William T. Dickens wrote:
> >The article did grant that there
> >remains the strange puzzle of the coincidence in timing of the various
> >strands of AIDS all being transmitted from primates to humans within a
> >close period, which I suppose that Hooper will emphasize when backed
> >into a corner. The article suggests theories of population increases
> >or the introduction of cheap syringes, both of which might explain why
> >infection didn't happen earlier.
>
>I'm probably way in over my head here, but I thought that there was still
>a lot of controversy over exactly when and where AIDS first emerged in the
>human population. I seem to remember hearing it claimed that there were
>confirmed cases in humans before the polio vaccination campaign. I thought
>I've also heard it claimed that the wave of reports around the time of the
>vaccine could be explained by a reporting anomaly -- that there was a buzz
>in the medical community that caused people to recognize what they were
>seeing as a single disease whereas before that time the pattern of
>symptoms might not have been seen as a unique disease. -- Bill
I'm admittedly in over my head as well, but it seems clear that there are
several
distinct strands of AIDS, which all seem to have been in humans since near the
start of the epidemic. And since it is unlikely that a single primate or human
was infected with more than one of these strands, there have to have been
multiple transmission events from primates to humans. The issue isn't about
reports of when people said they saw the disease, but about what we can now
infer
about who had what when.
Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
