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.
Yes. The terminology in this field sometimes gets impenetrable very fast. What the authors are evidently referring to is the twin foci of the epidemic, not the origin of the disease. One other difference between HIV and the other viruses mentioned is that it is a "slow" virus, meaning its translation into detectable symptoms is so slow that normal epidemiological treatments of disease gradient are difficult or impossible to establish. We do know it was communicated very rapidly in those regions and that the vector was unprotected anal intercourse.
What really makes diagnosis difficult is that the patient always dies of something other than the primary effect of the disease, which is the compromise of the immune system. In fact, many non-political skeptics were difficult to convince that it even was a disease early on until it became apparent that gay men were dying of some very strange diseases in numbers never seen in medicine before - pneumocystis pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, cytomegalovirus infections in various organs - weird stuff.
In Africa diagnosis is more difficult for three (at least) reasons - first, that exposure to severe disease there is more common than in New York and San Francisco, hence many of the diseases that AIDS made the patients more vulnerable to might have killed them anyway - this makes it more difficult to cite the presence of these diseases alone as evidence of AIDS. With someone turning up with something rare like Kaposi's in the States it's a pretty good bet, with someone coming up with malaria in Africa it isn't. Hence it is more necessary to test for actual HIV antibodies in Africa than in the States in order to gain accurate statistics, which is precisely what that less-developed continent cannot do due to lack of resources. That is the second reason to be skeptical about African statistics. The third reason is that money is involved and countries have an incentive for exaggerating these statistics or at least interpreting the raw numbers in the most severe possible manner. More cases, more aid. Not only could they not do better if they wanted to, they have a reason for not wanting to.
I read Michael Fumento's "Myth of Heterosexual Aids" the moment it hit the market. Brilliant analysis, heavily annotated. One of the more enlightening and comprehensive books I've read on the subject of AIDS.
This is similar to the whole corrupt government thing. Most (if not all) African governments have heavy inherent corruption legacies, and thus a lot of the money for 'fighting AIDS' lines secret Swiss coffers belonging to the top officials. But all the same there is something going on there. In those 2 years i was going about doing CAS I saw a bunch of weird stuff. And whatever people want to call it one thing it is not is Malaria, water inadequacies, of dietary deficiencies. The typical victims are not been hit.
Billions for defense, but not one cent for fighting phony diseases.
Sad but true. IMO one of the most preventable epidemics in developed countries.
What is even more ironic is that militant political homosexual interest groups are the most responsible for gay deaths from AIDS than any other one factor.
Why? Simply because they have worked (very successfully) to promulgate the myth that it is a disease of the general population. 20 years later we are still waiting for the explosion in the hetero population that has not occurred.
By doing this, by forcing society to pretend that it is not [primarily] a young, gay male disease, they have convinced 2 generations of gay men that it is ok to have hundreds of partners, engaging in sodomy, etc.
The disease is rapidly increasing in 18-30 gay men...and the gay lobby is most responsible for it. People dying in a very ugly way to satisfy the priests of political correctness. Unbelieveably sad.
I'm afraid this is not true. Please see http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm for a detailed summary of the evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
If I recall correctly, didn't they determine that the original case was a male airline steward traversing that route, and being very promiscuous all along the way. Estimated that he gave it to somewhere around 200 other men.
And then off it goes.
In re the "gay slamming in re AIDS" which shows up in threads; I just pass on by these. Slamming gay politics is something I'm up for, however. :>
In 1993, Paul Cameron in a live debate forum brought up the unthinkable with gay activists in the same debate: He pointed out the hardiness of the vagina as compared to the thin tissues of the anus. That while the anus was designed specifically for waste products; it was not well designed to fight off diseases and viruses -- which the vagina is in fact fully well designed for.
Your explanation was perfectly understood. The why's and wherefores of MTT; and African politician/governmental not wishing to address the specifics of MTT. Thank you.
I wonder why (and how) that would be?
Thx for the links.
This is hilarious. Paging Peter Duesberg. "Inventing the Aids Virus" has it all covered. It reads like a fall through quicksand but it is provocative.
BCG is a vaccine for TB. This vaccine is not widely used in the United States, but it is often given to infants and small children in other countries where TB is common. BCG vaccine does not always protect people from getting TB.
If you were vaccinated with BCG, you may have a positive reaction to a TB skin test. This reaction may be due to the BCG vaccine itself or due to infection with the TB bacteria. Your positive reaction probably means you have been infected with TB bacteria if
You recently spent time with a person who has active TB disease; or
You are from an area of the world where active TB disease is very common (such as most countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Russia); or
You spend time where TB disease is common (homeless shelters, migrant farm camps, drug-treatment centers, health care clinics, jails, prisons).
SOURCE= http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/tb/faqs/qa.htm
Tuberculosis Risk to travellers is low. Infection would only occur if a person spent substantial amount of time in a closed environment where a person with untreated TB contaminated the air. Vaccination is recommended for children living in high-risk areas for three months or more.
I see from searching newer TB vaccines are being worked on. However:
In those parts of the world where the disease is common, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that infants receive a vaccine called BCG made from a live weakened bacterium related to M. tuberculosis. BCG vaccine prevents M. tuberculosis from spreading within the body, thus preventing TB from developing.
The latest figures from the CDC are that 50% of recent transmissions of HIV in the US are from men having sex with men, or men who have sex with men and also use injective drugs. They say 27% of recent transmissions are heterosexual. What HIV needs to be transmitted is a population of very promiscuous individuals, especially a population with poor sanitation or health care. Men who have sex with men often use drugs and often practice unprotected anal sex. Certain poor rural heterosexual black populations in the US are now experiencing alarming increases in the rates of HIV transmission. But it is true that a general, heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the US is unlikely.
Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, has already had a devastating HIV epidemic. Contrary to the authors of the article under discussion, the evidence is abundant that HIV is the primary cause of certain African countries' recent negative population growth. Few people get tested for HIV in these regions, but statistical sampling makes it clear the virus is widespread. (HIV infection rates of 15-30% among young adults are common in sub-Saharan Africa countries.) Also, as to the argument that AIDS is claimed for tuberculosis, malaria, etc: young professionals in countries such as Botswana have been hard hit by the pandemic, in numbers far greater than can be explained by homosexual transmission.
You may be interested in this thread.
"And then off it goes".
YEP. Do you remember all the conspiracy theories, too? How about.. uh.. the monkey/human thing.. never mind.
"...a detailed summary of the evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS...."
And for you, compelling and exhaustively referenced and footnoted evidence that it it NOT:
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
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.