The Origin of HIV in the USA

WillNever

Valued Senior Member
This topic of this thread is the controversial origin of AIDS in America and the intrigue surrounding it. For years, gay sex and the gay lifestyle were held responsible for the proliferation of the AIDS virus in North America and for its transmission into the heterosexual population. One gay journalist in particular, Randy Shilts, in 1987 published a book titled And the Band Played On in which he undertook the ambitious task of chronicling the series of events that, in his opinion, led to the spread of HIV in USA, starting with the initial outbreak in the San Francisco gay bathhouses in the 1970's. The book became quite famous before Shilts himself died from AIDS.

In his book, Shilts, who quickly became disliked by many gays for his seemingly traitorous exposure of the darker aspects of gay life in the 1980's, zeroes in on one man in particular, who, with the help of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shilts discovers to be the "lowest common denominator of all sexual partners" in all the cases of AIDS during that period. Every AIDS victim of the time had either had sex with this man or had sex with someone else who did. The man, who Shilts suggests is responsible for rapidly spreading HIV in America, was quickly revealed to be an almost psychopathic acting, gay, French Canadian flight attendant. His name was Gaetan Dugas, and he is popularly attributed with introducing HIV into America. Today, he is commonly referred to as "Patient Zero."
gaetandugas2.jpg
gaetandugas.jpg

This man, Patient Zero, was known for having WAY too many sexual partners on several different continents. He was alleged to have had sex with literally hundreds of partners each year, 2500 in his whole life. Furthermore, he continued to have unprotected sex long after his first disease symptoms appeared, and in private interviews with physicians stated "If I have gay cancer, why shouldn't everyone else?" For a fascinating yet disturbing interview with Shilts (now dead from AIDS) and physicians and gay acquaintances who had personal interactions with Dugas, and to see the study which led to Dugas as Patient Zero, check this out.

However, a couple years ago a new theory about the origin of HIV emerged: a small group of Haitian immigrants who brought the virus to the USA in the 1960's and received blood transfusions here were responsible. This theory was put forth by a small group of university scientists who discovered what they believed was HIV in some stored blood samples from several decades ago. Today, this theory is commonly cited as explaining the source of HIV in America, while Patient Zero is held responsible for its rapid spread in the gay community. How it was transmitted from Haitian immigrants to Dugas is not clear and therefore limits this theory's usefulness.

Some questions for the discussion: do you believe that it matters who introduced or spread HIV in the USA? If so, should the theory about Haitians in any way indemnify gays from criticism of their alleged lascivious lifestyle..? Which theory do you believe..? And do you believe the prevailing theory will change any time soon..? Use this thread to comment and question on the origin of HIV in the USA.
 
Last edited:
1. This is a big country, there can be more than 1 original spreaders.
2. There was going to be an original spreader eventually, no matter what.

Ask the same question about France, China or Albania. Although the answer might be interesting, it is not necessarily relevant...
 
I may not disagree. However, a great many people have dedicated vast resources and in some cases, their entire careers to drawing these conclusions. For what reason would the origin of HIV generate so much attention..? Why would we try to discover a "Patient Zero?"
 
do you believe that it matters who introduced or spread HIV in the USA?

Matters to whom? Matters for what? Clearly it matters to you. Why?

If so, should the theory about Haitians in any way indemnify gays from criticism of their lavascious lifestyle..?

Is "lavascious" a real word? (Lava-like?)

Are you stereotyping "gays" now as a homogeneous group, WillNever? Didn't you learn your lesson from the "black people" threads?

Which theory do you believe..?

I haven't seen enough evidence to sway me either way, so far.

And do you believe the prevailing theory will change any time soon..?

What's the prevailing theory? Patient zero? Who knows?
 
Matters to whom? Matters for what? Clearly it matters to you. Why?
Clearly it matters to a great deal of people besides me, including the people who have written about it. For what reason do you find that suspect..? Are you bigoted against gays..?
Is "lavascious" a real word? (Lava-like?)

Are you stereotyping "gays" now as a homogeneous group, WillNever? Didn't you learn your lesson from the "black people" threads?
What stereotype..? What lesson..? This is an interesting topic to a lot of people. Please do not drive this innocent and honest thread off into a ridiculous personal tangent.
 
as HR said, its important in epidemology to know where, how and how quickly a disease spreads. For instance the GP in china who started the SARS epidemic (or was that a pandemic?)

However will your intial post ignores 2 other possable theories as to the start of the US strain HIV spread. That is the theory about Hep B (or was it C?) vacinations and a lab reusing chimpanze blood. The second theory i cant rember very well but the first one is quite plausable.

It goes before the spread of HIV it was quite normal to reuse needles because single use needles either wernt very widely used (because of cost and percived nessacity) or hadnt yet been invented (i cant rember which). In the US there was a trial of a vacinee for Hep (B or C) which was trialed in the gay community first because they were seen a the main at risk group. Soon after the roll out of this trial the CDC started getting reports of a new disease that was labled "gay man's cancer" (or gay man's lukemia).

Its interesting to note that there havent been any sourses of infection that i have herd of (or that were mentioned during our lectures on HIV and disease progression) for the US strain of HIV that predate the outbreak in the US. It is also worth noting that the US strain actually apears to predate the African strain of the disease
 
WillNever:

Clearly it matters to a great deal of people besides me, including the people who have written about it. For what reason do you find that suspect..?

I don't find it suspect. I asked you why you think it matters.

Are you bigoted against gays..?

No. Are you?

Please do not drive this innocent and honest thread off into a ridiculous personal tangent.

I'll make you a deal. You stop posting value-laden and bigoted questions like "If so, should the theory about Haitians in any way indemnify gays from criticism of their lascivious lifestyle..?" and I'll stop calling you on your prejudices. Ok?
 
I'll make you a deal. You stop posting value-laden and bigoted questions like "If so, should the theory about Haitians in any way indemnify gays from criticism of their lascivious lifestyle..?" and I'll stop calling you on your prejudices. Ok?
Bigoted how..? Gays face a lot of criticism in the USA for having a lascivious lifestyle. What value judgement exists there, unless you equate its meaning -- lusty -- to "bad?" That lifestyle isn't a bad thing, nor is admitting its existence a prejudicial thing; that's the truth. Sexually active gays are significantly more likely to have multiple sexual partners at one time than non-gays. That's also a truth. For better or worse, the truth is the truth.
No. Are you?
No, and absolutely idiotic for someone to ask, if they knew me at all. This thread is not about me. Keep it that way. This thread is about the origin of HIV in America and the intrigue surrounding it. If you have nothing further to say on that matter, then you are here as a troublemaker, and you should be avoided.
 
Last edited:
Gays face a lot of criticism in the USA for having a lascivious lifestyle. What value judgement exists there, unless you equate its meaning -- lusty -- to "bad?"

As I already pointed out, referring to "gays" as if all gay people think the same way, act the same way, are the same in all ways, amounts to unthinking stereotyping.

"Lascivious" means, according to my dictionary "Driven by lust; preoccupied with or exhibiting lustful desires". Fraggle's dictionary gives us "lustful, wanton, lewd".

Now, some gay people undoubtedly have "lustful, wanton, lewd" lifestyles. But then, so do some heterosexual people. So, while you're applauding "criticism" of such lifestyles, why (a) restrict it to one group, and (b) seek to imply that all members of the group have that lifestyle when they do not?

As for connotations, "lewd" has "bad" connotations, and so does "lascivious". If you don't know what a word means, don't use it.

Sexually active gays are significantly more likely to have multiple sexual partners at one time than non-gays. That's also a truth. For better or worse, the truth is the truth.

Yes, that is true. But you are (a) making moral judgments about it and (b) stereotyping.

If you are really interested in the origin of HIV/AIDS in America, I suggest you leave the moralising for a different thread.
 
Nowhere did I "applaud" criticism of gays or any lifestyle characteristic of gays. I am rabidly against such criticism, a fact I wanted to leave out of this thread in order to objectively gather other opinions before vocalizing my own sentiments. So way to lie, but anybody who reviews my post history will readily view my clearly pro gay beliefs. And in spite of that, no moralizing one way or the other has taken place in this thread.
"Lascivious" means, according to my dictionary "Driven by lust; preoccupied with or exhibiting lustful desires". Fraggle's dictionary gives us "lustful, wanton, lewd".
My dictionary, and I'm using an old fashioned paper dictionary here, states that lascivious means "lustful, salacious, libidinous" -- none of them bad things. And since I created this thread, and since it was my sentence containing my interpretation of the word, we will be going with MY definition for the purpose of this thread. I want to make it clear that while you are free to harbor whatever idiosyncratic notions you have of the people you have chosen to dislike, do not not allow your prejudicial expectations of those people to seep into honest and innocent threads such as this one.

This reinforces my statement that you are a troublemaker, and therefore I cannot be seen talking to you.
 
Last edited:
Nowhere did I "applaud" criticism of gays or any lifestyle characteristic of gays.

WillNever said:
If so, should the theory about Haitians in any way indemnify gays from criticism of their lascivious lifestyle..?

To me, this reads like you think gay people deserve criticism for their lascivious lifestyles. They are fair game for such criticism, unless "indemnified". Is this not what you meant to imply, then?

My dictionary, and I'm using an old fashioned paper dictionary here, states that lascivious means "lustful, salacious, libidonous" -- none of them bad things.

Lust is traditionally one of the Seven Deadly Sins - probably a bad thing. "Salacious", like "lascivious", has negative connotations of lust tending to moral looseness or depravity. "Libidinous" means "driven by lust", which I think most people would regard as a negative thing.

If you were unaware of the connotations these words carry, it seems you've learned something in this thread. That can only be a good thing.

I want to make it clear that while you are free to harbor whatever idiosyncratic notions you have of the people you have chosen to dislike, do not not allow your prejudicial expectations of those people to seep into honest and innocent threads such as this one.

I won't do that, I assure you.

This reinforces my statement that you are a troublemaker, and therefore I cannot be seen talking to you.

You introduced the lasciviousness, not me.
 
This is not a religious thread, and I will not respond to your further attempts to corrupt the topic.
 
That lifestyle isn't a bad thing, nor is admitting its existence a prejudicial thing; that's the truth.

It’s not the “truth”; it’s merely your value-laden judgement. Science doesn’t deal in subjective “truth”, it deals in verifiable evidence. It deals in data.


Sexually active gays are significantly more likely to have multiple sexual partners at one time than non-gays. That's also a truth. For better or worse, the truth is the truth.

Are they? Who says? This is a place of science. So, if you don’t back up that statement with an academic scientific reference within the next 24 hours then this is getting locked and Cesspooled.
 
Please! Send this to the Cesspool before it gets hijacked by the AIDS denier crowd! HURRY!
 
This is not a religious thread, and I will not respond to your further attempts to corrupt the topic.

Bad response. What you could have done is to acknowledge your errors and move on. Instead, you choose not to face or take responsibility for your mistakes. You'll never progress that way.
 
WillNever For what reason would the origin of HIV generate so much attention..? Why would we try to discover a "Patient Zero?"

Origin of HIV (or any epidemic) is important. Original spreader in 1 particular country, not so much. Unless that particular country happens to be also the origin of the disease.

Now let's say AIDS is a military experience that got out of hand. Then sure the point of origin is important. Maybe that is a reason why they are trying to locate the first US patient, because some researchers subscribe to that theory...
 
Last edited:
Origin of HIV (or any epidemic) is important. Original spreader in 1 particular country, not so much. Unless that particular country happens to be also the origin of the disease.

Now let's say AIDS is a military experience that got out of hand. Then sure the point of origin is important. Maybe that is a reason why they are trying to locate the first US patient, because some researchers subscribe to that theory...

incorrect, its about more than just compensation or laying blame. Its also about tracking how quickly a disease spreads, how it spreads, how rapidly it changes, ect. Its probably irrelivent now but in the early stages its very important
 
Back
Top