African AIDS…

Categories: Leukemia

Question:

pot. kettle. black.

Thank you John for another thought provoking response. Aren’t you the same guy who indicated that poppers were commonly used by heterosexuals and a straight "chum" introduced you to them. We believe you buddy. Your testimony alone is good enough for me. Kevin Doherty

Response:

<snipped Sad as it is, we all know you’re right. Right after I’d posted Cinque got about 4/5 other posts in before it arrived, all of them continuing flame threads. I was disappointed in him, but not entirely surprised. Bennett (hey, look, the old newsreader’s working!! *Paradoxically it is much easier for people to adapt the* *observed facts than to renounce the ruling paradigm in* *favour of a possible new interpretation of the facts. * ICQ: 14197406 (swap cam for spam to reply via email)

Response:

writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Quote from p.179, Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter H. Duesberg: <snipped a bit -HIV has been passed along from mother to child for many centuries (not through one thousand heterosexual contacts as is commonly assumed." end quote Last year 6 MILLION Africans contracted the HIV virus. So, a virus that was only discovered in ‘78, with an earliest known carrier from 1950 has been carried by 6 million Africans for CENTURIES without anyone noticing? Jeez. Bennett

That is the real problem with Deusberg. He never bothers to do any real research and ignores what is already out there in the press. I gusee that it’s ok to write fiction like this but to try and pass it off as fact is insulting to anyone with access to the internets research facilities. His only use is to provide points of denial for those who wish to not deal with the ugly reality of HIV infection and it’s end stage: AIDS. Dave

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Quote from p.179, Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter H. Duesberg: <snipped a bit -HIV has been passed along from mother to child for many centuries (not through one thousand heterosexual contacts as is commonly assumed." end quote Last year 6 MILLION Africans contracted the HIV virus. So, a virus that was only discovered in ‘78, with an earliest known carrier from 1950 has been carried by 6 million Africans for CENTURIES without anyone noticing? Jeez. Bennett

Were this a truly harmless virus, or even if it caused leukemia/lymphosarcoma in a few percent of those who harbor it, it could have been carried for such a period. However it is not harmless. and the idea of vertical transmission is directly refuted by published data on the survival of infected children. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

real research and ignores what is already out there in the press. I gusee that it’s ok to write fiction like this but to try and pass it off as fact is insulting to anyone with access to the internets research facilities. His only use is to provide points of denial for those who wish to not deal with the ugly reality of HIV infection and it’s end stage: AIDS.

I don’t understand the huge controversy. If HIV is present in virtually all cases of AIDS (which it is, as the literature consistently points out) and one allows for another immune system disease or series of comorbid conditions to mimic AIDS to account for the few cases where HIV has not been found to be present one works through the system of induction to trace the result to the root. Certainly there is enough data at this stage to be able to conclusively determine that the common denominator is HIV. There is no way to trace it from the other end as we have no real way of knowing how many cases of HIV infection really exist. I assume the dissidents suggest that there are many more cases of HIV infection that do not get diagnosed and/or progress to AIDS and therefore HIV does not cause AIDS. Even is this is the case (many cases of HIV infection not known about) it doesn’t mean that some series of genetic and or general health issues are not the reason for non-progression. As a person infected it is much safer to assume the virus causes AIDS and thus be treated appropriately. Like I said before, Pascal’s Wager. Just because HIV does not AUTOMATICALLY cause AIDS (which it _might_ not) does not mean that AIDS is not caused by HIV. The agruments are not either/or as far as I can see. Or mutually exclusive. I tend to think, at this stage, that Dr. Holzman has the right advice – monitor your viral load and CD4 count carefully and start treatment when the curve steepens – which does not mean at any magic number, per se, but when the decline in immune system responsiveness starts to decline rapidly. I wonder about the effectiveness of the drugs on a start/stop basis. You know, if you start treatment and stabilize should you stop treatment? I guess it’s like being a lab rat, to a degree. Trial and error. I guess the thing is to try to bring together the data available on persons being treated. Fun job. Catherine

Response:

"A pregnant mother is a different story; in effect, she provides her child with a none-month continuous exposure to her blood and therefore has at least a 50 percent chance of passing HIV to the baby. The above, "none-month" should say, "nine-month". John

Dosen’t help. See my other post.

Response:

For the record, the following is the source of all my knowledge on the subject… [Rgibson post of 9/4/98..] A little side note that might be of intrest. In the area in which my doctor donated her services in Africa heterosexual anal sex was practiced often and used as a form of birth control. I don’t want to mislead anyone in case this was not said as it was told to me by a female that was one of her good friends.

[I responded...] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Actually I have heard the same thing from anthropologists studing african sexual practices.

Response:

So don’t believe it. You still have the probem of finding another explanation for the heterosexual spread of HIV infection. that is real. Quote from p.179, Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter H. Duesberg: "A pregnant mother is a different story; in effect, she provides her child with a none-month continuous exposure to her blood and therefore has at least a 50 percent chance of passing HIV to the baby.

Actually substantally less by actual measurement, both in africa and the US. I belive that this information was available prior to the publication of this book and wonder why the inaccuracy is there. HIV, as with any retrovirus, survives by reaching new hosts perinatally(mother to child), this being five hundred times more efficient than by sexual transmission. This would explain why the numbers of HIV-positive people, in America as well as Africa, have remained so constant: HIV is transmitted from mother to child just like a human gene. This also reveals the reason for the virus being so widespread and equal between the sexes in Africa-HIV has been passed along from mother to child for many centuries (not through one thousand heterosexual contacts as is commonly assumed."

Except it is not so prevalent in children as it is in adults and the children who get it tend to die before they can pass the virus to their progeny. This while serologic study shows that it is being transmitted among sexually active people. This theory has been conclusively falsified. Here are the observations of quinn who was just cited for his expertise in the matter by Kevin because he did not think anal sex was an important factor. Quinn,TC; Mann,JM; Curran,JW; Piot,P (1986): AIDS in Africa: an epidemiologic paradigm. Science 234(4779, 21 Nov), 955-963. <Cases of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) have been reported in countries throughout the world. Initial surveillance studies in Central Africa suggest an annual incidence of AIDS of 550 to 1000 cases per million adults. The male to female ratio of cases is 1:1, with age- and sex-specific rates greater in females less than 30 years of age and greater in males over age 40. Clinically, AIDS in Africans is often characterized by a diarrhea-wasting syndrome, opportunistic infections, such as tuberculosis, cryptococcosis, and cryptosporidiosis, or disseminated Kaposi’s sarcoma. FROM 1 TO 18% OF HEALTHY BLOOD DONORS AND PREGNANT WOMEN AND AS MANY AS 27 TO 88% OF FEMALE PROSTITUTES HAVE ANTIBODIES TO HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV).The present annual incidence of infection is approximately 0.75% among the general population of Central and East Africa. THE DISEASE IS TRANSMITTED PREDOMINANTLY BY HETEROSEXUAL ACTIVITY, PARENTERAL EXPOSURE TO BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS AND UNSTERILIZED NEEDLES, AND PERINATALLY FROM INFECTED MOTHERS TO THEIR NEWBORNS, and will continue to spread rapidly where economic and cultural factors favor these modes of transmission. Prevention and control of HIV infection through educational programs and blood bank screening should be an immediate public health priority for

Response:

There is no hint here where the 50% figure comes from. The *observed* rate of perinatal transmission is around 25%, and less than that with treatment. If the perinatal transmission rate is anything less than 100%, each generation will have a lower fraction of HIV carriers than the previous, until HIV disappears in humans. In order to account for the presence of HIV in any humans at all, you have to suppose that a significant fraction of humans somehow became infected with HIV long ago, and that the method of transmission that did this doesn’t work today. Sounds like a miracle. Sounds like special creation. — David Canzi UUNET 1M, One Million Complaints approx. 17:35 GMT, 1998 Sep 5th

Response:

pot. kettle. black.

Response:

The above, "none-month" should say, "nine-month". John

Response:

Quote from p.179, Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter H. Duesberg:

<snipped a bit -HIV has been passed along from mother to child for many centuries (not through one thousand heterosexual contacts as is commonly assumed." end quote

Last year 6 MILLION Africans contracted the HIV virus. So, a virus that was only discovered in ‘78, with an earliest known carrier from 1950 has been carried by 6 million Africans for CENTURIES without anyone noticing? Jeez. Bennett

Response:

So don’t believe it. You still have the probem of finding another explanation for the heterosexual spread of HIV infection. that is real.

Quote from p.179, Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter H. Duesberg: "A pregnant mother is a different story; in effect, she provides her child with a none-month continuous exposure to her blood and therefore has at least a 50 percent chance of passing HIV to the baby. HIV, as with any retrovirus, survives by reaching new hosts perinatally(mother to child), this being five hundred times more efficient than by sexual transmission. This would explain why the numbers of HIV-positive people, in America as well as Africa, have remained so constant: HIV is transmitted from mother to child just like a human gene. This also reveals the reason for the virus being so widespread and equal between the sexes in Africa-HIV has been passed along from mother to child for many centuries (not through one thousand heterosexual contacts as is commonly assumed." end quote John

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In regard to my posting on African AIDS and the difference in incidence and distribution, Dr Holzman posted: Second, as posted here in the last few days, anal sex is used in some areas (Africa), as a contraceptive measure — another risk factor. Obviously, to make such an assertion is absurd, indicating that anal sex is exclusive or at least more prevalent on/to the African continent. What’s more is that many American couples (straight and gay), participate in anal intercourse (even unprotected), as a means of contraception as well. A few simple "scientifically supported" statements listed below all but demonlishes his poorly researched and discriminating belief about African AIDS and its relation to anal sex. "Anal sex, by contrast, appears to be taboo virtually throughout Africa. In one of the most prominent early studies of prostitutes in Kenya, of 64 lower class women and 26 women from higher socioeconomic status, absolutely none admitted to anal intercourse (1). "Dr. Thomas Quinn, widely considered to be one of America’s foremost experts on AIDS in Africa, noted these denials and assumed their veracity." "Whereas anal receptive intercourse is a prominent sexual behavior that is associated with HIV infection among homosexuals in the U.S.", he told the President’s AIDS commission, "this behavior does not appear to play any specific role in HIV transmission in Africa".(2) 1- Joan K. Kreiss et al., "AIDS Virus Infection in Nairobi Prostitutes", NEJM 13, Fevbruary 1986, 414-415. 2- Thomas C. Quinn, "Status on AIDS in Africa: Epidemiological Features," Testimony before the President’s Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic, 11, April 1988, p. 3, (on file inthe National Archives, Washington, DC). This paragraph has been referenced from; Michael Fumento, "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", Ch. 9, "But what about Africa", p. 116. <end references Robert Holzman then writes: So don’t believe it. You still have the probem of finding another explanation for the heterosexual spread of HIV infection. that is real.

Is this the best response you can come up with? You plant some bogus, unproven, decoy theory (anal sex is more prevalent on the African continent), in an attempt to explain the disproportionate distribution of HIV infection among the sexes in Africa; and then once proven wrong you switch gears and ask "me" to provide an explanation for heterosexual spread of HIV infection in Africa??? Who is the epidemiologist here? You expect us to believe that you are have been formerly trained in epidemiology, yet your above statement suggests you are just collecting theories (as everybody else here), in lieu of the curious fact that HIV infection is distributed *very* differently among Africa and the US. It is like you are ignoring the validity of the criteria of your "own" field (epidemiology), to surrender to some silly diagnostic (HIV antibody), which you right well no is not routinely used to diagnose AIDS in Africa anyway. Are you mad? Africa is a poor continent, without funding for food, medicine and shelter. Where are you folks getting this silly notion, they have fancy serology labs, and resources/finances to perform widespread HIV testing? People in Africa starve each and every day. Why worry about, or allocate funding for, a costly serological evaluation; (when such a thought only generates the notion that illness may be decades away- latency), when the money could be better spent on medicine (for malaria, TB, Cholera, and other endemic illnesses), and food today? Such a thought reveals we are "not" wholeheartedly interested in African well being, but rather are protecting our interest in our epidemic for our own selfish reasons. It appears we are pimping the African AIDS epidemic to the Americans viewers in the hopes they will buy this garbage and finance these circular, silly, pointless, and often contradicting studies. In the one instance you expect us to believe that third world countries are impoverished regions, where clinics frequently re-use the same needles, and the level of sanitation has allowed diseases like cholera to spread like wildfire. On the other, you suggest we are performing widespread HIV testing on Bantu tribesmen, deep in the jungles of the African rainforest, while they just sit and allow the CDC statisticians and doctors to record them as statistics and educate them on the dangers of unprotected sex?? Sorry Charlie, but given the current situation and lack of resources in Africa, it’s far more likely that African AIDS caseloads are just a sensationalistic view of previous endemic illnesses on that continent where the sickly and undernourished are just "presumed" to be HIV infected, and the diagnosis is made solely on the clinical level. Here’s my synopsis on African HIV/AIDS: Because the CDC treasure hunters couldn’t make a strong enough case for heterosexual AIDS in the West, we barge onto the African continent, find millions of people suffering from afflictions that have been long eradicated in western countries, and somehow extrapolate this and carefully weave it into the fabric of our own belief; HIV is now causing all these illnesses (cholera, TB, malaria, parasitic infections, kwashikor, KS, etc.) in Africa. Makes perfect sense, seeing how the definition of AIDS is so obcure/lengthy and many viral symptoms mimic one another anyway. Who’s to know; the illiteracy rate in third world countries is higher than in most other regions of the world. The American viewers are home trusting "expert analysis" from folks like yourself (an epidemiologist), who apparently just manufacture theories (anal sex), in an attempt to explain the epidemiological differences between the countries and close the book. I am not an epidemiologist, nor do I pretend to be. Yet within these last few posts, I have literally riddled your foolish, unresearched, assumptions/conclusions to pieces, and "you’re" supposed to be the expert. What’s more is you offer no in depth or even remotely plausible models to support your fairy tale beliefs. Why not subject the poor, underpriveleged Africans to more suffering, torture and exploitation, so we can continue generating funding for an illness that has been disappearing on our continent for years. We can just ignore the epidemiological differences of distribution and incidence and suggest that the African people are overly promiscuous, practice deviant sexual acts, or worse off are harbingers to many nasty illnesses. In many ways, I imagine the African people would now understand what it must have been like to be an American homosexual in the early eighties. They have been made into lepers, and told their voracious sexual apetites will almost certainly gobble them up in a few years. In the process, through your circulating myths and absurd scare tactics, you have all but destroyed their foreign economy as people are not apt to travel or vacation in this region because it is thought to be the birthplace of supernatural viruses and microbes (i.e., Kinshasa Highway, etc.). Why? Because our epidemic and predictions didn’t materialize here (US), and the establishment can’t come clean with people and admit they may have been wrong about AIDS. Are our academic egos that big? Do the guidelines of postulated scientific thinking need to be continually rewritten or ignored to continue to make sense of this nonsense? To be certain, many of the African people know almost nothing of nuclear medicine and fancy serology tests. Nor are they even remotely aware of what such a diagnostic may or may not suggest. Much like the native Americans on our own continent, we have invaded their land, raped their culture, and robbed them of all their previous beliefs/knowledge in favor of our own interests. In summary, they have been exploited, mislead, lied to, and worst of all, are being used as a trump card for AIDS policy in the US. I guess history truly does repeat itself. Kevin Doherty

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In regard to my posting on African AIDS and the difference in incidence and distribution, Dr Holzman posted: Second, as posted here in the last few days, anal sex is used in some areas (Africa), as a contraceptive measure — another risk factor. Obviously, to make such an assertion is absurd, indicating that anal sex is exclusive or at least more prevalent on/to the African continent. What’s more is that many American couples (straight and gay), participate in anal intercourse (even unprotected), as a means of contraception as well. A few simple "scientifically supported" statements listed below all but demonlishes his poorly researched and discriminating belief about African AIDS and its relation to anal sex. "Anal sex, by contrast, appears to be taboo virtually throughout Africa. In one of the most prominent early studies of prostitutes in Kenya, of 64 lower class women and 26 women from higher socioeconomic status, absolutely none admitted to anal intercourse (1). "Dr. Thomas Quinn, widely considered to be one of America’s foremost experts on AIDS in Africa, noted these denials and assumed their veracity." "Whereas anal receptive intercourse is a prominent sexual behavior that is associated with HIV infection among homosexuals in the U.S.", he told the President’s AIDS commission, "this behavior does not appear to play any specific role in HIV transmission in Africa".(2) 1- Joan K. Kreiss et al., "AIDS Virus Infection in Nairobi Prostitutes", NEJM, 13, Fevbruary 1986, 414-415. 2- Thomas C. Quinn, "Status on AIDS in Africa: Epidemiological Features," Testimony before the President’s Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic, 11, April 1988, p. 3, (on file inthe National Archives, Washington, DC). This paragraph has been referenced from; Michael Fumento, "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", Ch. 9, "But what about Africa", p. 116. <end references So don’t believe it. You still have the probem of finding another explanation for the heterosexual spread of HIV infection. that is real.

This is sad — Holzman, king of scientific references, who took two days off scouring cyberspace for one cite that would support his claim of Africans using anal sex for birth control, and then, upon coming up empty-handed– rather than admit he was wrong, resorts to the most dishonest circular reasoning:"How else can you explain the spread of HIV infection?" This is the same, Holzman, mind you, who currently has five or six posts lecturing me on the *dissident* propensity for inaccuracy and dishonesty. For shame, Bobby…(and you should expect I’ll be rubbing your nose in this post for years to come, pal) Cinque Please do not post anymore ridiculous, ill conceived comments, like this in the future Dr. Holzman. It has only served to magnify your ignorance of the situation in Africa. Kevin Doherty

– "Prove it!" — Jack Wilson

Response:

Biff Writes: Could post, Kevin. And it was really depressing seeing Holzman of all people trying to slip something like that in. From Harris or Carter there’d be little surprise. What’s going on here anyway? Why are scientists behaving like this?

Here’s an answer for you… Hey, why don’t you stop? In the last 20 posts you’ve said the exact same thing. Your posts are not funny, they display no knew ideas, and they pass on no information. You’ve become little more than a shrew yammering your foolish head off. Each day I lose more respect for you. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

Response:

snip… A few simple "scientifically supported" statements listed below all but demonlishes his poorly researched and discriminating belief about African AIDS and its relation to anal sex.

Interesting. Other "dissidents" in the "anal sex causes AIDS" camp routinely have propounded the notion that Africa is rife with anal sex (also, partly, to prevent pregnancy). "Anal sex, by contrast, appears to be taboo virtually throughout Africa. In one of the most prominent early studies of prostitutes in Kenya, of 64 lower class women and 26 women from higher socioeconomic status, absolutely none admitted to anal intercourse (1).

Kenya is not all of Africa. A survey like this is notorious for eliciting inaccurate information in any event. "Dr. Thomas Quinn, widely considered to be one of America’s foremost experts on AIDS in Africa, noted these denials and assumed their veracity." "Whereas anal receptive intercourse is a prominent sexual behavior that is associated with HIV infection among homosexuals in the U.S.", he told the President’s AIDS commission, "this behavior does not appear to play any specific role in HIV transmission in Africa".(2)

So he told this to the AIDS Commission. Big deal. Based on one little study? I’d hardly call this "demolishing" the notion. The question is probably better framed as what percentage of the population of Africans contracted HIV through anal sex? Clearly, not an easy question to answer, but it wouldn’t surprise me that it wasn’t as high as that found among gay men in the U.S., for example. 1- Joan K. Kreiss et al., "AIDS Virus Infection in Nairobi Prostitutes", NEJM, 13, Fevbruary 1986, 414-415. 2- Thomas C. Quinn, "Status on AIDS in Africa: Epidemiological Features," Testimony before the President’s Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic, 11, April 1988, p. 3, (on file inthe National Archives, Washington, DC). This paragraph has been referenced from; Michael Fumento, "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", Ch. 9, "But what about Africa", p. 116.

Interesting but this guy I don’t trust to have properly referenced the above material. He’s busily trying to show straights don’t have to worry (with the bigoted corollary subtext of so we shouldn’t bother, since it’s just fags and ho’s and niggers and junkies.) Still, the common mode of transmission in Africa is an arguable point. George M Carter <end references Please do not post anymore ridiculous, ill conceived comments, like this in the future Dr. Holzman. It has only served to magnify your ignorance of the situation in Africa.

That’s a pretty good shot at the patronizing and patriarchal but you’ve gotta have a little more ammo behind the eyeballs before it’s really covincing. George M. Carter Here’s one SI - MED/88099030; Hrdy DB TI - Cultural practices contributing to the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in Africa. RF - REVIEW ARTICLE: 73 REFS. AD - Division of Infectious and Immunologic Diseases, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento 95817. AB - Differences between the epidemiology of AIDS cases in Africa and that in Western societies have prompted speculation regarding risk factors that may be unique to Africa. Because of the age and sex distribution of AIDS cases in Africa, emphasis has been placed on sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Factors thought to influence this sexual transmission include (1) promiscuity, with a high prevalence of sexually transmitted disease; (2) sexual practices that have been associated with increased risk of transmission of AIDS virus (homosexuality and anal intercourse); and (3) cultural practices that are possibly connected with increased virus transmission (female "circumcision" and infibulation). Other nonsexual cultural practices that do not fit the age distribution pattern of AIDS but may expose individuals to HIV include (1) practices resulting in exposure to blood (medicinal bloodletting, rituals establishing "blood brotherhood," and possibly ritual and medicinal enemas); (2) practices involving the use of shared instruments (injection of medicines, ritual scarification, group circumcision, genital tatooing, and shaving of body hair); and (3) contact with nonhuman primates. At the current time promiscuity seems to be the most important cultural factor contributing to the transmission of HIV in Africa. SO – Rev Infect Dis. 1987 Nov-Dec;9(6):1109-19.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In regard to my posting on African AIDS and the difference in incidence and distribution, Dr Holzman posted: Second, as posted here in the last few days, anal sex is used in some areas (Africa), as a contraceptive measure — another risk factor. Obviously, to make such an assertion is absurd, indicating that anal sex is exclusive or at least more prevalent on/to the African continent. What’s more is that many American couples (straight and gay), participate in anal intercourse (even unprotected), as a means of contraception as well. A few simple "scientifically supported" statements listed below all but demonlishes his poorly researched and discriminating belief about African AIDS and its relation to anal sex. "Anal sex, by contrast, appears to be taboo virtually throughout Africa. In one of the most prominent early studies of prostitutes in Kenya, of 64 lower class women and 26 women from higher socioeconomic status, absolutely none admitted to anal intercourse (1). "Dr. Thomas Quinn, widely considered to be one of America’s foremost experts on AIDS in Africa, noted these denials and assumed their veracity." "Whereas anal receptive intercourse is a prominent sexual behavior that is associated with HIV infection among homosexuals in the U.S.", he told the President’s AIDS commission, "this behavior does not appear to play any specific role in HIV transmission in Africa".(2) 1- Joan K. Kreiss et al., "AIDS Virus Infection in Nairobi Prostitutes", NEJM, 13, Fevbruary 1986, 414-415. 2- Thomas C. Quinn, "Status on AIDS in Africa: Epidemiological Features," Testimony before the President’s Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic, 11, April 1988, p. 3, (on file inthe National Archives, Washington, DC). This paragraph has been referenced from; Michael Fumento, "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", Ch. 9, "But what about Africa", p. 116. <end references Please do not post anymore ridiculous, ill conceived comments, like this in the future Dr. Holzman. It has only served to magnify your ignorance of the situation in Africa. Kevin Doherty

Could post, Kevin. And it was really depressing seeing Holzman of all people trying to slip something like that in. From Harris or Carter there’d be little surprise. What’s going on here anyway? Why are scientists behaving like this? Cinque — "Prove it!" — Jack Wilson

Response:

So don’t believe it. You still have the probem of finding another explanation for the heterosexual spread of HIV infection. that is real. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please do not post anymore ridiculous, ill conceived comments, like this in the future Dr. Holzman. It has only served to magnify your ignorance of the situation in Africa. Kevin Doherty

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Second, as posted here in the last few days, anal sex is used in some areas as a contraceptive measure — another risk factor. Where do you get nonsense like this from, Holzman? Cinque Like I said, from anthropologists.

I’ve known men and women who said they’d rather have anal sex than so they could skip the condom and still avoid pregnancy. This was fairly common in the 80s among straights. I don’t know if it is still true or how prevalent the practice was, but it appeared to be pretty common. George M. Carter By the way Bob–on the following, BRAVO!! The problem you are having here is that you are exerting your right to free speech in a highly technical field that you have — by your own admission –little knowlege of. Now you could learn by reading, by checking what we say against the literature, or by going back to school. But when you post things like "the appearance of antibodies mean that the virus is no longer a threat" and it is explained to you that that statement is not true we expect you to learn and stop using that arguemnt and move along to something else and not to come back with it in a day (week, month) or two. On the other hand if you have something to teach us — as you claime – we might pick it up. All you need to do is explain it clearly.

Response:

In regard to my posting on African AIDS and the difference in incidence and distribution, Dr Holzman posted: Second, as posted here in the last few days, anal sex is used in some areas (Africa), as a contraceptive measure — another risk factor.

Obviously, to make such an assertion is absurd, indicating that anal sex is exclusive or at least more prevalent on/to the African continent. What’s more is that many American couples (straight and gay), participate in anal intercourse (even unprotected), as a means of contraception as well. A few simple "scientifically supported" statements listed below all but demonlishes his poorly researched and discriminating belief about African AIDS and its relation to anal sex. "Anal sex, by contrast, appears to be taboo virtually throughout Africa. In one of the most prominent early studies of prostitutes in Kenya, of 64 lower class women and 26 women from higher socioeconomic status, absolutely none admitted to anal intercourse (1). "Dr. Thomas Quinn, widely considered to be one of America’s foremost experts on AIDS in Africa, noted these denials and assumed their veracity." "Whereas anal receptive intercourse is a prominent sexual behavior that is associated with HIV infection among homosexuals in the U.S.", he told the President’s AIDS commission, "this behavior does not appear to play any specific role in HIV transmission in Africa".(2) 1- Joan K. Kreiss et al., "AIDS Virus Infection in Nairobi Prostitutes", NEJM, 13, Fevbruary 1986, 414-415. 2- Thomas C. Quinn, "Status on AIDS in Africa: Epidemiological Features," Testimony before the President’s Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic, 11, April 1988, p. 3, (on file inthe National Archives, Washington, DC). This paragraph has been referenced from; Michael Fumento, "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", Ch. 9, "But what about Africa", p. 116. <end references Please do not post anymore ridiculous, ill conceived comments, like this in the future Dr. Holzman. It has only served to magnify your ignorance of the situation in Africa. Kevin Doherty

Response:

Second, as posted here in the last few days, anal sex is used in some areas as a contraceptive measure — another risk factor.

Where do you get nonsense like this from, Holzman? Cinque — "Prove it!" — Jack Wilson

Response:

Second, as posted here in the last few days, anal sex is used in some areas as a contraceptive measure — another risk factor. Where do you get nonsense like this from, Holzman? Cinque

Like I said, from anthropologists.

Response:

A textbook definition of epidemiology is: a branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distribution and control of a disease in a population. And so, in order to record any data as accurate and declare a trend in a disease amongst a population, the epidemiologist is called upon to offer a professional and well researched opinion, devoid of any speculation and preconceived notions about that illness.

Well, as the only person who post here with a claim to being an epdemiologist let me give you a professional opinion of your analysis. Hogwash! You have delineated the differences between the epidemiology of AIDS in the US and in countries of africa and asia. Because of the differences you concluded the diseases were different. Unfortunately you ignore the direct evidence from virologic and clincal study that the two illnesses labeled aids which youu believe are different, are both due to HIV infection. Why hiv infection spreads differently in the two areas is is an interesting topic. But THAT HIV infection spreads differnetly in the two is not subject to dispute. It has been directly measured and observed. And in both areas HIV is followed by immune deficiency and aids. I have listed a few suggestions which may offer an explanation. 1) Prostitution appears to be a far bigger industry in third world countries, where poorer people may offer sex for money. The problem with this belief is that many foreign affluent tourists who may travel to these regions of the world are aware of such opportunity and usually seek out a sexual contact while visiting. Why are they not bringing this illness back with them to their homes and families?

Rather thatn the size of the industry could it be that tourists use CONDOMS? Could it be that many poor rural people don’t use condoms and don’t get the opportunity to solicit tourists? Studies in africa have shown the spread of AIDS along trucking routes. Studies in Thailand have demonstrated the efficacy of condoms in reducing contagion of hIV. And who is to say no one ever did bring back HIV infection. We must remember, AIDS is a said to be a sexually transmitted, infectious disease. How can a sexually transmitted disease that has managed to afflict men and women equally remain isolated amongst millions of sub Saharan Africans, without finding some route to fan out across the planet and offer similiar distribution between the sexes on other continents? 2) A differnt/more virulent/more communicable strain of HIV must exist in this region. Natural selection exists as a means to assure perpetuation of a species- even microbes. The thought of a different strain of HIV in Africa is truly unnecessary as African AIDS appears to be quite successful, or so we are told.

The logic here escapes me. If you believe african HIV is quite successful and US HIV is not then why could there not be a difference? What’s more is that chemicals which may interfere with viral replication and hence propogate a change in sequencing are not nearly affordable for sub saharan Africans, so the process of mutation is not likely to occur in this instance either.

You miss several points. antivirals are not causing the mutations they are permitting those spontaneous mutatinos to convey a selective advantgae. If a strain in africa spontaneously mutated to a more infectious it would spread preferentially because it would be transmitted more ofthen than the other strains. In America though, mutant strains of HIV have generated much interest, in an attempt to explain why protease inhibitors are showing signs of limitations.

So? In any case, a mutant strain has never been proven to exist, or shown to be pathogenic and so at the moment, it remains a poorly supported thought.

No real disagreement. There was a strain, I think from thailand that was reputed to spread more readily via mucosal transfer but I don’t think that this was rigorously proven. 3) African AIDS is easier to catch. To make such a suggestion, indicates that African women and men are anatomically different then Americans. Are African womens vaginas more permeable than an American womens? Needless to say, this is Tom Foolery.

Well, not exactly. First, the incidence of ulcerative venereal diseases is greater in africa. This is a verified risk factor for transmission of HIV. Second, as posted here in the last few days, anal sex is used in some areas as a contraceptive measure — another risk factor. To be sure, the above listed synopsis more than illustrates the vast differences in the epidemiology of AIDS/HIV on the two continents.

No question there is a difference. It should be paramount to understand that the difference in the distribution and incidence, of an infectious, sexually transmitted, illness in populations with more than adequate contact and communications demonstrates that the illnesses bear no epidemological resemblance toward one another and that they probably are completely different findings.

I was with you right up till you said, "therefore".

Response:

In recent years, pro HIV’ers and the media have been generating much interest pertaining to the incidence of AIDS in Sub Saharan Africa. Current WHO statistics indicate that of the 30 million or so HIV infections worldwide, 21 million present in this region. What’s more is that although incidence of AIDS in the US has been declining for many years now (since 1993- see CDC for exact stats), it is somehow suggested that African AIDS is currently ravaging populations throughout the Sub Saharan region with alarming frequency and the caseloads continue to climb. In science we have means by which to track the incidence and distribution of a specific illness. This field is called epidemiology. A textbook definition of epidemiology is: a branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distribution and control of a disease in a population. And so, in order to record any data as accurate and declare a trend in a disease amongst a population, the epidemiologist is called upon to offer a professional and well researched opinion, devoid of any speculation and preconceived notions about that illness. With this in mind, we must carefully, yet separately, examine the AIDS epidemic in the US and compare it to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Because, according to their nomeclature, and we are lead to believe, they are the same illness, we should see similiarities (incidence and distribution), in the plagues even amongst people who live in different geography. This is in truth, how we would ascertain, they are the same illness. Incidence and Distribution: American AIDS has been primarily confined to "risk groups" where the CDC has estimated that the ratio of men to women is about 10 to 1. Additionally, the incidence of AIDS in the US has steadily declined since 1993. This is thought to be a by product of better education and medical intervention. However, as indicated previously (in other posts), protease therapy was not really available until late 95 early 96, which makes cause and effect in the decrease of AIDS cases, ulikely. Additionally, hepatitus (a commonly acquired STD in the US), increased in the years 94 and 95 (see CDC for data), the same time the number of number of AIDS cases was declining and the number of new HIV infections remained flatlined. For this reason, it has been thought that HIV is much "harder to catch" than most sexually transmitted, infectious microbes like hepatitus. The African AIDS epidemic has however generated much more interest in that the distribution of this illness seems to be quite equal. That is, we are told that heterosexual AIDS in Africa is the rule rather than the exception. A few theories have evolved in an effort to explain such a diverse distribution and incidence of AIDS between the two continents. I have listed a few suggestions which may offer an explanation. 1) Prostitution appears to be a far bigger industry in third world countries, where poorer people may offer sex for money. The problem with this belief is that many foreign affluent tourists who may travel to these regions of the world are aware of such opportunity and usually seek out a sexual contact while visiting. Why are they not bringing this illness back with them to their homes and families? We must remember, AIDS is a said to be a sexually transmitted, infectious disease. How can a sexually transmitted disease that has managed to afflict men and women equally remain isolated amongst millions of sub Saharan Africans, without finding some route to fan out across the planet and offer similiar distribution between the sexes on other continents? 2) A differnt/more virulent/more communicable strain of HIV must exist in this region. Natural selection exists as a means to assure perpetuation of a species- even microbes. The thought of a different strain of HIV in Africa is truly unnecessary as African AIDS appears to be quite successful, or so we are told. What’s more is that chemicals which may interfere with viral replication and hence propogate a change in sequencing are not nearly affordable for sub saharan Africans, so the process of mutation is not likely to occur in this instance either. In America though, mutant strains of HIV have generated much interest, in an attempt to explain why protease inhibitors are showing signs of limitations. In any case, a mutant strain has never been proven to exist, or shown to be pathogenic and so at the moment, it remains a poorly supported thought. 3) African AIDS is easier to catch. To make such a suggestion, indicates that African women and men are anatomically different then Americans. Are African womens vaginas more permeable than an American womens? Needless to say, this is Tom Foolery. To be sure, the above listed synopsis more than illustrates the vast differences in the epidemiology of AIDS/HIV on the two continents. It should be paramount to understand that the difference in the distribution and incidence, of an infectious, sexually transmitted, illness in populations with more than adequate contact and communications demonstrates that the illnesses bear no epidemological resemblance toward one another and that they probably are completely different findings. Kevin Doherty

Talk Cancer

African AIDS…

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Categories