 |
The Independent
|
In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO’s department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients. Aids still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined, and is vastly bigger than current efforts to address it. A joint WHO/UN Aids report published this month showed that nearly three million people are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world, but this is less than a third of the estimated 9.7 million people who need them. In all there were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007, 2.5 million people became newly infected and 2.1 million died of Aids.
But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?”
OK everybody, green light is on , go wild!
Kevin de Cock – are you serious lol!!
Do we have to go wild? Is there something wrong with a reasoned discussion?
Don’t know if I’d be going wild just yet. One reason why HIV has had a substantially lower transmission rate among heteros than among homos is probably that heteros have more things than just disease they are trying to prevent. There also seems to be a perception that homos are more promiscuous in general, but I don’t know how founded in fact that sentiment is.
#2. Party Pooper!
HIV/AIDS … Who cares?
Are the Christians still declaring that AIDS is God’s war on homos? Not sure if that declaration is still a Sunday crowd pleaser.
The article isn’t clear to me. AIDS is wiping sub-Sahara Africa out, but not elsewhere===as if there was less sex going on elsewhere. If the infection rate is reduced for sex with a circumsized penis, then the implication is a couple with one infected can have unprotected sex and the HIV virus is not transmitted or is defeated in an otherwise healthy partner?
I thought the danger of hiv was that it transmuted/evolved very quickly? So, who know what can happen like AIDS combining with flu and we get wiped out. This is more likely to happen when “a reservoir” of infected individuals is kept alive. This “good news” may be the resting period before AIDS takes off again. Note==all my theories are based on Sci Fi and not medicine or biology.
the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota
This is puzzling as North Dakota and Washington DC are so much alike.
#7, Well, there is something to be said about prolonging the lives of people who have a fatal, contagious and uncurable disease to give even more time to potentially spread it to others. Since I generally view disease as a natural mechanism for population control, I’m not sure many of our medical efforts are that advantageous to us in the long run.
#8 on a contrary note bestiality in North Dakota is 1,000% higher than Washington DC.
#8, exactly. The only thing I find baffling is why they would even try to compare the transmission rates between a densely populated urban center to a sparsely populated rural state.
This is so premature to announce.
First of all… doesn’t Africa count?
Second, I am expecting a huge outbreak of AIDS in South Asia. I hope I’m wrong and I’m not PREDICTING it, but holy smokes there is a lot of unprotected sex there as well as massive needle sharing in all the crappy medical clinics on every corner. Since HIV is stigmatized as a decadent western gay-disease, I strongly suspect it is being ignored by the government.
(I’ve heard similar things about China but don’t know about that first-hand. )
If it takes hold in South Asia, you can bet it will hop over to the Arab population who go over there by the airplane load on sex holidays.
>>the rate of infection among men in Washington DC
>>is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota
That’s probably because farm animals are not a significant transmission vector for HIV/AIDS.
#11 Actually after thinking about it there may be a valid relationship.
AID/HIV is directly proportional to the percentage of politicians in the population.
It was never seen as a risk to all populations, it was just promoted that way. They lied to spread fear among the public and get money.
#12, looking at some numbers, the only SE Asian counties with estimated HIV infections above 1% are Thailand and Laos, and they seem to be mostly related to the sex trade.
Also, looking at Africa, the infection rate appears to decline dramatically as you move from west to east. Of course, I’ve been to east Africa and I don’t know how anything lives there.
#10 – hey, there’s some damn good-looking chickens and sheep in North Dakota.
Chiming in from China!
Hello and good morning you bourgeoisie capitalist pigs!
As far as aids in Asia, look no further than Thailand. Everyone and their dog, cat and pig has it there because of rampant “sex workers and their clients”. You can literally walk down the street and have husbands selling their wifes and children. No joke, it’s that bad.
On the other hand, the metro areas of China are very conservative. Drug use is very low due to very strict policing, and “sex workers” are not as common as most people think, although they do exist -mostly around hotels which cater to westerners. Homosexuals still disappear into the prison system.
I believe the statistic of ~900,000 infected with AIDS is reasonable, which happens to be the same number of people infected in the Unites States.
http://tinyurl.com/5h3dug
http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html
Remember that the population in China is 4 times greater than in the US. So, a less sophisticated country coming out of the dark ages still manages to have an infection rate 1/4th that of the US and falling.
So why is Africa different?
#15 – MikeN,
It was never seen as a risk to all populations, it was just promoted that way. They lied to spread fear among the public and get money.
So, you don’t think that heterosexual sex can spread AIDS?
Personally, I would read their words very carefully.
Anyone see this as saying that AIDS cannot be spread through heterosexual sex? I don’t.
FWIW in America, according to
http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html
African American men have 47% of the USA male infections, but only compose 13% of the male population.
African American women have 63% of the USA female infections, but only compose 12% of the female population.
So, even in the USA, african americans have an infection rate 5 times that of White, non-Hispanics.
Is it possible that there is a genectic susecptability, and Africa realy isn’t any different?
I didn’t say that they couldn’t get it, I said the population was not at great risk like homos, and the experts knew it all along. They were basically selling that anyone can get AIDS meaning all the risks were equal, etc.
The only news here is that they are willing to admit that they were wrong. The fact that they were wrong was known to them all along.
#20,
I think it has been policaly incorrect to say that “this disease primarily affects homosexuals”.
Can straight white women get this disease, of course they can. The chances are just a LOT lower.
If humans could mate monogamously for life, this disease would burn its self out in a generation, but thats not going to happen.
Weeeell, I hate to come down on the side of Lyin’ Mike, but it seems like, since they started testing blood for HIV, the risk of heterosexual transmission of AIDS has always been kind of low.
Sure, there are those folks who are glory-holing it on the DL and bringing the disease back to the little lady. But overall, having your bung-hole ripped up (with the resulting breach of the integumental barrier) is clearly a more productive vector for transmission of the virus.
OK..
Who do you think is going to get CHECKED for Aids first?? Someone in Wash DC or someone in Dakota?
Whats the difference in Number of people SELLING their blood in these 2 cities?
HOW many kids get checked for ANY STD??
HOW many adults go in for a check, ANYMORE??
When it started costing MONEY to get a check, it went DOWN HILL..
It shocked me, that my little town of 2600 people, had 1/3 of the kids infected with STD.
>>> 16 Sea Lawyer said,
>>>>looking at some numbers, the only SE Asian counties with estimated HIV infections above 1% are Thailand and Laos, and they seem to be mostly related to the sex trade.
I HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT
… but I wouldn’t trust the numbers out of South Asia — if they are in anyway self-reported.
I lived over there and here is what I’m sure of:
* mostly unprotected sex
* millions of “hetero” men having sex with a very small number of “homo” professionals (it’s a complicated cultural thang)
* massive amounts of needle sharing
* total denial by the governments.
Does this sound like potential HIV outbreak?
That’s all I’m saying.
Whats the difference in Number of people SELLING their blood in these 2 cities?
“Paid” blood donations are illegal in many parts of the world, and should be in the USA also IMHO.
ECA is making some good points. People in rural areas have worse heath care in general in the US, and this extends to STD testing, which is often free in the city. Why is it that S. Dakota is so much lower? It may just be that the statistics are woefully incomplete.
“African American men have 47% of the USA male infections, but only compose 13% of the male population.
African American women have 63% of the USA female infections, but only compose 12% of the female population.
Is it possible that there is a genectic susecptability, and Africa realy isn’t any different?”
Yes, this is likely true, and I’ve read peer reviewed research that suggests that type B HIV in particular is very selective for african bloodlines, and other research that suggests that differences in the T cells of a significant number of people in white populations makes them more or less immune. This sort of inherent immunity would generally lead to a much lower incidence over time in any epidemic Type A, oddly enough, is very selective for gay sex, and I’ve never seen a reasonable theory for how gay populations in the United States could have such a different virus so early in what is supposedly an epidemic of African origin. The Royal Society tried to address this epidemiological oddity, but came up with nothing besides a conclusion that the early spread of the disease was most likely non-Darwinian in nature.
Given the sexual license I see in American culture, behavior that I’m sure exists in European culture, blaming Africa for some sort of behavioral problem strikes me as a comforting myth that conveniently reinforces racist stereotypes. Those sort of myths are the worst; they are hard to kill.
I don’t have the answers other than the more unprotected sex you have and the more sex partners you have the more likely you are to get HIV or any other SIDS.
One issue in Africa that I do recall being reported is that a lot of people in some locations seem to have stable relationships with several different lovers. This pushes the risks way up past the occasional one night stand. Everbody in such a network is likely to end up being repeatedly exposed.
You can list the risk factors and anywhere the rates are high for any of the STDs and you know the kind of behavior that is occuring.
I also suspect that every location has some degree of under reporting.
Have a look at the demographics for these two areas and you will quickly find your answer.
I’m sure the rate of crack sales, home invasion robberies, drive by shootings and car jackings show a similar delta.