Aids and Evolution

One question of enormous concern, with respect to the treating of
Auto-immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is: to what extent do our treatment
protocols preserve and promote an increase in the size of the infectious
pool. Put another way: How infectious are people who are being treated
symptomatically, only.

Hopefully at least one reader (and/or contributor) of (or to) this news
group knows, to a very fine degree, just how infectious or uninfectious are
carriers of the etiological agent of the AIDS syndrome (the HIV virus) are.
At least one manufacturer of one drug of choice for HIV carriers advertises,
"Reyataz does not cure HIV or help prevent passing HIV to others." (Brystol
Myers Squib -- product Atazanavir sulfate, brand name 'Reyataz.'

Recently a contributor to this news group inquired whether *healthcare*
(generally) works to decrease fitness in the human population of Earth. The
answer to that, as with numerous other questions scientist must evaluate, is
both "yes" and "no." My feeling -- based upon more things considered than
could be put here in less than book length -- is "partly" yes by primarily
"no." And some excellent comments by some other contributors to this site
indicate they concur with this broad statement. But the important point in
reference to that broader question here, is that -- for whatever reasons...
humanitarian, empathetical, political, economic, philosophical, social...
anti-viral treatment of symptoms of HIV have enabled, and are enabling, an
increase in the HIV infectious pool. Or to put it very simply, the more HIV
infected people are alive in the world's population today, as a result of
the prolonging of their lives by antiviral and other symptomatic treatment
vehicles, the greater the number of those capable of passing along the HIV
virus to still more individuals.

Advertising campaigns -- paid for by caring, nurturing philanthropic fund
raising sources and by manufacturers and distributors of the symptom-only
treatment medications, and (of course) by
governmental agencies (in advanced nations) who work under the *ethical
assumption* that any and every human infection should be treated, no matter
what -- are careful to use wording that
does not suggest that current treatment protocols for AIDS stop the
expansion of it. They talk about the fact that we should "do something" or
"do more." They talk about the fact that we must "fight the problem" by
treating the victims. What they carefully avoid saying (at least insofar as
the ones I have seen) is that treating HIV and/or AIDS serves (by extending
the lives of
infected individuals and, hence, increasing the numbers of infected
individuals who look and feel healthy enough to be promiscuous if they so
desire) is increasing the 'face of exposure' between infected population and
as-yet uninfected population.

Epidemiologists are well aware of this and have sought to use the vehicle of
treatment to "educate" infected individuals, their families, and uninfected
individuals at large. Whether human behavior is changed effectively by the
information distribution and direct personal counseling of infected
individuals who submit to it in exchange for anti-viral medication that
makes them feel better and extends their life expectancy does not seem (to
me, at least) likely. As one who has worked inside governmental
beaurocracies, I am privy to experiences with the ways statistics can be
manipulated in such a way as to deceive on such matters -- especially where
pessimism would tend to result in lessening budget sources. (The trick is
to utilize you most brilliant and creative personnel's talents to avoid
direct lies, but choose accurate statistics, so structured as to seem to
suggest a false claim without actually implying it. The statistics can then
be defended as absolutely 'honest,' even as they mislead.)

One argument for symptomatic treatment is that it provides a wide exposure
of researchers to members of the infectious pool -- which both enables
monitoring of differences in the disease in different parts of the world, as
they mutate, and picks up on such serendipitous data as when perhaps one
individual out of thousands appears to be a carrier, and yet does not get
sick... or an individual who -- if it ever were to occur -- would have an
immune system that would kill out the virus from his body. There are rumors
of such suspected instances; but if any are scientifically confirmed, that
is beyond my knowledge at this time.

As pointed out elsewhere in this contributor's entries to this newsgroup,
questions as to what does, and does not, increase fitness must take into
account many highly debatable issues relating to what one wishes to call
fitness. As stated elsewhere, what may be good for the future long-term
fitness can be bad for short-term fitness. What might be ascertainably
effective, by way of a plan to promote fitness of survivors, might consist
in wanton destruction of a lot of people. What might produce a very
healthy 'race' of humans might entail unthinkable and unconscionable eugenic
methods.

To some, the idea of not treating any and every individual in the world,
including symptomatically
-- and hence increasing the potential for further spread of the
infection -- might be unthinkable and unconscionable. But many of those who
give lip service to such convictions are quite willing and able to just put
out of mind that, without increase in THEIR OWN contributions, there are
not sufficient funds to buy the medicine and administer it. What this
demonstrates is something of schismic thinking, whereby it would be cruel
and unusual to THINK about a problem and not throw money at it, but -- if
one will just push awareness of it out of conscious thought -- then one can
act as though the problem did not exist and, by that mechanism, not have to
confront the issues.

The human defense mechanisms are not all bad, nor all good. Without them it
could be argued that all of us would confront so many insurmountable things
in the world, so thoroughly, that we all might end up with post traumatic
stress disorder emanating from our inability to "do something" about
everything our consciousness -- if dealt with consciously and accurately --
would be overwhelmed by, and our pocketbooks could not throw money at.

Hopefully the main thrust of "healthcare" with respect to HIV/AIDS is to
find a cure for it. And, also hopefully, we will not exhaust society's
resources on nurture and comfort of the doomed
infected, and leave insufficient the resources required to find and
refine -- most long-term effectively -- a cure or, at very least, a
preventive.

Change human nature through education?

Get real.

g


.

Relevant Pages
Loading