• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How was AIDS a surprise?

Art Vandelay

Illuminator
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
4,787
The media are full of stories about the 25 anniversary of AIDS being identified, and talk about how mysterious it was. From what I’ve heard of rampant homosexual promiscuity and drug addicts "renting" needles, I don't see how it could have been much of a surprise. Shouldn’t it have been a no-brainer that there would be a massive STD epidemic in those communities? Granted, the specific disease was unknown, but surely the general results were self-evident. I mean, this may seem insensitive, but I simply can’t wrap my head around it. Given that people participating in the Bathhouse culture seemed guaranteed to die of syphilis, why were they so shocked to die of AIDS instead? Were there massive rates of non-AIDS STDs? I never hear about them, but I don’t see how there could have not been. So why so much focus on AIDS?
 
I don't see a reference, so can only ask if they focussed on homosexuals? The real surprise to me is the rampant spread of HIV in countries now, and why:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/opinion/04moore.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The theory, which we call AIDS denialism, has gained such currency with President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa that his administration is reluctant to expand access to antiretroviral drugs. Despite generous allocations from the country's Treasury and substantial assistance from foreign donors, only a quarter of those needing antiretrovirals receive them. This response is poor by the standards of middle-income countries, but it is especially troublesome in South Africa, which has more H.I.V.-positive people than any other country.

The focus of preaching abstinence over prevention of the spread of disease also seems to be contributing:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/25/101656/916

Just in case we wondered whether Bush was serious about confronting AIDS, two more names on the delegate list give us a hint: his daughter Barbara Bush and her party playmate Maggie Betts are both listed as "senior advisors."

In previous administrations, delegations to these high-level UN meetings typically included mainstream public health experts such as the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Nurses Association. Now we have abstinence advocates peddling fake science, New York socialites, and professional evangelizers.
 
Many of the stories do focus on homosexuals, and the fact is, for all the revionism, the AIDS epidemic in the US was largely among gay men and IV drug users. It is only recently that heterosexual Americans have surpassed homosexuals in absolute numbers of new infections, and the number of total infections in homosexuals is still higher, and the infection rates are of course much higher.
 
Ah yes. And I do agree, it is a no-brainer that irresponsible activities lead to consequences. It is no surprise the STDs ran rampant in those populations and that the new microbe was first found among them in America.

I'm just wondering what the consequences of HIV denialism and abstinence only educations will have on the new crop of impressionable young folks in the country.

Do you have a source of stats on these new HIV positive populations in America? I can only find them on the African populations. It is an alarming reality.

Ah found some:
During 2004 there were an estimated 48 paediatric AIDS diagnoses, compared to 190 in 1999 and 823 in 1994. The decline in paediatric AIDS incidence is associated with more HIV testing of pregnant women and the use of zidovudine (AZT) by HIV-infected pregnant women and their newborn infants.

The age group 35-44 years accounted for 39% of all AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004. Nearly three-quarters of all people who have died with AIDS did not live to the age of 45.

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

Scrapping antiretrovirals would cause an impact. I wonder if the under 35 year old group accounts for 60% of diagnosed cases, giving me cause for concern?
 
Last edited:
Many of the stories do focus on homosexuals, and the fact is, for all the revionism, the AIDS epidemic in the US was largely among gay men and IV drug users.

It was originally called GRID (for Gay-Related Immune Deficiency).

Back in the 1970s, I thought that there would be a new venerial disease, but as I had no idea what for it would take, I can't claim the million.
 
Given that people participating in the Bathhouse culture seemed guaranteed to die of syphilis, why were they so shocked to die of AIDS instead? Were there massive rates of non-AIDS STDs? I never hear about them, but I don’t see how there could have not been.

"Guaranteed to die of syphilis" ? Isn't syphilis both easy to diagnosis and easy to treat in the first year of infection?

So why so much focus on AIDS?

I imagine it was because the disease was intially hard to diagnose and had fatality rates much, much higher than any other STD in first world countries.
 
Not to mention the approximately 12 year HIV incubation time where the afflicted didn't show any symptons would make it rather widespread before it was recognised and identified as a disease.
And one have to remember that it wasn't/isn't the disease itself which were/are killing people, but the sideeffect diseases like meningitis, pnemoinia etc. and that after a long period of ill health. There's reason to believe that the treating physicians wouldn't simply have thought that the dying were especially susceptible to what ever normal occurance disease which killed them.
However once a common reason had been found and the means to identifying the virus developed sufficiently, the full scale of it simply knocked the boots off from everyone.
My take on it is that part of the reason for the widespread of HIV being more developed in the gay community was the fact that men genrally doen't get pregnant outside of Hollywood and as such most men of the era didn't think it nescesarry to protect themselves. There would, after all, be no padding feet of the little "sideeffects" of the "fun" in the house.
Granted there WERE other diseases, but most of them could be treated and the ones that couldn't? That only happened to the neighbour.
That was another reason why it slammed home like it did: Here came a fairly widespread disease which COULDN'T be treated by "miralcle" cure-it-alls like antibiotics. In fact it couldn't be treated at ALL....

And then the heterosexual cases turned up........
 
If one confines one's world view to the ethnocentric world of only the USA, and maybe a few other Western cultured countries, then I can understand the opening post here laying blame on IVDUs and the promiscuity of the gay community at the time.

However, if you want to look at a wider view of the world, the real epidemic began with a new road constructed across Uganda which opened up a new trucking route. And along with trucking and the economic conditions of powerless women comes prostitution. And along with prostitution there came an isolated case or two of HIV which had been smoldering unnoticed since the 50s or earlier in a small corner of the world.

You all know the rest of the story.
 
Isn't AIDS a fairly unique disease? It has a long incubation period and it adapts quickly to drugs (hence the need for combo treatments) and seems to be resistant to our standard methods for creating vaccines.

There's a difference between predicting a new STD and a world wide epidemic that would kill millions. If you predict one and get the other I think it qualifies as "surprising".

And if I remember "And the Band Played On" correctly, STD's were indeed rampant at least in the SF gay community and there was something of a debate in the community about the sensibility of the anonymous sex in bath houses that was going on (hmmm, that debate may have started after the gay cancer rumors started spreading).

Additionally a great many gays were participating in medical studies about STDs at the time too. And some of the blood samples taken during the studies were checked later on to see if they could determine when HIV started showing up in the gay population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_The_Band_Played_On

Some criticisim of And the Band Played on is at the AVERT site of aids history.
http://www.avert.org/his87_92.htm

history starts here:
http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm
 
Isn't AIDS a fairly unique disease? It has a long incubation period and it adapts quickly to drugs (hence the need for combo treatments) and seems to be resistant to our standard methods for creating vaccines......
HIV-AIDS is unique for several reasons.

One it is a modern pandemic. Unless you were around in 1918, you haven't experienced a pandemic. Measles, smallpox, TB and other major infectious disease killers are endemic so they don't have the same epidemiological patterns as a pandemic. (They were involved in their own pandemics when they were spread around the world in the past by European explorers.)

Two, HIV-AIDS has spread quickly enough to have infected tens of millions of people in 30 years but slowly enough so as to have only caused temporary panic and outrage among people. Right now it is almost under the radar screen altogether for many people. While it is indeed a pandemic, it is perceived as endemic which generates a different psychological response with different consequences.

And three, on the molecular level, the HIV virus hides itself in a coating of simple sugars rather than proteins which surround most other viruses. The sugars allow HIV to not only avoid the immune system which targets foreign proteins, but also, the unique viral coating is the reason a vaccine has not been developed. While HIV's ability to rapidly mutate also makes it difficult to develop a vaccine, the fact that antibodies are not effective is the larger reason.

Some criticisim of And the Band Played on is at the AVERT site of aids history.
http://www.avert.org/his87_92.htm

history starts here:
http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm
I didn't find the AVERT site above to be complete. Just as with the opening post, it begins with the HIV pandemic when it reached the USA as if the rest of the world's disease burden barely existed.

HIV and AIDS in relation to other pandemics
HIV has readily exploited various niches provided by our lifestyle in the developed world, including air travel, narcotic dependence and steamy, promiscuous bath houses (Shilts, 1987). However, it is wreaking the most havoc among the world's poorest and most underprivileged communities, in which life expectancy has dropped by 20 years on average....

...'Slim' disease in Uganda and the aggressive Kaposi's sarcoma in Zambia were found to be manifestations of AIDS, as 10% of young adults were already HIV positive in sub-Saharan Africa (Serwadda et al., 1985). It became clear that AIDS was not merely a curiosity among gay men in the developed world, but would become a worldwide problem.

We now know that there are two types of HIV virus, HIV-1 and HIV-2, that crossed into humans from quite distinct primate species (Hahn et al., 2000). HIV-1 is closely related to SIVcpz of chimpanzees. It is classed phylogenetically into three groups—M, N and O—which differ from each other in genetic sequence as much as each does from SIVcpz, indicating that each group represents a separate chimpanzee-to-human transfer. HIV-2, in contrast, resembles SIVsm of the sooty mangabey monkey, with at least six separate transfers of this virus to humans. Whereas HIV-1 groups N and O remain localized in Gabon and Cameroon, close to their former reservoir species, and HIV-2 is present mainly in West Africa (with some spread to Europe and India), HIV-1 group M has given rise to the worldwide pandemic, diverging into various clades or subtypes, known as A−K. It is not yet clear what has made HIV-1 M fitter for pandemic spread. Furthermore, recombinant forms of HIV-1 are becoming increasingly evident in regions where more than one group or subtype circulates. HIV-1/HIV-2 recombinants have not yet been recorded, but now that both are prevalent in West Africa, novel hybrid viruses might emerge....

...from detailed phylogenetic studies of extant strains, a date for the species jump can be estimated as 1931 plusminus 12 years (Korber et al., 2000). The widespread use of non-sterile injecting equipment in Africa in the second half of the twentieth century might have helped HIV-1 to establish a reservoir before its sexual transmission became common (Drucker et al., 2001).

HIV's Origins Traced to 1930s; Joan Stephenson, PhD; JAMA. 2000;283:1279.
Using one of the world's most powerful supercomputers, a machine typically used to crunch numbers for physicists and astronomers, Bette Korber, PhD, and colleagues from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico analyzed a global database of the genetic sequences of variants of HIV-1. By applying mathematical modeling techniques used to study evolution on the molecular level, the team extrapolated from some 160 HIV variants to predict when such variants converged back to a common origin.

A study headed by Dr Beatrice Hahn further refined the point of origin to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
A revealing new subtype of the simian form of HIV has been found in 19 greater spot-nose monkeys in Cameroon. ...

In 1999, a team led by Beatrice Hahn at the University of Alabama pinpointed one particular subspecies of chimpanzee in west central Africa as the source of the SIV strain that gave rise to HIV-1, one of the two strains that causes AIDS.

The new SIV - dubbed SIVgsn, after the monkeys - is the closest yet found to the strain that infects these chimpanzees, and is similar to HIV-1.

"Chimpanzees eat these little white-nosed monkeys," notes Eric Delaporte, of the Research Institute for Development in Montpellier, who led the new research. ...

Paul Sharp at Nottingham University, UK, who was part of Hahn's team, agrees: "The west central African chimps are the original natural reservoir of the virus. But our own work suggests the chimps must have originally acquired the virus from a species of monkey in Africa."

AIDSin Africa website has a useful epidemic map. Click on "Display AIDS over time". The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda are the first hit then later have better control over the pandemic than Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Zambia, and South Africa which have higher rates of infection currently.

The AIDS epidemic spreads through channels such as truck routes which greatly facilitate population movement, thus increasing the risks of AIDS infection in villages along such routes.

REVIEW LITERATURE GUIDE FOR HIV/AIDS AND TRANSPORT

This link, (html of a Word doc), reports on about 20 studies showing differing relationships between the African Trucking industry and HIV such as the following:
Major Findings:

This article indicates that trading villages along main roads represent obvious reservoir of infection outside the main urban areas; their importance as focuses of infection, related in part to commercial sex between local women and long distance truck drivers.




There are a slew of websites promoting all sorts of false information about the origin of HIV. The most credible yet still completely discredited was the claim that Dr. Hilary Koprowski, an American scientist who developed a live polio vaccine at the same time as Dr. Albert Sabin developed his, used primate kidneys to grow the vaccine virus thus spreading HIV inadvertently. The original hypothesis was described in a book and later made into a documentary.

News summary
The Origins of AIDS, directed by Peter Chappell and Catherine Peix, follows the evidence laid out by British journalist Edward Hooper in his 1999 book, The River. In it, Hooper proposed (based on nearly two decades of research) that one man's part in the race to create the polio vaccine launched the AIDS epidemic.
However, the film was criticized
Hooper's conclusion, described by one biologist in the film as "medical science's worst-hated hypothesis" directly challenges the findings of other investigators who were interviewed for the documentary, but whose diverging opinions ended up on the cutting-room floor.

"The public doesn't hear my view, nor does it hear the view of anybody else who has doubts about this theory," said Beatrice Hahn, a professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Despite the hypothesis being ruled out by the evidence, people's willingness to believe in conspiracy theories continues to promote these ideas. Edward Hooper, the author of the book, The River, which outlined the hypothesis rebuts the WHO statement here. However, the timing of the pandemic's origin and the early pattern of spread is not as consistent with Hooper's hypothesis as he claims. Those are just a few of the problems with the hypothesis.

Hepatitis B vaccine was also claimed to be the source of HIV pandemic. Some people in the first cohort of study of the Hepatitis B vaccine had a high rate of HIV. Not surprising since high risk behavior was one of the criteria for being included in the cohort. Despite what the last sentence in the link states, Hep B vaccine has been thoroughly investigated and ruled out as having anything to do with HIV.

There are many interesting parallels with the H5N1 bird flu pandemic occurring today. There is a big divide over whether the virus is being spread by wild birds or the movement of domestic birds. While it may seem like two different hypotheses and so what, there is actually incredible tempers flaring over the topic.

Gays and IVDUs were blamed for the HIV pandemic. Certainly multiple partners and dirty needles were contributing factors. But so was the outlawing of needle exchange programs and refusal to fund promotion of condom use and sex education.

See Frontline, The age of AIDS for an excellent examination of all the factors contributing to the pandemic in the USA from the gay communities' denial at first to the stupidity of the Reagan response. BTW, I found John Robert's (aka new Supreme Court Justice), warning letter to Reagan to go against the CDC's position and claim we weren't sure of how you could or couldn't get HIV most disturbing. Intelligence and education are no guarantee of science literacy.
 
I didn't find the AVERT site above to be complete. Just as with the opening post, it begins with the HIV pandemic when it reached the USA as if the rest of the world's disease burden barely existed.

Yeah, it's a bit weird to read that site. It isn't really a good timeline of how HIV/AIDS spread -- you'll be reading the 1990's stuff and they comment on how discoveries were made that in the 1970's it had already been spreading in Africa.

I don't think the OP was really about how AIDS started, but why it was surprising to people that an STD arose in the gay community. I do think it's fair to start examining this question from the view point of the US as that is where the realization that there was an underlying common cause for many of the weird illnesses doctors were seeing.

I think it's a mistake in the question to consider AIDS to be in the same category as other STDs. Medicine pretty much had a handle on all the other STDs and if caught early weren't deadly or lifestyle threatening.

I don't think the medical community that was aware of the gay lifestyle in NY and SF would have been surprised by the arrival of a new STD. But I think that much of the medical community, like much of the population in general, was unaware of the activities that were common in the community. Gays were at best ignored and at worst killed, not invited around for discussion how how many sexual partners they had in the last week.

The medical profession that was aware of the activities most likely expected a mutation of an existing STD, perhaps drug resistant and deadly until new drugs found (which, of course, they quickly would be.)

I think the medical profession was caught by surprise by virtually every aspect of the disease. Those that were aware of the activities of those in the gay community may have been on the lookout, but it's a bit like walking down a dark alley keeping your eyes open for muggers and a safe falls on your head. You were alert, you were ready, but you still gotten taken by surprise.
 
Depends on if you are in infectious disease epidemiology or some other medical field. Myself and many others are in areas of medicine where we are very familiar with the ways new diseases emerge. General practitioners of course may not be so familiar.

It's overgeneralizing though to think the medical community as a whole was not expecting a new pandemic. The main ways new infections emerge are fairly well understood. And new pandemics are a well known hazard that will continue to occur. No one that I know thinks new infectious diseases are no longer going to occur. You never know when the next SARS will show up. (Which, BTW was the first new infectious disease we actually stopped in its tracks, so far anyway. The animal reservoir is still there.)

In fact, we are now expecting again, this time the H5N1 flu. The more cases in humans the more chances for natural selection pressures to move the disease into our species. And if you want to keep to the thread topic, it may be that it's predictable how our government will respond to a new pandemic. They won't be using the best science and because of that, actions that could reduce the severity will likely not be taken.

To think the sexual behavior of gays and the use of IV drugs should have forewarned us a new disease would emerge is really off base.

The IVDUs are probably about the same as they've been for years. We spread more disease by introducing injectable therapeutic drugs into countries that couldn't afford disposable needles than IVDUs have contributed to the world's disease burden.

Providing foreign military aid at a higher priority than we provide basic vaccines and clean water results in more disease than the gay communities' behavior did. Building roads across the Amazon, funded by the World Bank threatens to introduce new infectious diseases. The current problems with the H5N1 influenza is multiplied by the massive movement of domestic poultry and ducks across borders, not by the sexual behavior of promiscuous gays in the USA.

And as long as I'm ranting, it was the poverty and powerlessness of women in Africa that first spread HIV to the point it reached the gay community in the USA in the first place.

So I'm not condoning multiple sex partners nor IVDUs, but let's keep it in perspective here.
 
It's overgeneralizing though to think the medical community as a whole was not expecting a new pandemic.

Yes it would be, and it certainly wasn't my intent to imply that. What I was trying to say is that those that were observing the gay community were probably expecting an STD and found a pandemic. Those expecting a pandemic were probably looking for flu types (like we're seeing now) not one that at first glance appeared to be an STD. That is what made it surprising -- it wasn't what anyone was expecting.

Even today I think those expecting pandemics are expecting more along the lines of SARS and the spanish flu, not another slow incubating AIDS like virus.
 
And as long as I'm ranting, it was the poverty and powerlessness of women in Africa that first spread HIV to the point it reached the gay community in the USA in the first place.

I don't disagree with any of this. You're treating the original question as "how did aids spread". I'm treating it as "why were the inital discovers of AIDS surprised to find this, and why weren't they on the look out for it." The inital discovery took place in the US, yes it was occuring in Africa where it originated but they were still seeing it as the disaeses that aids made one vulnerable too, not the underlying cause.

Maybe the fact there was an underlying cause was documented first in the US is because people were looking for something, and just surprised by what they actually found. Personally I think it's more the communication systems of those in the medical field enabled them to figure out the groups involved with a much smaller sample size and realize there must be a further cause.
 
I would speculate, kevin, that just as you say those watching for a new pandemic at the time HIV took hold might have been looking airborne while those recognizing the gay communities' risky behavior were expecting more of the same, increasingly drug resistant GC and syphilis.

However, there was an acute awareness that gay men were spreading hepatitis B among themselves just as the IVD users were. Gay men were one of the first groups targeted to receive hepatitis B vaccine. And the first I heard of the "new" disease was from a physician I met casually in Puerto Vallarta in 1982. In San Francisco the medical community was well aware of the risky behavior in gay men there and considered a new infectious agent fairly early on.

So I'm not sure what you mean by the topic here. On the one hand you are saying the medical community shouldn't have been surprised that the behavior of gay men in the 70s led to a new pandemic and on the other hand you didn't address the many other factors that actually contributed much more to the HIV pandemic than the behavior of gay men at the time. Had there not been a patient zero and had there not been the high risk behavior of gay men in the major cities of the West, there would still be an HIV pandemic. There might be a little lower infection rate in the USA but the world's HIV burden has very little to do with the spread through the gay community here.
 
Excellent links and summaries, Skeptigirl.

One thing that has puzzled me is why in the early days of the epidemic people did not predict how widely the disease might spread into other risk groups. It was a blood borne/sexually spread virus, so parallels could readily be drawn with Hep B transmission, but they weren't.

The other rather confusing thing about the pandemic was why such high prevalence rates are achievable in many countries - 30% or so. HIV is actually far less infectious than Hep B so people questioned the science behind a virus STD causing such a major problem. However, HIV seems to spread more readily in certain circumstances, and people are infectious for far longer (with Hep B only perhaps for 3 months or so on average, and only 10% become long term carriers capable of transmitting on the virus after this). With HIV infection, everyone infected becomes a "carrier" so this explains why high prevalences are possible in practice.
 
It appears to me that huge amounts of money have been spent on AIDS, with little benefit to the victims and none to potential victims, other than education about the risk. I'm not saying we should give up trying, but the lack of success, to date, does suggest that there are higher priorities for tax money.
To some extent the over optimistic projection of benefits from new research, has given potential victims false hope that they can practice unsafe sex etc without a long horrible death, being the reward. Neil
 
To some extent the over optimistic projection of benefits from new research, has given potential victims false hope that they can practice unsafe sex etc without a long horrible death, being the reward. Neil

T'was ever thus - all "new" research tends to be talked up as a fantastic new magic bullet, either by the research group itself who are looking for further funding, the pharma companies who want their share price to rise, or the media who need an eye-catching headline for that day's news.

Progress has been slow, but sure, and is not only confined to educational advances. These alone have had a great impact in central Africa and Thailand in bringing down transmission rates significantly. But treatment works too - in the USA it is estimated that 5 million life-years have been "saved" through HIV therapy in recent years.

An interesting statistic came out of the UN AIDS meeting this month. Kofi Annan talked of a sum of $23 billion annually to get HIV care and drugs to every single HIV-infected person in the world (39 million of them).
In the UK we have been struggling to get a National Information Technology database going - its cost is thought to be £23 billion ($34 billion). I know what my money would rather have been spent on.
 
An interesting statistic came out of the UN AIDS meeting this month. Kofi Annan talked of a sum of $23 billion annually to get HIV care and drugs to every single HIV-infected person in the world (39 million of them).
In the UK we have been struggling to get a National Information Technology database going - its cost is thought to be £23 billion ($34 billion). I know what my money would rather have been spent on.


Unfortunately, this is something of an apples and oranges comparison. My understanding is that the price of the UK database is expected to be mostly a one-off and after that, the maintenance costs will be relatively minimal relative to the "profits" reaped. Basically, it's an investment.

The money for HIV care would be $23 billion per year for the foreseeable future -- and would probably only increase with time as more cases happen.

It may make very good economic sense for me to give you a million dollars once, as seed money for a project, while declining to give you a thousand dollars a year simply for basic maintenance.
 
Unfortunately, this is something of an apples and oranges comparison. My understanding is that the price of the UK database is expected to be mostly a one-off and after that, the maintenance costs will be relatively minimal relative to the "profits" reaped. Basically, it's an investment.
Yes - I realise that the NHS expenditure is meant to be a capital cost, but from my perspective it doesn't seem to work well and constantly needs expensive upgrades.
The money for HIV care would be $23 billion per year for the foreseeable future -- and would probably only increase with time as more cases happen.
Possibly true, but new cases appear to have peaked in Africa now - and if care and treatment were available to the majority of affected individuals in a population, transmission rates would decline rapidly, therebye helping reduce cases over time.
 

Back
Top Bottom