AIDS "epidemic"

Nolanger · 02-07-2008 06:08PM #1

Always knew it was all one big media scare, hardly ever makes the news anymore.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/aids.health

MooseJam · 02-07-2008 06:11PM

lol Dr De Cock, don't see the problem with scaring, better safe than sorry no

Nolanger · 02-07-2008 06:13PM

From the above article:

"The relentless politicisation and moralisation of Aids has not only distorted public understanding of the disease and generated unnecessary fear and angst – it has also potentially cost lives. James Chin estimates that UNAIDS wastes around $1bn a year in activities such as "raising awareness" about Aids and preventing the emergence of the disease in communities that are at little risk. How many lives could that kind of money save, if it were used to develop drugs and deliver them to infected or at-risk communities? It is time people treated Aids as a normal disease, rather than as an opportunity for spreading their own moral agendas."

Cokehead Mother · 02-07-2008 06:15PM

Jesus wtf is wrong with the UK this week? First it's the whole student-writes-2-word-essay-and-fails story, and now it's "oh btw it turns out everyone didn't die of AIDS".

This better be the eye before the storm of a Gordon Brown sex scandal.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-07-2008 06:28PM

Always wondered how it spread so much in africa, is there a higher rate of homosexuality/prostitution there? Would have thought not given the Islamic influence in a lot more countries than elsewhere in the world

Still, I don't know if the 1 bil spent on spreading awareness was a bad idea. rate infected has been going up in ireland

chopperbyrne · 02-07-2008 06:34PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Always wondered how it spread so much in africa, is there a higher rate of homosexuality/prostitution there? Would have thought not given the Islamic influence in a lot more countries than elsewhere in the world

Still, I don't know if the 1 bil spent on spreading awareness was a bad idea. rate infected has been going up in ireland

Please tell me you're being sarcastic?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-07-2008 06:44PM

Which part? I mean read the article - its evidence is showing in developed countries HIV is generally confined to men having sex with men & other high risk groups. So why is Sub Saharan Africa being hit so hard by the virus?

chopperbyrne · 02-07-2008 06:46PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Which part? I mean read the article - its evidence is showing in developed countries HIV is generally confined to men having sex with men & other high risk groups. So why is Sub Saharan Africa being hit so hard by the virus?

Mainly backward religious reasons. Not wanting to use condoms for instance.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-07-2008 06:51PM

Well condoms were only brought in here the last 20 years or so, circumcision being more common in Africa should reduce the transmission to men also.

Perhaps there's a physiological reason, differing shapes/sizes of genitals perhaps/

Sherifu · 02-07-2008 07:29PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Perhaps there's a physiological reason, differing shapes/sizes of genitals perhaps/

If the stereotypes are to be believed.

Could also be the lack of tayto packets.

brianthebard · 02-07-2008 07:33PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well condoms were only brought in here the last 20 years or so, circumcision being more common in Africa should reduce the transmission to men also. Perhaps there's a physiological reason, differing shapes/sizes of genitals perhaps/

ito of prevention,circumcision is a pretty small maybe.I wouldnt start sexing wimmen with aids just cause i got circumcised anyways.

carveone · 02-07-2008 07:46PM

freaking troll.

Y2k was a waste of money cause nothing happened. Telling people where the boards beers was taking place was a waste of time cause everyone arrived. Blah blah blah.

AIDS deaths in 2007: 2.1 million. Yet we wet ourselves over SARS. We're too well fed over here.

studiorat · 02-07-2008 07:47PM

More people in Africa are infected to start with (22.5 million). Therefore it would stand to reason it would be easier to actually become infected since it's more common to meet someone who is HIV positive.

Male of circumsision is actually not common in Africa, contrary to the previous post. Christianity is actually more popular in the south than the north.

There's also some speculation that the HIV subtypes in Africa also have an effect on transmission rates.

Other factors would include social instability, gender inequality, sexual violence, other STDs facilitating HIV transmission, rapid urbanisation and plain old lack of information during the initial spread of the disease.

joejoem · 02-07-2008 08:43PM

I have a question... Why are men who have sex with men more at risk, I'm trying to think is it because its Anal? If so, is it not as high a risk for a man to catch it off a woman in the case of Anal (or visa versa..)

Also, havent cases in Ireland gone up significantly?

AckwelFoley · 02-07-2008 08:43PM

Mmm. Aids.
It wil end naturally in time imo

Joe Cool · 02-07-2008 08:49PM

A few Lemsip Max Strenghts, a bit of Vicks Vaporub and plenty of bed rest usually clear up a bad dose of the AIDS.

:cool:

Fanny Cradock · 02-07-2008 09:00PM

carveone wrote: »

freaking troll.

Y2k was a waste of money cause nothing happened.

Possibly because preventative measures were taken.

studiorat · 02-07-2008 09:01PM

Aids?
Oh yeah! We feed them After Eights and Easi Singles.

Because they're the only thing we can fit under the door!! :cool:

Worse again... Guinness and Prunes, cure them? No but it'll teach the fwckers what their arse is for!!!!

MooseJam · 02-07-2008 09:10PM

joejoem wrote: »

I have a question... Why are men who have sex with men more at risk, I'm trying to think is it because its Anal? If so, is it not as high a risk for a man to catch it off a woman in the case of Anal (or visa versa..)

Also, havent cases in Ireland gone up significantly?

it's cause it's anal, it's very easy to enter the blood stream in the colon.

Hellm0 · 02-07-2008 09:15PM

Yet another example of a seemingly noble cause being hijacked by the worst kind of Trolls(Christians, politicians, Media sensationalists, "Population control" advocates and general ponces).

Aids was and never has been a major concern for westerners who dont indulge in societies "high risk" activities(though even then quite a low chance of contracting it). Fear mongering at its best.

gixerfixer · 02-07-2008 09:16PM

snyper wrote: »

Mmm. Aids.
It wil end naturally in time imo

Like the common cold

studiorat · 02-07-2008 09:22PM

Hellm0 wrote: »

Yet another example of a seemingly noble cause being hijacked by the worst kind of Trolls(Christians, politicians, Media sensationalists, "Population control" advocates and general ponces).

Aids was and never has been a major concern for westerners who dont indulge in societies "high risk" activities(though even then quite a low chance of contracting it). Fear mongering at its best.

Funny that. 'Cause the only person I ever knew who contracted HIV and then Aids then died was a hetro male in a steady relationship who happened to be a haemophiliac. That was the 80's though...

Hellm0 · 02-07-2008 09:35PM

studiorat wrote: »

Funny that. 'Cause the only person I ever knew who contracted HIV and then Aids then died was a hetro male in a steady relationship who happened to be a haemophiliac. That was the 80's though...

Not insinuating that no one has ever died of Aids, I'm sure your friend was a good person and is most likely still sorely missed by those he left behind. My point was that SOME people advocate issues such as "the war against aids" for entirely the wrong reasons, seeing a genuinely horrible disease as an excuse to pressure others into unwittingly accepting their version of the truth and their version of morality.

War on terror anybody? There are terrorists out there who want to kill YOU. Lets kill them first and spread democracy to their greiving families while we're at it!

T.G Catter · 02-07-2008 09:37PM

Cue Peep show Chlamydia episode quote...

"Oh God Jez is it aids ? No Suz, this is not the 80's!!"

projectmayhem · 02-07-2008 09:40PM

joejoem wrote: »

I have a question... Why are men who have sex with men more at risk, I'm trying to think is it because its Anal? If so, is it not as high a risk for a man to catch it off a woman in the case of Anal (or visa versa..)

as was already said, anal is more "high risk" because of the bloodstream etc., but also... gay men having sex are a lot less likely to wear a condom. y'know... because they're not exactly worried about children coming from their activities

EamonnKeane · 02-07-2008 11:13PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Always wondered how it spread so much in africa, is there a higher rate of homosexuality/prostitution there? Would have thought not given the Islamic influence in a lot more countries than elsewhere in the world

Still, I don't know if the 1 bil spent on spreading awareness was a bad idea. rate infected has been going up in ireland

It's because it's socially more acceptable to have many partners at once. Muslim countries have the lowest rates in the world (or so their govts say)

SimpleSam06 · 03-07-2008 08:50AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well condoms were only brought in here the last 20 years or so, circumcision being more common in Africa should reduce the transmission to men also.

Studies indicate that among certain groups in Africa, its common practise to use herbs to dry out the vagina, apparently leading to a more intense sexual experience. This also has the side effect that its much easier to tear the vaginal wall, introducing infected fluids directly to the bloodstream. As for the utter nonsense of circumcision being any protection againt aids, that primitive barbaric tradition has no bearing on infection rates.

joejoem wrote: »

I have a question... Why are men who have sex with men more at risk, I'm trying to think is it because its Anal?

Blood is the best vector for disease transmission, and unprotected anal sex stands a greater chance of tearing the rectum, putting fluids into direct contact with the bloodstream. Simple as.

seamus · 03-07-2008 09:36AM

The HIV "scares" were an attempt by the Catholic Church to scare young people into remaining abstinent until marriage and to try convince people to stay clear of homosexuality.

Of course, being an institution of socially maladjusted celibates, the RC Church completely didn't understand the issues and made a complete balls of it.

Now they're doing the same in Africa by telling people to remain abstinent and not use condoms. They seem to think that they can somehow override one of our primary instincts and scare/guilt people into not having sex.

tallaght01 · 03-07-2008 09:38AM

The fundamental peoblem here is that.....the author of the article is a pillock.

He's twisted the words of the WHO. The WHO said that there's not a huge threat of a heterosexual AIDS pandemic now. This is probably true. But it doesn't mean that the public health schemes of the last 20 odd years have been a waste of money. It means they have worked.

It's really arrogant of the journalist to assume that because HIV/AIDS rates in the UK are relatively low, that it's not a problem. There are about 50 million people affected worldwide, and most of them don't have access to treatment.
Add to this the numbers of resultant AIDS orphans, who are then subsequantly at higher risk of catching the disease because of the resultant poverty.

When i worked in africa, 70% of our patients locally were HIV positive. Most of them will have died within 10 years.

HIV is still an ENORMOUS problem. It's one of the biggest health problems facing the planet.

To say that UNAIDS wastes money because they've spent huge amounts on "awareness" is bizarre. Lack of education is one of the biggest risk factors for HIV. So is poverty, gender inequality, social inequality and the presence of other STDs. That is why the UK has lower rates. If anything UNAIDS need to spend more money on awareness. The lack of knowledge about AIDS amongst a lot of people in developing coutries really shocked me.

I've re-read that article and I still don't know what point the author is making. HIV is wiping out the most productive and economically active age groups in poorer countries that really need their young to be working, and he seems to think that we're "scaremongering" about HIV.

He seems to think that there was never going to be a problem in the UK. He obviously wasn't in london in the 80s. He obviously wasn't in Dublin or new York in the 80s.

If anyone could tell me what point he's actually making, I'd be very grateful

Gone West · 03-07-2008 09:51AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well condoms were only brought in here the last 20 years or so, circumcision being more common in Africa should reduce the transmission to men also.

Perhaps there's a physiological reason, differing shapes/sizes of genitals perhaps/

Actually, its the fact that people with AIDS don't use condoms and have lots of kids. They have kids as a sort of old age pension. The more children you have, the better chance that someone will look after you in your old age. This phenomenon has been documented.

They don't use condoms because of a hash up of selfishness regarding their own old age, the church, price, and lack of education.

tallaght01 · 03-07-2008 09:54AM

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

Actually, its the fact that people with AIDS don't use condoms and have lots of kids. They have kids as a sort of old age pension. The more children you have, the better chance that someone will look after you in your old age. This phenomenon has been documented.

They don't use condoms because of a hash up of selfishness regarding their own old age, the church, price, and lack of education.

Substitute "fact" with gross generalisation.

Lack of condoms is also very much to do with gender inequality.

AIDS "epidemic"

Comments