HIV Infection risks

**kingwilly** · 19-02-2008, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by November Rain

Eeeerm, can mosquitoes travel? I've seen them on aeroplanes.

thats why all the planes to Aussie use fly spray before you land!

**November Rain** · 19-02-2008, 11:12 AM

^ Thought that was for malaria & dengue - not HIV.

Serious point though, it's alarming how few countries do spray. I don't think I've ever been on a flight to UK where they did. That's one thing I think the Aussies are spot on about - their strict regulations about what comes into the country.

**AntRobertson** · 19-02-2008, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by November Rain

That's one thing I think the Aussies are spot on about - their strict regulations about what comes into the country.

New Zealand too. But then again I kind of have to. Owing to the unique and relatively untocuhed ecological systems if the wrong pest were to get in it would spell disaster.

New Zealand actually has some of the tighest boarder controls and checks in the World and it's all pretty much focused on preventing food/animal products/insects being brought into the country. They've got these cool little fruit 'n veg sniffing dogs too!

**kingwilly** · 19-02-2008, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

New Zealand too.

part of aussie aint it?

**AntRobertson** · 19-02-2008, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

New Zealand too.

part of aussie aint it?

Aye, the Capital in point of fact.

**kingwilly** · 19-02-2008, 12:17 PM

bugger.

**Little Chuchok** · 19-02-2008, 12:25 PM

^Whatever turns you on....

**Driventowin** · 19-02-2008, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by hootadbinky

The media was quick to publicize claims that mosquitoes were involved in AIDS transmission despite findings of scientific surveys of the National Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that clearly demonstrated that mosquito transmission of AIDS in that community appeared highly unlikely.

Again not definitive!!!And moreover this is based on my original story obviously and it states a convincing survey that clearly demonstrates the findings but doesn't say how??? Their contention and explanation was easily disputed and lacked real common sense answers thus the continued skepticism..And that is what is still in contention to this day and has not been sufficiently answered..

Originally Posted by hootadbinky

Mosquitoes Digest the Virus that Causes AIDS

When a mosquito transmits a disease agent from one person to another, the infectious agent must remain alive inside the mosquito until transfer is completed. If the mosquito digests the parasite, the transmission cycle is terminated and the parasite cannot be passed on to the next host. Successful mosquito-borne parasites have a number of interesting ways to avoid being treated as food. Some are refractory to the digestive enzymes inside the mosquito's stomach; most bore their way out of the stomach as quickly as possible to avoid the powerful digestive enzymes that would quickly eliminate their existence. Malaria parasites survive inside mosquitoes for 9-12 days and actually go through a series of necessary life stages during that period. Encephalitis virus particles survive for 10-25 days inside a mosquito and replicate enormously during the incubation period. Studies with HIV clearly show that the virus responsible for the AIDS infection is regarded as food to the mosquito and is digested along with the blood meal. As a result, mosquitoes that ingest HIV-infected blood digest that blood within 1-2 days and completely destroy any virus particles that could potentially produce a new infection. Since the virus does not survive to reproduce and invade the salivary glands, the mechanism that most mosquito-borne parasites use to get from one host to the next is not possible with HIV.

But this is the second premise behind my original contention and for the sake of argument is being overlooked.. My contention has always been that IF Mossies did not transmit the disease than they could kill the virus and therefore likely should have an answer to a cure or vaccine..

NR I don't mean to sound nasty here but your being thick in your persistance that anyone has ever suggested that there are not other sources of infection other than mossies. That has never been the case in this debate at least not on my part.....Nor do I believe it has in DD's either but he can make his own case..

**AntRobertson** · 19-02-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Driventowin

IF Mossies did not transmit the disease than they could kill the virus and therefore likely should have an answer to a cure or vaccine..

That doesn't always stand to reason though. There are several viruses that are species specific or that some species carry an immunity to. It doesn't automatically therefore follow that this immunity can be transferred.

In this case if nothing else than the fact that the physiology of humans and insects is about as different as you can get.

**Texpat** · 19-02-2008, 02:48 PM

Ray Carey behaves strikingly similar to a cockroach.

**Driventowin** · 19-02-2008, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Driventowin

IF Mossies did not transmit the disease than they could kill the virus and therefore likely should have an answer to a cure or vaccine..

That doesn't always stand to reason though. There are several viruses that are species specific or that some species carry an immunity to. It doesn't automatically therefore follow that this immunity can be transferred.

In this case if nothing else than the fact that the physiology of humans and insects is about as different as you can get.

Clearly Ant.. What I'm saying is there has been no reported studies I can locate that even suggest this has been pursued..

There was a movie some years ago, I can't remember the title but it starred Sean Connery and was about this scientist who had sequestered himself in the depths of the Brazilian rain forest doing studies of rare forms of life there and what medical benefits they might provide.. He had discovered the cure for cancer and summarizing it turned out to be a compound in Ants (how's that for irony)native only to the rain forest there and they were about to be destroyed by deforestation....

While I know it was a movie there is still a lot of real life applications to many movies made these days... And moreover there are more medicines or compounds to make them that come from nature than any other source..So why not this one? Why.....Because......Right now as it is, it's a cash cow for the pharmaceutical companies...They don't want an abundant cheap answer..The one's they have are plenty profitable...

If this comes off as too far fetched to believe just take a look at the Tobacco company's who give a rats ass about how many people die from their products as long as the continue to comfortably feed and house their own family's in a lifestyle they desire..

**AntRobertson** · 19-02-2008, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Clearly Ant.. What I'm saying is there has been no reported studies I can locate that even suggest this has been pursued..

Oh ok, fair enough then. Apologies I misunderstood what you were saying.

**Whiteshiva** · 19-02-2008, 03:39 PM

I have another theory - HIV is caused by the sun's rays, since HIV appears to be more common in the tropics than at the poles. Naturally, the scientists and politicians of the world know this but keep it a secret, otherwise everyone would rush out to buy huge amounts of suncream, which would have a disasterous impact on the enviroment.

**Driventowin** · 19-02-2008, 03:43 PM

^Ok I'm owned....Who can argue with enlightened logic of such high intensity.....

**kingwilly** · 19-02-2008, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I have another theory - HIV is caused by the sun's rays, since HIV appears to be more common in the tropics than at the poles. Naturally, the scientists and politicians of the world know this but keep it a secret, otherwise everyone would rush out to buy huge amounts of suncream, which would have a disasterous impact on the enviroment.

damn - i think you're onto somethign there?

I still prefered my black ppl cause tho....

**kingwilly** · 19-02-2008, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Who can argue with enlightened logic of such high intensity.....

no better or worse than yours!

**November Rain** · 19-02-2008, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Driventowin

NR I don't mean to sound nasty here but your being thick in your persistance that anyone has ever suggested that there are not other sources of infection other than mossies. That has never been the case in this debate at least not on my part.....Nor do I believe it has in DD's either but he can make his own case..

Actually, I'm not being thick. I'm actually just taking the piss, because I think the idea's so ludicrous. I must remember to use those smileys!!!

Both Mid and HB have posted articles from researchers & scientists stating categorically why your theory is a load of bunk & not only have you dismissed the research, you have not provided anything but supposition to back up your theory. That's why I'm not taking it seriously.

I also think the "oh, yes, but there are other things that increase risk, as well" is a crock. In my mind those other factors are what spread HIV; the mosquitoes are not carriers.

**Driventowin** · 19-02-2008, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Who can argue with enlightened logic of such high intensity.....

no better or worse than yours!

Only to the intellectually challenged...

**Driventowin** · 19-02-2008, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by November Rain

you have not provided anything but supposition to back up your theory

Really?? And who else here has?? None of the information you or they have presented has unequivocally supported cow dung. It's all been just as much supposition!! And I've proven that!!! But you and the others have refused to accept that too...

I'm able to at least keep an open mind and an objective opinion as to all of the possibilities, where as you all keep showing your arse by being firmly planted in denial and maintaining a myopic point of view...

**November Rain** · 19-02-2008, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Originally Posted by November Rain

you have not provided anything but supposition to back up your theory

Really?? And who else here has?? None of the information you or they have presented has unequivocally supported cow dung. It's all been just as much supposition!! And I've proven that!!! But you and the others have refused to accept that too...

I'm able to at least keep an open mind and an objective opinion as to all of the possibilities, where as you all keep showing your arse by being firmly planted in denial and maintaining a myopic point of view...

You're not keeping an open mind, DTW, as you're not willing to accept you could be wrong. I am willing to accept I could be wrong (though I'll admit to being sure I'm not), but to get anywhere near that point I would need to see proof. In my mind, Mid & HB have provided proof that mosquitoes aren't carriers or transmitters of HIV. I haven't seen you provide any proof (by any scientists/medical professionals/entomologists) that they do.
A study showing that high-risk malaria areas are also sometimes high risk HIV areas isn't proof of anything, as these areas are usually poverty stricken areas with poor education in general, and especially about sex & contamination through medical procedures, transfusions etc - the very things that are recognised to be ways of transmitting HIV. Where is the proof stating that mosquitoes do transmit HIV & stating how it happens and how the experts already quoted are wrong? When I see that, I might change my mind.

**Driventowin** · 19-02-2008, 09:59 PM

I haven't seen you provide any proof (by any scientists/medical professionals/entomologists) that they do.

It wasn't neccessary for me to prove anything because every bit of so called 'proof' to the contrary offered up here was inconclusive!! Reread their posts and look at the parts I outlined, not one of their posts provided conclusive evidence to the contrary..

I am also open minded and the day they do provide conclusive proof then I'll stand corrected but until then I remain a healthy skeptic....

**kingwilly** · 19-02-2008, 10:07 PM

i've already alluded before, its not up to us to disprove, rather upon you to prove, otherwise prove my mini flying teapot around the sun doesnt exist!

**AntRobertson** · 19-02-2008, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

otherwise prove my mini flying teapot around the sun doesnt exist!

No way! Teapots are conducters of heat, it would burn up. And stuff.

Scientifically disproven by science!

bkkandrew · 19-02-2008, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by November Rain

In my mind, Mid & HB have provided proof that mosquitoes aren't carriers or transmitters of HIV.

No they haven't. All quoted material quoted is qualified by statements such as 'no evidence of' etc.

Because of the difficulty in pinning down actual infection occurrances of HIV, given the long period without symptoms, it is still an open question in my mind whether mosquito cross infection can occur. I would be hesitant to get get paraletically drunk in an open air bar in an HIV hotspot as I would be to have unprotected sex with someone from a high risk group. The latter of which, I am sure you are not a member...

**Driventowin** · 19-02-2008, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

i've already alluded before, its not up to us to disprove, rather upon you to prove

Tell me why's that??

Thread: HIV Infection risks

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions