Spirit of '76
muhero at globalnet.co.uk
Sun Jan 18 17:24:09 EST 1998
This comment was about the identification in 1943 of Legionella, not HIV.
The identification of the organism was done on material stored following a
fatal and undiagnosed respoiratory infection in a US Navy diver in 1943. The
earliest identification of HIV in samples that I know of is from a case of
clinical illness in 1966 of a Norwegian merchant seaman who had visited West
Africa in the early 60s and who was known to be sexually active. (ie he
contracted GC infection there.) His wife and child became ill the following
year and I think all died.
TRKeske wrote in message <19980117044001.XAA09495 at ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>> undiagnosed infections as far back as 1943. Naming something doesn't
>The notion that AIDS existed in 1943 doesn't really work.
>The epidemic has had a well-defined, characteristic annual
>doubling, in its early phases. Before discovery of the virus,
>this is likely to be even far greater, since there is no awareness
>of danger, or of prevention methods.
>A doubling per year isn't dramatic- it assumes only that
>each infected person will infect, on average, one other
>person in the course of a year. Obviously, prostitutes
>and other categories could infect dozens per WEEK.
>The assumption of doubling may not be dramatic, but
>the effects and implications certainly are dramatic.
>Do the math: If you started with just one infection in 1950,
>you would have a full billion cases by 1970.
>My conclusions are that 1) the retroactive diagnosis back to
>the 1940s is pure propagand, and 2) there must be a
>lot of microbiologists who are not very bright, or very good
>with numbers, to be able to discern this straightforward fact.
>More likely, they are covering their tails, in fear of a revelation
>that would create much public resentment of the profession.
>Smugness about "Oliver Stone" will hardly fill the void.
More information about the Microbio