Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The terror of AIDS
Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, July 6, 2004

Posted on 07/06/2004 12:37:38 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

The Washington Times

The terror of AIDS

Published July 6, 2004

The HIV/AIDS epidemic has become so pervasive in some parts of the world that it has evolved from a humanitarian concern into a security threat in the eyes of top U.S. officials.
    Speaking at the NATO summit in Istanbul, Turkey, last week, President Bush said: "We face the challenge of corruption and poverty and disease, which throw whole nations into chaos and despair. These are the conditions in which terrorism can survive." AIDS is causing this wreckage in entire continents and regions, and is in turn exacerbating poverty in already desperate areas.
    Outgoing CIA Director George J. Tenet said last year that AIDS "threatens to rob South Africa of generations of leaders and workers, of farmers and educators -- with devastating effects on economies and societies. Is this a security issue? You bet it is." About three months ago, U.S. and Vietnamese military officials met in Hanoi -- not to discuss defense issues, but rather the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS.
    On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, chaired by Sen. Mitch McConnell, will propose how much should be spent on preventing AIDS and other diseases worldwide. Mr. Bush should be commended for proposing an increase next year in overall spending on AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, from a total of $2.4 billion to $2.8 billion. Still, last year's spending and this year's proposal come up short of the $3 billion a year in funding that Congress and the president had proposed spending over the next five years.
    Also unfortunate is a significant decrease in proposed funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. While $546 million was contributed last year, this year the president has proposed sending only $200 million. Mr. McConnell has the opportunity to increase this amount to at least match last year's level. U.S. contributions to the fund have an exponential effect on funding, since other countries feel greater pressure to do their part, said David Bryden, communications director for the Global AIDS Alliance.
    Health workers around the world have been impressed with the performance of the fund. In its July newsletter, the Global AIDS Alliance published an interview with Dr. Simon Mphuka, director of programs for the Churches Health Association of Zambia. Working with the fund allows physicians and others to cut "big intermediary steps," he said. Mr. Mphuka said the fund's resources represent "a big opportunity for faith-based groups."
    The Bush administration has identified the security threat AIDS has become and has bolstered America's commitment to combat the disease. It should also leverage the opportunity of pressuring other countries to contribute their share by giving generously to the Global Fund.

TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events

1 posted on 07/06/2004 12:37:38 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I'm still up and peeking at the news off and on while writing a draft and some advertising stuff. So here's a Ping! for you.
2 posted on 07/06/2004 12:56:23 AM PDT by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; fourdeuce82d; El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; ...

BTTT & PING, respectively

3 posted on 07/06/2004 1:47:59 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Uganda went from a 30% HIV-infected populace in 1995 to a 6% rate today. They formally committed their nation to the Lord Jesus Christ in 2000, and have supported normal marriage for a decade or so.

4 posted on 07/06/2004 4:51:41 AM PDT by TomSmedley ((technical writer looking for work!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Generations of Africans have suffered from the consequences of malnutrition, poor sanitation, poverty, parasitic diseases, etc.

Over the last two decades these diseases have been arbitrarily redefined as AIDS using the Bangui definition. The ELISA and WB HIV tests (worthless though I believe them them to be) are not used in clinical diagnosis in sub-saharan Africa.

The Bangui definition is basically a cheap way of detecting HIV/AIDs. If the patient has two or more symptoms off a list of symptoms then - they are diagnosed as AIDs patients. But the symptoms of TB, Malaria etc are all on the Bangui list of symptoms thought to indicate AIDS.

Therefore the AIDs epidemic in Africa is merely epidemic-by-definition. The real tragedy comes from the difference in attitude to "HIV-AIDS" and to TB, Malaria,etc.

TB, Malaria, etc are treatable. After primary treatment the best ways to defeat the illnesses are nutitrional and enviromental changes: provision of clean water etc. But "everyone knows" AIDs isn't curable and "everyone knows" it's spread by sex.

Therefore the HIV/AIDS establishment makes billions of dollars available for "antivirals" and condoms but hardly a penny for food, schools, education, clean water, and jobs. Africans are not getting any healthier, but drug and condom manufacturers are making a mint.

Moreover, the antiviral treatments are poisonous - just making things worse. Only the sheer poverty of Africa has so far protected it from the real killer on the US mainland - AZT and the (less toxic) protease inhibitors used to "treat" HIV.

If this wasn't enough, the WHO has exacerbated the scale of the problem by making a colossal statistical blunder. WHO scientists have collated ELISA HIV-test results from blood samples left at antenatal clinics from across the whole of sub-saharan Africa. These tests are known to give false positives in the presence of fifty-plus medical conditions and phenomena, including recent vaccination, exposure to endemic TB and Malaria, being black and being pregnant. All conditions that are quite common in an antenatal clinic in the middle of Ghana, for instance.

But the false-positive indicators haven't stopped the WHO from chalking the higher-than-usual positive rate of the antenatal tests to an epidemic of the HIV virus.

Worse is to come. The WHO statisticians then multiplied the numbers by a "non-reportance" factor of between 30 to 40.

This epidemiological mish-mash has led the WHO to predict that half the population in (sub saharan) Africa is infected with the HIV virus, and will therefore die within ten years.

They've been getting away with it because the death-reporting rate in Africa is about 1%. Only 1 in a 100 deaths in sub-saharan Africa are actually notified to some authority. This leaves a lot of room for manoeuvre.

But South Africa is a modern country. 8 in 10 deaths are reported there. When the WHO tried to tell President Thabo Mbeki that his country was being wiped out by AIDs he was able to point to the data that proved them wrong. I recommend that Tenet's successor reads up on the subject before making similar ludicrous statements about African mortality.

5 posted on 07/06/2004 4:58:27 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

I remember reading reports that by some year in the 1990's 1/2 of africa's population would drop dead from full blown aids. There would not have enough people to bury the dead.

6 posted on 07/06/2004 8:20:05 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Well put. Also Oprah's prediction that one-fifth of all U.S. heterosexuals would be "dead of AIDS" by 1990.

A real infectious virus to which there were no immunity would indeed spread exponentially through the population - and then subside as the host group developed immunity.

This is not what we see with HIV/AIDS, which is strange. Viruses are obligatory parasites - they have no option but to infect. They can't hang around for ten or twenty years, confined only to the at-risk groups. Nor can they act differently in different countries - they don't come fitted with GPS.

The sort of slowly changing, group-confined epidemiology we see with AIDs isn't remotely viral, but is indicative either of toxin exposure or of a deficiency disease.

7 posted on 07/06/2004 9:18:35 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Thanks for the ping; I always appreciate being alterted to articles.

8 posted on 07/06/2004 3:41:31 PM PDT by little jeremiah ( - a REAL conservative running for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

A while ago on FR there was a spate of articles about AIDS/HIV in Africa, and mention was made of different strains of the virus, the one in Africa being more virulent as an explanation for its supposed wide spread. Also mentioned was the habit of many men's promiscuity, and something called "dry sex" which I don't want to hear any more about (!).

What is your take on any of these issues? What do you think is the actual rate of infection of AIDS/HIV in various African countries, compared to what we've all read?

And also (if you have time) I'm interested in the toxic effects of the ATZ and other anti-viral AIDS medicines. We always read that, for instance, homosexuals with AIDS are living much longer symptom free lives even though with infection, due to the drugs they take.

9 posted on 07/06/2004 3:48:03 PM PDT by little jeremiah ( - a REAL conservative running for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson