by Deputy Barnes » Tue 14 Oct 2014, 19:27:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'D')eput Barnes,
Welcome aboard. Interesting first post.
Are you in this field or a casual observer/hobbyist?
My Wife was drawing the opposite conclusion, that perhaps disadvantaged folks would have been more exposed to disease and thus less susceptible.
Thanks.
I'm a geneticist. I have no experience at all working in healthcare but I've been following AIDS since the 90s. It is probably true that Africans are developing some immunity to Ebola. Off of the top of my head I seem to recall that something like 10 per cent of subsaharan Africans have Ebola antibodies in any given study. HLA b loci in African blacks seem to be resistant to Ebola. Yet the bodies keep piling up. Also note that ~100 years after HIVAIDS was transmitted to humans it contiues to ravage Africa.
I never ceased to be amazed at the number of African diseases to which north Eurasians are immune to for no reason other than they inherited the outstanding immunity genes of their Neanderthal predecessors. 85 per cent of the inhabitants of Gothenburg, Sweden are totally immune to HIVAIDS due to a mutation called CCR5-Δ32, which we know was already present in western Europe during Paleolithic times. You could inject the blood of an AIDS victim in to a Swedish man's veins and there is a very high probability that he would never fall ill.
We've all been told that Native Americans were decimated by smallpox to whicn they had no immunity. I think this is a highly exagerrated excuse concocted by Leftist anthropologists like Howard Zinn, in support of their (equally exagerrated) estimation of the New World's precontact population size.
I don't buy it. For one thing, Native Americans descend fairly recently from an Old World population.
At least 30% of their DNA is European, from the Neanderthaloid Aurignacians. On top of this,
they are more closely related to Neanderthals than any living people on Earth. They inherited the same Ice Age immunities to these diseases and ones like them which already existed tens of thousands of years ago. So our perception of viral dynamics in the New World is contaminated by an old wive's tale that smallpox ever significantly ailed the Indians -- one for which there is little biological or historical support.
It may be true that New World Indians in Latin countries may be at increased risk for Ebola, but I would presume this is only because relatively few of these Indians are pure. Many of them are part Black or Southern European, who lack the Neanderthaloid immunity genes of their Northern relatives. Indeed Mediterraneans appear to be shifted in an African direction with regards to immunological adaptations. The blood of Latin American "Indians" is thus heavily diluted. The real Indians are actually
most closely related to Nordic people as evidenced by the genomes of the unmixed Plains Indians of the USA and Canada.
The United States and Canada would seem to be fairly safe in my eyes from a pandemic, and even chaotic Mexico and Central America may be safeguarded by the Darien gap, should an outbreak swamp South America. Regrettably it will take many more cases of infection in the United States before Barack and his comrades grudgingly enforce travel bans that should have been set in place months ago. The number one obstacle to protecting the world from Ebola is a persisting refusal by Leftists to admit that shutting down borders can ever be a solution to any problem. It will cost lives.
"The most common lie is the lie that one tells to oneself" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Vote Republican.