A genetic variation which evolved to protect people of African descent against malaria has now been shown to increase their susceptibility to HIV infection by up to 40 per cent, according to new research. Conversely, the same variation also appears to prolong survival of those infected with HIV by approximately two years.
The discovery marks the first genetic risk factor for HIV found only in people of African descent, and sheds light on the differences in genetic makeup that play a crucial role in susceptibility to HIV and AIDS.
[…]
“In sub-Saharan Africa, the vast majority of people do not express DARC on their red blood cells and previous research has shown that this variation seems to have evolved to protect against a particular form of malaria. However, this protective effect actually leaves those with the variation more susceptible to HIV.”
Related: Aha!
The human body is an amazing piece of engineering. I remember a program on the black death showing how those with a slight mutation known as B where the only ones who survived. Those with a double AA died the fastest. AB you could die or recover although your chances where low. A double BB would insure immunity or you would be a carrier depending on blood type.
Suffice it to say no one is left in Europe with a AA mutation just AB or BB. In this case the Epi-genome (interactive with the environment & changeable) was altered so completely that this changed the genetic map. No matter what the disease a certain percentage of people will always be immune.
Its pretty plain Africa is in the same boat Europe was in the middle ages during the black death. All the wars & madmen do not help.
Start the countdown: this bit of science will be shouted down as “racist” in 5 .. 4 .. 3 ..
Imagine that, different genes do different things. This is good science, where it will become meaningful is somewhere down the road for someone way smarter than me to figure out.
Interesting but …… Useful?
We’ll see .
Nonsense! It can’t be genetics! As everyone here knows, HIV/AIDS rates are higher among Africans because of their…what’s the codeword favoured here? oh right…culture.
Nonsense! As everyone here knows, the only people who ask if there may be genetic differences between subpopulations of humans do so because of their… what’s the codeword favoured there? oh right…racism.
Hey Kate, while I agree that there are certainly genetic differences amongst humans that may affect everything from behavioral traits to disease susceptibility, I believe you post these articles because you honestly believe in the genetic inferiority of certain groups of people and that this would explain social problems amongst non Caucasian people around the globe.
Before I go any further, can you please answer that. Is the plight on much of the continent of Africa, aboriginals in Canada, or other socioeconomically marginalized groups on the planet, largely to do with genetics in many cases? I’d like to know what you honestly believe.
Thanks,
Steve
I think Kate is trying to make the point that this is just another case of the “law of unintended consequences” coming into play once again.
For you leftarded morons who like to accuse Kate of being a racist, let me put it in simple terms so that your addled brains can comprehend it.
1. hippies and enviroidiots succeed in getting DDT banned
2. malaria runs rampant over African continent, killing up to 3 million(yes, well meaning 60’s moonbats, that is 3 MILLION deaths a year)people a year
3. now we can add some of the deaths of AIDS victims in Africa to the list of those dead because of do goody leftoid insanity
At the end of the day, how many millions of Africans are dead because certain 60’s type musicians and activists wanted to save some birds and some insects????????
WELL DONE MOONBATS, MILLIONS HAVE DIED, BUT THE BIRD’S EGG SHELLS ARE BACK UP TO FULL STRENGTH!
MORONIC LEFTARDED IDIOTS!
I can’t recall exactly, but doesn’t the Leftard Suzuki Tracker Style eco war against DDT have something to do with the explosion of malaria in Africa?
Perhaps someone can jog my memory before Barack Obama erases the transcript.
Kate: Nonsense! As everyone here knows, the only people who ask if there may be genetic differences between subpopulations of humans do so because of their… what’s the codeword favoured there? oh right…racism.
Actually, it’s pretty widely agreed that genotypic differences exist between human subpopulations. Most people are beyond asking that basic and obvious question, and are now studying the epigenome, nature+nurture, etc.
The difference is this: some people are interested in understanding how biology/genetics and the environment/culture interact to make us the same as well as different. You, on the other hand, seem interested only in cherry-picking between biological determinism and social determinism to suit your needs as the circumstances dictate in order to assail a particular set of “subpopulations of humans.” (You do the same cherry-picking with “group identity” and “individualism.)”
Does that make you racist? Well, ask yourself: have you ever posted anything positive about these same subpopulations?
Quote: Before I go any further, can you please answer that. Is the plight on much of the continent of Africa, aboriginals in Canada, or other socioeconomically marginalized groups on the planet, largely to do with genetics in many cases? I’d like to know what you honestly believe.
Thanks,
Steve
Well Steve it could be genetics, one tribal custom comes to mind. When daddy marries his little darlin off to his brother (her uncle son) this custom adds directly to several generations of boarderline retarded children breeding with other boarderline retarded relatives and viola a couple of decades you have a population that is directly related to each other with below average IQs.
The above example could explain why violent and barbaric behavior seems the norm in Islamic Country and in Africa. Keeping people poor, uneducated and willing to die for a “God” has aided and abetted the Elite and Wealthy in third world countries for decades.
Regarding “Marginilized” groups, to be honest most people who end up marginilized by society end up in the corner for a reason. Certain behaviors will never be deemed normal, I realise that’s the goal of the HRCs across Canada but society will not be forced to accept the unacceptable.
so if people make statements that are positive about certain sub populations, it’s ok for them to make negative statements regarding these same groups, because this is considered to be an “offset” ?
… cause I know of a group that will be faithful to their spouse while others cheat, as a way of offsetting certain other activities…
and it’s just as real a solution as the rest of the lot.
Interesting. The same genetic protection that has saved many Africans from one disease shafts them with another.
It does explain why AIDS has spread through the hetero population in Africa but not the west.
It has long been known that Europeans are far more likely to die when infected with Malaria (if not treated) than Africans. The early missionaries to Africa were devastated by Malaria.
In one regard, it means that it isn’t solely Culture or behaviours which are responsible for AIDS in Africa given that the infection rates are higher for the same actions if your population is more susceptible. There is certainly a hell of a lot of hetero promiscuity in the west but the infection rates here are a small fraction of Africa.
As far as the conspiracy theorists of the leftard set goes, I doubt there is anything in the way of logic, reason or truth that will sway them from their delusions.
As for the leftard trolls here: Is there no subject or point which can be made on any subject without you one-trick ponies screaming “racism”?? I think you need to go to your mothers, your teachers and your professors and slap them upside their heads for not teaching you anything more than histrionics. One would think that with all the tax dollars going into education you’d have learned how to think and debate. I guess not.
Monogamy kills HIV so theres “no worries” right?
Uh Steve do you think that we should withdraw affirmative action and racist hiring programs. I contend the left only wants them because lefties think the white male heteronormative culture is superior.
Or is it just because we work harder, one of the people in winnipeg at my daughters school left to work in the core and they only have 25% attendance in her class.
Like if 25% attend it’s no wonder people who actually try in school do better.
Maybe we should move the affirmative action to a lower level, white middle class types should be forced to stay home 75% of the time when in junior high? Genetically speaking.
Well now, seems the Rev. Wright was right all along.
But Kate ain’t the Racist out here, it’s me, I kindof like hanging out with my own group that way we don’t have to worry about anyone being insulted, that is unless you pull for Kyle Bush.
,
Ok … Maybe I’m dense but for everyone who is claiming that Kate posting this is “Racist” can you please explain what about her post demonstrated a distinct preference (or dislike) for a particular race.
The fact of the matter is that Aids in Africa is a massive issue, and is highly political. There have been many people who have come up with reasons why Africa was so hard-hit by Aids including conspiracy theories, socio-eccomic issues, cultural issues, and now we have a biological reason.
From my perspective, this is very interesting because it may explain how HIV infected humans for the first time and it also is a good story about unintended consequences. Who really knows what the result would be of curing Aids or letting it run rampant …
I don’t see how describing a genetic component of a specific population group as conducive to, or not conducive to, a particular disease – is racist. It’s scientific fact. How can this fact be ‘racist’?
Is it racist to compare the bone structure of the Bantu and Nilotic sub-populations in Africa? Is it racist to examine the fat retention component of Inuit and other peoples living in extreme cold climates – and then examine what happens if they move to a different climate and food source?
Equally, I don’t see how describing a cultural mode of behaviour that is specific to a population group as conducive to, or not conducive to, a particular disease – is racism. It’s scientific fact.
And if you put these two facts together, the genetic component and the cultural component, you exponentially (exponential not linear) increase the incidents of that disease.
ET,
It’s “racist” because it discusses an issue the PC Thought-Nazis don’t want you talking about.
The other definition of a racist is someone winning an argument with a leftard.
Like I said, the leftard one-trick ponies ought to smack all the people in their lives who failed to teach them how to think beyond yelling “racist” every time someone says something that requires them to string a few simple thoughts together into an argument.
The post itself isn’t racist at all. It’s the context within all of the other posts Kate make’s on Africa, non caucasian groups, etc. She didn’t answer mine or QE’s assertions but I just want to quote what QE wrote earlier because, it really couldn’t be said any better and nobody challenged it:
“The difference is this: some people are interested in understanding how biology/genetics and the environment/culture interact to make us the same as well as different. You (kate), on the other hand, seem interested only in cherry-picking between biological determinism and social determinism to suit your needs as the circumstances dictate in order to assail a particular set of “subpopulations of humans.” (You do the same cherry-picking with “group identity” and “individualism.)”
This is so true of Kate McMillian and the latter point on the oscillation between group identity and individualism ties in so well with her views on race and collective identity in those she despises.
He then follows with a beautiful question:
“Does that make you racist? Well, ask yourself: have you ever posted anything positive about these same subpopulations?”
And of course, Kate doesn’t answer…and of course, the usual suspects come clammering to her defense decrying us as “left tards” or other pejorative names. Why would there be any recognition that there might be virtue in having one’s arguments challenged so they can better defend them…or how about acknowledging that its good to spend a little time in discussion circles that don’t necessarily jive with your worldview? If not to learn something, then to at least learn the antithesis of your worldview better so you don’t need to say “left tard” or “liebral”…or whatever childish term is the hit of the day. But wait, this is SDA. I really can’t understand how all of you spend so much time on a board that consistently preaches to your value set. Don’t you guys get bored of hearing stuff you agree with all the time? It’s like, “oh look, Kate posted another picture of a poorly placed weather station, man I’m excited to see that for the 50th time because I don’t get the point yet…”
Heh, but I digress, certainly there are contradictions within “leftists” or any particular point on that spectrum. One particular contradiction in myself is that in a way, I’m lambasting all of you for going in circles on this board, but I too am going in circles by preaching for an elevated discourse.
The post itself isn’t racist at all. It’s the context within all of the other posts Kate make’s on Africa, non caucasian groups, etc. She didn’t answer mine or QE’s assertions but I just want to quote what QE wrote earlier because, it really couldn’t be said any better and nobody challenged it:
“The difference is this: some people are interested in understanding how biology/genetics and the environment/culture interact to make us the same as well as different. You (kate), on the other hand, seem interested only in cherry-picking between biological determinism and social determinism to suit your needs as the circumstances dictate in order to assail a particular set of “subpopulations of humans.” (You do the same cherry-picking with “group identity” and “individualism.)”
post testing… hi everyone!
oh my…Kate it would appear that all my comments are now being held for moderation.
A real argument comes your way and this is how you react. Sad.
We get called “racist” for pretty much anything. If you mention cultural problems, it’s racist, if you mention genetic problems, it’s racist, if you mention any problems, it’s racist.
Leftists and the AIDS industry have been denying that there was something fishy about AIDS stats. Two populations that as connected as Africa is with the West (which, for disease vectors, doesn’t mean all that huge of a connection) can’t have such different behaviour from the same disease. Either people were lying about the disease’s prevalence or there was something exceptionally odd going on. Now we know that it’s both! The recent book expose of the AIDS NGO industry highlighted how and why the stats get inflated, and we now look to have an explanation of how the disease can behave in such a different manner.
The sad thing about the Left’s love affair with the “racist” tag is that through overuse and misuse it gets diminished. Racism is an ugly and ridiculous thing. Humans are humans, and to treat people as anything less solely because of their genetic makeup is insane. However the self-hating, nihilistic aspects of the Left that mandate negation of western culture and a hatred for cultural superiority has led them to conflate a belief in Western culture as racism. To be on the right in a North American sense requires one to have a belief in the cultural superiority of the West and of the Anglosphere specifically. Belief in the sovereignty of individuals and in the market means that one is inherently hostile to French mercantilism and love of la gloire as well as to Muslim jihadism and suppression of women, Chinese fascism, and Indian casteism. It’s ironic that believing that women are inherently equal and must be treated the same as men, no matter where they live, gets you called a racist by avowed feminists!
The key here is that both cultural and genetic issues have to be faced realistically. In the same way the genetic trait raising resistance to malaria (as does sickle cell trait) also raises susceptibility to HIV, a difference in the genetic coding for alcohol dehydrogenase may raise susceptibility to alcoholism in North American native populations. The upshot is that the solutions to the problems may differ according to our genetic makeup or “race” if you will. In other words, claiming that we’re all the same and advocating one-size-fits-none solutions without consideration for genetic differences may be wholly inapplicable and a formula for disaster. We’re different genetically, not better or worse, different. Vive la difference!
Cultural differences are a whole different kettle of fish. Culture is behavioral. It’s something we can change about ourselves. And to argue that all cultures are equally successful is rubbish. Cultures (behaviors) are variably successful depending upon the goals and context in which they are practiced. Certain cultural practices are far more economically successful than others. Likewise, certain cultural practices are far riskier for disease transmission than others. If cultural preservation is seen as the primary goal, then disease transmission or poverty may be the unfortunate price. However, if the price of certain cultural practices is faced realistically, then the decision to change can be made in better knowledge of the costs/benefits.
Yes Steve, your comments are getting stuck in the spam filter because you’re posting too quick, or you have html tags or links to blocked sites, or etc.
I very much doubt it is because you have posted a “real argument”.
All you’ve actually done is say you don’t like Kate and you don’t like SDA or the people who post here.
We got it. We don’t think much of you either, but since you do bring a certain amount of unintentional comedy, I guess Kate has decided to cut you some slack.
Between you and QE, this is the funniest thread in days.
Addressing the point here, it is unsurprising to find an HIV predisposition in the sub-Saharan African population, given the amazing HIV infection rates they have.
QE said: “The difference is this: some people are interested in understanding how biology/genetics and the environment/culture interact to make us the same as well as different.”
Maybe so, if you’re an academic and don’t give a crap about HIV ravaging Africa. If you DO give a crap, you address the problem from all angles.
Angle one, culture. Slowest known rate of infection is in predominantly monogamous cultures. Prostitution increases infection rate, male homosexual sex increases rate (but not female), IV drug use increases rate. African family pattern of multiple partners increases HIV infection rate more than any of these other risk factors.
Moral judgment or infectious disease control? You make the call, big boy.
Angle two, genetic predisposition. Seems the African population has one, due to the prior adaptation to malaria (without which there would be damn few human beings in most of Africa). Couple cultual practices which spread HIV very efficiently with that predisposed population and you have some pretty serious sh1t.
As Revnant Dream said above, this is like Europe and the Black Death. Would the Black Death have harrowed Europe the same if simple bathing and sewage disposal had been handled in the Roman way? Or if there had been a larger resistant population? Probably not.
You want to fight HIV for real, maybe you better stop pretending all cultures are equally valid. They’re not, and if there were ever going to be proof of that hypothesis, the HIV epidemic in Africa would be it. People who change their culture and behavior to fit Reality will survive and prosper. Those who refuse… won’t.
Racism or common sense QE?