hoary old racist belief that “civilised” society was a product of the west (read Christianity), and that these people were savages from whom primitive behaviour was to be expected.

All of these suggestions were found to be false, all were based on prejudice rather than on any knowledge of the cultures involved. Black people in general, and Africans in particular were the subject of considerable abuse in the west as a result of these claims.

The rapid spread of HIV in some populations in urban centres of Africa was certainly remarkable. In the early 1980s the proportion of prostitutes with HIV, in one area of Nairobi, rose from 4% in 1981 to 61% by 1985.7 But this was not limited to examples in Africa—similar rapid increases amongst selected groups occurred amongst young injecting drug users in Edinburgh in the mid-1980s and in Thailand in the late 1980s.

HIV and AIDS in Africa are concentrated in urban areas, associated with high levels of other STDs. Spread is through heterosexual contact, and signi?cantly also from infected mothers to their children, where the virus can be passed on around the time of birth, and through infected blood transfusions.

Why is AIDS spreading so widely and rapidly in Africa? As in the imperialist countries, HIV and AIDS are not only related to absolute poverty, they are also closely associated with social oppression and indeed with exploitation and work. Again we are faced with the complex relationship between disease, poverty and, in this case, the particular impact of imperialism.

The spread of HIV seems to be assisted by conditions of urban deprivation in both the imperialist countries and the semi-colonies. Spread does not occur so rapidly in rural areas. In Zaire, for example, the level of HIV in the rural Equateur region remained stable at 0.8% from 1976 to 1986, whereas in the town of Kinshasa the level rose from 1% to about 6% in the same time period.8 Many towns in Africa are experiencing rapid growth as a result of migration from the countryside. Rural communities are being disrupted and people driven off their land as a result either of the land being taken over for agri-capitalist ventures or because the land is no longer capable of sustaining them, itself a result of over exploitation of the land for years. In addition the development of urban industry in parts of South and East Africa has led to the migration of men producing a large male to female ratio in the population.http://www.fifthinternational.org/index ... 59,0,0,1,0

[Katy1]

I read about this in the Independent on Sunday and also watched a documentary that mentioned it as well.

My point wasn't a moral one, I couldn't care less whether sodomy is moral or not, it's totally up to the individual as to what they want to do with their body. Your excerpt, being from such a politically polarised site should be digested carefully as well. Could you give me links to the carefully collated data that shows clearly the discreditation?

I don't have a link to put here as what I read was from an independent publication and a documentary, neither of which I can source here. I didn't fabricate any of my comments and they come from my current understanding on the topic.

What irritates me is that suggesting anal sex transmits the virus much better than other types of sex (given the type of contact) somehow translates as a moral judgement rather than simple fact.

(Added)

Even if the contraception issue isn't completely accurate I still stand by my comments regarding African male behaviour.

[spot]

Katy1;448472 wrote: I read about this in the Independent on Sunday and also watched a documentary that mentioned it as well.I've searched both the daily and Sunday Independent back to 1990 for "anal sex" and "contraception" and none of the stories mentioned African men engaging in anal sex in the belief it will protect them from HIV/Aids or for contraception. It did have a study of UK practices with figures, which I'll drop in here for comparison should either of us manage to turn up "carefully collated data" on African sexual statistics.The Sunday Independent, 16th January 1994

About three-quarters of [UK] men and more than two-thirds of women had experienced oral sex at some time in their lives. It is clearly not exceptional, since nearly a quarter of the men and nearly a fifth of the women reported it as recently as the previous week. It is equally clear that it is becoming more prevalent. Only half the women and under two-thirds of the men over 45 had ever had oral sex, against three-quarters of those aged 25 to 34. Even those aged 18 to 24, who have had relatively few years of sexual activity, had more experience of oral sex than the over-45s.

Taking only those who had had vaginal intercourse in the past year - and can therefore be considered sexually active - we found that oral sex is least likely among married people. In this, as in much else, cohabiting people behave more like single people than married couples.

We also found that oral sex increases with higher social class. We found that 84 per cent of men and 76 of women in social classes I and II had had oral sex, against 67 per cent of men and 64 per cent of women in social classes IV and V. But it should be emphasised that age is a far more important influence than class.

Much lower proportions - about one-eighth for both sexes - had experienced anal intercourse. (We should bear in mind that the practice is illegal in England and Wales and people may be reluctant to report it.) In this case, the age differences are far less dramatic, though the under-45s report more anal sex than the over-45s, and experience of anal sex in the past year is highest among those aged 18 to 24. This is worrying because this age group has the highest rate of partner change and we know that, while anal intercourse is not necessary for HIV transmission, it increases the risk of infection.

Anal sex, like oral sex, is least likely in marriage - only 1 in 20 married people reported it. Again, the profile for cohabitees is similar to that for single people. We also found a significant (though not very strong) relationship with social class - but in the opposite direction to oral sex. Social classes IV and V are more likely to have had anal sex.Katy1;448472 wrote: Could you give me links to the carefully collated data that shows clearly the discreditation?As Africa News (1st December 2004) says, "Very little research investigates what kind of sex people are having [...] and when research does shed light on potentially dangerous practices, such as young girls who opt for anal sex in the mistaken belief that it is less risky than vaginal sex, the findings are not incorporated in education campaigns." What is clear from the surveys I can find is that the driving force behind anal sex (if I can put it that way) is expressed in the Sunday Times (South Africa), 20th June 2004, asin areas where virginity-testing had become common, doctors were reporting a rise in physical traumas associated with anal sex among young women.

"Young girls are pressured to maintain their virginity and also engage in sexual activity. The risk is that HIV transmission through anal sex is tenfold that of vaginal sex," said McKerrow.

Social anthropologist Professor Suzanne Leclerc-Madlala, who has researched virginity-testing, said young girls were opting for anal sex to pass the test.In the 2003 Nelson Mandela/HSRC survey, of 2,500 people aged between 15 and 24, half of them did not answer the question on anal sex. Of the half who answered, 3.4% indicated that they had practised it. The whole topic is presumably difficult to discuss openly. The same reasons for unmarried partners adopting anal sex apply in the USA as well as in Africa, though. The Washington Post of 19th March 19 2005 reported that:Teenagers who take virginity pledges - public declarations to abstain from sex - are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease as those who never made the pledge, an eight-year study released yesterday found. Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities.

"The sad story is that kids who are trying to preserve their technical virginity are, in some cases, engaging in much riskier behavior," said lead author Peter S. Bearman, a professor at Columbia's Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. "From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement that encourages no vaginal sex may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs."

The findings are based on the federally funded National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a survey begun in 1995 that tracked 20,000 young people from high school to young adulthood.

[Katy1]

Fair enough Spot, you've got me! I made it all up for a laugh.

Boy! Do I look stupid!

[zinkyusa]

Katy1;448738 wrote: Fair enough Spot, you've got me! I made it all up for a laugh.

Boy! Do I look stupid!


He does bring out the best in people Katy.

[Bill Sikes]

zinkyusa;448741 wrote:

Originally Posted by Katy1

Fair enough Spot, you've got me! I made it all up for a laugh.

Boy! Do I look stupid!



He does bring out the best in people Katy.


But unfortunately not their best replies!

[Katy1]

Thing is, I was fine with being wrong about the contraception thing. Doesn't bother me a jot if I've been misinformed, that's how you gain a decent knowledge of things by accepting that you don't know everything! I even conceded in my second post that it might be wrong.

Spot just obviously wanted to pick up that particular point and run with it, you know, cherry pick the bits from a post that you can make yourself look clever about. Big deal, it's not something that I can be arsed to get worked up about....

[zinkyusa]

Katy1;448749 wrote: Thing is, I was fine with being wrong about the contraception thing. Doesn't bother me a jot if I've been misinformed, that's how you gain a decent knowledge of things by accepting that you don't know everything! I even conceded in my second post that it might be wrong.

Spot just obviously wanted to pick up that particular point and run with it, you know, cherry pick the bits from a post that you can make yourself look clever about. Big deal, it's not something that I can be arsed to get worked up about....


That would be our Spot..

[zinkyusa]

Bill Sikes;448744 wrote: But unfortunately not their best replies!


You're one to talk.

[spot]

Katy1;448749 wrote: Spot just obviously wanted to pick up that particular point and run with it, you know, cherry pick the bits from a post that you can make yourself look clever about. Big deal, it's not something that I can be arsed to get worked up about....I also picked up on "as the patriarch rules supreme", Katy - an odd suggestion when so many African societies are still notably matriarchal. "In many cases the men contract HIV from extra marital affairs and then give it to the family" applies just as much in a Western setting and, similarly, if you want a link to a UK example of "sadly often the women are then disowned by the family" I'll happily give you one. My post addressed "singling out and changing the attitude of the men" as mistaken. What else was there that I could have covered so as to avoid "cherry picking"?

I rarely post to make myself look clever, I post when I have an interest in the subject. I spent years putting in at least a day a week in the sector in the late 80s. The thread to date is staggeringly ill-informed, prejudiced and (in its early phase) sick-making.

[Katy1]

spot;448767 wrote: I also picked up on "as the patriarch rules supreme", Katy - an odd suggestion when so many African societies are still notably matriarchal. "In many cases the men contract HIV from extra marital affairs and then give it to the family" applies just as much in a Western setting and, similarly, if you want a link to a UK example of "sadly often the women are then disowned by the family" I'll happily give you one. My post addressed "singling out and changing the attitude of the men" as mistaken. What else was there that I could have covered so as to avoid "cherry picking"?

I rarely post to make myself look clever, I post when I have an interest in the subject. I spent years putting in at least a day a week in the sector in the late 80s. The thread to date is staggeringly ill-informed, prejudiced and (in its early phase) sick-making.


Ok, what you say flies in the face of my about 20 yrs of reading, listening and watching about this subject. I can only come to the conclusion that all that I have listened watched and read is prejudiced, ill informed nonsense.

[koan]

earlier post by Katy1 wrote: I read about this in the Independent on Sunday and also watched a documentary that mentioned it as well.


Katy1;448785 wrote: Ok, what you say flies in the face of my about 20 yrs of reading, listening and watching about this subject. I can only come to the conclusion that all that I have listened watched and read is prejudiced, ill informed nonsense.


It took you twenty years to read one article and watch a movie...and you can't even cite them properly?

[spot]

Katy1;448785 wrote: Ok, what you say flies in the face of my about 20 yrs of reading, listening and watching about this subject. I can only come to the conclusion that all that I have listened watched and read is prejudiced, ill informed nonsense.Which bit are you puzzled by? African men being supremely patriarchal? Here's a cutting to help...

Speaking about African immigrants as they try to integrate and overcome culture shock on entry to Canada in The Toronto Star of 18th August 1991, Sophie Nsiah-Yeboah is reported as saying: "Back home, people live in what we call a high-context society, that's we-we-we, not me-me-me."

Now a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Nsiah-Yeboah, a Ghanaian, says many Africans "need one-to-one counselling to get through the culture shock. In Africa, people tend to put the community first, before their own individual needs. Here, they feel so much pressure to perform as individuals, and they've lost their support systems. It's hard."

For West African women, the transition may involve a loss of real power. "West Africa is a matriarchal society," says Nsiah-Yeboah, "and West African women are not really docile."

But West African men may absorb the North American attitude "that the man is the head of the household," she says, and this can lead to problems. "West African women may buy into it for a while, and get victimized, but ultimately they rebel against male dominance. There's a lot of marriage breakdown."

[zinkyusa]

Katy is quite correct..

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afr ... 54aids.htm

Nigeria, like other African countries, is marked by a "patriarchal society," says Mr. Owei Lakemfa, a leader of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC). "Men think they have the liberty to have as many wives or girlfriends as they want," thereby contributing greatly to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Given this reality, he explains, Nigeria's central trade-union federation believes that "a lot of attention should be given to men" in the struggle to combat the disease.

Mr. Ubon Akpan, a Nigerian media executive, agrees. He highlights the inordinate power that men have over women in economic, political and family life. "The man has the financial backing," he says, "as well as the backing of tradition." In many African cultures, he points out, adultery is considered a "female crime," while men are permitted to "parade" multiple women.

[spot]

zinkyusa;448997 wrote: Katy is quite correct.Well done Zinky, we seem to have agreement. "An odd suggestion when so many African societies are still notably matriarchal" was my contribution - not "all", just "many", not a denial that there are patriarchal societies as well. I'll offer the Igbo of Nigeria (documented by Nigerian scholar Ifi Amadiume, Associate Professor of Religion and African Studies at Dartmouth)), the Kom of Cameroon (detailed by Cheryl Toman), the Balobedu of the Limpopo, the Apraponso of Ghana, as examples.

[anastrophe]

wow, there's a remarkable amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about HIV/AIDS. first and foremost, the initial post, which asks *why* AIDS spread so fast. The problem is, the premise is faulty. AIDS did *not* spread quickly. The earliest evidence of AIDS in humans was found in a plasma sample, tested decades later, from an adult male in the republic of Congo, from *1959*! The identification of AIDS came from the epidemic that began in 1981 - so it took more than twenty years for the spread of the disease to reach formal epidemic proportions.



HIV/AIDS *has never been shown* to be spread via tears or saliva. Of the tens of millions of cases recorded, none have been found to have originated from tears or saliva. obviously - when talking about *any* shareable body fluids, caution and prudence are called for, so it makes sense to maintain a healthy _concern_ for the potential it may spread that way. But millions who have died of AIDS have continued close familial expressions of affection - kissing, crying together, etc, and nobody has ever been shown to have been infected from that. it's a canard.



While statistically more cases of AIDS have been attributed to anal sex than vaginal sex, the reality is that it is not uncommon at all for there to be bleeding during vaginal intercourse. Very minor abrasions may bleed, and all it takes is a tiny fold of broken skin for the virus to be transmitted. Only a fool would have unprotected sex with someone whom they did not know their sexual history (or better results of a recent HIV test).



there is no consensus within the medical community for how AIDS jumped across from simian species to humans. The suggestion that it was due to bestial intercourse is possible, but not probable. Let's use our heads - think about the SARS and avian flu virus concerns of last year (which will be resurfacing again this year). Viruses mutate. period. It is considered an absolute certainty that avian flu will mutate and cross species as a communicable vector at some point. it certainly isn't going to cross to humans due to someone having intercourse with an infected guinea fowl!



more likely, purely in my opinion, an infected monkey was a *meal*, and either while preparing the carcass the blood of the monkey intermingled in a small cut or abrasion on that man's hands, or he had a small cut in his mouth and some of the blood came in contact with it while eating it. as i said, that's my speculation.

[spot]

Excellent post, that. Well worth making.