• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Prevalence Of STDs In Humans

Ermintruder

Ermintruder

The greatest risk is to risk nothing at all...
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
6,208
This is by way of an extended thought experiment rather than any practical lifestyle recommendation (please read on, you are intrigued, or you wouldn't have reached the end of this sentence).

Humanity, like all animals, procreates via sex, in all it's various versions. People, for most of our collective existence on earth, simply eat/drink/sleep and copulate. Abstract thought or creative representationing are all late behavioural arrivals.

So lots and lots of unbridled, unprotected (and unwanted) sex went on in the primal pre-civilised world that mankind eventually wrought.

Back in the earliest almost pre-human days, humanity itself became if not the most-successful, then certainly the most self-aware sexually-transmitted disease.

But surely there always were (and still are) unsought added extras, in terms of biological disease and infection conveyed via sex, as an adjunct to reproduction.

This is the nub of my point: at one point in history, by definition, people must, universally, have been absolutely-riddled with STDs/STIs. But what did that mean in that timeframe? Were people healthier? Were they invigorated somehow by 'disease'? Are humans 'meant' to have STIs? Because, our earliest forefathers must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, have been infected from puberty until death. And that's almost my thesis here: STIs/STDs must have not killed-off humanity, or we wouldn't be here.

Did infection at an intrinsic level with STDs/STIs perhaps confer some level of cross-protection against modern-day ailments, such as (say) MS, asthma or worse? This is just sheer conjecture on my part, a postulation of improbable unproveable correlation.

But regardless of the unlikeliness of this vivo-vaccinating effect, the shared biological STD baseline of the human herd must, over time, have gone from being a pool, to puddles, then patches, and finally to part-pairings (I mean here the graph-trend, not any absolute isolations).

Does anyone have any informed biochemical insights on this? Surely the absence of what would've been some form of innoculative transmission would've had some resultant impact. Or is this an entirely mistaken concept to even consider?
 
It could be an evolution-style process - survival of the healthiest. If someone's got private parts that ooze or smell something 'orrible, nobody's going to want to play nug-a-nug and the infected person might be in so much discomfort they won't want to (or even be rendered sterile by the disease). Conversely, people with a natural immunity/resistance - or just managed to avoid infection - would have healthier bits and be more attractive as a mate.

Question for microbiologists/immunologists : Can a race evolve a group immunity to a disease? For example, a mother has a disease and recovers (or at least develops antibodies), then passes on those antibodies to her offspring (placenta barrier, breastfeeding). Those children in turn develop a stronger resistance to the disease and eventually the disease is effectively wiped out.
 
Why should we have had more STDs than any other species?
 
Tribble said:
It could be an evolution-style process - survival of the healthiest. If someone's got private parts that ooze or smell something 'orrible, nobody's going to want to play nug-a-nug and the infected person might be in so much discomfort they won't want to (or even be rendered sterile by the disease). Conversely, people with a natural immunity/resistance - or just managed to avoid infection - would have healthier bits and be more attractive as a mate.

Question for microbiologists/immunologists : Can a race evolve a group immunity to a disease? For example, a mother has a disease and recovers (or at least develops antibodies), then passes on those antibodies to her offspring (placenta barrier, breastfeeding). Those children in turn develop a stronger resistance to the disease and eventually the disease is effectively wiped out.
Click to expand...
That's it, really.
 
Maybe worth pointing out that until the wide-spread use of penicillin after WWII, a huge number of Admissions and deaths in mental hospitals were attributed to Genral Paresis - An advanced stage of syphilis induced madness. No benefit for STD's there.
 
i think its also worth mentioning that for the majority of human history people tended to live in pretty isolated communities - the only *real* mass "cross pollination" occurred during wars, or when travelers happened past, otherwise it was just a steady trickle of single people growing up to marry, if they were lucky, someone from the next village over, if not a cousin or neighbor. It was only really the rise of cities that forced populations together enmass for a day to day contact.
 
This level of pre-urban isolation, though, would stil be much later in the chronology I was thinking of. The era that was thinking of would be after 'out of Africa', but before tribalisation. Small world population, early speciation...

I just wondered whether or not (at an animalistic level) human beings physiologically lost-out on any beneficial aspects of infection, which are still evident (somehow) amongst wild creatures.

I also wonder if herd immunity obtained through propicious sexual infection would theoretically/eventually protect people in an outcome similar to that intended from the HPV vaccine? Which, if I understand it correctly, is a mild infection, non-sexually transmitted, of an STD, to prevent people from catching that particular STD?
 
Which beneficial aspects of infection?
 
Is that generally more benificial than just not getting infected?
 
Xanatic* said:
Is that generally more benificial than just not getting infected?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. If we didn't get infected at all, we might have no immune systems. Then our bodies might not adapt or even evolve.
 
I meant for a specific infection.
 
Interesting idea. I have seen the recent studies that claim all intimate contact shares cells that end up in our brains and modify their surrounding tissues*. I suspect the whole picture is seriously complex with all sorts of retro viral shenanigans as well as evolution/ survival of the least promiscuous.




* mothers bearing children and sexual contact between adults.
 
Gonorrhoea could become an untreatable disease, England's chief medical officer has warned.

Dame Sally Davies has written to all GPs and pharmacies to ensure they are prescribing the correct drugs after the rise of "super-gonorrhoea" in Leeds.

Her warning comes after concerns were raised that some patients were not getting both of the antibiotics needed to clear the infection.

Sexual health doctors said gonorrhoea was "rapidly" developing resistance.

A highly drug-resistant strain of gonorrhoea was detected in the north of England in March.

That strain is able to shrug off the antibiotic azithromycin, which is normally used alongside another drug, ceftriaxone.

In her letter, the chief medical officer said: "Gonorrhoea is at risk of becoming an untreatable disease due to the continuing emergence of antimicrobial resistance."

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35153794
 
Xanatic* said:
Is that generally more benificial than just not getting infected?
Click to expand...
This was effectively the original question being asked.

Whilst not appreciating that there was much-earlier silo seperation within humanity than I'd realised, were there any collateral herd health benefits lost as a consequence of humans ceasing to copulate like monkeys?

In fact, do apes suffer from STDs? Non-human varieties, I mean. And, on an extended point, do the lower primates suffer from allergies/asthma/MS?

I'm not conflating STDs as being some form of potentential panacea for modern-day endopathologies, but I just can't imagine promiscuous wild animals or mid-primates ever being ill (injured/trapped/dead, yes: but not suffering from a heavy cold).

Pehaps I'm being unprinciply-anthropic, and just far too vague in my proposition.
 
Tribble said:
Can a race evolve a group immunity to a disease? For example, a mother has a disease and recovers (or at least develops antibodies), then passes on those antibodies to her offspring (placenta barrier, breastfeeding). Those children in turn develop a stronger resistance to the disease and eventually the disease is effectively wiped out.
Click to expand...


Well yes, sort of. Think about malaria. The way it's transmitted means that it is an equal opportunity type of disease, but not everyone who gets bitten goes on to develop malaria and die. Some folks have no symptoms, some have milder symptoms.

Equally, here in the UK at least, we were all immunised against TB, in a 2 stage process. Remember the 6 needles anyone? For anyone not familiar, the buggers stabbed children with a device incorporating 6 needles, and depending upon the response, 3 weeks later stabbed some, but not all, children with a big fat needle 3 weeks later.

Same goes for STI's. You can have non prophylactic sex with an infected individual and 'get lucky' (in an non sexual way). There is lots of anecdotal evidence regarding HIV transmission of folks not becoming infected following exposure to HIV. HIV isn't especially robust, in that it 'dies' quickly outside the body and is weak to things like bleach. (IIRC, a 10% bleach solution was a standard cleaner of spilled positive samples back in the day when I worked with such blood samples, of course, gloves and goggles are worn too.)

As to evolutionary benefits...well, should you have offspring then develop an STI (i'm thinking of HPV type diseases) that leads to infertility, the first born, before the introduction of a disease, should have a better chance of survival. Not necessarily because of the virus, but because there is less completion for resources.
 
Of course wild animals get sick, what an odd question. As for STDs, the HIV virus originated in chimps and jumped to humans. I also don't think there's any advantage to getting vaccinated for a disease, as opposed to just not getting the disease.
 
You only do if you get the disease.
 
Fair point, but, how do you not come into contact with the disease?

Many diseases, not just measles, are highly contagious, especially in the window between infection and visible symptoms. It's one of those ways in which a virus/disease spreads it's self. A kinda virus cloaking device.
 
The question by Ermintrude seems to have been wether getting a disease and surviving it, is better than just not getting the disease. Though not getting it might be unlikely, hence we vaccinate.
 
I read the OP as wondering about possible evolutionary benefits to contracting an STI, or health benefits and should we all be prescribed a dose of the pox from our GP's.

Then again, when Ermintrude wonders... ;)
 
I thought syphilis was imported from South America soon after the colonisation, thus Europeans/Africans/ROW would have no immunity. This is only an impression, I haven't checked any sources.
 
Lifespans were short. Perhaps living to 30 was a good adaptation. Wasn't sickle-cell anemia a good alternative to malaria in Africa?
 
STIs may have driven ancient humans to monogamy, study says

The shift away from polygamy to monogamy with the dawn of agriculture could be down to the impact of sexually transmitted infections in communities

Based on insights from computer models, scientists argue that the shift away from polygynous societies – where men had many long-term partners, but women had only one – could be down the impact of sexually transmitted infections on large communities that arose with the dawn of the agricultural age. Agriculture is thought to have taken hold around 10,000 years ago, although some studies put the date even earlier.

“That behaviour was more common in hunter gatherers and it seemed to fade when we became agriculturists,” said Chris Bauch of the University of Waterloo in Canada who co-authored the paper.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...-driven-ancient-humans-to-monogamy-study-says
 
Horribly interesting article here on 'four emerging STDs' that may have a big impact.

Most memorable quote:

1. Neisseria meningitidis​
N. meningitidis can cause invasive meningitis, a potentially deadly infection of the brain and spinal cord's protective membranes.​
​
More commonly, it's gaining a reputation as a cause of urogenital infections. (One remarkable study from the 1970s described how a male chimpanzee contracted a urethral infection after passing the bacteria from its nose and throat to its own penis through auto-fellatio. "This animal frequently engages in self oral-genital contact," the authors duly noted.)​
​
Roughly 5 to 10 percent of adults likewise carry N. meningitidis in the back of the nose and throat. Studies suggest they can potentially transmit the bacteria to partners through oral sex, deep kissing or other kinds of close contact that transmit infected droplets.​

Source:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/06/health/std-sexually-transmitted-diseases-partner/index.html
 
Syphilis is back with a bang.

More than 2.5 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis were reported in the U.S. in 2021 — nearly 6% more than were reported in 2020.

Syphilis rates, in particular, leapt to levels not seen since the 1950s(opens in new tab). More than 176,000 cases of syphilis were reported in 2021, up from nearly 134,000 in 2020. Rates of the bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) reached historic lows in the early 2000s — when they hovered around 30,000 per year — but they have climbed steadily since then, according to finalized data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(opens in new tab) (CDC) on Tuesday (April 11).

Out of the total reported syphilis cases, 2,855 were congenital syphilis, which occurs when syphilis-causing bacteria pass through the placenta during pregnancy. These cases resulted in 220 congenital syphilis-related stillbirths and infant deaths. Overall, the nationwide rate of congenital syphilis increased more than 30% between 2020 and 2021. Rates of the disease are 464% higher than they were in 2001.

https://www.livescience.com/health/...-infection-epidemic-shows-no-signs-of-slowing
 
Maybe there is more population now ?

A 2015 U.S. CDC study claims in a life time males on the average had 7 sexual relationships and women had 5 sexual relationships.

As you can see an infected STD person can infect many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top