Posted on 01/13/2005 10:53:56 AM PST by robowombat
: No certainty about Africans and HIV
There's been a predictable wave of outrage (perhaps real; one can never tell) at a recent column on this page by economist Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution at Stanford, in which he asked whether the legal institution of marriage is really a "right" that can be bestowed on gay couples, or whether it isn't in fact a set of commonly accepted restrictions on the rights of the partners, adopted to facilitate support of the children resulting from (hetero) sexual unions.
I won't endeavor to defend Sowell's economic analysis, because he's better able and qualified than I to do that job.
But I found it interesting to again hear the old shrieks about how AIDS is not a "gay disease," since it's spreading out among females and heterosexuals as a sexually transmitted disease.
Since it's not.
We've been waiting a decade, now, for this prediction to come true. Remember, back in the '90s, hearing that "heterosexual women are the fastest growing group of AIDS victims"? Yeah: In a statistical stutter typical among small numbers, they were at one point up from half of one percent to a full percent -- most of those women turning out to be folks who shared needles with other intravenous recreational drug users.
Mind you, the fact that most of those dying of diseases that opportunistically strike those with impaired immune symptoms turn out to be gay men (and the rest, pretty much, injectable drug users) is no reason not to feel compassion for the victims, and to seek more scientifically accurate information to help prevent those outcomes. But the key word there is "information" -- myths that make people believe an "HIV-positive diagnosis" is a death sentence, justifying the immediate application of therapies which are in and of themselves highly toxic, hardly seem an appropriate way to support our gay and drug-using friends and brothers in their right to live as they see fit.
The last line of defense for those who persist in bruiting about many long-disproved AIDS myths seems to be the claim that "AIDS in Africa proves everything we've been saying."
But at http://www.sumeria.net/aids/aidsafrica.html , we find Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, and Valendar F. Turner, Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, writing:
"According to the World Health Organization, some 2.5 million sub-Saharan Africans have AIDS -- Africa is apparently in the grip of an AIDS pandemic. (In the USA 300,000 people have AIDS). AIDS in Africa is portrayed as providing two important lessons for the West. The first is an example of the potential devastation that AIDS can unleash, the second is that by heterosexual spread, AIDS will eventually overtake the West. However, there is no convincing evidence that millions of Africans are infected with HIV, the putative cause of AIDS, or that African AIDS is heterosexually spread.
"The only evidence that some Africans are 'infected' with a virus called HIV is indirect, the random testing of Africans' blood for the presence of antibodies that react with a collection of so-called HIV proteins," these medical professionals continue.
"If the 'HIV proteins' (present in the test kits) only reacted with HIV antibodies there would be no problem. Unfortunately this is not the case. Antibodies produced in response to the presence of one foreign agent may also react with another different foreign agent and the more infectious agents that a person has been exposed to, the greater is the likelihood that such cross-reacting antibodies will be present. ...
"Thus in Africa, no one knows whether the antibody tests are specific for HIV, that is, whether a positive test actually means HIV infection. ... In Africa there is no certainty that Africans are actually infected with a putative new agent, HIV. ...
"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. ...
"Dr. Konotey-Ahulu from the Cromwell Hospital in London expresses a similar view: 'Today, because of AIDS, it seems that Africans are not allowed to die from these conditions [from which they used to die before the AIDS era] any longer. If tens of thousands are dying from AIDS (and Africans do not cremate their dead) where are the graves?'
"According to him, the uppermost question in the minds of intelligent Africans and Europeans in that continent is: 'Why do the world's media appear to have conspired with some scientists to become so gratuitously extravagant with the untruth?' "
The entire article is well worth a read, as are the excellent, well-researched, profusely footnoted books "Inventing the AIDS Virus," by Dr. Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., member of the National Academy of Sciences and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the slimmer "What If Everything You Thought You Knew about AIDS Was Wrong?" (available through www.aliveandwell.org), by Christine Maggiore, who tested "HIV positive" in 1992, initially accepted and spouted all the same guff the mainstream "AIDS activists" still peddle, but eventually began to ask how on earth toxic therapies could make people well, decided to simply take care of her health, and has since remained perfectly healthy, marrying and bearing "two beautiful, healthy children, ages 6 and 2, who have never had so much as an ear infection."
More upbeat news -- along with more on "AIDS in Africa" -- from Ms. Maggiore next week.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "The Ballad of Carl Drega" and the forthcoming "The Black Arrow."
Pretty good article.
There was an article (buried in the back pages) that the number of polio cases in Africa were up by two-thirds in 2004, mainly because radical Imams in Nigeria were telling the faithful that the vaccinations were a plot by the US to "render the Nation's Muslims impotent, or give them AIDS".
Another gift from the "Religion of Peace" to the needy in Africa.
From the article: Dr. Konotey-Ahulu from the Cromwell Hospital in London expresses a similar view: 'Today, because of AIDS, it seems that Africans are not allowed to die from these conditions [from which they used to die before the AIDS era] any longer. If tens of thousands are dying from AIDS (and Africans do not cremate their dead) where are the graves?'
This is BS, and the reason for that is that the guy is trying to push his opinion through any means necessary (including lies and outright deception). He asks where the graves are? Well, in many areas (for example in Uganda during the early to mid 90s and Southern Africa from the mid-90s to current) whole areas have been depopulated by AIDS. In Uganda the situation was exceedingly dire, because the parents would be killed and the children would be raised by the grandparents. A whole generation virtually disappeared in some places, and there were entire villages that had children being raised by the elderly.
Oh, and there were graves to boot! In some cases acres of graves.
Fortunately Uganda undertook serious steps to proliferate health awareness, and they did this by mixing both religious exhortations (eg be a good Christian and stop promiscuous sex) plus one of the most extensive safe-sex programs in the world, and that country literally saved itself! Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the Southern African nations (eg Namibia, South Africa etc). There AIDS is still chugging along at terminal speed.
As for the affliction not being caused by HIV that is also nonsense. Not all of Africa is bushland! Test kits do exist, and many people do get tested. The major difference between AIDS in Africa and the West is the disease that actually kills the person in the end. In Africa it is usually stuff like tuberculosis and malaria that ravage the weakened body. Also they die faster due to nutritional deficiencies and lack of medicines. In the west things like malaria are not to be found commonly, and tuberculosis (though present) is not even near the killer it is in the tropics.
Now, ONE THING i will agree with the good doctor on is that AIDS is used as a rallying call for external funds by many of the afflicted nations. Through it they can have the West send billions of dollars, a good portion of which 'disappears' in a manner that would make even Copperfield envious! Many countries in Africa and Asia that are afflicted with AIDS pandemics use the disease asa rallying call for funds (funds that tend to be siphoned off to personal Swiss bank accounts)
But saying that it has not killed many because there are 'no graves' is just plain stupid. And it means that the good doctor has not seen what the heck has happened in some of those countries there.
Given that nobody has even shown how HIV causes AIDS how can you tell these people arent simply dying of malaria,TB, and malnutrition like they have been for centuries?
Simple answer. IF that was the case then tell me how come only sexually mature adults (ages 15 to 55) have been hit by the 'malaria.' How come there were whole areas where the only people to be found were grandparents raising grandchildren.
Particularly when diseases like malaria hit the youngest and the oldest the hardest! How come it was the children and the aged left?
Give me a rational explanation for THAT and i will seriously mull over your assertion that it is nothing but malaria et al.
If it was nothing but a serious outbreak of malaria then it should be the grandparents and children who are dying and the adults who are surviving, but the inverse is true. How do you explain that?
Same thing with malnutrition. The first to drop are the aged, the infirm, and the young. How come then most of the dead are adults and most of the survivors children and their grandparents.
I'm actually quite curious as to what theory you will come up with as an answer. It always amazes me how people who haven't seen the dead in droves always manage to come up with all sorts of 'interesting' assertions.
BTW: I am the first to admit that most governments in Africa and Asia use AIDS as a source for funds. But saying that makes AIDS non-existent, or nothing mroe than 'malaria and malnutrition' is totally asinine.
But anyways, 'nuff of that. Please tell me how come malaria and malnutrition, afflictions that normally affect the eldest and the youngest, have skipped them over and struck the ones who would be most resistant towards disease and hunger? After all, you do say the epidemic could be due to the stuff that has been afflicting the areas for centuries. Answer that, logically, and you have a convert.
Can you show me some reliable demographics on the populations who died.
How come it statistically takes *thousands* of sexual contacts in the United States to contract HIV but Africa is loosing *everyone* who is sexually mature?
Why are STDs and HIV decorrelated in South Africa? (see the slides in the first link, post 3).
How do you get a pathogen to act like that?
Lots of people died of the SMON virus before it was discovered it wasnt virus.
They used to throw "contagious" sailors with scurvy off of ships. But they simply lacked vitamin C.
Bob Gallo "discovered" a retrovirus that caused cancer. But nobody believed him. Later he stole the HIV virus and held a press conference declaring it caused AIDS. A press conference is not science.
Well, we've spend 20 years and enough money to go to the moon a half dozen times on this hypothesis and we still have dead bodies in droves. Nor are we any closer to showing how HIV differs from any other harmless retrovirus found in humans. Perhaps we should re-examine our hypothesis.
As for the questions you asked:
Can you show me some reliable demographics on the populations who died.
You know what. This was a hard one. Why? Well, NOT because i couldn't show you graphs and charts and all sorts of statistics. You just would not believe them! Furthermore many would come from UN affiliated groups, and i know the first thing you probably would have done is discredit them since they were from the UN. I could ahve told you of the stuff i myself have seen, but you would have probably told me that was only hearsay (and after all people do claim to have seen Sasquatch and aliens). Hence it seemed to be quite a hard task to fulfil.
That is until i remembered that our dear president brought something up in his budget papers and tasks for his next 4 years. And i managed to find it. Now, i am sure you will still say it is BS, but at the very least you will be directing it at him not me. After all, i do not set his policy. Anyways, here are the facts given by HIM:
The President's FY 2005 budget requests $2.8 billion for fighting AIDS globally, which more than triples the investment since 2001. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush announced the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a five-year, $15 billion initiative to turn the tide in the global effort to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has killed at least 20 million of the more than 60 million people it has infected thus far, leaving 14 million orphans worldwide. Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus -- including three million children under the age of 15. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is helping some of the most affected countries in Africa and the Caribbean to extend and save lives afflicted by HIV/AIDS. The initiative will be used to provide antiretroviral drugs for 2 million HIV-infected people; prevent 7 million new infections, care for 10 million individuals and orphans infected and affected by the disease, and build the health system capacity in Africa and the Caribbean. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040623-1.html)
Hopefully that will suffice. And since you asked me to show you 'reliable demographics' let me do the same for you. Tell me how come the young are orphaned by yet they should be the ones been killed by 'malaria and malnutrition?'
Your other question:
How come it statistically takes *thousands* of sexual contacts in the United States to contract HIV but Africa is loosing *everyone* who is sexually mature?
Africa is not 'losing everyone'who is sexually mature. The hardest hit areas have at most a 25% infection number, and that is only in some areas of Southern Africa. Most sexually mature adults are not infected. As to the US stats you give that is not true either. It does not take 'thousands' of sexual contacts to contract HIV .....it only does that if you work with averages since fewer people here are infected with the disease. And furthermore here it is mainly limited in certain high-risk groups, for example the gay community as well as in women who are married or dating men who say they are straight but have trysts with other men (the whole 'down low' stupidity). In Africa and Asia it is normally through heterosexual contact where men have unprotected sex with prostitutes and then spread it to their wives and mistresses. Same thing in Russia (although the inception in Russia, and much of Eastern Europe, is actually tainted drug use, and then the tainted drug users have sex with the broader population).
Again, from the President's own report:
Approximately 40,000 Americans become infected with HIV/AIDS each year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that one-quarter of those infected with HIV do not know that they are infected, and that these individuals cause up to two-thirds of new infections. The FDA has facilitated the effort of rapid HIV tests by approving a quicker and less invasive saliva test for HIV.
If you average out the 40,000 Americans getting infected every year by the total population you will see that (using averages) it takes 'thousands of sexual encounters' to get infected, but that is mathematical meddling.
Also, could you explain why African HIV is a heterosexual disease while in the West it is confined to IV drug users and homosexuals. How do you get a pathogen to act like that?
Simple. Risk groups. And it is not only confined to IV users and homosexuals in the US ....it is just PRIMARILY to be found in those groups. There is a difference. Again, facts to back me up (and again, i went to great lengths to avoid the UN and such entities). Thus, these are from the CDC (Center for Disease Control. I'm sure not even you would call them quacks - especially when you give me links to renegade scientists who claim AIDS doesn't exist)
Exposure Category
Estimated # of AIDS Cases in the US, Through 2003
Male-to-male sexual contact 440,887
Injection Drug Use 246,546
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use - 622,418
Heterosexual contact 149,989
Other* 20,726
* Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.
(link:http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm) Since i am sure that was to be your next demand).
An in another post to me (you sent several at once and i can't keep up) you said of some viral disease some scientists made a mistake on. I've never heard of it, but i am assuming that was indeed the case. Hey, mistakes happen. But just because a mistake is done in one area doesn't mean all areas are subject to the same error.
Anyways (and probably by the time i post this you will have sent other posts, but i really have to get some stuff finished). I hope president Bush and the CDC qualify as legitimate sources, since i am sure what i have seen and what other entities say is 'flawed.'
Oh, and you still haven't told me how come 'malaria and malnutrition' are killing adults and leaving grandparents to raise their grandchildren. Any theory will do (i am just that curious as to what answer will be given. It doesn't even have to be from you ...it could be from one of the renegade scientists who claims AIDS is just a social bogeyman).
You haven't shown me any data on the subject.
How come there were whole areas where the only people to be found were grandparents raising grandchildren.
The hardest hit areas have at most a 25% infection number, and that is only in some areas of Southern Africa. Most sexually mature adults are not infected.
I could ahve told you of the stuff i myself have seen, but you would have probably told me that was only hearsay
As you can see from the above quotes, you can't keep your story straight. I'm willing to listen but when you go from telling me that all sexually mature adults are wiped out to only 25% are infected, your credibility suffers.
It does not take 'thousands' of sexual contacts to contract HIV .....it only does that if you work with averages since fewer people here are infected with the disease.
The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta were the first to publish in 1989 in the New England Journal of Medicine that it takes about 1,000 unprotected sexual contacts with an HIV-positive person to become positive. The CDC's numbers are based on thousands of "discordant" hemophilia couples, in which the husband was positive from a transfusion and some of their wives became positive over time.
I hope president Bush and the CDC qualify as legitimate sources,
I'm afraid I don't know what "legitimate" means in this context. Both are primarily political not scientific.
Geez!
As you can see from the above quotes, you can't keep your story straight. I'm willing to listen but when you go from telling me that all sexually mature adults are wiped out to only 25% are infected, your credibility suffers.
Geez raised to the nth power! There are villages where the only people to be found are grandparents takign care of their grandkids. That is true. And the hardest hit nations (specifically those in Southern Africa) have at most a 25% infection rate. There is a difference between 'infectio rates' and 'wipeouts.' Please read my post well before you try to make a straw man out of it.
I'm afraid I don't know what "legitimate" means in this context. Both are primarily political not scientific.
Wow, i specifically chose the president's statements, as well as the CDC, and your answer is that they are both political and not scientific sources. I can see how the president would be a political source, but why would Bush lie? And as for the CDC .....calling it a political source and not a scientific one, YET you provide links to scientists who are regarded as 'renegade'(to be polite) by the main scientific body, just goes to show your myopia. You have made it up in your mind that AIDS is a farce and the dead were merely killed by nothing more than normal ailments. And nothing i can do or say would change that view.
Which is why you would discount the findings of the CDC as merely 'political.'
But the good thing is other Freepers will look at both our posts. And they will make up their own minds. And i doubt most of them will think president Bush is cooking up his fact sheets, or that the CDC is a political puppet.
The fact is that HIV was established to be the cause of AIDS politically by the NIH before this was demonstrated scientifically (which has not been done to this date).
YET you provide links to scientists who are regarded as 'renegade'(to be politeby the main scientific body,
Science is not a democracy. Renegade has no scientific meaning, its a term of social not scientific derision.
One of the renegades is pretty much the father of modern retrovirology, another is the Nobel prize winner who invented the Polymerase chain reaction, another is Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München, another spent years working on AIDS drugs before he decided HIV was not the cause.
There are hundreds more.
Which is why you would discount the findings of the CDC as merely 'political.'
FYI, the CDC has claimed gun control is a health issue.
You have made it up in your mind that AIDS is a farce and the dead were merely killed by nothing more than normal ailments. And nothing i can do or say would change that view
No I have not. I have NO IDEA what is killing these people, it is *you* who are insisting that it is HIV.
Again, why do you believe that?
But the funniest thing is how you can say the CDC is playing political games and president Bush is not telling the turh, yet you have the temerity to give links to people who are generally considered to be burn-outs by the greater scientific community. That is chutzpah.
Anyways, as i said i know you will not change what you believe. And there is nothing wrong in that. You have the right to believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS and people are merely being killed by malaria and malnutrition. My posts were actually aimed at those who would read both my comments, and yours, and make up their own minds.
And again, i doubt many of them will accept the words of renegade scientists as gospel truth and discount what the vast majority of the scientific community (as well as president Bush and the CDC) believe. I gave my links, you gave your links, i answered your questions, you asked more questions without answering any of mine, i posted my thoughts, and you posted yours.
That is all i have to say.
The problem is that I find the statements made by the so-called renegades to be more self-consistent than the statements made by the mainstream.
Again, this is not a democracy. The majority of the world's population probably thinks heavier objects fall faster than light ones.
I've been a researcher long enough to know that the consensus us and the literature is often if not usually wrong.
You have the right to believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS and people are merely being killed by malaria and malnutrition
Again, this isn't a matter of rights or majority rule. I'd just like somebody to show the me the original paper that shows how HIV causes AIDS.
THERE IS NO SUCH PAPER.
I've been looking for a long time. Look at first, I thought Duesberg et. al. were NUTS. But the more I dug into the literature, the more frustrated I became. The HIV literature fails to address the dissenters points. The best of the literature simply raises bigger questions without establishing how HIV causes AIDS.
I met Dr. Rasnick at a conference a few years ago. I believe he is acting in good faith and his arguments make sense. After all, he started out trying to develop HIV drugs. I'd like to see his questions answered.
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.