THE former head of the government agency responsible for controlling diseases in Britain is calling for medical tests for immigrants before they are allowed into the country.
Posted on 12/12/2002 5:29:42 PM PST by MadIvan
THE former head of the government agency responsible for controlling diseases in Britain is calling for medical tests for immigrants before they are allowed into the country.
Lord Turnberg, who retired as chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service in July, said that the measures were needed to combat the spread of tuberculosis and HIV, where the recent surge in cases is largely the result of increased immigration from countries with high levels of the infections.
His call reflects growing concern in the medical profession that the NHS is being overstretched by the cost of treating imported illnesses, which can also threaten public health. A former president of the British Medical Association (BMA) and a leading professor of infectious diseases also backed the calls for health checks for immigrants.
Lord Turnberg said: “If they are coming for economic reasons, I would be inclined to have the tests before they leave, but if they are coming to join a husband and wife, I would be less severe.”
He said that, at the very least, all immigrants should have health tests on entry, so they could be treated for any illnesses they carried.
About half of all countries require health tests as part of the immigration process. Canada, the United States and Australia require general health tests, including HIV tests, to ensure that people are neither a threat to the public nor a burden on the health system.
At present the only medical tests for immigrants to Britain are voluntary after arrival. Some British overseas territories such as Montserrat, Saint Vincent, and Turks and Caicos Islands require HIV tests for anyone wishing to move there. A report last week showed that the level of TB in Britain had risen sharply in recent years, largely because of immigration. In those parts of London with the highest numbers of immigrants the levels of the disease are now higher than many Third World countries.
The Public Health Laboratory Service has also attributed the recent rise in HIV cases to immigration, which has now overtaken gay sex as the main cause of the spread of the virus in Britain.
Nearly half of the 4,658 cases diagnosed in Britain last year were acquired overseas, with 1,926 involving people from Africa. Government figures showed that 92 per cent of those were immigrants rather than Britons acquiring the infection in Africa. One in four people having HIV treatment in Britain is an African immigrant.
Lord Turnberg, who is also a past president of the Royal College of Physicians, said: “Health tests might well help to control TB and HIV — the numbers requiring treatment wouldn’t be so high. There is no doubt that HIV-positive people are likely to prove a health burden.”
Lord Walton of Detchant, a former president of the BMA and the General Medical Council, backed the call. “There is a strong case for asking for health checks for all immigrants,” he said. “They have elected to become immigrants and should have health tests at their own expense. It may be unpopular, but it is a view held by many in the profession.”
Canada, with an immigration programme of 250,000 people a year, insists that all would-be immigrants pay for health tests including for tuberculosis and HIV in their home country with a doctor accredited by the Canadian Government. Those who would prove a burden on the health system are generally rejected if applying to work, although they are allowed in if they are seeking access for humanitarian reasons, such as joining a spouse.
Last year more than 100,000 people came to Britain on work permits; the Government wants to increase that to 175,000 next year. More than 250,000 more came as students.
Alasdair Geddes, Emeritus Professor of Infectious Diseases at Birmingham University, said: “If people elect to come to the UK they should have health checks.” A Health Department spokesman said: “The Government believes that HIV testing should be carried out as a matter of individual choice on a voluntary and confidential basis. The fact that a person has HIV, or any other serious condition, is not grounds for refusing them entry to Britain. But one government source said:
“It is inevitable this will come in, but it’s a question of doing it in a humane way while respecting the human rights of immigrants.”
No cases have been found to date.
Australia, Belarus, Belize, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Georgia, Hungary, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Micronesia, Moldova, Montserrat, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Qatar, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan, Yemen
Regards, Ivan
It is when you're living with a Labour Government.
Regards, Ivan
A pleasure to meet you President Mbeki.
Regards, Ivan
There is no such paper.
Des, without getting into a row or nuthin', But yer hardly in a position to criticise when Al Queda terrorists can infiltrate your borders (sans disease) but get pilots licences.
I did not know that the US required HIV tests for anyone becoming either a permanent resident or a naturalized citizen. Do we deport those immigrants whose tests show they have HIV? I am sure that we do not test all illegal aliens undocumented immigrants for HIV.
By what mechanism? There are certainly people out there with HIV who have not developed AIDS. This certainly was never established scientifically but rather through Bob Gallo's CDC-NIH media blitz. Gallo later admitted that he had not satisfied Koch's postulates. He also got his butt sued off in court for stealing the virus in the first place.
There is certainly something out there killing homosexuals and IV drug users but I see little reason to blame HIV.Given the thousands of retroviruses that humans carry, why have you singled out HIV as the cause?
Personally, I choose not to have either, and take responsible measures to ensure I don't, as I'm sure you do.
Probably a good idea. HIV may well just be a marker that indicates a person has had numerous sexual or intravenous adventures. Most folks with HIV are chock full of pathogens.
So now...HIV without newly (well relatively, new, medication discovered through AIDS research), does not develop into full blown AIDS?
Yes, there are certainly cases of HIV that have not developed into AIDS over long periods of time. Most pathogens exihibit exponential time dynamics, how do you get HIV to have such bizzare variations in its incubation period?
Read the Mullis essay I've provided above. It raises some interesting questions.
Your question is similar to asking:
Show me the paper where someone demonstrates how the influenza virus causes the flu.
Just as there are many statistics that strongly correlate the flu with strains of the influenza virus, there should be similar statistics for AIDS and HIV. You can't get AIDS without contracting HIV, and you can't catch the flu without being infected by the influenza virus first, although you can have the virus without the showing signs of the disease in both cases. If you are looking for a particular paper, you should ask a medical research doctor who studies HIV for suggestions.
Part of the reason we have so much research on HIV is that we don't know exactly how the virus works. At the same time, scientists try to research a cure for the disease.
Furthermore, I believe flu has been isolated, HIV has not.
See HIV + pneumonia = Aids
Pneumonia - HIV = pneuomonia
And there are dozens of diseases that count as "AIDS". No other disease acts like that.
Check the article on Africa in my profile and the link I posted above. Something is very fishy about the AIDs story. Frankly, I think Africans are dying of TB and malaria but are calling it AIDS for the funding. Funny that they have money for HIV tests but no money for clean water.
Maybe HIV does cause AIDs but a media blitz is no substitute for isolation and peer reviewed papers. These papers do not exist.
Without getting sentimental or anything. I've watched two friends die from AIDS (in a very small community in Ireland).
One was a homosexual man with a VERY flagrant lifestyle, who got HIV, and (thankfully on discovery) curbed his rampant sexual appetite and died three years later with full blown AIDS.
The other a haemophiliac was given an HIV contaminated blood transfusion. He was completely heterosexual. (Non practising, obviously, on the discovery of HIV) And he died of full blown AIDS. (He was also the son of a VERY wealthy and influential family in my home town, who agreed to be part of a nationally broadcast documentary some months ago, about the disease).
HIV=AIDS, in my opinion. Call me small minded
But I live in a country of LESS than four million people, and I've watched TWO personal friends (from very different spectra) die from it?
I think I may have some voice in this argument that you are trying to make.
I'm not familiar with the diagnostic requirements for AIDS, but I thought it had something to do with blood cell counts and the depression of one's immune system. If someone carrying inactive HIV without the depressed immune system (no AIDS) catches pneumonia, he still doesn't have AIDS.
From the name, AIDS is a syndrome. It doesn't need one particular characteristic, but the diagnosis can come from the exhibition of a group of characteristics. Before chromosomal testing, Downs syndrome was also diagnosed from a group of symptoms. The diagnostic difference explains why influenza is not a "syndrome."
Given the very high correlation between HIV and the symptoms of AIDS and with its associated burdens on a community, it seems very reasonable for a country to desire to screen out HIV carriers. Same for TB -- we don't want to have to eradicate it all over again in this country.
You're right that HIV research and treatment get disproportionately much more funding than the more deadly cancers in this country or the reduction of water-borne deadly pathogens in 3rd-world countries, and it is probably because of the media exposure. Clean water and other simple hygiene would save many more innocent lives, and it would be nice if the UN and other groups would change their funding priorities.
I'm sorry to hear of your loss.
One was a homosexual man with a VERY flagrant lifestyle, who got HIV, and (thankfully on discovery) curbed his rampant sexual appetite and died three years later with full blown AIDS.
Statistically, it takes thousands of sexual contacts to pick up HIV. AIDS is usually isolated to *extremely* active homosexuals. Many of them also use drugs. Did your friend use IV drugs or perhaps amyl nitrates as well?
The other a haemophiliac was given an HIV contaminated blood transfusion. He was completely heterosexual. (Non practising, obviously, on the discovery of HIV) And he died of full blown AIDS. (He was also the son of a VERY wealthy and influential family in my home town, who agreed to be part of a nationally broadcast documentary some months ago, about the disease).
First of all, having multiple blood transfusions, is in itself, immuno-suppresive. Furthermore, haemophiliacs, often die from complications of haemophilia. Ryan White, for instance, died of internal bleeding while being treated with AZT (a useless DNA chain terminator that *will* destroy the immune system).
HIV=AIDS, in my opinion. Call me small minded But I live in a country of LESS than four million people, and I've watched TWO personal friends (from very different spectra) die from it? I think I may have some voice in this argument that you are trying to make.
I'm very interested in knowing the cause of AIDS. HIV has not been established as the cause to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of some very bright people such as retro-virus pioneer, Peter Duesberg, or Polymerase Chain Reaction Inventor and Nobelist Kary Mullis or dozens of other of sharp scientists with no reason to lie.
While my gay friend was flagrant in his lifestyle 'thousands' of sexual contacts is certainly not the case here. No. Not by any manner or means. (I don't know about his personal drug use, but he was a hedonist in some respects..so I can't say if he used amyl nitrate or not)
My haemophiliac friend got an HIV contaminated blood transfusion. (THAT is KNOWN) The Health Boards have admitted it! He died of full blown AIDS. I don't want to disagree with scientists, but I have enough PROOF, thank you. I've been to the funerals. I've cried enough tears. The links are NOT tenuous in my belief.
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.