Manto's Medicine and the AIDS Problem

A

Arbiter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Location
In the Mind Field
This is about AIDS in South Africa. And venerating Manto.

Still here? Anyone? Did not think so.

We'll start off with Manto. The fact that I think she was a bit of an idiota is probably a good place to start.

However...

Manto! Tshabalalalalalalala!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manto_Tshabalala-Msimang

Along with Dear Thabo, Manto advocated using garlic as a cure for AIDS.

Something the pharmaceutical would not like much. And, admittedly, something that sounds more than a bit hair brained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic

However, garlic is good for you. It's good for your immune system and, according to wiki...

Garlic cloves are used as a remedy for infections (especially chest problems), digestive disorders, and fungal infections such as thrush.[37][38]

Garlic has been used reasonably successfully in AIDS patients to treat cryptosporidium in an uncontrolled study in China.[39] It has also been used by at least one AIDS patient to treat toxoplasmosis, another protozoal disease.[40]
Click to expand...

It certainly is a bit of a wunderkind of natural remedies. And it definitely can't hurt to dish it out en masse to AIDS suffers, along with some oranges which contain immunity-boosting Vitamin C.

However, most of all, it's cheap as chips. Which brings me to the AIDS problem we face in South Africa.

AIDS in South Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa

We love AIDS in South Africa. Hell, only that can explain why more than 12%, or over 6 million, of us have it.

It is our poster boy, it gets us lots of pity from the developed West and lots of aid from the same crooks who like indebted Africa.

It also happens to be an incurable problem. Not just the disease itself, but the financial impact of treating it. If we try and fix it, it will sink us.

And here's why...

The Money

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15655257/

According to this article, the average American diagnosed with AIDS lives 24 years.

It will cost that average American $ 600 000 over 24 years, or more than $ 25000 per year to live that long.

(Perhaps this is because Glaxo owns the patents to AIDS medication; or at least did until 2006. What happens now will be this: New research is finding the old, royalty-free AIDS meds to be dangerous and immunosuppressant over the long run. New, "safe", patented AIDS drugs will be available and the old AIDS drugs will vanish like DDT or other, royalty-free products. The old drugs will no longer be sold off to Africa, because they are too "dangerous". This newsflash brought to you by Glaxo)

Back to business: let's, for interest's sake, use all the above financial and population figures and dance around South Africa's GDP. Using American figures are probably not totally accurate, but they provide a decent view.

South Africa has a GDP of around $ 277 billion. That's what the economy produces in a year.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

On the one hand, we have 6 million people living with AIDS. On the other hand, we have AIDS treatment that costs around $ 25000 per year.

Let me do a simple calculation.

6 million X $ 25000 = $ 150 000 000 000.

That's $ 150 billion per year.

Garlic's looking pretty cheap now, isn't it?

Maybe Manto was an idiot. But maybe she knew there was no way in hell, what with our corrupt, siphoning government, that all those with AIDS would receive treatment. And garlic is better than nothing.

This basically means that if we exclude the in-all-probability higher costs of AIDS medication in South Africa, because everything is more expensive here, it will cost 55% of the GDP to treat everyone with AIDS in South Africa.

It will cost the government more than half of the entire country's GDP, just to keep weak people with AIDS, alive.

:wtf:

:wtf::wtf:

Viva La Conclusion

We have a country where a lot of people have AIDS.

There are only 2 solutions to this problem.

1. Nationalize all AIDS research on a global scale

Have the mighty wealthy West prove their generosity and altruism by providing the necessary funds for the research, perfecting the process and mass producing AIDS medicine to the point that it becomes as cheap as aspirin.

All poor countries suffering from AIDS should be allowed a free supply of the medication until their economies are strong enough to handle the financial burden on their own. Which our country is not yet.

This is highly unlikely since the West loves African debt.

2. Find a sustainable way to manage AIDS

Spread out the townships and squatter camps so that the population density of those areas is lowered. Bring up general healthcare, hygiene and sanitation to higher levels. Improve the health of the poor people by spending more money on establishing a healthy diet for them, a core element in fighting AIDS. Drop the minister cars, destroy minimum wage, create more jobs and connect government handouts to employed performance, all in the name of trying to stop people from lying around ****ing all day long. And help them better themselves.

ARVs might work, but they do a lot of harm to people with bad general health and they are far too expensive to reach even a miniscule amount of those affected in this country.

Both of these plans sound a bit crazy. Like putting a metal bird in the sky and hoping it will stay there.

But the fact of the matter is simple; unless similar, radical plans are made, we will sink. Hundreds of thousands more will die, or the economy will crumble completely.

Either financially, or socially, this country might just collapse even more.
 
Arbiter said:
Along with Dear Thabo, Manto advocated using garlic as a cure for AIDS.

Something the pharmaceutical would not like much. And, admittedly, something that sounds more than a bit hair brained.
Click to expand...

Actually, neither Manto or Thabo ever claimed that garlic (or beetroot, or african potatoe) could cure AIDS. :confused:
 
Another good read...

AIDS denialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism

"The former South African health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang also attracted heavy criticism, as she often promoted nutritional remedies such as garlic, lemons, beetroot and olive oil, to people suffering from AIDS, while emphasizing possible toxicities of antiretroviral drugs, which she has referred to as 'poison'."
 
Arbiter said:
This is about AIDS in South Africa. And venerating Manto.

Still here? Anyone? Did not think so.

We'll start off with Manto. The fact that I think she was a bit of an idiota is probably a good place to start.

However...

Manto! Tshabalalalalalalala!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manto_Tshabalala-Msimang

Along with Dear Thabo, Manto advocated using garlic as a cure for AIDS.

Something the pharmaceutical would not like much. And, admittedly, something that sounds more than a bit hair brained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic

However, garlic is good for you. It's good for your immune system and, according to wiki...



It certainly is a bit of a wunderkind of natural remedies. And it definitely can't hurt to dish it out en masse to AIDS suffers, along with some oranges which contain immunity-boosting Vitamin C.

However, most of all, it's cheap as chips. Which brings me to the AIDS problem we face in South Africa.

AIDS in South Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa

We love AIDS in South Africa. Hell, only that can explain why more than 12%, or over 6 million, of us have it.

It is our poster boy, it gets us lots of pity from the developed West and lots of aid from the same crooks who like indebted Africa.

It also happens to be an incurable problem. Not just the disease itself, but the financial impact of treating it. If we try and fix it, it will sink us.

And here's why...

The Money

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15655257/

According to this article, the average American diagnosed with AIDS lives 24 years.

It will cost that average American $ 600 000 over 24 years, or more than $ 25000 per year to live that long.

(Perhaps this is because Glaxo owns the patents to AIDS medication; or at least did until 2006. What happens now will be this: New research is finding the old, royalty-free AIDS meds to be dangerous and immunosuppressant over the long run. New, "safe", patented AIDS drugs will be available and the old AIDS drugs will vanish like DDT or other, royalty-free products. The old drugs will no longer be sold off to Africa, because they are too "dangerous". This newsflash brought to you by Glaxo)

Back to business: let's, for interest's sake, use all the above financial and population figures and dance around South Africa's GDP. Using American figures are probably not totally accurate, but they provide a decent view.

South Africa has a GDP of around $ 277 billion. That's what the economy produces in a year.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

On the one hand, we have 6 million people living with AIDS. On the other hand, we have AIDS treatment that costs around $ 25000 per year.

Let me do a simple calculation.

6 million X $ 25000 = $ 150 000 000 000.

That's $ 150 billion per year.

Garlic's looking pretty cheap now, isn't it?

Maybe Manto was an idiot. But maybe she knew there was no way in hell, what with our corrupt, siphoning government, that all those with AIDS would receive treatment. And garlic is better than nothing.

This basically means that if we exclude the in-all-probability higher costs of AIDS medication in South Africa, because everything is more expensive here, it will cost 55% of the GDP to treat everyone with AIDS in South Africa.

It will cost the government more than half of the entire country's GDP, just to keep weak people with AIDS, alive.

:wtf:

:wtf::wtf:

Viva La Conclusion

We have a country where a lot of people have AIDS.

There are only 2 solutions to this problem.

1. Nationalize all AIDS research on a global scale

Have the mighty wealthy West prove their generosity and altruism by providing the necessary funds for the research, perfecting the process and mass producing AIDS medicine to the point that it becomes as cheap as aspirin.

All poor countries suffering from AIDS should be allowed a free supply of the medication until their economies are strong enough to handle the financial burden on their own. Which our country is not yet.

This is highly unlikely since the West loves African debt.

2. Find a sustainable way to manage AIDS

Spread out the townships and squatter camps so that the population density of those areas is lowered. Bring up general healthcare, hygiene and sanitation to higher levels. Improve the health of the poor people by spending more money on establishing a healthy diet for them, a core element in fighting AIDS. Drop the minister cars, destroy minimum wage, create more jobs and connect government handouts to employed performance, all in the name of trying to stop people from lying around ****ing all day long. And help them better themselves.

ARVs might work, but they do a lot of harm to people with bad general health and they are far too expensive to reach even a miniscule amount of those affected in this country.

Both of these plans sound a bit crazy. Like putting a metal bird in the sky and hoping it will stay there.

But the fact of the matter is simple; unless similar, radical plans are made, we will sink. Hundreds of thousands more will die, or the economy will crumble completely.

Either financially, or socially, this country might just collapse even more.
Click to expand...

Ah , good post. You have some facts wrong but I like that you aimed to actually fix a problem, not just moan about it. It's like your agenda to debate the issue wasn't as simple as "Let's find obscure ways to vent our prejudice via things like crime and aids.." but rather to approach the thing pragmatically, which is a start.

Firstly there can be little doubt that HIv numbers are grossly exageratted to push it's agenda. Your figures at least weren't the usual 1 in 3 drivel. Secondly no one ever said garlic and beetroot can cures aids , but rather the extremely simple, true good advice was offered " Everyone should eat a diverse diet including such things high in vitamins and natural antibiotic to boost your immune system." How the imaginations ran to turn that in "Garlic can cure Aids" is beyond me. It's especially insulting that the dead woman has been labelled a kind of monster for simply saying something we all obviously know to be true. What bugs me is the readiness and tendency for the media here to be so cynical and hyperbolic. But actually she's not hero of mine and I was chuffed when she was booted from the post , if only to shut the people up whose version South Africa was "Our health minister thinks garlic can cure Aids." Pathetic.

Oh and she hundreds and hundreds of times clarified her position on this. But people preferred the "garlic can cure Aids" version and never listened. It better suited their stereotypical prejudices against of how a black health minister should behave. What's wrong with people when they want to believe things are worse than they are ?
 
Le^stat said:
Another good read...

AIDS denialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism

"The former South African health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang also attracted heavy criticism, as she often promoted nutritional remedies such as garlic, lemons, beetroot and olive oil, to people suffering from AIDS, while emphasizing possible toxicities of antiretroviral drugs, which she has referred to as 'poison'."
Click to expand...

All the above things naturally boost the immune system and she never claimed they could cure aids. Let's put that myth to death.

ARV's are very toxic. They were initially designed as a type of chemo therapy. Giving ARV's to people with a poor diet and a low immune system will likely kill faster than cure.

Not as black and white as you think is it ?
 
Where is the "AIDS denialism" in promoting foods that help your immune system? That's merely rational and prudent. But I guess those two things don't fit in most people's scope.

Besides, my post was more on the financial and social problems facing us if we are to attempt to treat everyone who has AIDS.

Simply put, ARVs for 25% of AIDS sufferers, at an ungodly cost to the economy, both short term and long term, is a far worse solution than improving the general health of all AIDS sufferers as well as the health of their immediate environment, by implementing basic economic reforms, which will increase their quality of life in the future a lot more than any other contemporary plan.

Essentially, it's a problem with a solution right in front of us. But, because most people couldn't really be bothered, it's contained behind a thick sheet of armoured glass.
 
Arbiter said:
1. Nationalize all AIDS research on a global scale

Have the mighty wealthy West prove their generosity and altruism by providing the necessary funds for the research, perfecting the process and mass producing AIDS medicine to the point that it becomes as cheap as aspirin.
Click to expand...

The West funds much of HIV treatment in Sub-Saharan Africa anyway.
Google PEPFAR.
Google UNAIDS.
Google USAID.
Google IAVI.
Google for EU AID for AIDS research and treatment.

HIV meds are provided for less than they're provided to 1st world patients.
The first free pts to be treated for HIV in South Africa were drug trial patients, many of whom are still alive.

Drug companies are also giving many super expensive meds for free,
http://www.diflucanpartnership.org/
It is free for State pts in SA with HIV because the State gets it for free.
On medical aid I think it's R3000-5000 per course.


All poor countries suffering from AIDS should be allowed a free supply of the medication until their economies are strong enough to handle the financial burden on their own. Which our country is not yet.
Click to expand...

They get lots of aid already. Why should the West owe them anything?

This is highly unlikely since the West loves African debt.
Click to expand...

BS. It is Africa which is the constant beggar.
2. Find a sustainable way to manage AIDS
Click to expand...

Find a way to prevent it.

Stop multiple concurrent sexual partnerships. How? Well we're not addressing that at the moment. This is a hot potato topic.

ARVs might work, but they do a lot of harm to people with bad general health and they are far too expensive to reach even a miniscule amount of those affected in this country.
Click to expand...

ARVs DO work. They are less harmful than HIV. Now many of the effects of HIV ARV are being prescribed to HIV itself.


But the fact of the matter is simple; unless similar, radical plans are made, we will sink. Hundreds of thousands more will die, or the economy will crumble completely.
Click to expand...

This is West's problem because....?

Africa needs to start to deal with this.
 
With respect….The information supplied from her department with regard to HIV and AIDS made this country the laughingstock of the International community. Africa is not the only continent suffering from the aids epidemic and to shunt aside the medical opinions of internationally recognized doctors was very silly… No Manto may have not directly said: “Beetroot etc will cure aids”, but she certainly gave the impression to the people living with aids/hiv that it would improve their quality of life.
So it’s the truth with a subtle hint of false advertizing : P
 
Arbiter said:
Where is the "AIDS denialism" in promoting foods that help your immune system? That's merely rational and prudent. But I guess those two things don't fit in most people's scope.

Besides, my post was more on the financial and social problems facing us if we are to attempt to treat everyone who has AIDS.

Simply put, ARVs for 25% of AIDS sufferers, at an ungodly cost to the economy, both short term and long term, is a far worse solution than improving the general health of all AIDS sufferers as well as the health of their immediate environment, by implementing basic economic reforms, which will increase their quality of life in the future a lot more than any other contemporary plan.

Essentially, it's a problem with a solution right in front of us. But, because most people couldn't really be bothered, it's contained behind a thick sheet of armoured glass.
Click to expand...

The highest figure I've seen by some credible agency that didn't seem like a total thumbsuck was 15%. Some of the way they come up with these stats is laughable. In some they tested only pregnant women (sexually active young women) in rural areas and then simply took that percentage and said it was universal in the country which is total bull because men are half as likely to get it than women and of course not everyone is sexually active etc.

Anyway whatever the number is here are some more elephants in the room.

You see it's just not that easy to get AIDS from sex.. In fact it's very hard especially if you're straight (read the article.)

It's much much much easier to get herpes for example and yet the types of numbers WHO and UNAIDS means that more people here have aids than herpes. What's going on ? Are they exageratting it ? Or is there another way African's are getting hiv other than sex ? Some kind of third force ? Or perhaps the problem is that people with low immune systems are more likely to get hiv. Or perhaps hiv isn't the cause of the illness at all , rather living conditions and low immune systems then added to the stressful knowledge that you've been told you're going to die (stress has a massive effect on the immune system) do we give such people these toxic ARV drugs ?

Now you see what I did there ? I found a problem with the hiv= aids argument without deny it. I'm just saying if South Africans have more hiv than everyone one else (debatable) and Sex alone can not account for it (it surely can't) then what is going on ? Can someone smarter than me please explain it because I can only see 1 of 3 solutions.

a) Aids is grossly exagerrated. If so why ?
or

b) Hiv causes Aids , 1 in x(4,5,6 ?) South Africans have it. They just all met the requirments of having 1000 seperate heterosexual sexual exposure to it. How do you explain this much sex going on ?

or

c) There's a third force at play. If so ..what ?

This is what the A.N.C were asking. I don't think it's a stupid question.

Edit. I was lazy and didn't feel like sifting through pages and pages.The article I linked to was the first I googled. Most studies show you need at least 1000 sexual exposures to someone with hiv to stand a 50% chance of getting it. For a woman it's half that. The article seems to be talking from a woman's perspective and offers slighly different stats but ones that still make the point effeciently.
 
Last edited:
Therooster said:
The highest figure I've seen by some credible agency that didn't seem like a total thumbsuck was 15%. Some of the way they come up with these stats is laughable. In some they tested only pregnant women (sexually active young women) in rural areas and then simply took that percentage and said it was universal in the country which is total bull because men are half as likely to get it than women and of course not everyone is sexually active etc.

Anyway whatever the number is here are some more elephants in the room.

You see it's just not that easy to get AIDS from sex.. In fact it's very hard especially if you're straight (read the article.)
Click to expand...

HIV is not very infectious for heterosexual sex for the males, especially circumcised ones. The problem is that HIV is very infectious when the viral load (amount of HIV in the blood) is very high. This happens early after infection - around the seroconversion period and again late in the disease.

The problem in Sub-Saharan Africa lies in that because of culture, multiple, concurrent, sex partners are quite accepted and this is what drives the epidemic. HIV is very infectious because when a person becomes infected he is himself very infectious, he has concurrent partners and in a period of a few months infects those, they in turn have other concurrent partners and the disease load multiplies. This is different to multiple non-concurrent sex partners. If you only have one girlfriend, have sex with her for a year then dump her then move to another one without going back to the first, your risk of infection becomes significantly lower.
It's much much much easier to get herpes for example and yet the types of numbers WHO and UNAIDS means that more people here have aids than herpes. What's going on ? Are they exageratting it ? Or is there another way African's are getting hiv other than sex ? Some kind of third force ? Or perhaps the problem is that people with low immune systems are more likely to get hiv. Or perhaps hiv isn't the cause of the illness at all , rather living conditions and low immune systems then added to the stressful knowledge that you've been told you're going to die (stress has a massive effect on the immune system) do we give such people these toxic ARV drugs ?
Click to expand...

You don't know enough about the subject to make these conclusions. You speak as a total clueless n00b.

Now you see what I did there ? I found a problem with the hiv= aids argument without deny it. I'm just saying if South Africans have more hiv than everyone one else (debatable) and Sex alone can not account for it (it surely can't) then what is going on ? Can someone smarter than me please explain it because I can only see 1 of 3 solutions.
Click to expand...
\

Southern Africans have more HIV than others because they engage in more multiple concurrent sexual relationships. The rate of veneral disease is higher in Southern Africa - with multiple partners come sexually transmitted diseases plus there is a great stigma to visit the clinic to treat those - not to mention that the clinics themselves offer poor treatment.

a) Aids is grossly exagerrated. If so why ?
or

b) Hiv causes Aids , 1 in x(4,5,6 ?) South Africans have it. They just all met the requirments of having 1000 seperate heterosexual sexual exposure to it. How do you explain this much sex going on ?

or

c) There's a third force at play. If so ..what ?
Click to expand...

HIV stats are hard to come by because there is a stigma associated with the illness, families insist that the diagnosis is not presented on the death certificate.

It is also illegal to force test everyone. Pregnant women get tested to offer them MTCT meds and save the infants from HIV. That's the only source of reliable stats.

This is what the A.N.C were asking. I don't think it's a stupid question.
Click to expand...

It is a stupid question.

Edit. I was lazy and didn't feel like sifting through pages and pages.The article I linked to was the first I googled. Most studies show you need at least 1000 sexual exposures to someone with hiv to stand a 50% chance of getting it. For a woman it's half that. The article seems to be talking from a woman's perspective and offers slighly different stats but ones that still make the point effeciently.
Click to expand...

These studies are old and the impact of multiple partner concurrency is quite a recent finding. With HIGH HIV Viral Loads the risk of HIV infection rises dramatically.

In 77 couples, the woman had been infected with HIV at enrollment, and in 97, the male had been the infected partner. The HIV-positive men and women had a median age of 29 and a median viral load of 12,476 copies per mL. By the end of the study, 27% of infected women and 18% of infected men had transmitted the virus to their partners. Participants reported having intercourse an average of 8.9 times per month; a high level of agreement between partners' reports supports the reliability of this information

The risk of transmission climbed sharply and steadily as viral load increased: Compared with men and women whose viral load was less than 1,700 copies per mL, those with a viral load of 1,700-12,499 copies per mL were 16 times as likely to transmit the virus (rate ratio, 16.1); the rate ratio rose to 27.7 for individuals with a viral load of more than 38,500 copies per mL. An infected individual with genital ulcer disease was at increased risk of transmitting the virus (2.6), but no other STD-related factors were associated with the risk.
Click to expand...

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2715601a.html

The problem in Sub-Saharan Africa is thus - high degree of multiple partner CONCURRENCY, higher than European-studies (you like to quote) HIV viral loads, sexual transmitted illnesses (ulcers, eg Herpes, Chancroid, Chancre),
and reduced circumcision rates in Sub-Saharan Africa. The biggest issue however is the partner concurrency.

I'd like to add that persons on ART in whom the ART (ARV) is effective will have low viral loads. They will not be very infectious.
 
Last edited:
Lots of background about the culture of polygamy and concurrent sexual partnerships in SA:

http://www.onelovesouthernafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mcp_handbook_for_journalists.pdf

... there are other factors too which drive MCP in South Africa. They are:
•Fame – among young women this is the belief that having sex with many in
the community will result in them being known and seen as beautiful and desirable.
•Searching for Mr Right – a belief that sex is important and one needs to have
sex with many in the search for the “right” one who is committed and willing pay
lobola and marry.
•The importance of sex – many men and women believe that sex is important
in life and in love and that people cannot live without it. This translates into a
belief that sex is important to show someone in a relationship that you love
them.
•The need to “preserve” one’s partner – a strong belief among many men
that their life-long partners need to be spared the rigours of sex because they
will need to have them around for a long time, as indicated in the following responses
of male participants:
•“The one who is your offi cial, fi rst woman. You have to preserve her, so that
when you do go to her, you know that you are getting something that no-one
has come close to it – it is yours alone. You keep her preserved.”
•“athi amaXhosa isitya esihle asidleli (a beautiful plate is reserved for later
use). What is meant is that if the woman is your wife, you better look for sex
somewhere and preserve her for later use because you are still going to use
her for the rest of your life. I don’t want to abuse (overuse) her.”
•The need for possessions – driving transactional and intergenerational sex
among all economic groups is a need among mainly girls for money, clothes
and other material possessions which older men or “sugar daddies” can give
them and boys their own age cannot. Where young boys are in sexual relationships
with older women, the rationale remains the same. In most of these
relationships, the young adults conduct parallel “love” relationships.
•Sexual satisfaction – across all groups surveyed there is a belief that sexual
satisfaction is at least as important as sex itself and that MCP is a way of getting
love, as well as sexual satisfaction from different people.
•Lack of communication about sex in steady relationships – while many
women feel they cannot raise sex, new sexual positions, etc. with men for fear
of being accused of having learnt such things from other men and/or cheating,
men believe that they cannot raise such issues with their steady partners,
especially their wives, because they get rebuffed. Among young people, it is
generally accepted that girls do not initiate or talk about sex and that boys need
to be the “aggressors”.
•Inability to control sexual desires – there is a strong belief among men and
women that men were not made to have only one sexual partner and that while
women may be able to control their sexual urges, men are unable to do so.
•Alcohol – the use of alcohol is identifi ed by many participants as a factor
which drives unsafe sexual behaviour, especially at shebeens and parties
where, once one is drunk, one is unable to control what happens to them or
how they relate to others sexually.
•Condom use – there is a general feeling among girls that if they insist on their
boyfriends using condoms they will lose their boyfriends to other girls and be
accused of cheating themselves. There is also a belief that once there is sexual
intimacy in a relationship, there is trust, and therefore no need to use condoms.
There also seems to be a belief that condoms cause great pain for virgins.
Click to expand...
 
Therooster said:
Ah , good post. You have some facts wrong but I like that you aimed to actually fix a problem, not just moan about it. It's like your agenda to debate the issue wasn't as simple as "Let's find obscure ways to vent our prejudice via things like crime and aids.." but rather to approach the thing pragmatically, which is a start.

Firstly there can be little doubt that HIv numbers are grossly exageratted to push it's agenda. Your figures at least weren't the usual 1 in 3 drivel. Secondly no one ever said garlic and beetroot can cures aids , but rather the extremely simple, true good advice was offered " Everyone should eat a diverse diet including such things high in vitamins and natural antibiotic to boost your immune system." How the imaginations ran to turn that in "Garlic can cure Aids" is beyond me. It's especially insulting that the dead woman has been labelled a kind of monster for simply saying something we all obviously know to be true. What bugs me is the readiness and tendency for the media here to be so cynical and hyperbolic. But actually she's not hero of mine and I was chuffed when she was booted from the post , if only to shut the people up whose version South Africa was "Our health minister thinks garlic can cure Aids." Pathetic.

Oh and she hundreds and hundreds of times clarified her position on this. But people preferred the "garlic can cure Aids" version and never listened. It better suited their stereotypical prejudices against of how a black health minister should behave. What's wrong with people when they want to believe things are worse than they are ?
Click to expand...

Of course she also never stated that HIV leads to AIDS, which completely nullified any other good she may have done.
 
EtienneK said:
+1 Thanks.

Good read!
Click to expand...

The danger is that some uneducated or suspicious people may read therooster's drivel blog and his posts here and buy into the Colonial/Corporate/Racist Lies&Deceit Tin Foil hat campaign he punts and behave less responsibly in their sexual relationships and what they preach to their friends and partners. People could actually acquire HIV or give HIV to others if they buy some of the BS HIV-denial apologetics punt. That's dangerous and tragic.
 
Peter, I'm sure you know what's best for us. While I'd hate to imply any "correlation", I'd say this about the "colonial corporates" or whatever you like to call them: as long as they profit, you profit. It is, after all, Dr Peter, is it not?

And, on that topic, who do we "trust"; the doctors or the Merck Manual (or is that the Glaxo one?) that says about AZT: Do not use for prolonged periods of time because it compromises immune system, particularly CD4+?

I'm not saying "don't use ARVs", Peter. But you know as well as anyone that, while helping the body fight AIDS, ARVs are toxic for the healthiest of people. And simply too expensive to reach the masses in a country like South Africa.

Eating well and keeping healthy do not automatically include irresponsible sexual habits.

Of course prevention is the best treatment. But we already have 6 million who won't be helped much by preventative methods. Unless they are to prevent the symptoms of AIDS in a way that can also improve the conditions that tend to cause and worsen AIDS; poor education, poor health and poor sanitary conditions.
 
Arbiter said:
It will cost that average American $ 600 000 over 24 years, or more than $ 25000 per year to live that long.

Back to business: let's, for interest's sake, use all the above financial and population figures and dance around South Africa's GDP. Using American figures are probably not totally accurate, but they provide a decent view.

South Africa has a GDP of around $ 277 billion. That's what the economy produces in a year.

On the one hand, we have 6 million people living with AIDS. On the other hand, we have AIDS treatment that costs around $ 25000 per year.

Let me do a simple calculation.

6 million X $ 25000 = $ 150 000 000 000.

That's $ 150 billion per year.

Garlic's looking pretty cheap now, isn't it?

This basically means that if we exclude the in-all-probability higher costs of AIDS medication in South Africa, because everything is more expensive here, it will cost 55% of the GDP to treat everyone with AIDS in South Africa.
Click to expand...
So the government had a program for handing out anti-bacterial agents, providing healthy food and clear criteria for determining when someone was considered healthy enough to receive the drugs? During this period of AIDS denialism they drastically improved our public health services, so people could easily get free treatment for opportunistic infections? When someone was raped, as soon as the necessary evidence gathering was done they were given a health assessment, then given the drugs if they passed the tests?

What is the actual price being paid for these drugs by countries like South Africa?
 
PeterCH said:
HIV is not very infectious for heterosexual sex for the males, especially circumcised ones.
Click to expand...

A question: are AIDS rates among the Xhosa really 60% lower than among the Zulu? I thought they were pretty much the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X