Vanity Fair- July 2007: The Africa Issue

but i think we should be taking care of our own before we take care of others. l

they are our own. there is no comparison to a straight up invasion and occupation in Iraq to wanting to help stop world hunger and the spread of aids.

what people in africa need the most are condoms. it's about as
basic as that

I can't believe that anyone would really think it's that basic.

As for AIDS, I don't think toxic AIDS drugs are the answer to poverty-caused diseases. People in Africa are dying of the same things they've been dying from for ages - malnutrition, contaminated water, etc. Except that now it's called AIDS

for the love of god, please explain what you're talking about.

it's pretty basic: stop aids. how? condoms. it's not exactly rocket science.

and again, let's please stop pretending you're not insulting me. it's obvious that you are, and i don't appreciate it.

sweet tea wrote: wait, seriously? what do you think of toxic drugs for people in the US with AIDS?

I think they're a bad idea. Look at the fine print on AIDS drug ads and pamphlets - there's no clinical evidence proving that any of them do what they purport to do. They do, however, have serious and sometimes fatal side effects.

lmboogie wrote: for the love of god, please explain what you're talking about.

AIDS in Africa can be diagnosed on symptoms - fever, diarrhea, weight loss etc. - without an HIV test (which are unreliable anyway). These symptoms are the same ones caused by malnutrition, lack of sanitation, malaria, TB, etc.

americans and europeans are afro centric when it comes to the poor. there is alot more poor people in asia.

it's pretty basic: stop aids. how? condoms. it's not exactly rocket science.

agree, not rocket science. how about we call it social science. i could explain but maybe you'll save me time by picking up the magazine, please.

and again, let's please stop pretending you're not insulting me. it's obvious that you are, and i don't appreciate it.

Will you give me a f-in break? Don't take this shit so personally, I'm not intentionally trying to insult you. Actually, just realized you're the same person I called dramatic in another post. i'm a bit sarcastic, yes, maybe but to think that i'm personally attacking you is a bit weird considering the circumstances.

phew... didn't realize joining a forum was going to be such high maintenance.

laura wrote: [quote=sweet tea]wait, seriously? what do you think of toxic drugs for people in the US with AIDS?

I think they're a bad idea. Look at the fine print on AIDS drug ads and pamphlets - there's no clinical evidence proving that any of them do what they purport to do. They do, however, have serious and sometimes fatal side effects.
The drugs do have serious and sometimes fatal side effects, but you are completely wrong about the clinical evidence proving that any of them do what they purport to do. I graduated from med school in 1998. In the relatively short time I've been a doc, I've seen the impact of these drugs. When I was a medical student, my hospital had an entire ward full of AIDS patients. Now AIDS is mostly an outpatient disease. The life expectancy of a person with AIDS has dramatically increased since the advent of these drugs. If you insist, I can find the studies for you and link them.

You can believe anything you want, but your facts here are just plain wrong.

Carnivore wrote: The drugs do have serious and sometimes fatal side effects, but you are completely wrong about the clinical evidence proving that any of them do what they purport to do. I graduated from med school in 1998. In the relatively short time I've been a doc, I've seen the impact of these drugs. When I was a medical student, my hospital had an entire ward full of AIDS patients. Now AIDS is mostly an outpatient disease. The life expectancy of a person with AIDS has dramatically increased since the advent of these drugs. If you insist, I can find the studies for you and link them.

You can believe anything you want, but your facts here are just plain wrong.

The life expectancy of AIDS patients increased before the use of these drugs. And one huge reason is that the definition of AIDS has been expanded to include those with no symptoms or illness.

But I'm not going to argue the point further, I don't do online debates.

laura wrote: The life expectancy of AIDS patients increased before the use of these drugs. And one huge reason is that the definition of AIDS has been expanded to include those with no symptoms or illness.

But I'm not going to argue the point further, I don't do online debates.

That might make some contribution to it, but definitely does not account for the dramatic decrease in AIDS morbidity and mortality in absolute terms despite the increasing numbers of people infected with HIV. With more people infected, why do you think that the number of people hospitalized with AIDS has gone down? Surely you can see that broadening the definition of AIDS wouldn't account for that. And the change in definition of AIDS to include a threshold for t-cell count in addition to opportunistic infections was a one-time thing, while the decrease in AIDS mortality is a trend that continued long after that change in definition.

Don't worry- I hadn't considered this a debate. I had viewed it as a correction by me, a medical professional, of a gross misstatement of the facts by you.

Brooklyn Potter.

I'm a little confused as to how you came up with Bono being pro-life.
This is from a 1989 Mother Jones interview:
***
U2 doesn't seem to tackle the kind of politics that might truly trouble or alienate their fans. In the film you go on about apartheid and then ask, "Am I bugging you?" just about everyone in the US is opposed to apartheid. Yet you never speak out on issues like abortion, Israel and the Palestinians, the death penalty, AIDS, gay rights. Let's talk about some of those. How do you feel, for instance, about abortion?

I just have my own ideas. I believe that it's a woman's right to choose. Absolutely.
***
This is all I can easily find on the subject, obviously a bit dated. Can you point me to some sort of contradictory statement? There certainly could be one but I can't find it.

What I've found is that lot of liberals can't stand the fact that Bono will talk to the likes of George Bush or Jesse Helms, so I'm not surprised by some of the anti Bono vitriol. This cuts to a real problem in our society, people being unable to talk to those with political differences. Apparently Bono is a bit different in this regard. I guess this upsets liberals too. For all I know it may be disturbing to conservatives as well, but i don't know too many conservatives.

Myself, i like people that can play devil's advocate and Bono seems the type. I'm a huge fan of the man.

steve wrote: Brooklyn Potter.

I'm a little confused as to how you came up with Bono being pro-life.
This is from a 1989 Mother Jones interview:
***
U2 doesn't seem to tackle the kind of politics that might truly trouble or alienate their fans. In the film you go on about apartheid and then ask, "Am I bugging you?" just about everyone in the US is opposed to apartheid. Yet you never speak out on issues like abortion, Israel and the Palestinians, the death penalty, AIDS, gay rights. Let's talk about some of those. How do you feel, for instance, about abortion?

I just have my own ideas. I believe that it's a woman's right to choose. Absolutely.
***
This is all I can easily find on the subject, obviously a bit dated. Can you point me to some sort of contradictory statement? There certainly could be one but I can't find it.

What I've found is that lot of liberals can't stand the fact that Bono will talk to the likes of George Bush or Jesse Helms, so I'm not surprised by some of the anti Bono vitriol. This cuts to a real problem in our society, people being unable to talk to those with political differences. Apparently Bono is a bit different in this regard. I guess this upsets liberals too. For all I know it may be disturbing to conservatives as well, but i don't know too many conservatives.

Myself, i like people that can play devil's advocate and Bono seems the type. I'm a huge fan of the man.

Jesus Christ, Steve, are you in love with Bono or what?

Bono this and Bono that. Why is f-ing Bono popping up all over this forum? Is Bono running for borough president?

MOD NOTE: the above two Bono posts have been reunited with the VF Africa thread.

raw wrote: [quote=steve]Brooklyn Potter.

I'm a little confused as to how you came up with Bono being pro-life.
This is from a 1989 Mother Jones interview:
***
U2 doesn't seem to tackle the kind of politics that might truly trouble or alienate their fans. In the film you go on about apartheid and then ask, "Am I bugging you?" just about everyone in the US is opposed to apartheid. Yet you never speak out on issues like abortion, Israel and the Palestinians, the death penalty, AIDS, gay rights. Let's talk about some of those. How do you feel, for instance, about abortion?

I just have my own ideas. I believe that it's a woman's right to choose. Absolutely.
***
This is all I can easily find on the subject, obviously a bit dated. Can you point me to some sort of contradictory statement? There certainly could be one but I can't find it.

What I've found is that lot of liberals can't stand the fact that Bono will talk to the likes of George Bush or Jesse Helms, so I'm not surprised by some of the anti Bono vitriol. This cuts to a real problem in our society, people being unable to talk to those with political differences. Apparently Bono is a bit different in this regard. I guess this upsets liberals too. For all I know it may be disturbing to conservatives as well, but i don't know too many conservatives.

Myself, i like people that can play devil's advocate and Bono seems the type. I'm a huge fan of the man.

Jesus Christ, Steve, are you in love with Bono or what?

Bono this and Bono that. Why is f-ing Bono popping up all over this forum? Is Bono running for borough president?

MOD NOTE: the above two Bono posts have been reunited with the VF Africa thread.

A little bit probably. :shock:

steve, i'm not avoiding answering your q., i'm just researching it. i have a bit of a cold/virus thing and not running at full speed.

Is this thread tongue-in-cheek? I honestly hope so, because my jaw is agape at the things being said. It's not only shocking but a bit out of character for this usually PC forum. What's going on?

AIDS drugs don't work? Why would anyone make a claim like this without significant supporting evidence (let alone providing not a shred, which was what happened here)? No AIDS epidemic in Africa? The world is flat?

And Africa's needs? How about political stability, reduced corruption, better access to protected global markets, greater foreign direct investment, democracy, education, infrastructural development, developed legal and financial systems, and yes, better health care.

I mean, I don't expect to see a truly rigorous intellectual debate on international development here in this context, but come on!!

Escap, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing completely with everything you just said.

Carnivore wrote: Escap, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing completely with everything you just said.

scary, isn't it?

I'm still trying to figure out the ethiopia/nelson mandela connection - anyone know?

Escap - Right on to what you wrote and thank you for writing it. i often loose interest when these threads start sounding like i"m living in 1950, West Bubba F, Georgia.

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=Carnivore]Escap, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing completely with everything you just said.

scary, isn't it?


You're welcome guys. Don't worry, I'm sure it won't happen again for a while.

laura wrote:

As for AIDS, I don't think toxic AIDS drugs are the answer to poverty-caused diseases. People in Africa are dying of the same things they've been dying from for ages - malnutrition, contaminated water, etc. Except that now it's called AIDS.

I don't want to jump on you before I understand fully what you are saying. Is your point that people are not dying from AIDS but from other diseases caused by poverty? or that AIDS is caused by poverty?

I don't want to jump on you before I understand fully what you are saying

hasn't stopped you before.

Carnivore wrote: That might make some contribution to it, but definitely does not account for the dramatic decrease in AIDS morbidity and mortality in absolute terms despite the increasing numbers of people infected with HIV. With more people infected, why do you think that the number of people hospitalized with AIDS has gone down?

Because the whole idea of "people infected with HIV" is highly suspect. So-called HIV tests do not detect HIV, but rather antibody reaction to proteins considered to be specific to HIV. However there are many factors – having a cold, the flu, recent vaccinations, herpes, drug use, pregnancy, etc. – which produce false positive results. And not only are the tests highly inaccurate to begin with, but there is no recognized standard for interpreting the results.

“The increasing numbers of people infected with HIV” actually means “the increasing numbers of people taking HIV tests and testing positive”. But the test is not an indicator of AIDS, nor a predictor of mortality. People who have never been exposed to HIV can have consistently positive results from HIV tests.

lmboogie wrote:

I don't want to jump on you before I understand fully what you are saying

hasn't stopped you before.

Actually, it has. I'm pretty consistant in that respect.

escap wrote: Is this thread tongue-in-cheek? I honestly hope so, because my jaw is agape at the things being said. It's not only shocking but a bit out of character for this usually PC forum. What's going on?

AIDS drugs don't work? Why would anyone make a claim like this without significant supporting evidence (let alone providing not a shred, which was what happened here)? No AIDS epidemic in Africa? The world is flat?

By the way, thanks and I love you all too. I also appreciated the "living in 1950, West Bubba F, Georgia" remark.

For those of you who haven't been keeping up, there is a growing body of solid scientific information and expert opinion which questions the assumptions that have been made about AIDS, the accuracy of tests, and the efficacy of drug treatments. There's a wealth of information online for those who have open minds. You might want to start here: http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Main_Page

Then again, why bother. I'm sure Carnivore and Dr. J will tell you that AIDS dissidents are dangerously misinformed loonies who must be silenced.

I also recommend this film: The Other Side of AIDS

For a scintillating read on why evolution is a myth and we should be teaching creationism, I recommend this link:

www.insertidioticpropogandalinkhere.com

That is, for those who can appreciate "alternative" points of view and aren't brainwashed by the mainstream media.

:roll: :roll:

How nice to have a place where one can express an alternative viewpoint and not be slammed or ridiculed. You guys are swell.

Thanks for finally giving me a good reason to quit this board.

laura wrote: How nice to have a place where one can express an alternative viewpoint and not be slammed or ridiculed. You guys are swell.

Thanks for finally giving me a good reason to quit this board.

oh, for heaven's sake. i can't imagine you're surprised that everyone didn't agree with you, so what's the outrage? you've been around long enough to know that escap is a prickly bastard (no offense, escap; i have a feeling you won't mind the characterization); that's whence the joking about finally agreeing with him on something.

the georgia remark rankled me, too, but for rather the opposite reason, i've a feeling.

by the way, the phrase "for those of you who haven't been keeping up" was a little dismissive of those of us who do work dealing with HIV, including lil ol' me, in my peripheral way.

sweet tea wrote: [quote=laura]How nice to have a place where one can express an alternative viewpoint and not be slammed or ridiculed. You guys are swell.

Thanks for finally giving me a good reason to quit this board.

oh, for heaven's sake. i can't imagine you're surprised that everyone didn't agree with you, so what's the outrage? you've been around long enough to know that escap is a prickly bastard (no offense, escap; i have a feeling you won't mind the characterization); that's whence the joking about finally agreeing with him on something.

the georgia remark rankled me, too, but for rather the opposite reason, i've a feeling.

by the way, the phrase "for those of you who haven't been keeping up" was a little dismissive of those of us who do work dealing with HIV, including lil ol' me, in my peripheral way.
I didn't expect agreement, but being ridiculed doesn't sit too well with me. I've been around here long enough that I would have thought people would know I'm not some idiot 1950s throwback, and my "keeping up" remark was directed at those who jumped on that bandwagon because they'd apparently not heard anyone raise the issues on AIDS before.

My quitting remark no doubt seems overdramatic but actually, I really don't think I have anything in common with people around here so I don't much see the point of continuing.

Laura - really don't think you should quit over this. i guess i just don't understand why you're so upset. then again i don't understand why anyone would get upset at anything written on this thing. do you all know each other personally? that's a real question, not being sarcastic.

what i'm starting to find most annoying on this board is that now i have to be careful not hurt someone's feelings. i don't know this is just wierd to me. so... can we go on discussing HIV Aids or is the topic off the table cuz you're quitting?

the georgia remark rankled me

I'm not some idiot 1950s throwback

ok, let me clarify.

Laura's initial comments on this topic reminded me of the South African Health Minister who recently claimed there wasn't an AIDS epidemic and africans should eat garlic, lemon and herbs to get better.

so maybe West Bubba Fuck Georgia is not what I should have written. I shoudl have written... feels like I'm in Africa in 2007.