South Africa and the HIV/AIDS crisis
Why is it that politicians in South Africa keep popping up that deny HIV/AIDS is a problem? In a country with 5 million afflicted (the most in the world, even more than India), how can the leaders afford to ignore the very problem which will destroy their economy?
Most recently, former South African Deputy President Jacob Zuma has gone on trial for rape. As awful as that is, that's not even the point of my posting. The alleged rape was of an HIV-positive woman and Zuma didn't use a condom. During his testimony, he said that it was his understanding that it was far more likely to see a male to female transmission rather than a female to male transmission. Not only that, but he testified that he showered after the alleged rape to minimize his risk of getting HIV. So as not to make any judgments about the case, all I will say is that it highly irresponsible for a man of his position to go around globally advocating that showering after sex is an effective way to curb the transmission of HIV.
And of course, Zuma falls into the same league as the South African president, Mbeki who famously claimed five years ago that HIV does not cause AIDS at all. Since then, he has amended his statement to reflect that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS. In his words: "A virus cannot cause a syndrome. A virus can cause a disease, and Aids is not a disease, it is a syndrome." Then, he had the gall to come out and say he personally didn't know anyone who died of HIV/AIDS: "Personally, I don't know anybody who has died of AIDS. I really, honestly don't." My question is does this guy have any personal advisors at all? It may very well be true that he doesn't know anyone who died of AIDS, but does he have to go and be the poster-child of insensitivity and flaunt the sheltered pedestal upon which he lives?
And finally, I wanted to express my anger over one last issue: the legions of dissenter scientists who are on the bandwagon that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Here are a few jaw-dropping excerpts from an article I found: "From this research, I concluded that there was absolutely no reason to fear a heterosexual HIV epidemic sustained by the practice of vaginal sex in the United States.
Although numerous studies have demonstrated the enormously low possibility of a heterosexual HIV epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control chose to ignore them and launched a fraudulent campaign of fear to convince the majority of the American public that sexually active people are at significant risk of contracting HIV." I admit it is entirely possible that the CDC has exaggerated the crisis of an epidemic, but overcaution is far better than denying the problem exists. "AIDS [has] remained within specific risk groups: gay men and 'an ever-growing population of urban, drug-addicted, poverty-ridden, malnourished, hopeless and medically deprived people.'""Root-Bernstein further emphasized that those who suffer from AIDS 'have many additional immune-suppressive factors at work for them that predispose them to disease.' His list of examples included semen-induced autoimmunity following unprotected anal sex, blood transfusions, multiple concurrent infections, both recreational and pharmaceutical drug use, malnutrition and anemia. His opinion was that HIV does not explain AIDS in the absence of a co-factor."This is like saying that a virus doesn't cause the common cold. Rather, people predispose themselves to it by not having enough Vitamin C, a weakened immune system because of cold temperatures, and generally faulty genes. Sure those are co-factors that make one person more susceptible to catching a cold than another, but if I were to go around trouncing the idea that colds are not caused by a virus, I might as well stop studying for the MCATs now, because I would be laughed out of every interview. I dare all the dissenting scientists to examine themselves for those co-factors and if they can absolve themselves of being anemic, malnourished, homosexual, or addicted to intravenous drugs, then they should inject themselves with some HIV and see if they get it. How do you like that for a controlled experiment?
And the final one: "Kary Mullis reports his failure to discover a single scientific publication demonstrating that HIV is the cause of AIDS. I suggest that the very hypothesis that HIV causes 'AIDS' is scientifically nonsensical. It makes no sense to attempt to explain something which has not been adequately defined for scientific discourse."This is coming from the man who invented PCR, became a millionaire, and moved to Southern California to pursue a life of surfing. Besides that argument makes no sense at all. The term HIV has been defined for scientific discours and the current research is being aimed at finding the link between HIV and AIDS.
Most recently, former South African Deputy President Jacob Zuma has gone on trial for rape. As awful as that is, that's not even the point of my posting. The alleged rape was of an HIV-positive woman and Zuma didn't use a condom. During his testimony, he said that it was his understanding that it was far more likely to see a male to female transmission rather than a female to male transmission. Not only that, but he testified that he showered after the alleged rape to minimize his risk of getting HIV. So as not to make any judgments about the case, all I will say is that it highly irresponsible for a man of his position to go around globally advocating that showering after sex is an effective way to curb the transmission of HIV.
And of course, Zuma falls into the same league as the South African president, Mbeki who famously claimed five years ago that HIV does not cause AIDS at all. Since then, he has amended his statement to reflect that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS. In his words: "A virus cannot cause a syndrome. A virus can cause a disease, and Aids is not a disease, it is a syndrome." Then, he had the gall to come out and say he personally didn't know anyone who died of HIV/AIDS: "Personally, I don't know anybody who has died of AIDS. I really, honestly don't." My question is does this guy have any personal advisors at all? It may very well be true that he doesn't know anyone who died of AIDS, but does he have to go and be the poster-child of insensitivity and flaunt the sheltered pedestal upon which he lives?
And finally, I wanted to express my anger over one last issue: the legions of dissenter scientists who are on the bandwagon that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Here are a few jaw-dropping excerpts from an article I found: "From this research, I concluded that there was absolutely no reason to fear a heterosexual HIV epidemic sustained by the practice of vaginal sex in the United States.
Although numerous studies have demonstrated the enormously low possibility of a heterosexual HIV epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control chose to ignore them and launched a fraudulent campaign of fear to convince the majority of the American public that sexually active people are at significant risk of contracting HIV." I admit it is entirely possible that the CDC has exaggerated the crisis of an epidemic, but overcaution is far better than denying the problem exists. "AIDS [has] remained within specific risk groups: gay men and 'an ever-growing population of urban, drug-addicted, poverty-ridden, malnourished, hopeless and medically deprived people.'""Root-Bernstein further emphasized that those who suffer from AIDS 'have many additional immune-suppressive factors at work for them that predispose them to disease.' His list of examples included semen-induced autoimmunity following unprotected anal sex, blood transfusions, multiple concurrent infections, both recreational and pharmaceutical drug use, malnutrition and anemia. His opinion was that HIV does not explain AIDS in the absence of a co-factor."This is like saying that a virus doesn't cause the common cold. Rather, people predispose themselves to it by not having enough Vitamin C, a weakened immune system because of cold temperatures, and generally faulty genes. Sure those are co-factors that make one person more susceptible to catching a cold than another, but if I were to go around trouncing the idea that colds are not caused by a virus, I might as well stop studying for the MCATs now, because I would be laughed out of every interview. I dare all the dissenting scientists to examine themselves for those co-factors and if they can absolve themselves of being anemic, malnourished, homosexual, or addicted to intravenous drugs, then they should inject themselves with some HIV and see if they get it. How do you like that for a controlled experiment?
And the final one: "Kary Mullis reports his failure to discover a single scientific publication demonstrating that HIV is the cause of AIDS. I suggest that the very hypothesis that HIV causes 'AIDS' is scientifically nonsensical. It makes no sense to attempt to explain something which has not been adequately defined for scientific discourse."This is coming from the man who invented PCR, became a millionaire, and moved to Southern California to pursue a life of surfing. Besides that argument makes no sense at all. The term HIV has been defined for scientific discours and the current research is being aimed at finding the link between HIV and AIDS.