Notwithstanding, unlike the West, in Africa AIDS is diagnosed without any laboratory tests, patients are classified as AIDS cases without laboratory proof that they have either immunodeficiency or HIV infection. All Africans need to have are various clinical conditions. But the conditions accepted as forming the "S" (syndrome) of "AIDS" in Africa bear no relationship to AIDS in the West.I don't find any compelling reason to believe that HIV has a true affinity only for blacks and sodomites. But I do know there is a lot of money and politics involved in maintaining the notion of a heterosexual AIDS crisis in Africa. But there is no actual proof of this in Africa. Even if there were, no one has demonstrated that the transmission was by normal heterosexual means.
In the West, AIDS consists of a person's having one or more of approximately 27 relatively rare diseases. In Africa, AIDS as defined by the World Health Organisation 1986/87 Bangui African AIDS definition is no more than a collage of common non-specific symptoms and signs such as cough, fever and diarrhoea, and a few diseases such as tuberculosis (TB) and a cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma, diseases which have been endemic in Africa for generations.
The latest answer why black Africa is "killing itself" is apparently now the "misreporting of actual cases." All those millions of deaths, from what?
Something has dropped life expectancy from 70 to 45 in a decade. In the last 25 years, have Africans suddenly stopped a particuar practice or started some habit, unknown before 1976? What is the differential that explains why almost 50 percent of the continent will die off in the next 10 years? Not having enough proper test kits does not explain the ungodly surge in deaths.
Are these numbers not so staggering that you feel compelled to understand them better, as a human being?
Remember, my question about the black and white junkies pertains only to the U.S. We have all means of diagnostic testing available here. What's your explanation for the statistical discrepancy between control groups of black and white junkies?
It's a question worthy of consideration. Any of us with time enough to debate eschatology on the internet probably has the time to do a little reading on this subject...from a variety of sources.
It's all about the numbers.
Why bring this into it? Are the numbers themselves not enough to question?
Those are Eisenhower's words; not mine.
AIDS carries an incredible stigma there that taints the entire family. Unlike here, where we're told 25% of gays are seeking out the disease.
I've been in these debates on FR before so I'm compelled to brandish my conservative credentials. I vote straight Republican, attend a Presbyterian church regularly, read a lot of history, am a white, heterosexual parent and spouse, a well-paid professional who loathes affirmative action, politically correct stupidity, and Nancy Pelosi.
But I have friends, educated, intelligent, kind friends, whose brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers have died of AIDS in Africa. They are not all people of the bushes. They look like your next door neighbor, or your accountant or the kids your sons play basketball with.
And they're dying like knats in a bucket of bleach.
And the more you read about this, the more you're brought to the sickening, numbing conclusion that it will not end until Africa is devoid of black faces.
Like Stanley Kramer's line about Spielberg, "Six million Jews died, and he makes a movie about the 600 who lived."