Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Britons may be more vulnerable to Aids...

 Post Reply Post Reply
eaglecap View Drop Down
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Britons may be more vulnerable to Aids...
    Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 23:59
...due to Roman invasion

Those darn Romans!! I thought this was an interesting story but who knows if it is really a good theory. It is still interesting

Dr Faure believes the Romans introduced a disease which killed off people with a variant gene that now protects against HIV Photo: TELEVISION STILLS
Researchers found that people who live in lands conquered by the Roman army have less protection against HIV than those in countries they never reached

They say a gene which helps make people less susceptible to HIV occurs in greater frequency in areas of Europe that the Roman Empire did not stretch to.

The gene lacks certain DNA elements, which means HIV cannot bind to it as easily and is less able to infect cells.

People with the mutation have some resistance to HIV infection and also take longer to develop AIDS, reports New Scientist.

A study of almost 19,000 DNA samples from across Europe showed the gene variant seemed to dwindle in regions conquered by the Romans.

Generally only people in Europe and western Asia carry the gene and it becomes much less frequent as you move south.

More than 15 per cent of people in some areas of northern Europe carry it compared with fewer than four per cent of Greeks.

It is not clear why this is so since the spread of HIV - which began in the early 1980s - is too recent to have influenced the distribution of the variant.

The difference in frequency of the key gene mutation reflects the changing boundary of the Roman Empire between 500 BC and AD 500.

But study leader Dr Eric Faure, of Provence University in France, does not believe the Romans spread the regular version of the gene into their colonies by breeding with indigenous people.

Dr Faure, whose findings are published in Infection, Genetics and Evolution, said: "Gene flow between the two was extremely low."

Instead he believes the Romans introduced a disease to which people carrying the gene variant were particularly susceptible. As the Romans moved north this disease killed off people with the variant gene that now protects against HIV.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Mercury_Dawn View Drop Down

Joined: 30-Aug-2008
Location: West Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
  Quote Mercury_Dawn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Sep-2008 at 01:22
I wonder about asia and africa, does the gene variant exist there?
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down


Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Sep-2008 at 05:16
Could it be possible that it was Roman trade rather than the Roman legions which spread such a disease? It seems plausible, especially given the huge loss of life in the former Roman Empire during the plague of 542 onwards.
But then it may also be due to migratory patterns.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Sep-2008 at 21:44
This almost makes me feel sorry for the BNP...
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down


Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 12:42
Interesting piece of ethnocentric abd sensational headline writing.
It would make just as much sense, based on this research, to say "Britons may be less susceptible to AIDS' if by 'Britons' you mean the population of the British Isles, most of which was never subject to Roman rule, and since the Anglo-Saxons and Danes and Normans never were. But it wouldn't make such a scary headline (for the Telegraph readers).
Depends who you are comparing the Britons to.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.