Thinkin' about them theories

The three most interesting theories about how HIV crossed from simians to humans were: the 'Hunter', Contaminated Needle, and Colonialism theories.

The 'Hunter' theory acknowledges culture and food preparation practices as possible transmittance factors from SIV in simians to HIV in humans. It uses the idea of mutation and adaptation of the simian virus, which--after a term of gene and DNA lectures in biology--seems very plausible to me.

Likewise, the Contaminated Needle theory also explains the mutations of the virus in a similar way. This theory seems plausible as well, seeing as cost is a huge factor in determining how many needles will be available at a certain time, especially since there is knowledge now that HIV can be spread via contact with blood. Both theories involve "trading" blood, sharp and point things (knives and needles), and ways in which SIV/HIV could be spread (sharing tainted food, sharing tainted needles). Actually, this theory sounds even more plausible than the first because everyone needs meds, and reusing needles without sanitization is a 100% surefire way to transmit blood from one person to another... Right?

The Colonialism theory seems the most plausible out of the three. This theory takes into account the African labor camps created by colonial forces between the 19th and 20th centuries. It brings in a mixture of the two theories above and more: unsanitary and poor living conditions for the laborers, unsterilized needles repeatedly used for vaccinations, and hunting sick chimpanzees for extra food. Now that I think about it though, this theory places emphasis on poor health and weakened immune systems that allowed SIV to infect the laborers in the first place. That part sounds a little less likely than the other theories, but perhaps an infected laborer who had eaten an infected chimpanzee was the first to introduce the virus into the camps and then the virus was allowed to spread in all the other ways.

I definitely think it's important to understand how the virus was transmitted to humans, so that the evolution/mutation of the virus can be studied more effectively. Knowing the virus's true origins would give us a starting point to start extrapolating and predicting other strains.

Invisible Knapsacks?

In Peggy McIntosh's article, "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack," she describes and lists her "unearned" advantages/privileges that come with having white-skin. Peggy goes on to discuss how all groups, such as men or white populations, are brought up in our society to be oblivious to their white-advantages. She argues that those with the upper-hand must either work to decrease the differences in power between all groups by increasing their advantages (and thereby bringing them "up to par" with those that are more privileged). I think that she's onto something here, but I'm not quite sure how that can be accomplished or even if it can be...

As Peggy said, privilege is so far ingrained within our society that it won't be an easy task to simply increase other minority group's advantages. Take for example our education: "I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race," says Peggy. I do agree that there does seem to be a particular focus on white history, although I think that some classes (like the Humanities) do well in covering a good variety of ethnic groups and races. However, it's tough to decide how much to teach because there are so many different populations in the US--so when will everyone be satisfied? In other words, how is this idea of equality going to be played out when there are already so many groups that are way underprivileged or unrepresented and when there are multiple facets of society that work to increase advantages for some and not at all for others?

In regards to HIV/AIDS, I believe that privilege is like another system of oppression that holds back certain groups of individuals; it puts them at a higher risk of infection and increases the chances that these groups will not recieve the treatment or education they need in order to lead healthier lives. It's similar to how ageism works, like we discussed in class with guest speaker Jennifer Jabson. For this example, think of the elderly as minority groups. They grew up in a different culture (and time) than we (the younger generations, AKA "the majority groups") did, and because of the widespread belief that "younger is better," the elderly (minority groups) are missing out on a lot of privileges/advantages. This is one of the reasons why I think addressing larger systems of oppression (such as heterosexism; see below) is vital in issues of sexual health. It may seem like they are entirely different subjects, but each system inarguably has some sort of effect--positive or negative--on various populations, which would of course influence their way of life as well as their health.

The Tip of the Iceberg

I only have a general knowledge of HIV/AIDS: transmission, what the acronyms stand for, what eventually happens to someone with full-blown AIDS... etc. I know that anyone is susceptible to HIV--men, women, newborns, children, hemopheliacs (and others in need of blood transfusions), drug users, and more generally, heterosexuals and homosexuals. HIV is usually transmitted via sexual contact with an infected person or through needle-sharing (or any activity in which infected blood may enter a cut or wound in the skin). HIV, or Human Immunodeficiency Virus, can lay dormant in the body without signs or symptoms until it is too late, and AIDS (Auto Immunodeficiency Syndrome) wreaks havoc on the body with the help of opportunistic diseases.

In school, I was told that HIV was like the tip of an iceberg submerged in really deep water. It may seem smaller and more harmless than it really is... that is, until your ship rams into the rest of the iceberg hidden below, and then it becomes apparent that no amount of lifeboats is ever going to be enough. All metaphors aside, there is no cure for HIV and AIDS, and there's no telling when AIDS may develop. An HIV patient may be able to prolong the dormant period of the virus by exercising, eating right, and taking treatments, but not everyone can afford it. Everything I know about HIV and AIDS (which isn't much) I have learned throughout middle school, high school, and college. Since I only know general information, it would be nice to hear more about the way in which scientists are researching the mutation of this virus, and how the government is thinking about dealing with it in regards to other countries around the world--especially in poverty stricken areas.

This brings me to the question brought up in the video seen on Monday, "A Measure of Our Humanity: HIV/AIDS in Namibia": Are we committing genocide by neglect of HIV/AIDS epidemics not just in Namibia, but in poor, rural nations all over the world? I have never seen it that way, and I don't think I would have either, if not for that video. I don't know what the US has been doing to help other countries, but I was surprised that whatever we have been doing has been so little that it can be called a "genocide by neglect." I was also surprised that HIV/AIDS has been around for quite a while (since about the 1930's, according to "The Age of AIDS" seen on Wednesday), yet so little ground has been covered in finding a cure.

The Roles of Religion and Heterosexism

Two things I would like to focus on regarding the spread of disease are: the religious social structure and heterosexism, a system of oppression.

Disclaimer: Religion is a touchy subject, so I'm sorry if I offend anyone (although this blog will not be scathing or intentionally offensive in any way). Just to be safe.

I believe that religion can play a large role in both the spread and prevention of disease. Since many religions hold rather conservative views in sexuality--by promoting abstinence and/or faithfulness to one's partner--it makes sense that religion may help in decreasing the rate of transmission of disease. However, it's also interesting to point out that, due to this common conservativeness, it is possible that members of a religion who become infected with an STI may not seek medical care from fear of being discovered and looked down upon in their religious community. From there, the STI may be left to fester and spread. So with religion, it could go either way...

Heterosexism, on the other hand, seems to only push stereotypes on others while creating fear/stigma about certain STI's and the stereotypical groups of people associated with them. Take for example HIV/AIDS and its strong association with homosexuals. Heterosexuality is considered the norm, and anything else simply is not. I read somewhere (probably our textbook, but I'm not sure) that many heterosexual men who think they may have contracted or are infected with HIV avoid being tested for it and do not seek treatment--all because they are afraid of being labeled as a homosexual. That is the power of the oppressive system of heterosexism. And, of course, because this fear and stigma keep some people from getting diagnosed (and etc.), the spread of disease can only increase.

From these two examples of our social structure, I think that our USA perspectives regarding STIs are pretty similar to others around the world. Religion is definitely a big player, and it probably has the same effects and influence on the spread of disease no matter where on the globe you may be. And I think heterosexuality is an oppressive system that is here to stay, unfortunately for some, since it seems like it is considered the norm in most other nations as well... I'm not saying that these social structures are causes of disease, but rather ways that may promote or hinder the spread of disease.