Are "Blacks" More Likely to Get HIV Due to Genetics? Truth or Fiction?

[odyssey]

Okay, first of all, please don't call me a racist, I'm simply asking this question because I saw this claim made on another forum and I thought it was simply ridiculous and was hoping the pros who answer the Am I Infected? questions could clear this up for me.

So, I was on this other forum where people were talking about who had "pozzed" them and one guy was saying he had been having sex with black men because that would increase his chances of turning poz (bug chaser I guess). Anyway when I called him out on sounding racist, the Mod came back and affirmed that blacks are genetically predisposed to higher rates of HIV.

Next, I asked for first-tier peer reviewed research backing up his claim. And I said "until then, I call bullshit". The mod then proceeded to ban me for a month, while sending a message saying there was a link in his blog to the research, which I can't see now because I'm banned. Dolt.

Anyway, while I'm pretty sure this is a bunch of crap, I'd really like to hear what the knowledgeable ones here on the forums have to say. Thanks!

odyssey

[jkinatl2]

Curious as to what that other forum was... and why they would ban someone for asking for credible information.

I have personally not heard of a genetic link. I know I got mine from an all-American auburn haired blue-eyed guy. But that's just anecdotal.

[odyssey]

It was a gay/bi sex related forum. I'd rather not list it here, because I'm afraid someone from there might search and find my username here and make the connection. Don't want my identity in anyway compromised ya know.

Anyway, I found a few links to the story of the alleged study the mod was referring to, although I can't seem to find any links to the actual study. Although everyone seems to make it seem like a causal effect, to me it seems more like a correlation. And its only one study. Anyone care to throw their hat in the ring?

Here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/science/17hiv.html

odyssey

[darkerpozz]

one study with few participants I don't hold as truthsayers.In Africa where the dominant race is black I could agree that there it is more likely but not due to genetics My feelings toward the black race are truly my own and I feel in the black community it is looked down upon to use a rubber(comfort) and nobody says they have it if they do which all leads to growing numbers of HIV but a genetic link sounds and smells funky.

[leatherman]

wonder if this is another one of those misconceptions from reading headlines and not articles (something that I have discussed about the recent headlines of "cures" and "preventative medicines"). googling up "blacks more likely to get hiv" brings up plenty of headlines that shout that "Blacks 8 Times More Likely to Get HIV". to the uninformed and those that don't read the full articles, maybe they are inferring a genetic link.

this link (http://www.avert.org/hiv-african-americans.htm) however lays out a lot of the real reasons why blacks in America are so heavily affected

[odyssey]

wonder if this is another one of those misconceptions from reading headlines and not articles (something that I have discussed about the recent headlines of "cures" and "preventative medicines"). googling up "blacks more likely to get hiv" brings up plenty of headlines that shout that "Blacks 8 Times More Likely to Get HIV". to the uninformed and those that don't read the full articles, maybe they are inferring a genetic link.

this link (http://www.avert.org/hiv-african-americans.htm) however lays out a lot of the real reasons why blacks in America are so heavily affected

Yes, I'm recognizing these reasons as very real, but what I'm asking is it true that genetically speaking, are those who are considered "black", whether they be african, african-american, Caribbean, or whatever, at higher risk for HIV? In other words, does the claim in the article I linked to hold water?

odyssey

[carousel]

I thought most people, whatever race they came from,  got it from fucking without a condom.

[odyssey]

I thought most people, whatever race they came from,  got it from fucking without a condom.

I'm pretty sure you're spot on with that one carousel. But supposedly there is some sort of genetic weakness among those of African descent that evolved as a resistance to a now extinct form of malaria that results in a higher susceptibility of getting HIV when they do proceed to "fuck without a condom". At least that's what the articles seem to state that this study that I can't find stated.

odyssey

[leatherman]

this article, about the same study, supplies more information explaining how blacks can be up to 40% more susceptible genetically to being infected when exposed.  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/BARI11PM03.DTL&tsp=1

Newfound genetic clue to HIV rate in blacks
"An international team of AIDS scientists has discovered that a gene variant common in blacks protects against certain types of malaria but increases susceptibility to HIV infection by 40 percent."

I thought most people, whatever race they came from,  got it from fucking without a condom.

don't confuse exposure with infection. of course, fucking - and needle sharing, breast milk, and blood - are the transmission vectors (the exposure to the virus is the same across all races and sexes); but just like people with some genetics (those without the ccr5 receptor) are protected from being infected by HIV when exposed, it seems that others with other genetics (those without the "duffy antigen") are more prone to being infected when exposed.

from the same article I linked to:
"Researchers, keen to find some biological clues to explain why people of African descent are bearing a disproportionate share of the world's AIDS cases, suspect this subtle genetic trait - found in 60 percent of American blacks and 90 percent of Africans - might partly explain the difference."

so yes, odd, it seems there is a scientific reason that blacks are more susceptible to being infected by HIV when exposed

[odyssey]

this article, about the same study, supplies more information explaining how blacks can be up to 40% more susceptible genetically to being infected when exposed.  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/BARI11PM03.DTL&tsp=1

Newfound genetic clue to HIV rate in blacks
"An international team of AIDS scientists has discovered that a gene variant common in blacks protects against certain types of malaria but increases susceptibility to HIV infection by 40 percent."
don't confuse exposure with infection. of course, fucking - and needle sharing, breast milk, and blood - are the transmission vectors (the exposure to the virus is the same across all races and sexes); but just like people with some genetics (those without the ccr5 receptor) are protected from being infected by HIV when exposed, it seems that others with other genetics (those without the "duffy antigen") are more prone to being infected when exposed.

from the same article I linked to:
"Researchers, keen to find some biological clues to explain why people of African descent are bearing a disproportionate share of the world's AIDS cases, suspect this subtle genetic trait - found in 60 percent of American blacks and 90 percent of Africans - might partly explain the difference."

so yes, odd, it seems there is a scientific reason that blacks are more susceptible to being infected by HIV when exposed

So, assuming the results of this single study hold true. Do you think it would still be racist for someone to say that sleeping strictly with black men under the assumption that they would be more likely to infect one with HIV (bug chasing scenario)? Because I still think it is. Just want others' perspectives!

odyssey

[leatherman]

under the assumption that they would be more likely to infect one with HIV

because of this study and the genetic reasoning? yes, saying that would be racist.
this genetic disposition, according to the study, makes it easier for the black person to be infected not easier for the black person to infect others. However, saying that a black person is more likely to get infected when exposed to HIV, that may not be racist if this study is valid.

i still imagine that this is an issue of misunderstanding, seeing only headlines, and mistaking "infectablity" with transmisson vectors.

one last however though.
however, having unprotected sex with a large of amount of black men would make one's statistical chance of becoming infected higher though, as the rate of infection within the black population is high (and rising). It wouldn't have anything to do with genetics; but with the risk behavior of having unprotected sex with a group of people having a higher rate of infection.

[Matty the Damned]

The problem with this sort of thinking is that "race" is some sort of genetic thing. It isn't.

The concept of "race" is entirely socially constructed.

MtD

[fearless]

The problem with this sort of thinking is that "race" is some sort of genetic thing. It isn't.

The concept of "race" is entirely socially constructed.

MtD

Thank you, Matty.

[odyssey]

The problem with this sort of thinking is that "race" is some sort of genetic thing. It isn't.

The concept of "race" is entirely socially constructed.

MtD

I agree, however... scientists can use genetic testing to separate out people whose ancestors came from say.... Scandinavia from people whose ancestors came from Northern Africa. They can even tell genetic differences between different tribes of natives in places around the world. So as much as the concept of race is a social construct, in a way, there is also something to say for it being genetic as well. Or maybe it would be better to say ethnicity is genetic? Either way, I think you realize my point.

odyssey

[Matty the Damned]

I agree, however... scientists can use genetic testing to separate out people whose ancestors came from say.... Scandinavia from people whose ancestors came from Northern Africa. They can even tell genetic differences between different tribes of natives in places around the world. So as much as the concept of race is a social construct, in a way, there is also something to say for it being genetic as well. Or maybe it would be better to say ethnicity is genetic? Either way, I think you realize my point.

odyssey

Well I don't think it's correct to say ethnicity is genetic either. If race is socially constructed then so is ethnicity.

You see there is no genetic characteristic that is unique to a particular "race" or "ethnic" group. The gene or sequence of genes which gives people from Africa dark skin is the same one which confers dark skin on Australian aborigines. We know that dark skin is a response to living in an environment of intense sunlight. It's an advantageous adaptation to environment.

The same applies to fair skinned people. Having fair skin was advantageous to those who settled in Northern Europe.

So one's genetic makeup is a product of the evolutionary pressures exerted on one's ancestors. Just because we can trace that genetic lineage to a particular point of geographic origin, it doesn't mean we can then conclude that ethnicity is genetic.

But the racial labels we apply to different groups do not take this into account. The idea of "negroid/australoid/caucasoid/etc" categories is an arbitrary one created in the 19th century and based on assumptions made by early anthropologists.

The problem with racial labels, of course, is that they are designed to appear scientific when they are, in fact, not scientific at all.

A person's ethnicity is entirely a product of their socialisation. And that has nothing to do with specific genes as such. Why is my accent that of a white Australian? Because I was born into that particular cultural millieu, not because my ancestors came from the west of Ireland. If my ethnicity was genetic then it should follow that my accent would be a rich Galway brogue.

MtD

[odyssey]

I'm sorry Matty, but you're just failing to understand what I'm saying. You're missing the point of the science. I'm not just talking about the genetics of the color of skin, or geographic location. They can actually tell apart tribes that live in the same location, have the same skin color, and for all intents and purposes are the same except for being part of different tribes! It seems to me that you want to believe in this utopian philosophy that if we just stop believing in race and ethnicity, then they will cease to exist. Well, I'm here to say that the science won't let that happen.

And I don't see what your accent has to do with anything. You aren't ethnically Australian. You're ethnically Irish if your ancestors came from Ireland. Just like I'm mostly ethnically Polish and English, not American. My ancestors aren't native to America, they're native to England and to Poland. Simple, really!

odyssey

[Matty the Damned]

I'm sorry Matty, but you're just failing to understand what I'm saying. You're missing the point of the science. I'm not just talking about the genetics of the color of skin, or geographic location. They can actually tell apart tribes that live in the same location, have the same skin color, and for all intents and purposes are the same except for being part of different tribes! It seems to me that you want to believe in this utopian philosophy that if we just stop believing in race and ethnicity, then they will cease to exist. Well, I'm here to say that the science won't let that happen.

And I don't see what your accent has to do with anything. You aren't ethnically Australian. You're ethnically Irish if your ancestors came from Ireland. Just like I'm mostly ethnically Polish and English, not American. My ancestors aren't native to America, they're native to England and to Poland. Simple, really!

odyssey

I suspect we are at cross purposes, but I also suspect you and I fundamentally differ on key points here.

Clearly we differ on how to define terms like "ethnicity". I can assure you that I am not an ethnic Irish.

That said, I will review your posts carefully and respond later when I have the time.

MtD

[GSOgymrat]

Yes, I'm recognizing these reasons as very real, but what I'm asking is it true that genetically speaking, are those who are considered "black", whether they be african, african-american, Caribbean, or whatever, at higher risk for HIV? In other words, does the claim in the article I linked to hold water?

odyssey

I think the waters are being muddied with vaguely defined terms such as "blacks". The article states that people with a particular genetic variation, SNP, may be more vulnerable to HIV infection because there is a correlation between SNP and HIV. The article also states that more research is required. I agree with you that based on this one study your can't say blacks are more susceptible to HIV infection. However, based on the article, I also don't see any obvious flaw in their research and there may very well be a link between these two conditions. I found it interesting that people with SNP not only appeared to acquire HIV more frequently but their disease process progressed more slowly.

[odyssey]

I think the waters are being muddied with vaguely defined terms such as "blacks". The article states that people with a particular genetic variation, SNP, may be more vulnerable to HIV infection because there is a correlation between SNP and HIV. The article also states that more research is required. I agree with you that based on this one study your can't say blacks are more susceptible to HIV infection. However, based on the article, I also don't see any obvious flaw in their research and there may very well be a link between these two conditions. I found it interesting that people with SNP not only appeared to acquire HIV more frequently but their disease process progressed more slowly.

I used the term "blacks" because that was the word the guy in the forum used. I'm clearly aware there are many ethnic groups that fall under the category of what people would term a "black" person racially. However, I'm not quite sure of what geographic descent or ethnicity or what specific group of African American servicemembers this study researched. To repeat, I was simply using the term I had originally encountered in the original thread in the other forum.

odyssey

[odyssey]

Matty-

Here is some info for you to review:

Is There a Genetic Basis to Race After All?
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/is-there-a-genetic-basis-to-race-after-all

The Merriam-Webster definition of "ethnic"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnic?show=0&t=1292809480
           -note that it says "origin or background"

Genetic variation, classification, and 'race'
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Hopefully you find this enlightening!
odyssey

[RapidRod]

You can argue all you want, but there is no argument that HIV is preventable no matter what color one is.

[odyssey]

You can argue all you want, but there is no argument that HIV is preventable no matter what color one is.

Did I ever state otherwise?

[Miss Philicia]

this thread is a winnah

[skeebo1969]

  My Penis is from the Congo.... anyone know where Gene Simmons is from?

[RapidRod]

  My Penis is from the Congo.... anyone know where Gene Simmons is from?

Israeli-American born in Israel in 1949.   

[odyssey]

  My Penis is from the Congo.... anyone know where Gene Simmons is from?

Did you import that bad boy there skeebo?

I think Simmons is a Brit, right? Ohh, wait, that's Osborne. Then I have no idea. Why, did your Congo-ian penis have unprotected sex with Gene Simmons?

[skeebo1969]

Israeli-American born in Israel in 1949.   

And here I always thought my tongue was Greek, learned something new tonight.

[komnaes]

By the way I want that for Xmas, though I am sure some of my friends would challenge that my penis-size does not match up..

[Matty the Damned]

Matty-

Here is some info for you to review:

Is There a Genetic Basis to Race After All?
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/is-there-a-genetic-basis-to-race-after-all

The Merriam-Webster definition of "ethnic"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnic?show=0&t=1292809480
           -note that it says "origin or background"

Genetic variation, classification, and 'race'
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Hopefully you find this enlightening!
odyssey

I don't really find the two articles regarding the genetic origins on race particularly enlightening. Speculative, yes. But there you go. It's a fraught thing.

The dicdef you provide for "ethnicity" is a little more interesting. I still maintain that ethnicity is a product of socialisation. From the Macquarie Dictionary:

1. relating to or peculiar to a human population or group, especially one with a common ancestry, language, etc.: *pushing for absolute Fijian ethnic domination of Fiji. –herald, 1987.
2. relating to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of such groups: *The aspirations of immigrant parents for their children are also slowly changing the ethnic background of Australian elites –james jupp, 1994.

Note that "common ancestry" is not the sole determining factor in one's ethnicity.

MtD

[Matty the Damned]

I should add something.

Many years ago as a sociology undergradute I wrote a paper (which conveniently I cannot find) about how discussions (or discourses) regarding race and genetics very often seem to based on a set of assumptions about black people and white people.

Broadly, when we talk about "genetic characteristics" attributed to black people we talk about physical things: athletic prowess, physical strength, susceptibility to particular diseases and so on.

Conversely the "genetic characteristics" attributed to white people have to do with possessing superior intelligence, intellectual prowess and being predisposed to "civilised pursuits".

Further these two positions are held to be exclusive.

I am not aware of any sound scientific evidence support such claims.

So I always think it wise to be skeptical when assertions are made about one "race" having a genetic suspectibility to something like HIV.

I'm not ruling out the idea that people of a particular genetic ancestry might be predisposed to HIV, but I'd want to see some pretty solid evidence to support that.

I want to make it very clear that I am not suggesting that Odyssey holds to or is asserting any of these views

MtD