Posted on 06/07/2005 4:57:32 AM PDT by epluribus_2
... Mosquitoes feeding on the same mouse can pass the West Nile virus among themselves, even in the absence of a viral infection in their unwitting host.
This mosquito-to-mosquito transmission, observed in a laboratory by researchers from Texas and Britain, suggests the virus that has blazed across North America may have benefited from a mechanism in which some animals serve as little more than temporary conduits for viral particles.
If the phenomenon - known as nonviremic transmission - indeed occurs in nature, it may force re-evaluation of the assumption that animals such as horses or rodents are so-called dead-end hosts that play little or no role in spreading ... ...
For the study, the researchers balanced an anesthetized mouse over two mesh-covered containers: one with West Nile-infected mosquitoes and the other with virus-free mosquitoes. After allowing both groups to feed on the mouse for an hour, the scientists sequestered the uninfected female feeders for two weeks and then tested them for the presence of the virus. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
I've been waiting for anyone in the media to point out that a virus is a virus, and if mosquitos can pass West Nile between humans, they can pass HIV too. All I've heard so far is crickets.
pong
They have to re-look at tests run on this subject previously using misquitos as a possible vector for HIV. They concluded then that the mosquito is not a vector. This data may toss that conclusion out. Likewise, this may also lead researchers to solving one of the great mysteries of Ebola's primary vector...they have not yet identified it.
Pray that DDT is made legal again soon.
I will not be responsible for my actions if one of my children were to become infected with HIV via mosquitos. There are LOTS of people who better pray that never happens.
the question remains - would a proposal for doing this experiment with HIV be squashed at the highest levels - because of the potential unacceptable level of public concern that may be caused in high HIV populated areas where mosquitos could transmit the disease?
Party line - not one proven case of blahblahblah...
That is not scientific method. It is flat-earther science.
The fabulous crowd also explains how noone has ever been shown to have caught it from a dentist or restaurant worker - but those dentists sho' wear dem masks an' gloves now to protect demselfs! When I asked about tears and saliva during my pre-marital "session" to get my license, I was glared at in nazgul fashion by the health dept nurse - with no real answer.
Ah yes. Political corectness in the health field as well as that of national security. We will be our own undoing.
http://www.plymouthmosquito.com/aids.htm
either we have nothing to worry about or they are lying. Or just wrong.
It is most correct to spell it "Correctness" and that spelling should replace my error of "corectness".
Neural link between brain and fingers remains impaired until the coffee kicks in.
When truth mattered more than avoiding possible panic through public ignorance, I would have trusted such a report as your hot-link. Not so today. The prevention of panic among the sheeple is a health industry priority. If that were not the case, quarantine would have been imposed for HIV infections from the beginning in 1982. When will we reach the first billion deaths from HIV?
There are a lot of unexplained cases of HIV infection and there have been for twenty years. But since most adults have sex-lives, that has been a most convenient way to categorize transmission. Not to say that it isn't. But how can you convince us that mosquitos are NOT a vector when children have such a high rate in Africa? It's all dirty needles, right, and Mothers milk and ....Nope. Look again at the mosquito vector. No study yet provides convincing science showing mosquitos are not a vector.
We haven't seen the first death from HIV yet. Because the HIV hypothesis is a myth
I mean that, to date, the HIV virus has yet to be isolated. After twenty years of extremely well-funded research the AIDs industry has failed to produce a candidate virus particle and then show that that particle is able to replicate in a viral manner. This is a basic step of clinical epidemiology and is conspicuous by its absence.
The HIV hypothesis (that there is a virus HIV that causes the disease AIDs) is not proven. Indeed this viral theory is contra-indicated. Did AIDs spread like a virus, expanding exponentially like the experts said it would? No. Because no virus is involved. When a disease refuses to spread out of its at-risk groups, then you are likely looking at toxin-exposure or diet deficiency. You are not looking at the activity of a pathogen. Pellagra, SMON, Beriberi - all had nothing to do with infectious agents and everything to do with toxin exposure. AIDs is no different.
And when 90% of all AIDs fatalities in the US have been due to liver damage caused by fatal doses of AZT, we have a strong candidate for the cause of toxin exposure. AIDs didn't start with AZT of course - it began with toxin exposure to poppers amongst SF gays - but has long since sequed into iatrogenic AZT poisoning. When AZT stopped being used in heavy 1000 mg dosages and the new less-toxic antivirals/protease inhibitors came in, AIDs deaths reduced dramatically.
Another proof. Needle-stick cases of AIDs are unknown, unless the "victims" are then medicated with the so-called anti-virals. Compare and contrast this with Hepatitus where there are 1000's of Needle-stick cases yearly. The difference: you can virally infect with a needle-stick, but you can't infect someone with long-term toxin exposure.
The other question I would ask -- and one which might allow for the mosquito connection -- is, is HIV in Africa the same as what's being spread here in the U.S. and Europe? Is it possible that, because the infected populations in African countries are so isolated, the specific strain(s) are different, and perhaps more robust/virulent?
The banning of DDT was a racist population control decision directed at poor countries with populations primarily posessing black and brown skin. There never has been a scientific basis for banning it. Banning it did not directly reduce the danger to any species unless the insect food of that species had been reduced by the DDT.
DDT did shift the "balance of nature" by reducing certain insect populations. It did not shift it by thinning shells or other such affects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.