i wouldnt be immune as much as i would like to.... im not from a small town in Europe whose ancestors develop an immunity thx to surviving the black plague
but the answer is no, simply b/c i have standards and you would need to question what kinda ppl she was sleeping with before you aids is not the only disease you need to worry about.
Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Donate my body to science...so that they can find a cure.
before or after they pay you 100's of million of dollars possibly billions and patents?
also if you ever had blood drawn in a hospital or had surgery they probably already checked and used it in experiments without you knowing....
besides their already are Hiv anomaly ppl with immunity.... 😉
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
besides their already are Hiv anomaly ppl with immunity.... 😉
No, there are people that seem to be resistant to infection, or those that never develop AIDS despite having HIV. However, this should not be confused with "immunity." To my knoweldge, no one has been scientifically proven to be immune form HIV.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Would I still be a carrier?
But smart boy.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
if you had a child with someone who has hiv would that child be half immune or something 😕
Dumb. Just plain dumb.
Originally posted by Ordo
No, there are people that seem to be resistant to infection, or those that never develop AIDS despite having HIV. However, this should not be confused with "immunity." To my knoweldge, no one has been scientifically proven to be immune form HIV.
dont correct me...... i hate when i get question....... especially when i read and saw reports about it and people who have had their blood taken for study without their concent and have tried to sue......
i may not remember where i saw them or which magazine or tv station did it but it has bn printed and televised various times...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/011025_ccr5.shtml
now apologize and kiss the hand
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
dont correct me...... i hate when i get question....... especially when i read and saw reports about it and people who have had their blood taken for study without their concent and have tried to sue......http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/011025_ccr5.shtml
The particular mutation that I assume that this article (not paper) is discussing is the CCR5 D32 mutation. CCR5 D32 in no way confers immunity from HIV. See this is the problem when you read a popular interpretation of science from the ignorant media. Its like reading a children's book on space and expecting to be informed.
CCR5 is a protein that HIV uses to help infect cells. Heterozygotes for the CCR5 D32 allele see a additional delay in the onset of AIDS after HIV infection by about 2 years. Homozygotes for the CCR5 D32 mutation are relatively resistant to HIV infection, but there are still many documented cases of CCR5 D32 homozygotes being infected with HIV and developing AIDS. This is hardly immunity, but instead the exact phenomenon that I described earlier: resistance to infection or progression, not immunity.
Even with that said, there are many different strains of HIV and all of them work in different ways. You can be infected with a strain of the flu even though you have already developed immunity to another strain. The same is true with HIV. Just like you can be infected with a flu virus and never develop symptoms, you can be infected with HIV and never progress to AIDS (though again such is rare). Just because one genotype gives you resistance to one strain of HIV, doesnt mean it confers resistance to another strain.
Addressing the article again, CCR5 is important for cellular infection by both the black plague and smallpox, both which are endemic to large portions of the world and are not exclusive to northern Europe. THe CCR5 D32 mutation is only found a arelative "high" (10% heterozygote, 1% homozygote) incidence in Northern Europe, which was not the only region of Europe to be devastated by the black plague. Could the plage have helped select for it? Yes. However, thats not the only piece of the puzzle. More likely, its just the UK press talking about how "superior" their genetics are when in fact genetics have absurdly little to do with HIV infection. They deal more so with the progression of HIV into AIDS. Instead, it is far and away sexual behavior that is the predominant concern here. I'd imagine that HIV prevention in the UK is just as serious a task as in any other Western country, despite any resistance that 1% of the population may have.
So yes, I will correct you, because you are wrong. You will be questioned, because I think you made an inaccurate statement. Just because you read soemthing, especially from a non-expert source, doesn’t make it true.
I will say again: There are people that seem to be resistant to infection, or those that never develop AIDS despite having HIV. However, this should not be confused with "immunity." To my knowledge, no one has been scientifically proven to be immune form HIV.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
now apologize and kiss the hand
Dont try to cloud the issue...........
are their ppl that can be infected with a strain of HIV and their body fight back the infection? yes....
i am aware of various forms of HIV..... and ur analogy to the cold or flu virus doesnt really discredit what i was saying...
all u were doing is trying to do is define what true immunity truly is...
so i guess ur right no one is truly immune of any virus or bacteria b/c it is still carried in the blood stream and it takes time for a body to locate and build a proper defense....
i guess that is not immunity so you win... i guess we need to rename certain program like immunizations and what not since no one is actually given immunity but rather are given resistance and tolerance....
people like you give me a head ache along with lawyers and politicians..... you try to redefine what is truth to suit ur stance......
your the type of people who argue the difference between joggng and running and try to discredit ppl as liars for not differentiating the small difference if their was one to begin with.. 😒
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i guess that is not immunity so you win...
Excellent.
Pointing out the difference between resistance and immunity is not some sort of trickery. Its fact. If you dont understand that scientific concepts have very precise meanings, then you, like the BBC, should educate yourselves.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
Dont try to cloud the issue...........are their ppl that can be infected with a strain of HIV and their body fight back the infection? yes....
There were reported cases of babies being born with HIV from their infected mothers and subsequently testing negative a couple of months down the line. I don't think it was ever investigated properly though.
I vaguely remember reading something about fetal blood being a possible cause. I don't know much beyond fetal blood differing by having gamma instead of beta subunits and it having a higher affinity for oxygen.
Never really paid that much attention to the research as I presumed it would turn out to be bullshit (and given that nothing else has come of it then I guess I was right).
Originally posted by Ordo
The particular mutation that I assume that this article (not paper) is discussing is the CCR5 D32 mutation. CCR5 D32 in no way confers immunity from HIV. See this is the problem when you read a popular interpretation of science from the ignorant media. Its like reading a children's book on space and expecting to be informed.CCR5 is a protein that HIV uses to help infect cells. Heterozygotes for the CCR5 D32 allele see a additional delay in the onset of AIDS after HIV infection by about 2 years. Homozygotes for the CCR5 D32 mutation are relatively resistant to HIV infection, but there are still many documented cases of CCR5 D32 homozygotes being infected with HIV and developing AIDS. This is hardly immunity, but instead the exact phenomenon that I described earlier: resistance to infection or progression, not immunity.
Even with that said, there are many different strains of HIV and all of them work in different ways. You can be infected with a strain of the flu even though you have already developed immunity to another strain. The same is true with HIV. Just like you can be infected with a flu virus and never develop symptoms, you can be infected with HIV and never progress to AIDS (though again such is rare). Just because one genotype gives you resistance to one strain of HIV, doesnt mean it confers resistance to another strain.
Addressing the article again, CCR5 is important for cellular infection by both the black plague and smallpox, both which are endemic to large portions of the world and are not exclusive to northern Europe. THe CCR5 D32 mutation is only found a arelative "high" (10% heterozygote, 1% homozygote) incidence in Northern Europe, which was not the only region of Europe to be devastated by the black plague. Could the plage have helped select for it? Yes. However, thats not the only piece of the puzzle. More likely, its just the UK press talking about how "superior" their genetics are when in fact genetics have absurdly little to do with HIV infection. They deal more so with the progression of HIV into AIDS. Instead, it is far and away sexual behavior that is the predominant concern here. I'd imagine that HIV prevention in the UK is just as serious a task as in any other Western country, despite any resistance that 1% of the population may have.
So yes, I will correct you, because you are wrong. You will be questioned, because I think you made an inaccurate statement. Just because you read soemthing, especially from a non-expert source, doesn’t make it true.
I will say again: There are people that seem to be resistant to infection, or those that never develop AIDS despite having HIV. However, this should not be confused with "immunity." To my knowledge, no one has been scientifically proven to be immune form HIV.
I'm confused...resistance is not immunity? What about "partial immunity"? How does that fit in? And what about "virtual immunity"? How does that fit in? Those are both phrases used by immunologists.
I think saying one is "resistant" or has "partial immunity/virtual immunity" is all the same.
Sure, the "virtual immunity" will generally be perceived as a very strong resistance with almost perfect immunity...it still isn't a perfect immunity.
But, is there a such thing as perfect immunity? I don't think so.
It's really word semantics, imo.
If someone says that they "have that thing that makes me immune to HIV", I don't automatically respond with "haha! Thou are not immune, but resistant!" I know exactly what they mean.
And, I believe this is an example of HIV immunity...almost perfect?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_06.html
I have a hard time separating, on a very specific level, immunity and resistance. It's possible that my confusion is word semantics...but it doesn't seem that way.
Originally posted by Ordo
Excellent.Pointing out the difference between resistance and immunity is not some sort of trickery. Its fact. If you dont understand that scientific concepts have very precise meanings, then you, like the BBC, should educate yourselves.
lol! Awesome. I lke you.
But, could you enlighten me and bring up to speed with my confusion?
Re: Immune To HIV
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
If you were immune to HIV would you have sex with some one who has it?
if that person was very attractive and all.if you had a child with someone who has hiv would that child be half immune or something 😕
You obviously do not understand what HIV/AIDS is if you could post something as stupid as this. 😐
Ah, another Colossus Big-C thread what-if thread. This game is really something more for podcasting.
I know I'm in the minority here but even if I was immune to HIV, I'd still use a condom because that's what I know, that's what I'm used to, and I still don't want to get any of the other wonderful VD's that are out there.