At 12:52 PM 4/9/5, Keith Nagel wrote: >Horace writes: >>Maybe there is a natural protection ( against AIDS )in the Japanese gene pool? > >Actually, I think it is more due to the insularity of the Japanese >culture, along with sexual mores. Jed seems to describe Japan as some >hotbed of lust, but looking at the grossly declining birth rate I >wonder about this (grin). > >OTOH, those of European descent do have a natural immunity to AIDS due to >our genes. It seems the AIDS virus infects the immune system by inserting >itself into the blood cells, which carry the virus throughout the body. >In order to accomplish this feat, the virus needs to fit through tiny >pores in the blood cell. It happens that ~5-10% of Europeans have very >small pores, making it impossible for the virus to fit and infect. >This was discovered by analysis of gay men who survived the initial >wave of infections here in America. > >How did this situation come about? Well, I'll risk being burned at >the stake for heresy, and point out that our old friend evolution had a hand >in this. It seems that the Black Plague is similar to AIDS in this >respect, requiring to fit through the blood cell pores to infect >the body. As you know, Europe was decimated by the Black Plague during >the Middle Ages. The survivors were those with the small pored blood >cells. So the concentration of such people increased from the mere .01% >or less in the general population to 5 to 10 %. No such plague occurred >in Africa, hence no natural immunity.
Wow, this is interesting. Thank you! This means there is a prospective cure for aids, at least for some individuals. The cure consists of marrow replacement using a doner having blood with small pores. > >Horace, I think you should include in your model the fact that a cure or >vaccine will eventually be found, putting a limit condition on your >exponential growth curve. With that in mind, encouraging condom use >will substantially decrease the total death toll once the limit condition is >reached, regardless of the fact that condoms are not 100% effective >in stopping the spread of the disease. Actually, I think I did mention this early on, and qualified my remarks on that basis. However, since you brought it up, there is a possibility of developing a vaccine yet not finding a cure. In fact, if a vaccine is developed, the effort for a cure will diminish. Those who are temped into the unsafe group, and then infected, by the notion that condom use provides safe sex, will then still have to suffer the consequences of being misled. > >Your argument about >people having unlimited sex if they think it is safe is a red herring. I only said it is irresponsible to lure people out of a safe population into an unsafe population by calling condoms "safe" (instead of quantifying the risk.) The argument that many or even the majority of the population is happy to be in the at risk group is specious. My point is not directed at their well being, it is directed at the contiued well being of the others. Regards, Horace Heffner
