I have a question I cannot seem to get a straight answer on the internet.
Basically all the websites agree that HIV1 and HIV2 are the viruses that cause AIDS.
That is fine. But then I read that certain types of SIV (and AIDS like virus that effects moneys) are closer the HIV-2 than HIV-1 is to HIV-2
I’ve also read sites tht say some strains of SIV are closer to HIV-1 than HIV-2
SIV doesn’t cause AIDS in humans. I don’t understand why they labled SIV as such and why isn’t it called something like HIV-3.
It makes no sense. If SIV can be closer genetically to HIV-1 or HIV-2, than the two HIV viruses are to each other why lable one SIV.
I tried to Google this and all I can get it was done for political reason as when HIV-2 was discovered, some papers were printing HIV crossed over from SIV because Africans were having sex with monkeys.
Which I guess can be a reason but you don’t call rabies something else because it is in a human and not a dog.
Another site I read said it wasn’t labled an HIV virus because there was concern that calling SIV a name like HIV-3 you would lead people to believe certain kinds of HIV didn’t cause AIDS.
But I now Ebola consists of four kinds and the “reston” type of Ebola doesn’t cause a disease while the other three kinds of ebola are very deadly…
Thanks for any info, know I see why everyone is so confused about HIV, the information out there is horrible and no one seems to have any concensus.