View Poll Results: Genetic testing

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • I would never get myself genetically tested.

    3 23.08%
  • I can't wait to get myself genetically tested.

    5 38.46%
  • I am unsure if I'll do it.

    3 23.08%
  • I would like to do it but I'm afraid of discrimination, of what it might reveal, or of another issue

    4 30.77%
  • Specifically, I am very interested in the AIDS resistance test

    6 46.15%
  • I will get tested and share my results with my friends on their site.

    4 30.77%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Are you immune from HIV/AIDS?

  1. #1

    Are you immune from HIV/AIDS?

    As many of you probably know, about 1% of Europeans are partly or almost totally immune to HIV/AIDS.

    I've been interested in the Google backed 23AndMe ever since they launched their service in Canada .


    Now I just learned that they dropped their prices and are offering testing for the AIDS-resistance-related mutation (and a bunch of others). I've wanted to get myself these genetic tests for quite a while now, and these latest developments are icing on the cake.

    So I've ordered my kit (US$400). I expect to complete the process in a couple of months.

    Since one of the tests they offer may be of interest to members of this board, I thought I'd see what you all thought.

    -----
    Note: Obviously, being immune to AIDS does not protect you against other STDs.
    Last edited by Kepler; 11-01-2008 at 01:53 PM.

  2. #2
    They learned of this immunity while trying to understand why some people didnt get the plague in the middle ages. They found a gene mutation for this immunity. If you recevied this gene immunity from both parents you were totaly immune. If you received it from just one parent you would get sick but recover. What this gene does is block the infection pathway for the disease. As it turns out HIV has the same infection pathway. So if you have had the vaccine for the plague and did not react to it you may have partial or full immunity to both.
    There was a documentary about a man who had lived the gay lifestyle in San Fransisco just before it was discovered there. All of his friends had died but not he. He never got infected. When they looked at why they made the link between the gene mutation that protected against the plague and immunity to HIV. He had both mutated genes. As it turns out if you have only 1 gene mutation you will get infected with HIV but it will probably not go to full blown AIDS.
    Last edited by mass1965; 10-31-2008 at 12:53 AM.

  3. #3
    I have a hard time to beleive in this so called immunity gene. They have not and are just as far away as finding a vaccine since the virus was firts discovered. I think scientists don't know where to turn so they come up with these theories right and left, to me does not make since. At first (in the 80's) they said that Africans ate green monkeys and that's how they got infected, monkey meat is not part of 99% of the African population. It has been 30 years since the virus was discovered and the only thing they have come up with is a regime of pharmaceutical drugs. Condoms do work so everybody strap you seatbelt and go every other month or so for a checkup.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by well
    I have a hard time to beleive in this so called immunity gene. [...] At first (in the 80's) they said that Africans ate green monkeys and that's how they got infected, monkey meat is not part of 99% of the African population.

    The AIDS immunity gene is now pretty much accepted by everybody. See mass1965's excellent summary in the previous post.

    The original transmission of AIDS from monkeys to humans is more speculative. It probably came from Africans eating "bush meat" (ie: chimps). So what if only 1% of Africans ever ate monkey meat? All it takes is one person to get infected, and then it slowly spreads to the rest of the community.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler
    The AIDS immunity gene is now pretty much accepted by everybody. See mass1965's excellent summary in the previous post.

    The original transmission of AIDS from monkeys to humans is more speculative. It probably came from Africans eating "bush meat" (ie: chimps). So what if only 1% of Africans ever ate monkey meat? All it takes is one person to get infected, and then it slowly spreads to the rest of the community.

    This is my point, people have to develop critical and analytical thinking. On average the stats are 1/1000 to get infected if one has unprotected sex with an HIV infected person. The average for Chlamydia and Ghonorea is 1/5. The HIv virus is not like the flu (it's much more fragile), the flu can spread like wild flowers. The so called monkey infection does not add up. The monkey meat is cooked before being eaten so cooking the meat would kill the virus. Don't go tell me that you beleive that they ate the meat raw. The problem is that people no longer think with logic and absorb like a sponge whatever is being fed to them. Alot of factors come to play before infection such as viral load, other std's present, the host's own immunity etc. You may beleive whatever non-sense you want. It's not because a handfull of doctors have made the news with their claim that's it's true or even make some sort of sence. A doctor also said that their was a gay gene that was the cause of homosexuality untill it was found that he played with the findings and that it was discovered that he himself was gay.

    Luc deMonpelier who was the original man who discovered the HIV virus (not Rober gailo) today claims that HIV itself is not the cause of aids and that there is another agent combined with the HIV virus that causes aids. All of these things are speculations that may or may not have have some basis for it. I'm allways shoked at seing the level of ignorance that have reached the people of north america. Whatever comes out of a news paper,tv,magasine is taken as some sort of revelation.

  6. #6
    Here is another example of how people are are as blind as a bat.

    We have allowed ourselves to lose the habit of using our reason.

    That is the actual danger or the disaster. We are deluded into believing everything, for instance, that migratory birds in Asia have been infected with an extremely dangerous, deadly virus.

    These mortally diseased birds then keep flying for weeks on end. They fly thousands of kilometres, and then in Rumania, in Turkey, Greece,U.S,Canada and elsewhere infect hens, geese or other poultry, with which they have had no contact, and which within a very short time get diseased and die.

    But the migratory birds themselves do not get diseased and do not die, but keep on flying, for weeks on end, thousands of kilometres

    Wake up people, wake up

  7. #7

    A fools dream.

    Diseases mutate.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by well
    The monkey meat is cooked before being eaten so cooking the meat would kill the virus.
    The idea is that they got it while slaughtering the animals, and got blood on themselves. Poor Africans do not use latex gloves while preparing captured/killed monkeys. Anyways, this is not settled science yet, and other hypotheses exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by well
    (Avian flu) ...But the migratory birds themselves do not get diseased and do not die, but keep on flying, for weeks on end, thousands of kilometres
    From the CDC:
    "These influenza viruses occur naturally among birds. Wild birds worldwide carry the viruses in their intestines, but usually do not get sick from them"
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/facts.htm

    Noting extraordinary about that. Lots of species are sometimes "carriers" for a disease and don't get sick.


    Anyways, I'm not interested in debating AIDS conspiracy theories here. This thread is based on hard science, and the point of the thread is the gene test. Are people interested in that? Will they do it? etc.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by GTA refugee
    Diseases mutate.

    People with this mutation have been resistant to AIDS for 50 years. I don't care if AIDS mutates in 20,000 years to overcome this protection. Heck, it might mutate to become airborne by then!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by GTA refugee
    Diseases mutate.

    It's funny that for the HIV/AIds, it mutates in North America and Europe but does not for the rest of the world, even in far away latin american and asian countries.

    With any epidemic, it start with a core point and spreads out. The plague started in one location and went throughout Europe. As many people died in one location, the news spread rapidely and the following town, country took necessary measures to reduce the epidemic. They went as far as locking and burning people alive in their own homes. An pedemic hit hard at the focal point and fades away with distance. (it is not because they had a special gene that made them immune)

    I would like to see them inject these immuned people with the virus straight to their veins and then we'll see if they'll have the opinion

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler
    The idea is that they got it while slaughtering the animals, and got blood on themselves. Poor Africans do not use latex gloves while preparing captured/killed monkeys. Anyways, this is not settled science yet, and other hypotheses exist.



    From the CDC:
    "These influenza viruses occur naturally among birds. Wild birds worldwide carry the viruses in their intestines, but usually do not get sick from them"
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/facts.htm

    Noting extraordinary about that. Lots of species are sometimes "carriers" for a disease and don't get sick.


    Anyways, I'm not interested in debating AIDS conspiracy theories here. This thread is based on hard science, and the point of the thread is the gene test. Are people interested in that? Will they do it? etc.
    What make you think that I am talking about a conspiracy, I am saying it does not make sense. Did you hear me mention any conspiracy? I am looking at things the way it is presented, of course some people will be interested or are interested in the gene test (you are one of them). I say to people the only known protection is abstinence and condom. The so called gene is irrelevant (unless they can transfer those genes to people who do not have them and their bodies would not reject that foreign gene) for people living with the virus.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by well
    It's funny that for the HIV/AIds, it mutates in North America and Europe but does not for the rest of the world
    I have no idea where you're getting this. If you have a reputable source, I'd love to read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by well
    What make you think that I am talking about a conspiracy, I am saying it does not make sense.
    Call it conspiracy theories, or call it denyalism, but so far that's what the "questions" you've raised sound like.

    But perhaps all the professional AIDS researchers are wrong and you've identified something they've all missed.



    Quote Originally Posted by well
    the only known protection is abstinence and condom. The so called gene is irrelevant (unless they can transfer those genes to people who do not have them and their bodies would not reject that foreign gene) for people living with the virus.
    Condoms are very effective, but not 100% (eg: they can tear). The gene seems to be 100% protective. The fact that it cannot be used as therapy today is unfortunate but that doesn't make it irrelevant, especially to those who have it.


    I personally probably don't have it, since it's somewhat rare. But at 1%, with 28,072 MERB members, that means up to 280 members might have it (assuming most are from European descent).
    Last edited by Kepler; 11-01-2008 at 01:36 PM.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler
    I have no idea where you're getting this. If you have a reputable source, I'd love to read it.



    Call it conspiracy theories, or call it denyalism, but so far that's what the "questions" you've raised sound like.

    But perhaps all the professional AIDS researchers are wrong and you've identified something they've all missed.





    Condoms are very effective, but not 100% (eg: they can tear). The gene seems to be 100% protective. The fact that it cannot be used as therapy today is unfortunate but that doesn't make it irrelevant, especially to those who have it.


    I personally probably don't have it, since it's somewhat rare. But at 1%, with 28,072 MERB members, that means up to 280 members might have it (assuming most are from European descent).

    You never heard of the two different strains of HIV (HIV1 and HIV2), HIV2 is found in every country except north america and europe. Condoms are 100% effective against HIV if it does not break. I would rather rely on a condom than a so called test that looks for a certain type of gene that gives immunity to HIV. Since you firmly beleive that, I hope that you are immune and then I will ask you to inject yourself with HIV infected blood and come back and report it.

    You have weak arguments so labeling me as a conspiracy theorist/denialism is your rebutal. There was case in England where a homosexual man tested positive for HIV (his partner was infected and they had unprotected sex) and one year later tested negative. It was not a medical error nor was his blood mixed up etc. They are now trying to study is DNA.

    Magic Johnson's wife was 2 months pregnant when he was diagnosed with HIV and they had numerous unprotected (she is till HIV negative) penetrative sexual acts before. Not all exposures lead to infections. There are cases in south africa that are now being studied where young children born of HIV infected mothers are diagnose positive and after a year and numerous tests end up negative and maintain that status.

    The truth of the matter is that they are not that much advance in curing or understanding the HIV virus then they were in the early 80's. The end result speaks for itself. In the united states you have what doctors refer to as elite controlers, people who have HIV but their bodies manage to control the virus without any medication (they are recruiting these people for research) and these people are african americans, whites, and so on. One's immune system is the critical factor not a so called european gene. This sort of non-sense may make some europeans whose test came back ok to take more risk because of that and they might have a nasty surprise and a wake up call because they beleived that they were immuned.

  14. #14
    So another "expert", or is the same one under a different handle, pops up trying to create controversy where is none, Maybe a mod should look into who Well is certainly the writing is familiar

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by mass1965
    So another "expert", or is the same one under a different handle, pops up trying to create controversy where is none, Maybe a mod should look into who Well is certainly the writing is familiar

    The only sure thing is abstinence and condom use, the controversy is that unprotected sex does place people at risk. The so called gene will let people to beleive that they have immunity to a deadly virus. (this is the controversy)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •