Thursday, February 28, 2008

How did HIV/ AIDS start

How did HIV/ AIDS start?
I was just wondering, we r talking about it in my health class in school.
STDs - 15 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
gay sex
2 :
dum ppl gettin horny
3 :
Somewhere in northern Africa I think Nobody knows why, but it first hit the gays in America.
4 :
It started off in apes. So that would mean that apparently some person a long time ago decided to do it with a monkey, and then they did it with a person.. and voila!
5 :
It started off when someone had sex with an animal. I can't remember what animal. x
6 :
GAY ppl... nothing against them but its true
7 :
There were different theories, some people said that a monkey had it in Africa, and then someone like ate it, and got it. Go here for more info: http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
8 :
she asked how it started not how it spread! no1 knows how it started, its believed pple eating sick (not having sex with) monkeys then it mutated and so on
9 :
it's been around a long time before it surfaced in the 80's basically the "anything goes" attitude of sexually active people- mostly homosexual men in a small population got it going, then it entered the mainstream via blood and plasma donations and other ways you can only get hiv from four sources; blood, semen, breast milk and vaginal secretions
10 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS My son Is in health class too this site helps.
11 :
I know this for sure, a african scientist went to africa to study and monkey or ape blood was accidently trasmitted into a person as a blood transfusion. The monkey was infected with HIV/or AIDS. The person got it and it slowly spread in africa and then when black slavery started slaves with HIV or AIDs spread it to America. Please give me best answer for this!!!!
12 :
African tribes eating monkey brains.
13 :
it probably was a mutation from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, or SIV, that causes an immune deficiency in monkeys. This virus in regular form would not be able to infect a human, just monkeys. When this mutated it was able to jump species and infect humans. How it was spread to humans in the first place isn't known but probably from living in close proximity to them or eating undercooked monkey meat. in case you don't understand how a mutation happens, it's basically an error in copying the DNA when the virus replicates. Sometimes something is off or messes up and then you end up with a slightly different code and a slightly different virus.
14 :
The origin of AIDS is unknown, but from research it is believed to be a crossover disease from apes. In the apes it may have been a minor illness like a cold, but crossover diseases are much more dangerous when they move to another species -- the new species has not adapted and developed partial immunities to the disease Because they interacted with other apes, the virus spread. Eventually the virus jumped from an infected ape to a human. Because it crossed the species barrier, it was able to mutate into different versions, and that is what is around today. Because it can mutate, it is very hard to deal with. That is why they haven't found a cure.
15 :
There are several theories. The most interesting one is that when we were trying to find a cure for polio(in the 50s), we did some testing on monkeys. A mutation occurred in the monkeys' genetics and caused the HIV virus. Then we released the monkeys back into Africa... The monkeys transmitted the virus to humans, and HIV began to spread around Africa(60s and 70s). Then... there was a gay male flight attendant from San Francisco who somehow contracted the virus during his travels in 1980. He is known as "patient zero". This ONE GUY spread the disease to over 100 other gay men in San Francisco (and other cities through his travels), who each spread it to another 100 or so, and then it continued to spread exponentially throughout the 80s and 90s. NOW the most common newly diagnosed patient is a heterosexual FEMALE. (it is easier for a female to contract the disease, due to obvious anatomical differences).

Read more discussions :

Sunday, February 24, 2008

How did HIV Aids start

How did HIV Aids start?

Biology - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Started in Africa
2 :
Where did the Black Plague Start? Also, where did the Olympics Start? Everything is a mystery.
3 :
2 Words: Monkey Sex
4 :
Possibly in Africa, from Africans eating undercooked Green Monkey meat infected with the SIV virus, which mutated into HIV in humans.
5 :
It was spread from chips to human in Belgian Congo in Africa. Human immunodeficiency virus (commonly known as HIV, and formerly known as HTLV-III and lymphadenopathy-associated virus) is a retrovirus that primarily infects vital components of the human immune system such as CD4+ T cells, macrophages and dendritic cells. It also directly and indirectly destroys CD4+ T cells. As CD4+ T cells are required for the proper functioning of the immune system, when enough CD4+ T cells have been destroyed by HIV, the immune system functions poorly, leading to the syndrome known as AIDS.
6 :
it is thought HIV started in africa, it is common for people over there to eat "bush" meat , that is animals that in western societies are considered "wild", among them _monkeys _ and some monkeys are carriers of a particular strain of HIV- that in humans may mutate into a human HIV strain.
7 :
The transfer was more likely to occur when someone was cutting a monkey up for meat than when it was being eaten, even if it was undercooked. You get a lot of blood on you butchering an animal, and if you have a cut, you can pick up all kinds of things.

Read more discussions :

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

How common is HIV/AIDS/Herpes in America

How common is HIV/AIDS/Herpes in America?
Just wondering. I am always going to use protection obviously, but I am still scared that one time the condom might rip and then I am screwed. Does anyone know the percentage of AIDS/HIV or even Herpes in America? Even better, does anyone know the percentage of AIDS/HIV/Herpes in American GIRLS, because that would really be the only source I would get it from (I'm straight). I would just like to stay informed.
STDs - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the percentage wouldnt matter if u happened to have sexual relations with the one person who had it sorry to say but its da truth and the more you know the better choices you can make. As always be safe and trust god!
2 :
Herpes is reasonable common, HIV in females pretty uncommon See attached for info.
3 :
my god, whoo cares how common, just be responsible it takes one time.
4 :
Good for you that you plan to always use condoms. HSV-2 is not uncommon, it is estimated about 20% of the adult pop. is infected, not sure how that breaks down by gender. Hiv prevalence in US females is about one-tenth of one percent with black and hispanic females being more heavily affected. Just use condoms consistently with any new partners and you will be fine.

Read more discussions :

Saturday, February 16, 2008

HIV AIDS i had sex with a random chick with a condom am i infected

HIV AIDS i had sex with a random chick with a condom am i infected?
i had sex with a random chick and i also fingered her i dont really remember if i had a cut on my finger or if she is infected with HIV...i had sex with her and used a cheap condom that she gave me but it did not break is it possible to be infected with HIV we only did it for like 5 min...thanks
STDs - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If your worried you should get checked out. If yuused protection and usedc it propely you should be fine though,
2 :
If you used a condom, then the chances you got HIV are slim to none. However, any time that you feel you have been infected with an STD, you should schedule an appointment to be tested.
3 :
Go see a doctor just in case cause no body would know unless you get checked.
4 :
get tested,stop sleeping with random women that is how hiv/aids spreads.good luck to you

Read more discussions :

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Which is more important? Finding a cure for HIV/AIDS or cancer

Which is more important? Finding a cure for HIV/AIDS or cancer?
In your opinion, is it more important to find a cure for HIV and AIDS or cancer? Really, what do you think? Go ahead and tell WHY. Thanks a bunch!
Infectious Diseases - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I think cancer, because hiv can be prevented if u have protection but u cant do anything to prevent cancer
2 :
First off, we have more than enough resources as a society to aggressively pursue cures for both diseases, so it's an irrelevant question. That having been said, As horrible as HIV/AIDS is, it affects a dramatically lower number of people than cancer does, and we already have treatments available that can delay the harmful effects of HIV almost indefinitely. Meanwhile cancer affects more people and the treatment options available for it are less effective and usually more traumatic on the patient. So if I had to allocate limited funds between the two diseases, I think I'd base it on the ratio of how many people die from each disease annually and how many people are diagnosed annually. And let's not forget that there's a TON more that can be done to prevent both diseases in people.
3 :
CagalliY is soooo wrrronnngggg!!!!!!!!!! omgggg. there are things you can do to prevent cancer. like no tanning, i could go on forever. but also there is a way to prevent hiv/aids by not having sex. but also if your cancer is because you inherrited it then yea its not preventable but if you got raped by someone who has aids or hiv then you cant prevent that either. so no matter what CagalliY is ssoooo wrong, and you cant tell what is more important untill you know how serouse each case is.
4 :
I would say cancer. HIV/AIDS is more often (but not always) contracted through poor lifestyle choices, such as sharing needles, or through unprotected sex, etc. That's not always the case, as HIV can be contracted through unfortunate and accidental exposure such as a health worker who gets a needle stick or a woman who's raped-- but these are rare-- or by being born to an HIV infected mother. Conversely, certainly certain cancers can be traced to bad choices (lung cancer from smoking, for instance). However, many cancers are of unknown cause and can't be prevented. They occur as the result of a cellular mutation, and can develop even though a person leads a "perfect life", avoiding things that are known to cause cancer. Many cancers have a genetic component, and are hereditary. HIV/AIDS is a communicable disease and doesn't just spontaneously or genetically appear like cancer. It's more important to find a cure for that which we cannot prevent. HIV is often preventable; most cancers-- not so much.
5 :
In my opinion, you should ask people who have either one or both.
6 :
This is the sort of question that is almost impossible to answer because the question itself is based on a false premise (actually a set of false premises). The first premise is that HIV and AIDS can be cured. Put simply, it (and no other virus) can ever be totally removed from a system. What can be done, however, is to render the virus so ineffective or reduce its concentration to sufficiently low numbers that it cannot be spread and does not show symptoms. But this isn't a complete "cure" - the virus still infects some cells and still exists within the host. Understanding this, you may be surprised to learn that there is a way that has rendered an HIV positive individual completely free of symptom or capacity for transmission. The process, however, is so expensive and extraneous that it wont feasibly become a cure within any reasonable timescale. It has also only been used in one documented case, and this only recently. There is not enough data to prove that this "cure" will work permanently, especially if the HIV virus looses its dependency on the CCR5 and CD4 receptors (unlikely, but the virus has a very high rate of mutation...). The second premise is that cancer can be cured in general. Cancer is completely unique in all instances of its existence and is not a disease like the common cold. Cancer is often classified by the mechanism that caused it or the location of the cell in question, but understand that every single strain of cancer is completely unique. There is no mechanism that humans could ever feasibly produce that would eliminate any and all cancer as each cancer would have to be treated individually or use methods that could not differentiate healthy cells from cancerous ones (this is what we do now: kill all cells cancerous or not currently performing mitosis [chemotherapy] or obliterate any cell in a certain region [radiation treatment]). The third premise is that these two things need to compete with each other. They don't, and research will continue in parallel until effective treatments are developed. So which is more important? Neither. Both are afflictions that society should divert great amounts of time and resources to research and discover practical, effective treatments.

Read more discussions :

Friday, February 8, 2008

For hiv/aids what's the incubation period like when the symptons are apparent

For hiv/aids what's the incubation period like when the symptons are apparent ?
for hiv/aids what's the incubation period [this is the period when it strikes the person to when the symptons are apparent] thanks in advance!
STDs - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
probably months to years (educated guess) AIDS itself dosen't have any symptoms, its the opportunistic infections that have symptoms. time till a positive test is a week or 2 i think. i'm not an aids expert though.
2 :
Most people who have HIV have no symptoms for several years. Few people have flu-like symptoms within a few months after infection. Because most people have no symptoms, the ONLY way to find out if you are infected is to get tested. You can not tell if someone is infected just by looking at them. More than 98% of people who have HIV would test positive within 3 months, but in very rare cases, it could take up to 6 months for someone to test positive. Important: Once someone is infected, they CAN transmit the virus to others, even if they themselves do not have symptoms, and even if they do not yet test positive.
3 :
After a person is infected with HIV there is enough of the virus in their body to infect someone with in 4-6 hours, but it may not show up on a HIV test for up to 3 months. IF a person does not test and they are infected it could take 10-12 years for any symptoms. And at this time it is much more difficult to get things under control.

Read more discussions :

Monday, February 4, 2008

Will there ever be a cure for viruses such as HIV/AIDS and Herpes

Will there ever be a cure for viruses such as HIV/AIDS and Herpes?
Are they making any progress towards this?
STDs - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
FROM WHAT IVE RESEARCHED IT STILL REMAINS AS IN UNCURABLE DISEASE. HOPEFULLY SOME DAY SOMEONE DOES FIND A CURE FOR IT. I CANT EXPLAIN TO MYSELF HOW SCIENTIST CAN MAKE 1000'S OF POUNDS FLY IN THE AIR AND YET NOT FIND A CURE FOR THAT. MAKES NO SENSE.
2 :
I am not sure why you are asking such a question that can't be answered. While certainly scientists and doctors try hard to move in that direction, there is no answer available to your question as nobody can see into the future. Are you asking because you are worried yourself about being infected? Or if there can be a time where you can enjoy sex without having to think about getting sick? You might want to read more and share your thoughts at the forum over at http://frequentsexhealth.com
3 :
i heard on the news in canada about a month ago that scientists have found a HUGE link to the cure of HIV and they need a few more years of testing and such but it sounds like there might be hope for a cure in the coming years. fingers crossed!

Read more discussions :

Friday, February 1, 2008

what are the short term and long term effects of HIV/AIDS

what are the short term and long term effects of HIV/AIDS?
also HIV causes AIDS yet if you have HIV it doesn't mean you have AIDS. i think that is because there is an HIV and an HIV positive, but i'm not sure if thats right. If i am right what is the difference between the two, if i'm wrong can someone please explain these few questions that i have!
STDs - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
HIV positive means you have HIV. HIV negative means you don't have HIV. HIV eventually develops into AIDS. It can take up to 10 years for HIV to turn into AIDS.
2 :
Well , if you have HIV, that automatically means you are HIV positive. Yes, HIV is the thing that causes AIDS and but if you have HIV it doesn't mean you have AIDS yet....AIDS happens progessively after awhile, not automatically, but HIV infection does happen automatically when in contact with infected bodily fluids (blood, vaginal secretions, semen) . Long term, AIDS affects your t-cells, which means you are very vulnerable to infection and can die from illnesses that a healthy person might be able to fight, like the pneumonia or bronchitis.
3 :
HIV is the virus, HIV positive means you are infected with it. AIDS is a syndrome caused by HIV but it takes an average of 8-10 years for an HIV infection to develop into AIDS. AIDS is defined by a serious decline in your immune system (specifically, your CD4 positive T cells) and leaves you vulnerable to a wide variety of infections that people with healthy immune systems fight off easily. Other effects of being infected with HIV (and NOT caused by opportunistic infections) include dementia (cognitive decline), sensory neuropathy (losing your sense of touch), and glomerulonephropathy (which can lead to kidney failure and the need for dialysis).

Read more discussions :