swetha said:
i wanted to know why AIDS affects only humans and not animals?
wat is the difference between the cells...?(human and animal cell)
since HIV is transmitted through blood , why doesnt AIDS spread from one person to another when mosquitoes bite a person suffering from AIDS and then bites a person without AIDS?
Swetha, On another thread in this Bio/Gen Forum I question the lack of proof that HIV exists. So you can see the bias. I cannot answer for those who think diferently. I say, only that there is no proof that HIV or any other claimed pathogen causing AIDS is passed through blood..
The Mosquitoes connection I vaguely remember that it had nothing to do with HIV so much as it had to do with the mosquitoes. Maybe, I guess here, that the mosquito that sticks his blood sucker into the person's skin that no HIV on the blood sucker. OK but now he got some AIDS victims's blood. For the sake of argument we'll agree that HIV is in the blood.
The mosquito pulls out amd flies away with a belly full of blood. What does she do, go find more blood? Probably not right away. Assume the blood is for the one who took it from the person's skin and that the mosquito isn't a dealer selling off the blood on the open market to those too lazy or unable to get it themselves. So at some point this mosquito goes to another skin for brunch, inserts his blood sucking tube into the person and what? Where would the HIV be that was in the blood be on the blood sucking tube? I say only on the inside of the tube as there are no claims of HIV being discovered in the skin [in pathologically significant quantities . I'm guessing here bt I 'll stick to it.]If no HIV on the outside of the tube then the inside. If on the inside the mosquito being a sucking insect would provide for a flow of blood into the mosquito . Sucking requires connection to a blood supply and Mosky has to prime the pump by sucking up a little we bit and injecting some back into the source to buiild up a low pressure system internal to Mosky's at the top of the tube. This is how it is done on the street.
You may want to consult with a blood sucking HIV AIDS expert on this Swethe.
For years there have been live animal studies, monkies etc, injected with so-called HIV positive blood and other materials if I am correct, but no monkey has ever come down with AIDs which means ether there was no HIV virus in the blood or and if there were HIV in the blood it is insufficient to cause AIDS , either because the quantities are below the threshold of sufficiency to cause AIDS, or that HIV is not pathogenetic, or that HIV cannot be passed through blood.
Beware. Recently I saw reference in the newspaper that some monkeys had been injected with some so-called blood-laced wirh HIV and the monkey came down with an "AIDS related" symptom trying to make it sound like HIV really did it. Do you see my thing here?
Caveat Emptor
Get this:Why run blood monkey studies for years where no HIV/AIDS conection was established ; yet the program continued to perform these studies over and over again? It doesn't make sense, scientifically or economocally. Now they, whoever is in charge of this Monkey Business. has a duty to explain in some detail the very nature of the Monkey Business studies . Likewise he is under an obligation to provide real access to the studies of the 'kinda like HIV research'.
Geistkiesel