sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6780|Argentina
The spread of the Roman Empire through Europe could help explain why those living in its former colonies are more vulnerable to HIV.

The claim, by French researchers, is that people once ruled by Rome are less likely to have a gene variant which protects against HIV.

This includes England, France, Greece and Spain, New Scientist reports.

Others argue the difference is linked to a far larger event, such as the spread of bubonic plague or smallpox.

The idea that something carried by the occupying Romans could have a widespread influence on the genes of modern Europeans comes from researchers at the University of Provence.

They say that the frequency of the variant corresponds closely with the shifting boundaries of the thousand-year empire.

In countries inside the borders of the empire for longer periods, such as Spain, Italy and Greece, the frequency of the CCR5-delta32 gene, which offers some protection against HIV, is between 0% and 6%.

Countries at the fringe of the empire, such as Germany, and modern England, the rate is between 8% and 11.8%, while in countries never conquered by Rome, the rate is greater than this.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6541|Πάϊ
that's weird
ƒ³
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6832|Nårvei

So what about the parts of Africa that wasn't conquerred by Rome ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6780|Argentina

Varegg wrote:

So what about the parts of Africa that wasn't conquerred by Rome ?
That's what I first thought when I read this.  Maybe in Africa the AIDS spreads that fast because of the lack of prevention.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6832|Nårvei

sergeriver wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So what about the parts of Africa that wasn't conquerred by Rome ?
That's what I first thought when I read this.  Maybe in Africa the AIDS spreads that fast because of the lack of prevention.
So the numbers in Africa are to great to base research on or just not interesting enough perhaps ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
13rin
Member
+977|6501

Varegg wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So what about the parts of Africa that wasn't conquerred by Rome ?
That's what I first thought when I read this.  Maybe in Africa the AIDS spreads that fast because of the lack of prevention.
So the numbers in Africa are to great to base research on or just not interesting enough perhaps ...
Provides a great argument for condoms/abstenance.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Adamvs
Member
+3|5749|England
if they had more pubs and bars in Africa then the African people would have wider access to condom machines and thus helping to solve sexual diseases, also hunger would be combated as there would be less children born and less mouths to feed.

on a more serious note - where did the Romans get this protective gene from? Pizza perhaps?
Cheez
Herman is a warmaphrodite
+1,027|6461|King Of The Islands

Adamvs wrote:

if they had more pubs and bars in Africa then the African people would have wider access to condom machines and thus helping to solve sexual diseases, also hunger would be combated as there would be less children born and less mouths to feed.

on a more serious note - where did the Romans get this protective gene from? Pizza perhaps?
Ooh he read card good.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
jord
Member
+2,382|6700|The North, beyond the wall.
The areas under Roman control were a lot more advanced than the other indigenous people's. So maybe that's why.
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|6798|Antwerp, Flanders

Adamvs wrote:

if they had more pubs and bars in Africa then the African people would have wider access to condom machines and thus helping to solve sexual diseases, also hunger would be combated as there would be less children born and less mouths to feed.

on a more serious note - where did the Romans get this protective gene from? Pizza perhaps?
Exactly how did you arrive at the conclusion that the Romans had this protective gene?
jord
Member
+2,382|6700|The North, beyond the wall.
I was under the impression it takes more than 800 years to evolve your genes...
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6541|Πάϊ

jord wrote:

I was under the impression it takes more than 800 years to evolve your genes...
indeed
ƒ³
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6832|Nårvei

Libya and Egypt are both former Roman provinces and have less than 0,1% of the population infected by aids, doesn't quite add up with the French research does it ... same goes for the ME region.

http://www.unaids.org/en/
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6541|Πάϊ
People don't have sex in the ME, that's probably a reason yea?
ƒ³
Adamvs
Member
+3|5749|England
hang on have i misread it. the roman descendants are MORE likely to get hiv n aids. ohhh.

ok then - where did the Romans lose this protective gene? or gain a non protective gene. or....no i cant be bothered its too intellectual for me at the moment, wheres my rifle!
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6245|Escea

jord wrote:

I was under the impression it takes more than 800 years to evolve your genes...
Five mins in a nuclear reactor
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6643|London, England
I assure you that gene doesn't make that much of a difference, the article says "some protection" but meh. Best way to stop yourself getting sum AIDS is to wrap up and only unwrap the present when you're sure what's inside

AIDS isn't really one of them genetics things. It's all about social factors and shit
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6205|Ireland
So people in countries that were conquered by Rome are more likely to take it up the ass.

The Romans were all about ass play.
chittydog
less busy
+586|6857|Kubra, Damn it!

jord wrote:

I was under the impression it takes more than 800 years to evolve your genes...
There are newer theories saying evolution happens more quickly but comes in spurts. So nothing much changes for a while, then due to some external force (change of habitat, new predators/prey, arrival of WalMart), species will adapt within a few dozen generations. We're not talking dinosaur to parrot in that time, but mild resistance to a disease is certainly a possibility.
chittydog
less busy
+586|6857|Kubra, Damn it!

Lotta_Drool wrote:

So people in countries that were conquered by Rome are more likely to take it up the ass.

The Romans were all about ass play.
That was the Greeks.
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6205|Ireland

chittydog wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

So people in countries that were conquered by Rome are more likely to take it up the ass.

The Romans were all about ass play.
That was the Greeks.
Same thing.
chittydog
less busy
+586|6857|Kubra, Damn it!

Lotta_Drool wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

So people in countries that were conquered by Rome are more likely to take it up the ass.

The Romans were all about ass play.
That was the Greeks.
Same thing.
Togas
Sandals
Olive Oil
Democracy
Same gods, different names

Hmm... I guess you're right.
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6562|byah
Where ever there are Gay people, drug dealers, poor countries and lack of condoms there is HIV/AIDS
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6736|Purplicious Wisconsin

Varegg wrote:

So what about the parts of Africa that wasn't conquerred by Rome ?
Maybe the parts of Africa conquered by Rome had people migrating to the other place not conquered by Rome.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
chittydog
less busy
+586|6857|Kubra, Damn it!

The#1Spot wrote:

Where ever there are people there is HIV/AIDS
Fixed.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard