Posted on 06/14/2005 5:30:24 PM PDT by Voice in your head
According to a paper published in last month’s World Economics, there are four anomalies relating to the HIV/AIDS epidemic which make it unique and, crucially, question the policy approach in developing countries. The paper’s varied authors--an English professor of public accountability; an Austrian obstetrician; a Canadian professor of pathology; and a retired Scottish professor of public health--have provided a fascinating insight into why HIV/AIDS is different, not only between rich and poor countries, but between neighboring African countries.
This is a brave and important paper, not least because anyone contradicting AIDS orthodoxy is seen not unlike a Holocaust denier.
Crippling epidemics are not new: Europe’s Black Death (bubonic plague) from 1347-51 killed two-thirds of Europe. Other less well-known examples often decimated populations--yellow fewer (1740-48), smallpox (1870-71), dysentery during the Crimean and Boer wars, and the famous 1918-19 influenza epidemic that killed more than the First World War. The most recent was the much less devastating severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak of 2002-03.
All these epidemics share multiple characteristics, which HIV does not. All have an identifiable starting point, a verifiable end point, short duration, and require traditional policies of isolation, quarantine and hygiene to minimize transmission of the causal pathogen.
But what of AIDS? As the authors point out: “The HIV/AIDS epidemic began as a localized outbreak in California and New York (not in east Africa, as claimed) and became international within 15 years, with apparent devastating lethality in sub-Saharan Africa and some other developing countries. This complex syndrome is currently regarded as by far the greatest threat to economic and human survival in the affected countries.”
First, the main AIDS-qualifying diseases in developing countries (such as tuberculosis, persistent fever and/or weight loss and diarrhea) are totally different from the main AIDS-qualifying diseases in developed countries (such as Kaposi’s sarcoma, pneumocystis carinii).
Second, a diagnosis of HIV and AIDS is very loosely defined in developing countries but is strictly defined in developed countries. In rich countries, an HIV antibody test is always done but in the poor world it is not “necessary” and has not been performed in millions of cases.
Third, AIDS is distributed and appears to be acquired overwhelmingly heterosexually in developing countries but overwhelmingly by homosexuality and by drug abusers in developed countries. Fourth, the definition of AIDS has been changed four times, so that we now refer only to HIV/AIDS rather than to HIV and AIDS separately. Thus, cases of asymptomatic HIV are called HIV/AIDS.
Furthermore, each change has broadened the definition of AIDS-qualifying diseases and caused the number of “cases” to rise continuously. For instance, cancer of the uterine cervix is classed as AIDS-qualifying, removing much of the skew to male prevalence in developed countries.
The authors conclude, in effect, that in developing countries endemic diseases--many linked to overcrowding, malnourishment, famine, war, sexually transmitted diseases etc--have been reclassified as AIDS. They say: “In economic terms, we suggest that the same asymmetry of information is being used to justify continuation and expansion of inordinate, ring-fenced, and inefficient policies for prevention and control.”
The authors are not denying the syndrome in rich countries, are not saying antiretrovirals cannot control HIV, or anything else to deny the existence of HIV. But they are saying that “there is an alarming possibility that the opportunity costs of alternative interventions aimed at other more prevalent and equally dangerous threats to health are being denied comparable, or any, attention … and vaccine research should be redirected from HIV vaccines towards more effective vaccines and treatments that can be administered to large numbers (millions) of people to control TB and malaria”.
It may well be time to allocate some of the ballooning AIDS budget to measuring what is actually causing problems in Africa. Does the syndrome in Africa deserve the funding allocation it receives, or is it misallocated and should it be re-directed? This latest research suggests that it should be reallocated to old foes such as malaria and tuberculosis, and to water quality improvements.
Roger Bate is a resident fellow at AEI.
lol! Do you Remember how it wasn't a "gay bathhouse disease"? Rather, that "sex at gay bathhouses constituted" their first amendment rights? And Public Health officials were told to back off? (In San Francisco).
I take that back. The current "slogan" appears to be: STOP AIDS AND SAVE THE WORLD!
It was first called WOGS by hospital staff, which stands for Wrath Of God Syndrome, with reference to the sodomite community in SF.
How?
I have never seen this shown. In fact I've never seen a reasonable hypothesis put forward for a mechanism of action. On the other hand, Duesberg argues persuasively from facts to show that HIV does no such damage, and cannot do such damage.
I don't think I heard that one. But it would make sense -- there was fairly wide variance on the symptoms and life expectancies until death. The disease had so wide a path of symptoms which could be indications of something else contributing; conversely, it effected individuals not entirely the same. It didn't follow traditional epidemiologic patterns.
I recently sent an email to a reporter to express my opinion about his article. It was the typical propaganda stuff. His first response was to call me a bigot then "inform" me that me and mine are not immune from AIDS.
We ended up exchanging a few emails and I sent him a copy of this article. Didn't hear from him again after that.
... and newspaper sales are dwindling, news media is not doing well.. and they can't figure out where or how the "disconnect" with the American population is, and what it's about. Howard Dean gives them "bigotry". Hillary screams "corruption". That all the Dems and their little allies do is scream at people and act like pod people in a group. One big blob. The disconnect is in them. They drew lines in the same excluding everyone but themselves.
The young and elderly pack less fudge?
The biggest reduction of disease in the U.S. came with chlorination of water.
Dust in the Wind: I too have heard for years about "vaccination against TB". And from "official sources". Turns out there really isn't; all there is are a series of shots which may reduce full blown TB should one get it. Ergo, I'm shocked to learn that what's available is even referred to as Vaccinnation or Innoculation. No wonder matters are muddy...
In particular these clips:
Children are being trafficked into the UK from Africa and used for human sacrifices, a confidential report for the Metropolitan Police suggests.
There were also claims that youngsters were being smuggled into the UK as domestic slaves and for men with HIV who believed if they had sex with a child they would be cleansed.
Have you heard or known of such "beliefs and practices" in Africa? Article does not say specifically what part of Africa the human smuggling is coming from; which would probably help me answer my own question.
I've been following the cases of human trafficking in the UK for some time now, and the people who are involved come from West Africa. Actually it is slightly a bit more complex than that, with many of the children (if not all) coming from West Africa, but a good number of the perps being a mix of West African and Caribbean. Anyways it is a total atrocity since these kids are being subjected to all sorts of bad stuff over there. But the smuggling is of West African children in the UK. Sad.
Thank you for your explanation, spetznaz. Very, very sad. My prayers for these children; yet living, and those, not.
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.