On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

My assumptions (they aren't really mine) come into play in the AIDS arena. The CDC's needed a new and important virus for their raison d'etre. They were beginning to be considered an unnecessary expense. Also, virologists are just lab technicians until something new and terrifying arrives. AIDS was a godsend to the professionals in the field.
this is a breathtaking display of cynicism. In your eagerness to
play the gadfly, you appear to have lost a connection with your
humanity.

[...]

There is a list of (now) 29 illnesses which are officially an indication of AIDS (including such no-nos as cervical cancer - what in heavens name does this have to do with anything?)
For the same reason that Kapozzi's Sarcoma is indicative of AIDS:
human bodies are constantly throwing up cancer cells, which the
immune system normally takes care of. These "trivial" cancers
only succeed in persisting in individuals with no immune system,
which is what AIDS is.

[...]

However, this isn't so in Africa, where everyone can get it and probably does as Stephen indicates when he tears our hearts with his disaster stories.

From '91 to '99, the continent of Africa generated 75,000 cases of AIDS a year (average from WHO). There is no breakdown into deaths, survival, or recoveries.

The population of the continent is 616 million. Is 75,000 cases in 616 million an epidemic? If you assume that all the 75,000 are deaths and relate them to total African deaths the AIDS deaths are 0.6% of the total.
Joe Gichuki is in a much better position to refute your doubts about
the seriousness of the crisis in Africa, and I think he has done so
eloquently.
[...]

weight loss over 10%,
chronic diarrhea for more than a month,
fever for more than a month,
persistent cough,
generalized pruritic dermatitis,
recurrent herpes zoster (shingles),
candidiasis oral and pharyngeal,
chronic or persistent herpes,
cryptococcal meningitis,
Kaposi's sarcoma.

As Peter Duesberg says:

"Since these diseases include the most common diseases in Africa and in much of the rest of the world, it is impossible to distinguish clinically African AIDS diseases from previously known, and concurrently diagnosed, conventional African diseases."
He is being facile. It is the concurrance of these otherwise relatively
rare and opportunistic diseases of the physically compromised, in previously young, healthy individuals, which clearly flags a
compromised immune system.
Oh, yes it is. President Clinton told us: " ... spurred by US intelligence reports that looked at the pandemic's broadest consequences, ... particularly Africa ... [he] projected that a quarter of southern Africa's population is likely to die of AIDS ..." (Washington Post, April 30, 2000).

Heaven save us from politicians!
Goodness yes. Let's for god sake not have any public figure try to
engage our compassion, when we've all worked so hard at becoming callous.

[...]

Population of the whole African continent has grown from 274 million in 1960, to 356 million in 1970, to 469 million in 1980, and to 616 million in 1990 (UN). The relatively small incidence of AIDS cases (whatever they are) is perhaps statistically insignificant (except to President Clinton).
Not according to our African participant.

Pete, could your "crippled food production" be caused by something else - say drought, or African politicians, or food aid?
Maybe inertia caused by adherence to traditions which have always
worked up until now, when epidemic is disrupting all systems at
all levels. Maybe you're just utterly dead wrong in everything you
think about what's happening in Africa. Just maybe.

Then, you start getting bitter.
I'm not bitter. My heart still works fine.

"Besides, they're just black africans, so who cares?" and

"Yes, maybe better to just let them suffer and die without treatment. They'll be gone so much sooner, and then we'll have access to all that land, that they never seemed to know how to put to proper use." and

"We need a fine follow up post here by Dean Swift. I'm too disgusted to try."

As I mentioned - I think to Karen - emotion is good to get you incensed about a wrong. It is effective when you are actively doing something about a wrong. But, in between, you need to think about what must be done. Emotion is not an asset to thinking - as you show.

The fact is, Pete, you've been had. The conn job worked - and you are not alone.
I'll be the judge of that, thankyou.

(I've deleted your post, as I've quoted from it. If anyone thinks I may have misquoted Pete, I'll repost with it. The Mullis excerpt is below. Latest about Montagnier is that he might be changing his mind about the "certainty" of HIV/Aids.
Hiv is a very old virus, it is just new among humans. It is rather
like a viral equivalent of malaria: a beast which has had tens of
millions of years to hone its skill at evading immune responses. But whereas malaria uses a vast and flexible array of brute force
tactics of disguise and misdirection, HIV employs the viral arsenal
of genetic corruption and recruitment of the body's own machinery.
It is a very tough nut to crack.
But that is really neither here nor there, from an empirical point of view: in the developed world, regardless of what marginal infection
theory you embrace, people with AIDS are living longer and healthier
as a result of drug therapies developed around the HIV cause theory.
Whether the theory is right or not, the therapies work, and should be made available cheaply. I really don't know why you have a problem with
this, you are always railing against the pharma-company patents and
their exorbitant pricing. Most of the aid african countries need is
simply a waiver of drug patent fees.

Apparently, you would rather see a continent decimated and a
generation of children growing up semi-feral due to grossly inadequate
adult supervision, than have aid supplied based on a possibly
incorrect analysis of why it is so effective. I suggest you rethink.

-Pete Vincent

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to