I heard it was black people and monkeys
no offence but i have heard it was started from black tribal guys having sex with monkeys, so anything can be true
shareIs there a documentary documenting the sexual practices of africans and monkeys? is there documented proof? If this "monkey sex theory" is true, how do you know? when and where were the first cases? who were the medical examiners? what did they observe?
If you just "heard" it... that's pretty flimsy. Stop promoting misinformation.
If you've got proof, or at least a specific source, please share it with us.
Both of yopu knuckleheads need help. Maybe a brain transplant, the first idiot for actually saying that and second for half way giving him credibility.
The monkey sex theory operates in the mind of small minded mental midgets (which is like a double negative because if you're small minded you're a mentyal midget) who lack the reasoning skills to comprehend how a virus could jump from monkey toi human. With their laughable mental capacity the best explanation they can come up with is that you have sex with the monkey. Very ignorant and I wonder how such people can function in society with such a limited intellect.
Actually, I think society is mostly composed by people like this and so WORKS for their interest - it allows them the space to be monstrous a zz H O L E S and to live peacefully with it.
We still have to live in a society that doesn't tend to mediocrity and subduing of the best...
To try and elevate the tone, the theory that HIV was introduced to human beings from chimpanzees via either sexual practices or through maybe eating raw meat or some other contact with monkey blood is not debunked. The theory is propagated by very eminent scientists, as well as those who are rather less well versed in these matters.
However, the most plausible account that I am aware of is delivered by Edward Hooper's "The River". This is the OPV/HIV theory. Briefly, polio vaccines in central Africa introduced the virus to man. It is a tough read but very compelling and quite persuasive. It is not conclusive and does not claim to be.
The truth of the origins of HIV, or at least concrete proof about how mankind caught it, remains elusive despite claims to the contrary from serious scientists. Proving the OPV theory may be possible but the chance for doing so seems to me to have gone. Proving that sex/violence/eating meat caused the virus to jump species seems to me to be just as far off.
I should note that the idea of catching the virus from direct contact with monkeys seems unlikely. This sort of contact with monkeys presumably has happened many times in many places over many centuries. HIV (all three types) appears to have been born since the 1930s at the earliest and the 1960s at the latest (more likely 1950-1965, I think). That is two or probably three distinct virus creations within 40 years, possibly with 15 years. If all it takes is contact with monkey blood, why are there only three instances of HIV and how come they occured so close together temporally?
For a proper insight, read "The River" or go to http://www.aidsorigins.com/. I have not seen this film but am desperate to do so.
Life spans in Africa are often very short. People who got infected while killing chimpanzees etc. might not have lived long enough to show the signs of the disease.
shareThat's the most intelligent thing I've read in awhile. The virus could've been around for ages but due to the short life span, there would've been very few who lived long enough to show the signs of HIV infection in it's latter stages. Also another point is that the "age of AIDS" also coincide with better medical care, and a general concern all around provided to that region. So Mr. jojune, you may really be on to something.
shareThank you!
shareThere are a number of reasons why HIV might never have been discovered before colonial times. Short life span, remote tribes/villages, improved medical records of death and illness. The post-war period in Africa saw massive population shifts, especially to urban centres which could have caused a greater spread of an already existent virus. The attention of European doctors and scientists might have contributed to the identification of an illness not previously spotted.
However, the fact remains that HIV has not been found or any cases of AIDS demonstrated that pre-date the 1950s. Furthermore, in those who live nearest to the natural habitat of the chimpanzees whose SIV most closely matches the most prevalent strain of HIV1, HIV prevalence is lower than in several very distant areas and evidence of HIV there emerges many years after it does elsewhere. All the evidence points to the origin of HIV1 being in the former Belgian Congo. If there was natural transfer, the virus would presumably have started where the chimps are normally found, in the Cameroon.
Secondarily, people with HIV1 often live less than 5 years with the virus. Life expectancy in some parts of Africa is less than 40 years even today. Before medical advances no doubt it was even lower, but low enough to hide AIDS? It cannot have been uncommon at any time in history for Africans to have lived 5, 10 or more years after sexual maturity. As such, if HIV has existed for centuries it would have manifested itself. Not to the degree that it has done today, I accept! However, to think that a virus that decimates the immune system, in a way that is not easily confused for any other illness, within 15 years of its introduction to a human host could have existed for centuries without trace is tenuous. Even accounting for the absence of proper medical records prior to the arrival of Europeans, there would surely be folklore relating to or familiarity with the effects of a killer syndrome like AIDS? Witch doctors with animist explanations for its progeny (as exists now... God punishes Africa's colonisation by sending virus type humbug) and herbal remedies for its effects (as exists now... I've been offered a potato type plant which is claimed to cure AIDS)?
Furthermore, SIVs have existed in their simian hosts for centuries and, in their simian host, are benign. Clearly, a virus that does not kill its host will survive better than a related virus that does. If HIV had existed in humans for centuries, it would have adapted to become benign or benign strains would exist. There is some anecdotage of this happening now: prostitutes in Nairobi who have the virus but not the immunodeficiency. This is a new development, if it is even happening at all. To the best of my knowledge, no benign strain of HIV has ever been found. The pathogenicity of the virus suggests that is a new virus.
Finally, even if we accept that HIV existed in Africans before the '50s the question remains: why the epidemic? Since then HIV prevalence has soared, AIDS related deaths have soared, AIDS related illness has soared. Africans are not that much older or that much more sexually active that this could explain the epidemic. So what caused the epidemic? A new virus or a new way of life? The evidence leads me to suggest a new virus.
Hope this makes sense. It's late!
I heard from a reliable source - an anonymous person on the Internets - that AIDS was started from R Kelly banging an underage chimpanzee.
share