who discovered HIV/AIDS?
79292
IT WAS FOUNDED IN AFRICa> LIKE THATS WHERE IT WAS FIRST. IF THAT HELPS? VOTE ME AS BEST ANSWEr.
347045
ADDENDUM: Way to take a quote out of context, you FRAUD! You managed to miss the sentence that followed immediately: "There is no single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. INSTEAD THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAPERS CONTAINING A WIDE RANGE OF EVIDENCE THAT, TAKEN TOGETHER, MAKE THE CASE OVERWHELMING."\n\nYou simply stopped reading after the first full stop. You also probably have no experience reading scientific literature, because if you did, you'd know that major ideas in science are supported by SEVERAL peer-reviewed sources, and that consistency in the literature is the basis for a STRONG argument. \n</addendum>\n\nPrevailing distrust of the pharmaceutical/medical establishment has led to a wave of conspiracy theorists (aka, wearers of tin-foil hats) who do not believe in the etiological connection between HIV and AIDS. \n\n1. Strength. A strong association, such as a five- or tenfold increase in risk, is more likely to be causal than a weak association (such as a 10% increase in risk) because a weak association is more likely to be spurious, arising from bias, confounding, or chance. However, a weak association does not rule out causality! Nonetheless, HIV is present in all cases of AIDS, which is a pretty strong association, don't you think?\n\n2. Consistency. If the association is repeatedly observed in different populations in different settings, it is more likely to be causal than an isolated observation. For example, AIDS has been shown to affect gays, Haitians, Africans and hemophiliacs -- their only commonality would be HIV-infection. However, lack of consistency does not rule out a causal connection; some causes only work in certain circumstances, say in the presence of cofactors. These cofactors include genetic predisposition to delay onset of disease compared to other cases.\n\n3. Specificity. The idea here is that a cause should lead to a single effect, not multiple effects. HIV --> immunodeficiency syndrome. This may have been a holdover from infectious disease thinking; it is clearly wrong in many other circumstances. For instance, smoking causes lung cancer, bladder cancer, emphysema, and heart disease.\n\n4. Temporality. A cause must precede an effect in time. This one is ALWAYS true! HIV infection **always** precedes development or AIDS. It has never been shown that AIDS patients acquire HIV subsequent to the onset of syndrome.\n\n5. Biological gradient. This is the presence of a dose-response gradient; if more of a dose leads to more of an effect, this supports the idea of causality. A dose-response gradient is helpful, but its absence doesn't rule out causation (DES and vaginal adenocarcinoma, asbestos and mesothelioma) and its presence doesn't prove causation (since it may result from confounding or bias). In this sense, there is such thing as an infectious dose. Theren eeds to be a fairly significant amount of virus in order to generate infection and subsequent disease. Exposure to one virus particle does not necessitate infection because the body's immune response can still clear it.\n\n6. Plausibility. The idea of causation must be biologically plausible. This may be elusive because we hold many fixed ideas; many people doubted for years that peptic ulcer disease cold be infectious in origin! OK, this is bulletpoint you take most issue with. Hundreds of scientists have worked for the past twenty-plus years elucidating the mechanism of infection from how it enters the body, where it lands (receptor sites, specific responses), how it propagates, and how it spreads. The explantations they have come up with are plenty biologically plausible (that is assuming oyu understand advanced biological concepts).\n\n7. Coherence. The idea of causation must accord with other observations. For example, as Hill wrote, a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer was coherent with the observations that smokers had dysplasia of the bronchial epithelium, or th
907827
Dr. Peter Piot, co-discoverer of the Ebola virus.  I havent found the other person yet.  Hope this helps you out hun........Flo  ps Dr. Karl Johnson of the Whirling Disease Foundation, a virologist and co-discoverer of Ebola and Hantavirus.
102358
AIDS is a syndrome associated with the HIV virus, which has been isolated to a population of chimps in Africa. How it transferred from chimps to humans is anyone's guess, but my assumption would be that it was not through Homo-Pan sexual relations. I suppose the virus could pass through eating raw infected meat.
1070077
AIDS originated in monkeys that's why. people didn't have sex with monkeys then.
555509
Dr. David Ho and colleagues from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York told a conference they traced the very first case of HIV infection to a man, David Carr, living in what was then the Belgian Congo in 1959.   \n\nThese scientists believe the HIV virus crossed over from ape polulations to humans in the late 40's or early 50's based on the fact that it must have been present for that long in order for someone to be sick with AIDS in 1959.  Other early HIV infections are the following:\nHIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969. \nMost scientists estimate that the disease developed in Africa around 1930.\nHIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.\n\nThere is another interesting theory out there with some intriguing evidence is that HIV was accidentally introduced to Africa through administration of polio vaccine that was contaminated with HIV from the chimpanzee organs used to make the polio vaccine.  This is a VERY controversial theory since it implies that Western Medicine gave AIDS to Africa.  Here's a summary of the evidence:Overview of the theory\nOne theory of the origin of AIDS is that it developed from contaminated vaccines used in the world's first mass immunisation for polio. There are a number of reasons why this theory is plausible enough to be worthy of further investigation.\n\nThe location coincides dramatically. The earliest known cases of AIDS occurred in central Africa, in the same regions where Koprowski's polio vaccine was given to over a million people in 1957-1960. \nThe timing coincides. There is no documented case of HIV infection or AIDS before 1959. Centuries of the slave trade and European exploitation of Africa exposed Africans and others to all other diseases then known; it is implausible that HIV could have been present and spreading in Africa without being recognised. \nPolio vaccines are grown (cultured) on monkey kidneys which could have been contaminated by SIVs. Polio vaccines could not be screened for SIV contamination before 1985. \nAnother monkey virus, SV-40, is known to have been passed to humans through polio vaccines. A specific pool of Koprowski's vaccine was later shown to have been contaminated by an unknown virus. \nIn order for a virus to infect a different species, it is helpful to reduce the resistance of the new host's immune system. Koprowski's polio vaccine was given to many children less than one month old, before their immune systems were fully developed. Indeed, in one trial, infants were given 15 times the standard dose in order to ensure effective immunisation. \n\nIf this theory is correct, it has serious ethical, health and policy implications. In particular, it points to the danger of interspecies transfer of material through vaccinations, organ transplants, etc., which could lead to new variants of AIDS as well as other new diseases. As well, studying the theory may lead to insights about responding to AIDS and preventing new diseases.\n\nHowever, there has been no sustained attempt to test the theory. This could be done, for example, by testing stocks of polio vaccine for the presence of SIV. An offer to undertake tests was made as early as 1991; only in 2000 were some samples tested, and then only US-made vaccine. Another possibility would be to test stored blood samples in Africa from before 1950. If HIV is found, this would undermine the theory.\n\nThere was a documentary made that details this theory too called "The Origin of AIDS" by Peter Chappell
870150
The HIV virus has been a living virus in the animal kingdom since time in the beginning. Your pet cat has the virus. What happen was this - as this world over populated and people began to starve, corruption in every corner of the globe, people ate parts of the "monkey" , the brains in fact, for the first time, and that is how the virus entered mankind. Now through bi-sexuality - it spread, and you know that you can be in any part of the world in less then 4-hrs - that is how it travelled into our countries. There will never be a cure for it, as man does not have the DNA link to the animal DNA - the only cure is safe sex, and unfortunately that is not working, or sinking into the heads of our young people. 4 young people and hour, under the age of 34 - (14-34) male and female, contract the AIDS virus an hour! in North America!! we are not far behind the 3rd worlds which have millions dying and dead from this uncontrollable disease. A generation of children are now orphans with both parents dead from HIV. Pass it on and only have safe sex. Good question - Check out "Bono's" site, big web and lots of info on this subject and on feed the world.
514926
Hi.  I just did a google search on the origin of Aids and Hiv....\nI remembered something about it starting in Africa, but the link I am sending you will tell you the whole story and the dates.\nHope I was of some help...\n\n~Linda S~\naka\nlongleggedblonde1378
160489
AIDS, per say, say was not "discovered."  It was named. AIDS itself is NOT a disease.  Rather it is the end manisfestation of infection with HIV.  AIDS is a "collection" of opportunistic infections which prey on the immune system which has been compromised by HIV.  HIV infection/AIDS continues to spread in all corners of the world.  It seems that in the US people have again become complacent about it, with rates increasing in all metro areas.  One factor that the increase of infection is being attributed to is the use of Meth.
1003854
Yeah there is a lot of debate on where it originally came from. This is all I could really find:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids#Origin_of_HIV\n\n(I can't believe that person copy and pasted the whole article from Wikipedia!! lol)
1120087
That's not true.\n\nHIV originated in primates as far as is known. Possible ways for this virus to have originally infected humans include the hunting and eating of the original primate species; a bite would be another possible route. From this point, the virus ultimately spread to the rest of the world.\n\nIf a cross species jump is indeed the origin of HIV then the following conditions would most likely be required:\na large human population,\na large nearby population of a host animal,\na pathogen that eventually mutates to spread from animal to human,\ninteraction between the species to transmit enough of it to humans to establish a human foothold, which may take millions of individual exposures,\na mutation of same pathogen that can spread from human to human,\nsome method that allows the pathogen to disperse widely so it does not "burn out" in a local population of humans.\n\nSuch requirements existed in the remote past with smallpox, and also with the 20th century Spanish Flu.\n\nTwo species of HIV infect humans: HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 is more virulent and more easily transmitted. HIV-1 is the source of the majority of HIV infections throughout the world, while HIV-2 is less easily transmitted and is largely confined to West Africa.\n\nBoth species of the virus (HIV-1 and HIV-2) are believed to have originated in West-Central Africa and jumped species (zoonosis) from primates to humans. HIV-1 evolved from a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIVcpz) found in the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes. DNA sequencing indicates that HIV-1 (group M) entered the human population in the early 20th century, probably sometime between 1915 and 1941. HIV-2 crossed species from a different strain of SIV, this one found in sooty mangabeys (an Old World monkey) of Guinea-Bissau.
724947
AIDS is not the cause by a virus called HIV. In Fact, HIV has never been proven that been exists.
856658
almost all with hiv !!\n\n:> peace
1048421
The scientist who first discovered the microbial life was Antony Van Leeuwenhoek". He is called as the Father of Microbiology.
105585
"His death from AIDS served greatly to increase awareness of the disease..."\n\nFreddie Mercury (September 5, 1946 – November 24, 1991)
929431
Actually the virus has its origins in Africa. In the 1950s when the African government with the aid of the united nations began vaccinations for polio. HIV was introduced to the people in the vaccine. The polio vaccine was grown using Rhesus and Simian monkey which has a very similar viral infection. In fact they are cousins or genetically related. The vaccines for polio were contaminated with the HIV virus. There is a good book that talks about this occurrence called "The River". It was titled this because it was along this route that the virus spread and the polio vaccine was implemented. This may be a coincidence but some people think it was done on purpose. I think it was a medical mistake.
696810
Pasteur, he was a virologist who not only invented pastuerization but discovered many things about bacteria that are still in use today.  Google him.