World Aids Day: "white People Want To Wipe Us Out"
Posted 01 December 2005 - 05:26 PM
(Note: these figures may now be out of date)
" ... if I had any doubts that AIDS was germ warfare against Blacks, that eradicated it. I have since dedicated my life to doing research and trying to educate my people that White people want to wipe us out .."
Read more here (click for more)
"White people want to wipe us out"
... he may be right !
Posted 01 December 2005 - 05:33 PM
just some variables to throw in the mix
Edited by DSP, 01 December 2005 - 05:34 PM.
Posted 01 December 2005 - 07:55 PM
The re-use of dirty needles in healthcare - not promiscuity - was the main cause of the AIDS pandemic now devastating Africa, according to a controversial new analysis.
It challenges the assumption, dating from 1988, that unsafe heterosexual sex accounted for 90 per cent of HIV transmissions in Africa.
"We've gathered all the literature we can on AIDS in Africa and the best we can estimate, for sexual transmission, is a quarter to a third," says David Gisselquist, an independent anthropologist from Hershey, Pennsylvania, who led the new study.
Dirty needles accounted for almost half of all cases, the re-analysis of research concludes. The work is published as a three-paper set in the International Journal of STD & AIDS.
Thirty million people are estimated to be living with HIV in Africa, and 2.5 million died in 2002. Tackling the pandemic requires knowledge of how the virus is being transmitted now, so emphasis can be placed on, say, safe sex education programmes or provision of single-use needles.
"But no one has looked at this for a long time, or with the appropriate data," acknowledges Yvan Hutin, a specialist on HIV transmission at the World Health Organization in Geneva. "There isn't any solid data."
However, Hutin disputes the specific conclusions of the new analysis. "We estimate that dirty needles account for five per cent of cases worldwide, but with large variation."
Agencies managing international AIDS programmes fear that Africans could be frightened away from visiting clinics for vital immunisations. "The other worry is that it might encourage complacency in sex," says Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser for UNAIDS in Geneva.
Other experts point out that hepatitis B, which is more easily transmitted via unsterilised needles than HIV, has not spread as rapidly.
But Gisselquist says that with their mindsets fixed on the sexual explanation, researchers have ignored obvious discrepancies. He says the data contradict the idea that Africans are unusually promiscuous, or engage more readily than anyone else in unsafe sex.
For example, in a 1987-88 study of factory and bank workers in Kinshasa, Congo, the huge majority of with HIV-positive subjects said they had contracted the virus despite being faithful to their partners.
"Although some may have underreported numbers of partners, the consistency of the evidence suggests a large majority of HIV infections in non-promiscuous adults," he says.
Gisselquist believes the role of prostitution has been overstated. In Zimbabwe during the 1990s, he says, an increase in HIV of 12 per cent coincided with a decrease of 25 per cent in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) generally.
He also cites studies suggesting a link to the use of dirty medical needles. One showed that HIV-positive children had an average of 44 injections in their lifetimes, compared with 23 for virus-free children. And in one clinic treating STDs, Gisselquist found that 28 per cent of attendees treated with injections had HIV, compared with 17 per cent who had not had injections.
Despite the disputes, Hankins says: "We all agree that [needle transmission] is so easy to avoid, and all it requires is resources. We definitely want to get to the bottom of it all." The WHO and UNAIDS have now organised a meeting with Gisselquist in March to discuss his findings.
http://www.frontpage...le.asp?ID=18294 ( this one has a dodgy obsession with anal sex)
This is interesting also:
HIV bomb attack averted in Jerusalem
Apr 13, 2004 - JERUSALEM : Palestinian militants planned to detonate a bomb laced with 'HIV-infected' blood, which could prove fatal to survivors with injuries, during the Passover holiday but was foiled by the authorities.
The plot came to light after Israeli forces arrested a member of the al-Aqsa martyrs brigade, who revealed details of the plan mooted by the Fatah Tanzim infrastructure in Nablus, said a media report.
He said the suicide bomber was to be wrapped with a bomb 'tainted' with the dangerous virus, Jerusalem Post reported. While there has been a noticeable decrease in violence in the recent past, intelligence officials have described
the current situation as one of "imaginary calm."
The ongoing closure imposed on Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, alongwith intensive operations conducted by Israeli troops, has assisted in foiling constant attempts by militants to launch attacks, the officials said.
Over the past week during the passover holidays marked by 'high alert', Israeli forces apprehended ten possible perpetrators of attacks, thwarting five major plots, including three suicide attacks, reflecting the illusory peace on the ground, the daily reported.
In one case, a Balata woman was forced to carry out a suicide attack after being discovered cheating on her husband. The woman arrested on March 18, told investigators that she intended to explode in Tel Aviv, thus cleansing her name.
In another planned triple attack, the militants were to attack a major city disguised as sol
Posted 01 December 2005 - 10:44 PM
Instead of warning about the risks of penile-vaginal intercourse, the focus should be on foolproof medical and paramedical procedures: hypodermic syringes that auto-disable after a single use, and the development of similar instrumentation for other procedures. The one sexual warning should be with regard to anal intercourse, and topical antimicrobials must focus on being compatible with that activity.
Mr. Hands also raises a couple interesting points. Mr. Potterat and I have published scientific papers that 1) show the inaccuracy of the claims that HIV risk is proportional to number of penile-vaginal intercourse exposures, and 2) in the largest US study of prostitute mortality, found that AIDS deaths occurred exclusively in those women identified as injecting drug users.
FP: Mr. Potterat, in the context of these facts connected to how AIDS is spread, let's crystallize this matter therefore. And although the answer may be politically incorrect and taboo among cutting-edge progressive milieus, let's put it on the table: why exactly has Africa been devastated by AIDS and not other continents and countries etc to the same degree? What is it about the culture, behaviour, societal conditions, attitudes etc. in Africa that has made it so vulnerable to this deadly disease?
Potterat: The short and brutal answer is that we don't KNOW. We do know that there are about a dozen serious anomalies with the view that heterosexual (read: penile-vaginal) intercourse is driving the epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa.
This "fact" (that sex was driving Africa's epidemics) was simply asserted, ex cathedra, by the end of 1988 by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and by our own Centers for the Disease Control (CDC). What's astonishing is that even the scientifically weak studies that had been done in Africa by then (1988) suggested that a roughly equal amount of HIV transmission could be attributable to "sex" (specific practices were, however, not investigated) and to medical injections. Hence both WHO and CDC concluded that HIV was being driven by heterosexual sex IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE. Mr. Hands earlier correctly labelled this as "scientific stupidity" -- what I've referred to elsewhere as "First world researchers doing second rate science in Third World countries".
In brief: there simply is not enough (heterosexual) sex going on in Africa to account for the turbo effect noted: rates of transmission that are 6-18 times greater than in developed countries.
The other brutal fact is that neither Gisselquist's team of dissenters nor anyone else KNOWS what's driving the various epidemics in Africa, because the correct data have not been collected. HIV is not a sexually transmitted disease; it's sexually transmissible, meaning that there are ways other than penis-to-something that can transmit it: via punctures by sharps or needles. And yet formal studies in Africa during the last 17 years (since the 1988 consensus), except for maybe a half dozen papers, have COMPLETELY ignored assessing risks via punctures when evaluating risk factors. Is this reliable science?
What continues to amaze me is that the rapid and persistent accumulation of anomalous observations (pointing away from a sexual explanation) during the last ten years has been overlooked, discounted, or explained away using improbable speculation --- speculation intended to defend the heterosexual orthodoxy.
The most brutal fact is that, after two decades of formal study, researchers in Africa have failed to identify even a single sexual variable that is an important personal risk for HIV acquisition and that is consistently higher in communities with higher HIV prevalence. The scope of this failure is staggering.
HIV epidemiologic "science" in Africa has been based on mostly ecologic evidence ("because HIV is roughly equally distributed between men and women in the sexually reproductive age groups, it's heterosexually transmitted"). Ecologic evidence relies on proxies and is inferior to evidence closer to the ground, like linking HIV cases and strains through contact tracing and through well controlled risk factor probes (read: asking detailed questions about exposure to punctures as well), NONE of which has been done in Africa.
Given the dozen serious anomalies noted so far and the surprisingly weak empiric basis for asserting sexual transmission as the primary force in Africa's HIV epidemics in the first place, it is now imperative to do the proper studies to find out what none of us knows. Because the quality of studies has been so mediocre, we are all condemned to speculation --- and, of course, we will each lean on speculations that fit our leanings and preconceptions. What Gisselquist and his colleagues have that is truly impressive is a constellation of evidence that consistently points to factors other than heterosexual transmission as primary driver. It is now up to the folks subscribing to the orthodoxy to PROVE their assertions using quality evidence, not ecologic reasoning. Instead they have summarily dismissed the Gisselquist papers as hogwash or (especially in The United States) simply chosen to remain silent. (Talk about silence equals death!). Hence neither the major newspapers nor medical journals have done what they are entrusted to do: permit space to debate the evidence and anomalies.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users