i wanted to know why AIDS affects only humans and not animals? wat is the difference between the cells...?(human and animal cell) since HIV is transmitted through blood , why doesnt AIDS spread from one person to another when mosquitoes bite a person suffering from AIDS and then bites a person without AIDS?
don't know about mosquitoes, but AIDS is believed to have developed first in chimps. The virus that spreads it among lower primates is SIV (simian immunovirus)
Here is proof of what you say: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050206/OPINION/502060455/1015
The most important factors hindering the transmission by mosquitoes are that they digest the few HIV that they suck... More detailed information can be seen here: Why Mosquitoes Cannot Transmit AIDS
I think that there are two basic types of AIDS: the primate/human one, and a feline one. I think that the viruses that cause these two aren't related... I don't know exactly how they affect each animal, but their "functioning" as AIDS seems to be somewhat restrict to related species, and all the other beings aren't affected by it,although I don't know whether these other animals or other living beings can be carriers or not...
From what i've read, i am more and more believing the 'HIV' and 'AID' science and diagnosis to be a fraud. and a very VERy evil one at that. This is controversial i know, and i don't say it lightly. I am Queer.
Swetha, On another thread in this Bio/Gen Forum I question the lack of proof that HIV exists. So you can see the bias. I cannot answer for those who think diferently. I say, only that there is no proof that HIV or any other claimed pathogen causing AIDS is passed through blood.. The Mosquitoes connection I vaguely remember that it had nothing to do with HIV so much as it had to do with the mosquitoes. Maybe, I guess here, that the mosquito that sticks his blood sucker into the person's skin that no HIV on the blood sucker. OK but now he got some AIDS victims's blood. For the sake of argument we'll agree that HIV is in the blood. The mosquito pulls out amd flies away with a belly full of blood. What does she do, go find more blood? Probably not right away. Assume the blood is for the one who took it from the person's skin and that the mosquito isn't a dealer selling off the blood on the open market to those too lazy or unable to get it themselves. So at some point this mosquito goes to another skin for brunch, inserts his blood sucking tube into the person and what? Where would the HIV be that was in the blood be on the blood sucking tube? I say only on the inside of the tube as there are no claims of HIV being discovered in the skin [in pathologically significant quantities . I'm guessing here bt I 'll stick to it.]If no HIV on the outside of the tube then the inside. If on the inside the mosquito being a sucking insect would provide for a flow of blood into the mosquito . Sucking requires connection to a blood supply and Mosky has to prime the pump by sucking up a little we bit and injecting some back into the source to buiild up a low pressure system internal to Mosky's at the top of the tube. This is how it is done on the street. You may want to consult with a blood sucking HIV AIDS expert on this Swethe. For years there have been live animal studies, monkies etc, injected with so-called HIV positive blood and other materials if I am correct, but no monkey has ever come down with AIDs which means ether there was no HIV virus in the blood or and if there were HIV in the blood it is insufficient to cause AIDS , either because the quantities are below the threshold of sufficiency to cause AIDS, or that HIV is not pathogenetic, or that HIV cannot be passed through blood. Beware. Recently I saw reference in the newspaper that some monkeys had been injected with some so-called blood-laced wirh HIV and the monkey came down with an "AIDS related" symptom trying to make it sound like HIV really did it. Do you see my thing here? Caveat Emptor Get this:Why run blood monkey studies for years where no HIV/AIDS conection was established ; yet the program continued to perform these studies over and over again? It doesn't make sense, scientifically or economocally. Now they, whoever is in charge of this Monkey Business. has a duty to explain in some detail the very nature of the Monkey Business studies . Likewise he is under an obligation to provide real access to the studies of the 'kinda like HIV research'. Geistkiesel
Right you are dumm. The propagandized (never been verified never, this is pure propaganda. It was necessary early on in the AIDS hype to justify why AIDS is happening now. The answer: new virus. How is it new, viruses aren't spontaneously appearing?-there is no evidence of this. Well then it has been confined to monkeys throughout the evolutionary develpment of the human race (and monkeys). The story that monkeys got it first and passed it to us is what some believe. Believe is the operative word here. I am going to answer the mext post . There is a link to some web pages addresses with "news". The one posting says:says here is the proof of what you say. The address in the link included the word 'news'. If it is a news account, it isn't proof, it is a claim. Someione, the newspapaer is selling you a story in the free press. The first story is: either someone fucked some monkey or some monkey fucked someone, and this is how HIV got started in the human race. Geistkiesel
The impotant information here is that no HIV has been found in mosquitos. here is no specific claim to that in the story, but the assumption is cklear. A conclusion that screams to be made is that that HIV nor any other claimed pathogen has been prooved as the causitive agent of AIDS. Geistkiesel
The only thing queer about you is your ability to recognize when soemone is trying to force themselves into your pants and your dont want what they have to offer. duendy : I am guessing, but you don't seem 'queer' to yourself do you? You don't seem controversial to yourself do you? Evil you wrote in bold., Aye, aye matey, very evil indeed. Geistkiesel
Think what you will. Whatever the definition of AIDS that you use it is an arbitrary one. Conveneient for the propagandists to manipulate the void of 'no scentific content here' into an accepetable reason justifying the practiced incompetence of the technical army that inundates the FDA, NIH, NIAIDS, CDC etc blaming their failures on the superior clever intellect of HIV in avoiding detection and destruction, the solutions have not materialized because the HIV cheats and mutates itself into the hidden shadows of an unused corner of the host cell, playing the dangerous game of useful RNA entity, while all the time secretly waiting for the opportunity, waiting to strike from ambush at unsuspecting and rosy cheeked host now lulled into distracted and slumbering easiness, just like the communists used to do: It's different here, it's dfferent there, it's different, different everywhere. Geistkiesel
Yes, Ashwini, human being animal are not affeted by AIDS caused by any virus mat least. . But your question was different. No because no other animal has the attributes of AIDS pathogenicakky common with hman's severe chronic drug use and life stye. And the most import :No other animal has a gigantic beaurocracy that massively imposes itself on the animal as a self-designated curative source powered with the forces of federal law including the use of broad police powers the courts and unfetterred use of the US treasury. Gestkiesel Geistkiesel Geistkiesel
Aids is too ingenius to be invented or even made up by humans. I know nature well, and you can see her unmistakable brushstrokes all over aids. Not to mention the social commentary. Aids is a masterpiece, and flagrantly not a product of the homo-sapiens brain. No one could convince me otherwise. A certain level of ignorance would be required to entertain that thought, the likes of which I do not posess.
Your half black and a homo, the chances of you having aids is extreamly high. Black gay or bisexual men who took part in a new AIDS study were five times more likely to become HIV-infected than their white counterparts. The report is based on a CDC study of infection patterns of young gay men ages 23-29 in Baltimore, Maryland; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; New York City; and Seattle, Washington, from 1998 to 2000. It found that the rate of new infections among all study participants was 4.4 percent: 2.5 percent among whites, 3.5 percent among Hispanics and 14.7 percent among blacks. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/05/31/cdc.aids.01/
