Jump to content

Whosyour dady


lembeh

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
Nervous_Dog said:

Rug Doctor, if you've slept with more than 20 girls in Thai Bars,

 

I bet you've slept with someone with AIDS

 

DOG

 

I'd like to see the stats you use to back that one up!!

 

If you slept with 20 girls who ply their trade under the bridges you might have a better chance of finding someone with AIDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nervous_Dog said:

Josh - did you see the story in todays post, where 10% of Europeans are supposidly HIV resistant, and are so because of all the plauges that swept through Europe in the dark ages?

 

DOG

 

So would that relate to all decendants of Europeans through out the world then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medieval plague exposure linked with AIDS resistance

April 5, 2005

 

Page Tools

Email to a friend Printer format

The waves of plague that swept through Europe during medieval times right up to the 18th century may have contributed to a genetic make-up that has made a significant proportion of the European population resistant to AIDS, according to new British research.

 

Christopher Duncan and Susan Scott of Liverpool University's School of Biological Sciences have created a mathematical model of genetic mutation in response to plague, according to a report in The Times.

 

These mutations arose with each stage of plague outbreak from the Black Death in 1347 to the Great Plague of London (1665-66) and the Plague of Copenhagen more than half a century later, the biologists wrote in the Journal of Medical Genetics.

 

Their research suggests that around 10 per cent of Europeans enjoy protection against AIDS.

 

People carrying a particular genetic mutation, known as CCR5-delta32, are known to remain AIDS-free, despite exposure to HIV. The mutation prevents the HIV virus from entering the cells of the immune system.

 

Advertisement

AdvertisementThe new theory suggests that the CCR5 mutation was a by-product of the European plagues. The proportion of people carrying the natural resistance rises dramatically in Europe and particularly Scandinavia, where the figure is 14-15 per cent.

 

The mutation is rarer around the Mediterranean and absent from sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. This could explain why AIDS has made less impact in Europe.

 

Duncan and Scott used a computer model to demonstrate how the pressure of natural selection increases the number of those carrying the resistance from around one in 20,000 at the time when plague devastated Europe, particularly France, during the mid-14th century to one in 10 three centuries later.

 

The two believe that the plagues were not bubonic but epidemics of viral haemorrhagic fever - like Ebola fever - that used the CCR5 receptor as the "entry port" into the immune system.

 

These lethal fevers are believed to have been recorded in the Nile Valley from 1500 BC and in Mesopotamia (700-450BC), Athens (430BC), the plague of Justinian (AD 541-700) and the plagues of the early Islamic empire (AD 627-744).

 

The Times said Duncan dismissed other theories which claim that resistance to AIDS can be attributed to smallpox or bubonic plague.

 

The professor did not believe the research would have any practical benefit, as he did not think that the genetic mutation could be reproduced artificially to create protection.

 

DPA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Looked through my copy of Bk post, but this was just not in it - different edition maybe??? Dunno.

 

Anyway, the *proposal* that certain people are "immune" due to a mutation in the AIDS virus co-receptor (the thing that enables the virus to enter into a cell) has been knocking around for a while. This is just a mathematical modeling of the spread of such a mutation.

 

There are several huge jumps there though, and as such its actual real value is of some question.

 

One little point that everyone might like to bear in mind, is that every body has *two* copies of each gene (one inherited from your mother, one from your father - genetics 101) now would *one* copy protect you, or do you need two. Now, although from the article, its not clear what they actually calculated. If the single copy incidence, then *immune* may require two copies, which puts it down to about 1 in 100. Bit of a difference eh?

 

Better safe and stay covered!!!

-j-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...