Posted on 06/03/2005 11:18:37 AM PDT by FormerLib
Glazov: Dr. Brody, let’s begin with you. Could you kindly comment on this phenomenon and give your perspective on some of the themes I have raised?
Brody: In the early 1980s, in my hometown of New York, it was apparent that AIDS deaths were occurring in transfusees, injecting drug users, and male homosexuals. It was also apparent to the homosexual community that given that affected population, generous federal funding would not be forthcoming. People skilled at public relations developed the "Big Lie": that HIV was a major risk to all, and was readily spread via penile-vaginal intercourse (rather than only by injection or anal intercourse) to otherwise reasonably healthy adults. This lie was understandable given the circumstances at that time. With time, generous funding became available, and the lie was no longer needed for the original purpose.
However, by that time, several political interests became very invested in the Big Lie. Those interests included those who sought to confuse political equality of homosexuals with egalitarian disease susceptibility (I suspect that only a small minority of those promoting that agenda were themselves nominally homosexual). So-called "gender feminists", inspired by the late Andrea Dworkin and her ilk, were keen to vilify intercourse, and hoped to reduce intercourse frequency (in favor of sexual behaviors that were less exclusively heterosexual), as well as to dampen its quality and intimacy (via condom promotion).
In addition to the major role played by the political left, segments of the political right might have been pleased to see a means of enforcing relative sexual continence. People of any political persuasion who, for their own psychological reasons, feared intercourse, also joined the chorus.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
That's UN WHO Propaganda and clearly shows you don't know what the hell you are talking about. "Note the figure of 30% unsafe injection use the world over. But somehow in Africa unsafe injection use only contributes 2.5%"
The WHO has an agenda and doesn't want Africans to stop using condoms. We're concerned that a report like this might tend to make people drop their guard and not use condoms. If the WHO wasn't so tied to the pharmaceutical companies, the needle problem or the "Big Truth" would be exposed.
I don't know what is going on between you and Tulane, but I'd like a link to the person who 'refuted' what i said. For some reason I do not think his post will be completely pertinent. Plus i was wondering what your response was to my last post (129).
And by the way, just so you know, I am not trying to start silly flames and stuff (I used to enjoy such stuff once upon a time, but I outgrew it once certain Freeper friends started dropping Opus threads). But all the same I am curious why my post is 'just stupid and deserves to be called as much.' There are certain points in your posts I could very well have attacked but did not see any positive point for doing so. But I am curious as to what 'stupid' points I was making. Quite so. Amazingly so. And maybe once you tell me which ones i was making I may very well elucidate yours.
No matter how many times it is repeated, it's not true.
From 1982-1987, anybody could get an AIDS grant. The dollars available greatly exceeded the supply of good or even feasible ideas.
AIDS vaccine research centers were set up in hospitals with no prior vaccine research experience. Community organizations were funded to do "research" that couldn't get a dime if it was about anything else.
The history of Federal support of AIDS research is a remarkable success story, beginning in the first Reagan administration.
2) To quote FormerLib there is a lot of 'Agenda diven' science ....particularly when it comes to statistics. I would be a fool and/or a liar to discount that. And several organizations do have a stake in certain aspects. That's the truth. However two things arise. The first being that agendas cut both ways (with both sides of the spectrum having their own agendas), and that the spread of HIV in the 3rd world is primarily due to heterosexual modes.
3) When I say this I am not trying to paint homosexuality with Lily-white colors (just in case you are wondering). To me it is a sin, the Bible i read says it is a sin, and even without it I still know in my heart it is not natural (plus being anathema to the several cultures that make my varied ethnic background). Thus i am not in anyway defending homosexuality. However with that said that will not make me say global AIDS is due to homosexuality, particularly in Africa and Asia, because it simply isn't.
Your reply does not address the point of my comment, not even 1%.
Of course HIV can be spread, by any number of means. So what?
The fact that HIV is very widespread in African women (if that is indeed the case, and I don';t know that it is) does NOT indicate recent infection by some sort of widespread vector.
It is an epidimiological indicator of a very OLD infection. The truth is that all HIV epidemiological studies all over the world indicate that the reservior of infection is almost constant over time. This is a very mature viral infection in humanity. Epidemiologically it is impossible to know about infection rates 2 or 3 hundred years ago, but it is undisputable that HIV infection was extraordinarily widespread in humans decads before the start of the AIDS epidemic. HIV infection has probably been common in man for millennia.
I was referring to Tulane's assertion, not your post.
If, by WHO figures, 30% of the world has unsafe injections, don't you think that the spread of AIDS in Africa is do to that and NOT sex? I'm surprised all of Africa doesn't have AIDS. Do the math, if there was 30% of anything affecting ANY population, how prevalent would it be?
So I guess you admit your 2.5% BS was BS then, right? Or are you going to refute the WHO's own claims where you got your "data" in the first place?
Like what, for example. Other than the definition of AIDS that includes a positive HIV tests as a required part of the diagnosis, I mean.
I'd like to see the discussion rise above circular logic.
So if asked, they would deny homosexuality as being a risk factor, yes?
No, they wouldn't, because they think only men on the bottom can be considered "gay." But in fact, the vast majority of transmissions in Africa are through heterosexual sex. Mainly prostitutes. It is mindboggling the studies they have done.
"There is a long way to go in educating the people over there."
You bet. They are so spread out, and most don't own a tv.
Also, there are so many languages spoken. Missionaries help, but unfortunately Africans resent the western concept of marriage to one woman without infidelity. They consider it to be an attack on their culture.
"There was a good article posted in Bloggers a few weeks back that discussed the possibility that HIV didn't cause AIDS. It was very interesting but I can't find it now."
They are in good company:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/934435.stm
How come the medical establishment doesn't make the same claim? Are they all involved in a conspiracy to kill Africans and make money off of drug cocktails?
"...HIV-based definition of AIDS (see § 3) can not be used in Africa to distinguish AIDS-defining from otherwise indistinguishable diseases, because as of 1985 the WHO decided at a conference in Bangui, Africa, to accept African AIDS diagnoses without HIV-tests (see § 3)."
and
"Indeed, all available data are compatible with an old African epidemic of malnutrition and poverty-associated diseases under a new name..."
1.2 African epidemic
A new AIDS epidemic was also claimed to have emerged in sub-Saharan Africa in 1984 (Bayley 1984; Piot et al 1984; Seligmann et al 1984; Van de Perre et al 1984; Quinn et al 1986, 1987). In sharp contrast to its US/Euro- pean namesakes, the African AIDS epidemic is randomly distributed between the sexes and not restricted to beha- vioural risk groups (Blattner et al 1988; Duesberg 1988; World Health Organization 2001a). Hence sub-Saharan African AIDS is compatible with a random, either micro- bial or chemical cause.
The African epidemic is also a collection of long-establi- shed, indigenous diseases, such as chronic fevers, weight loss, alias “slim disease”, diarrhea and tuberculosis (table 2), (Colebunders et al 1987; Konotey-Ahulu 1987a, b, 1989; Pallangyo et al 1987; Duesberg 1992). However, the distribution of AIDS-defining diseases in Africa dif- fers strongly from those in the US and Europe (table 2).
For example, the predominant and most distinctive AIDS diseases in the US and Europe, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi’s sarcoma, are almost never diag- nosed in Africa (Goodgame 1990; Abouya et al 1992). According to the WHO the African epidemic has in- creased from 1984 until the early 1990s, similar to the epidemics of the US and Europe, but has since leveled off to generate about 75,000 cases annually (figure 1c), (World Health Organization 2001b, and back issues). By 2001, Africa had reportedly generated a cumulative total of 1,093,522 cases (World Health Organization 2001b). However, there are three reasons for questioning these numbers:
(i) During the African AIDS epidemic, the sub-Saharan African population has grown, at an annual rate of about 2?6% per year – from 378 million in 1980 to 652 million in 2000 (US Bureau of the Census International Data Base 2001). Thus Africa had gained since 1980 274 million people, the equivalent of the whole population of the US!
Therefore, a possible, above-normal loss of 1 million Africans over a period in which over 200 millions were gained is statistically hard, if not impossible to verify – unless the African AIDS diseases were highly distinctive.
(ii) However, the African AIDS-defining diseases are clinically indistinguishable from conventional African morbidity and mortality (see above).
(iii) Further the HIV-based definition of AIDS (see § 3) can not be used in Africa to distinguish AIDS-defining from otherwise indistinguishable diseases, because as of 1985 the WHO decided at a conference in Bangui, Africa, to accept African AIDS diagnoses without HIV-tests (see § 3). This was done because these tests are unaffordable in most African countries (World Health Organization 1986; Fiala 1998; Fiala et al 2002). Thus without the CDC’s HIV standard (§ 3), the diagnosis of African AIDS is arbitrary.
In view of the many epidemiological and clinical distinc- tions of African AIDS from its US/European namesakes and the many uncertainties about the diagnosis of African AIDS, both the novelty of African AIDS and its relation- ship to the US/European AIDS epidemics have been cal- led into question (Hodgkinson 1996; Fiala 1998; Shenton 1998; Gellman 2000; Stewart et al 2000; Malan 2001; Fiala et al 2002; Gisselquist et al 2002; Ross 2003). Indeed, all available data are compatible with an old African epide- mic of malnutrition and poverty-associated diseases under a new name (Konotey-Ahulu 1987a, b; Oliver 2000; Stewart et al 2000).
In the following we will try to find the most probable causes for the various AIDS epidemics based on epide- miological, clinical, microbial and biochemical evidence.
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
Check out this link. Also there have been heated discussions on this subject here on FR with extensive referencing. Do some searches. But start with this recent article. This phony HIV-AIDS story is truly one of the most disgusting taxpayer rip-offs in at least a century.
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
Actually, the article disputes that and suggests that the transmissions are primarily the result of unsterile punctures or receptive anal sex, whether homo or heterosexual. I think we have the right to ask if this is true, otherwise much of the prevention effort will be misdirected.
In every case, follow the money.
do you have cameras in their bedrooms?
Do you realize how dumb you sound?
"Would a REAL follower of Christ recommend and advocate a completely morally bankrupt and potentially fatal experiment for someone else and more especially, someone else's innocent daughter -- somone who isn't even a part of this discussion ?"
I was making a point about how dangerous it is to think AIDS only affects gays and iv drug users. You know that from the context of the comment you responded to. The context was "if AIDS can't be spread by heterosexual contact, then set your daughter up with an HIV positive man." You don't seriously think I would want the poster or his daughter to get AIDS, do you? If anything, I want my comments to provoke thought, and to refute the idea that heterosexual non-married people shouldn't use condoms because it's a "gay" disease. It's about SAVING lives, and you know it. Why try to turn it around, when those who deny heterosexuals can be greatly affected as a population are part of the problem?
"After all, YOU were the one who mentioned shunning morally bankrupt behaviour when you said,
I had a debate with a liberal once online about this disease. I argued that homosexuality should be shunned instead of encouraged."
I have always maintained that promiscuous behavior and iv drug use are the major causes of aids. There's nothing inconsistent about what I said. The liberal was denying to me that homosexuality was a major reason for the spread (at least in the west). Now here, a few deny that women are at great risk. That's bull.
"It must be tough for someone like you, to live in a house that couldn't possibly have any mirrors."
Your post can be summed up as follows: You agree with the irresponsible Frontpagemag article, so you attack me personally because I disagree with the dangerous nonsense.
LIVES ARE AT STAKE. In some areas of Africa, the infection rate of babies is as high as 40%. This isn't a left or right issue. It's a human issue.
And by the way I do not live in a glass house. In my 20's, I had several sexual partners. In the last 7 years I have had one. Not only because I was saved, but because I fear STD's.
"People skilled at public relations developed the "Big Lie": that HIV was a major risk to all"
Any fast mutating disease IS a risk to all. HIV/AIDS is a risk to all, except those who get tested, then marry and stay faithful for a lifetime, don't use iv drugs and avoid contact with others' blood. Africa shows us how fast it can sweep through a community.
"Returning to the article, this suggests that there are two factors that constititue the primary threats in regards to the spread of the disease and, because of this, they should be the primary focus of efforts to combat the disease and educate people about AIDS."
I would agree with that, but to exclude heterosexual people would likely lead to an explosion of HIV in the hetero population.
"Take a look at the suggestion that he was referencing and tell me that a Christian wrote it."
YOU KNOW that I was only trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of the assertion that HIV is a gay disease.
"If it's a gay disease, then have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive prostitute or set your daughter up with an HIV positive man." Do you SERIOUSLY think I meant that meant that literally?
This is not a substitute for an argument, however much you try and divert it. You are angry that people like myself don't buy into this conspiratorial garbage, which is on par with holocaust denial. Provide evidence, not some crank article that goes against 99.9% of the medical establishment and the facts and figures painstakingly gathered by altruistic and caring people.
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.