|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: Mbeki's AIDS denial killed hundreds of thousands |
|
|
Quote: |
JOHANNESBURG: A new study by Harvard researchers estimates that the South African government would have prevented the premature deaths of 365,000 people earlier this decade if it had provided antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and widely administered drugs to help prevent pregnant women from infecting their babies.
The Harvard study concluded that the policies grew out of President Thabo Mbeki's denial of the well-established scientific consensus about the viral cause of AIDS and the essential role of antiretroviral drugs in treating it.
Coming in the wake of Mbeki's ouster in September after a power struggle in his party, the African National Congress, the report has reignited questions about why Mbeki, a man of great acumen, was so influenced by AIDS denialists.
And it has again caused soul-searching about why his colleagues in the party did not act earlier to challenge his resistance to broadly accepted methods of treating and preventing AIDS.
Reckoning with a legacy of such policies, Mbeki's's successor, Kgalema Motlanthe, acted on the first day of his presidency two months ago to remove the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, a polarizing figure who had proposed garlic, lemon juice and beetroot as AIDS remedies.
He replaced her with Barbara Hogan, who has brought South Africa � the most powerful country in a region at the epicenter of the world's AIDS pandemic � back into the mainstream
|
http://tinyurl.com/5rmbtt |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: Mbeki's AIDS denial killed hundreds of thousands |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Quote: |
JOHANNESBURG: A new study by Harvard researchers estimates that the South African government would have prevented the premature deaths of 365,000 people earlier this decade if it had provided antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and widely administered drugs to help prevent pregnant women from infecting their babies.
The Harvard study concluded that the policies grew out of President Thabo Mbeki's denial of the well-established scientific consensus about the viral cause of AIDS and the essential role of antiretroviral drugs in treating it.
Coming in the wake of Mbeki's ouster in September after a power struggle in his party, the African National Congress, the report has reignited questions about why Mbeki, a man of great acumen, was so influenced by AIDS denialists.
And it has again caused soul-searching about why his colleagues in the party did not act earlier to challenge his resistance to broadly accepted methods of treating and preventing AIDS.
Reckoning with a legacy of such policies, Mbeki's's successor, Kgalema Motlanthe, acted on the first day of his presidency two months ago to remove the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, a polarizing figure who had proposed garlic, lemon juice and beetroot as AIDS remedies.
He replaced her with Barbara Hogan, who has brought South Africa � the most powerful country in a region at the epicenter of the world's AIDS pandemic � back into the mainstream
|
http://tinyurl.com/5rmbtt |
Amen, brother. Quacks kill. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What happened to the money not spent on AIDS? If it were instead directed to other, more pressing issues Mbeki may have saved lives if this article is accurate.
Global AIDS crisis overblown?
Some dare to say so
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer Maria Cheng, Ap Medical Writer � Sun Nov 30, 11:58 am ET
LONDON � As World AIDS Day is marked on Monday, some experts are growing more outspoken in complaining that AIDS is eating up funding at the expense of more pressing health needs.
They argue that the world has entered a post-AIDS era in which the disease's spread has largely been curbed in much of the world, Africa excepted.
"AIDS is a terrible humanitarian tragedy, but it's just one of many terrible humanitarian tragedies," said Jeremy Shiffman, who studies health spending at Syracuse University.
Roger England of Health Systems Workshop, a think tank based in the Caribbean island of Grenada, goes further. He argues that UNAIDS, the U.N. agency leading the fight against the disease, has outlived its purpose and should be disbanded.
"The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake, ... too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory," he wrote in the British Medical Journal in May.
Paul de Lay, a director at UNAIDS, disagrees. It's valid to question AIDS' place in the world's priorities, he says, but insists the turnaround is very recent and it would be wrong to think the epidemic is under control.
"We have an epidemic that has caused between 55 million and 60 million infections," de Lay said. "To suddenly pull the rug out from underneath that would be disastrous."
U.N. officials roughly estimate that about 33 million people worldwide have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Scientists say infections peaked in the late 1990s and are unlikely to spark big epidemics beyond Africa.
In developed countries, AIDS drugs have turned the once-fatal disease into a manageable illness.
England argues that closing UNAIDS would free up its $200 million annual budget for other health problems such as pneumonia, which kills more children every year than AIDS, malaria and measles combined.
"By putting more money into AIDS, we are implicitly saying it's OK for more kids to die of pneumonia," England said.
His comments touch on the bigger complaint: that AIDS hogs money and may damage other health programs.
By 2006, AIDS funding accounted for 80 percent of all American aid for health and population issues, according to the Global Health Council.
In Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda and elsewhere, donations for HIV projects routinely outstrip the entire national health budgets.
In a 2006 report, Rwandan officials noted a "gross misallocation of resources" in health: $47 million went to HIV, $18 million went to malaria, the country's biggest killer, and $1 million went to childhood illnesses.
"There needs to be a rational system for how to apportion scarce funds," said Helen Epstein, an AIDS expert who has consulted for UNICEF, the World Bank, and others.
AIDS advocates say their projects do more than curb the virus; their efforts strengthen other health programs by providing basic health services.
But across Africa, about 1.5 million doctors and nurses are still needed, and hospitals regularly run out of basic medicines.
Experts working on other health problems struggle to attract money and attention when competing with AIDS.
"Diarrhea kills five times as many kids as AIDS," said John Oldfield, executive vice president of Water Advocates, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that promotes clean water and sanitation.
"Everybody talks about AIDS at cocktail parties," Oldfield said. "But nobody wants to hear about diarrhea," he said.
These competing claims on public money are likely to grow louder as the world financial meltdown threatens to deplete health dollars.
"We cannot afford, in this time of crisis, to squander our investments," Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO's director-general, said in a recent statement.
Some experts ask whether it makes sense to have UNAIDS, WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, the Global Fund plus countless other AIDS organizations, all serving the same cause.
"I do not want to see the cause of AIDS harmed," said Shiffman of Syracuse University. But "For AIDS to crowd out other issues is ethically unjust."
De Lay argues that the solution is not to reshuffle resources but to boost them.
"To take money away from AIDS and give it to diarrheal diseases or onchocerciasis (river blindness) or leishmaniasis (disfiguring parasites) doesn't make any sense," he said. "We'd just be doing a worse job in everything else." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And then there's the fact that AIDS is a hoax from start to finish and that the "medicines" proposed to "treat" it are leathal poisons. Good on Mbeki for standing up against this crap and putting the health of his country ahead of the profits of the quack medical establishment. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Location: Daegu
|
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cornfed wrote: |
And then there's the fact that AIDS is a hoax from start to finish and that the "medicines" proposed to "treat" it are leathal poisons. Good on Mbeki for standing up against this crap and putting the health of his country ahead of the profits of the quack medical establishment. |
you fear women and you are an HIV denier. What other completely insane ideas do you have, I wonder? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
JMO wrote: |
Cornfed wrote: |
And then there's the fact that AIDS is a hoax from start to finish and that the "medicines" proposed to "treat" it are leathal poisons. Good on Mbeki for standing up against this crap and putting the health of his country ahead of the profits of the quack medical establishment. |
you fear women and you are an HIV denier. What other completely insane ideas do you have, I wonder? |
He's a real piece of work, ain't he?
Cornfed, I asked you point blank for references that the methods used to isolate HIV were not the proper methods. It seems to me if one virologist claims he isolated HIV using an improper method, a dozen other scientists would jump on that and publish contrary papers. So where are they?
And by papers I mean peer reviewed scientific journal papers. Not conspiracy web pages. Right?
Further you claimed if a person truly isolated HIV he would win a nobel prize. That goal post was met. A nobel was awarded for the isolation of HIV. It would seem to me doubly true that a nobel would bring increased scrutiny of the isolation claim. No? And lest you think HIV researchers all march in lock step, notice the article posted above, a paper presented at an HIV conference that argues these HIV researchers are getting too much money. One would think the great science conspiracy would have silenced such a critic.
Admit it, you got nothing and than vague hand waving to your supposed authority.
I posed that question twice to you and each time you mysterious vanished from the debate. Odd that.
Maybe you'll answer a third time. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He's the board's token reactionary conspiracy theorist. Haven't had one since Zena left. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo wrote: |
Further you claimed if a person truly isolated HIV he would win a nobel prize. |
I keep telling you that the Gallo paper you mention did not claim to isolate any virus. It merely described the partial isolation of samples from patients which showed reverse transcriptase activity. You might try actually reading the thing and educating yourself on the subject. As far as I know, no-one to date has purified, crystalized and photographed any alledged "HIV" virus to date, let alone shown it to be infectious, and this is fairly well known. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cornfed wrote: |
mindmetoo wrote: |
Further you claimed if a person truly isolated HIV he would win a nobel prize. |
I keep telling you that the Gallo paper you mention did not claim to isolate any virus. It merely described the partial isolation of samples from patients which showed reverse transcriptase activity. You might try actually reading the thing and educating yourself on the subject. As far as I know, no-one to date has purified, crystalized and photographed any alledged "HIV" virus to date, let alone shown it to be infectious, and this is fairly well known. |
The nobel wasn't awarded to the gallo paper, now was it?
Quote: |
no-one to date has purified, crystalized and photographed any alledged "HIV" virus |
And yet here's a photograph of it right here:
http://student.britannica.com/eb/art-16998/Human-immunodeficiency-virus-colour-enhanced-electron-microscope-image-24000-magnification
Hmmm. Why must it be a "crystalized" photograph? Where in the literature does it argue this is the only proper method to photograph a virus? This is a question I keep asking you. You keep making an unverified claim.
You also need to explain how the HIV genetic code has been sequenced and is available on the net if it has not been isolated.
Quote: |
let alone shown it to be infectious |
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enKR177KR229&q=site%3Awww.nature.com+hiv+infection+isolation&btnG=Search
Lots of papers on Nature seem to disagree with your claim.
For example:
Isolation of primary HIV-1 that target CD8+ T Lymphocytes using CD8 as a receptor
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v7/n1/full/nm0101_65.html
You're simply making stuff up.
Again, you're back making CLAIMS. A person trained in science, as you claim, should be able to cite me the primary literature.
You don't. Third time you're back just repeating your tired old claims. Better stick to hating on chicks, mmmmmaybe? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo wrote: |
Hmmm. Why must it be a "crystalized" photograph? Where in the literature does it argue this is the only proper method to photograph a virus? This is a question I keep asking you. You keep making an unverified claim. |
It's simple logic really. Viruses are simply protein macromolecules and a pure sample of identical protein particles will crystallize. Hence if you can't crystallize your sample it likely isn't pure, and therefore, by definition, you haven't isolated your virus. And if you haven�t isolated any virus then obviously you can't properly investigate "it". As I've pointed out before, the experiment to isolate a virus that actually exists is a very simple one, so when people make convoluted excuses for not doing it in the usual fashion, that should be a good indication that they are pulling our collective chain.
If you don't already have the expertise to know what is standard practice within the industry, then why are you posting on the subject? What possible benefit can others derive from sharing in your ignorance? Expecting me to spend hours posting references to demonstrate impirical truths in order to educate you is ridiculous. I'm not running a free adult education center. Do your own research, or simply don't trouble yourself.
I've commented on these kind of pictures before. Obviously they do not show and isolated virus, as the particles are non-identical, and there is nothing to indicate that they are "HIV". For that matter, it wouldn't be even possible to investigate whether they are HIV or not, since there is no isolated sample to compare them to.
That paper appears to be about "detecting the presence" of HIV, not isolating it. Do you ever actually read and understand the papers you quote? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cornfed wrote: |
It's simple logic really. Viruses are simply protein macromolecules and a pure sample of identical protein particles will crystallize. Hence if you can't crystallize your sample it likely isn't pure, and therefore, by definition, you haven't isolated your virus. |
Notice he dodges the question. Cite the literature. Not your authority.
Quote: |
I've commented on these kind of pictures before. Obviously they do not show and isolated virus, as the particles are non-identical, and there is nothing to indicate that they are "HIV". For that matter, it wouldn't be even possible to investigate whether they are HIV or not, since there is no isolated sample to compare them to. |
And yet odd no virologist has a problem with it. No virologist challenges the umpteen photos of HIV. Only you. Cite the literature. Not your authority. Sorry, I tend to trust virologist on the subject of HIV over an ESL teacher in Korea. *pat* *pat*
Quote: |
T]hat paper appears to be about "detecting the presence" of HIV, not isolating it. Do you ever actually read and understand the papers you quote? |
Yes. Here let me cite you the pdf:
Quote: |
For this reason, we evaluated different methods for virus isolation and infection of cells in culture and attempted to establish
optimal conditions for virus recovery from the PMCs of all
seropositive individuals. |
Sounds like the paper is about, ummm, virus isolation. Could you cite me where it's only about "detection".
And you dodged:
Say let's read the abstract:
Quote: |
HIV-1 use CD4 receptors to infect their primary targets, CD4+ cells, whereas CD8+ cells have a protective role against HIV-1. We recently isolated HIV-1-producing CD8+ clones from two AIDS patients. Here we show that although HIV-1 produced by CD8+ cells maintained the ability to infect CD4+ cells, these viruses were able to infect CD8+ cells independent of CD4. Evidence indicates that these viruses used CD8 as a receptor to infect CD8+ cells. |
Wow. Get this. They isolated HIV and got it to infect CD4+ cells. Huh. Wow. Huh. What is your hand waving dismissal? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo wrote: |
Notice he dodges the question. Cite the literature. Not your authority. |
There is no earthly reason why anyone should be expected to take a lot of time educating someone too ignorant and stupid to know the meaning of the word 'isolate'. If you don't already possess basic biochemical knowledge you should stop wasting everyone's time by posting on the subject and read more about it instead of expecting others to do your research for you. If you lack the intelligence to do research, it may be that you will never have anything of value to contribute on the subject. As it stands, you are a troll trying to waste my time.
Quote: |
And yet odd no virologist has a problem with it. No virologist challenges the umpteen photos of HIV. Only you. Cite the literature. Not your authority. |
Plenty of virologists have pointed out that these pictures are meaningless. Here's one.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data2/slvirusphotos.htm
Here's a group of virologists who go against the AIDS hoax orthodoxy.
http://www.theperthgroup.com/
Most virologists don't speak out against the AIDS hoax for the same reason most scientists employed by the tobacco industry don't speak out against the tobacco industry � it's their bread and butter.
Quote: |
Sorry, I tend to trust virologist on the subject of HIV over an ESL teacher in Korea. *pat* *pat* |
Rather than trusting anyone's "authority" you should read a lot about the issue to the point where you can make your own judgement. Until you do, you have absolutely nothing to contribute on the subject.
The paper doesn't appear to describe any isolation of HIV but rather cites other papers to describe how they obtained their alleged HIV samples. From my reading, it seems they were just using unpurified extracts from patients like usual. You wasted my time checking out another paper that has no relevance to the subject. Shame on you. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Most virologists don't speak out against the AIDS hoax for the same reason most scientists employed by the tobacco industry don't speak out against the tobacco industry � it's their bread and butter.
|
Ah so another conspiracy eh? Funny how scientists all over the planet are part of this conspiracy. Kind of like with the evolution conspiracy. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
catman wrote: |
Ah so another conspiracy eh? Funny how scientists all over the planet are part of this conspiracy. |
What's funny about that? It has happened all the time throughout history. Perhaps you naive ideas on how the world is supposed to work are funny. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|