Does HIV cause AIDS?

[Pammi 0]

A question, because I'm the first to admit that I'm not as worldly conscious as I should be. Does anyone know if it's true that many South Africans believe that if they have HIV, having sex with a virgin can cure them, which leads to many men having sex with children in an effort to cure themselves? I thought I had read something about that a year or so ago. A very terrible situation all around regardless.

Pam

[Tonto 1]

It's true.

Of course, it's no less true than Olive oil and sweet potato's.

The tragidy is that the physical trauma caused by these rapes almost always results in HIV infection - and with Anti retrovirals not being freely available due to "logistics" problems, dispite a Supreme court order - this results in a needless death.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[meatmissile 0]

Pammi,

I would like to point out that the animals who do this are generally primitive illiterates. This is by no means true for the majority of South Africans who are as horrified by these things as any civilised human being would be.

Some feel that education is needed to solve this problem. Shit, "problem" is too weak a word. While I agree with this to some extent, I also feel that a mandatory death sentence for such an offence (again, the word seems too weak) is needed.

--
ZZZzzzz....

[Guest]

All I have to say is this--

"Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah
Ding-dang
Walla-walla bing-bang."



mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Pammi 0]

How does anyone turn this kind of thing around? Education is a start I'm sure, but some people either don't want to be educated or don't believe what they are hearing. What else? Is it something, like one of the articles mentioned, that the next generation, who will hopefully have a more enlightened view on things, has to fix? Imagine how many people could die in the meantime, assuming these children don't die themselves! It's so sad.

Pammi

[meatmissile 0]

Pammi, sometimes it seems as if the next generation is going to have even less respect for human life and dignity than the present. All we can do is try our best. I believe that the answer lies in educating the next generation. I believe in removing violence from television altogether. These are isolated incidents, but one would be too many. The acceptable number of such crimes is zero.

For this generation? Stricter laws, more effective prosecution and judgement, and harsher penalties is needed. It just does not seem to be a priority with the government right now. Oh, there's lots of talk, but what do you expect from politicians?

--
ZZZzzzz....

[Skyrad 0]

That was back in 2000. Things have moved on slightly as far as the govenments line goes. Of course they can't come out and say they were totaly wrong but almost. Heres what the official SA Gov line is now

'The eradication from the body of the HIV virus remains beyond reach. The mechanisms of HIV infections remain difficult to fathom, and the downhill plunge of the infected, to severe immune deficiency over the next 2-14 years is ill understood. The co-factors that are thought to mitigate immune destruction of healthy CD4+ cells by the minority of infected CD4+ are still uncharacterised. In the South African context the immune systems is assaulted by a host of factors related to poverty and deprivation.'

Which is true, and is cleaverly worded.


What is more alarming however is the 'legitisation of Sangomas 'Traditional healers' (AKA Witch doctors)
The official line is

'Many people including those living with HIV and AIDS consult traditional health practitioners and use traditional medicine to meet some of their health needs. We will work together with these health practitioners to share experiences in the care of people with AIDS and they will also serve as a critical resource in providing support and assisting patients to adhere to treatment regimen.'

To call them 'Health practitioners' is nothing short of an insult to Health Practitioners, and is a disturbing indicator of how scewed the SA Gov's health policy still is.

Having worked in SA hospitals (Joburg Gen, Baragwanth SOWETO & Far East Rand) I can tell you that the HIV/AIDs rate is far far higher than the governments letting on. In a six week period in the Gen everyone coming through casulty was tested for HIV the result was a 60% infection rate of people tested. Many deaths that occur are put down to Tb, Kaposis Sarcoma and other AIDs related illnesses but not attributed to the underlying cause, ie AIDs. Outside of 'Bara' there is an interesting traffic robot, (Traffic light) The green filter is clear, the Amber one says HIV and the red one says AIDs. Its the most novel form of health promotion I've seen. Unfortunatly it was almost the only HIV/AIDs health education thing I've seen in SA. Though people are trying to get the message through to the masses they are fighting the African culture of multiple partners and numerous children ie: Having unprotected sex with as many women as possible.

Check out

http://www.gov.za/issues/hiv/index.html

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

A year or so ago a South African judge handed out a lesser sentence to a man because the girl he raped was his niece and he kept it in the family. (There was public outcry)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[skreamer 1]

Quote

I can tell you that the HIV/AIDs rate is far far higher than the governments letting on. In a six week period in the Gen everyone coming through casulty was tested for HIV the result was a 60% infection rate of people tested.

I'm not sure that the infection rate in a highly urbanized area like greater Johannesburg is an accurate indicator for the country as a whole. But still, if the nationwide average is 'only' half that then that is still very disturbing indeed.

[Pammi 0]

Quote

A year or so ago a South African judge handed out a lesser sentence to a man because the girl he raped was his niece and he kept it in the family. (There was public outcry)

It's amazing what we don't appreciate until we see what the options are in other parts of the world. People actually doing things that would never even occur to me, yet they are doing them.

[LostOne 0]

I believe that AIDS is spread by f**king around.

It's human nature to f**k around so AIDS is caused by being human.

-----------------------------------------------
Bum's the word!

[winsor 186]

Quote

Nice hijack guys. Over 600 South Africans dying every day from Aids related illness, but I'm glad you people can focus on what is really important - Reagan's reaction in the 80's.

What hijack?

In both cases you have the same reaction.

"Sir, there is a disease afoot which is killing in droves!"

"Okay, so what's the down side?"

For any other disease with the transmissability/fatality characteristics of AIDS, quarantine would be a matter of course. For quite a number of reasons, the freedom to spread the disease is a legally protected right.

You can't have it both ways.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[Taz 0]

Quote

if it's true that many South Africans believe that if they have HIV, having sex with a virgin can cure them

The media has hyped this story, both nationally in SA and internationally. It makes for a good story, but it's not the whole story.

People who rape and abuse children prey on the most vulnerable victims they can find. The rape and abuse of children is widespread regardless of what specific story is given for why people do it. It's something horrible and difficult to accept, and it seems that any explanation is better than none, or accepting the simple fact that in a place where violence is the status quo, children as young as 18 months become casualties.

I take exception to the way the story of 'baby rape' has been used in the media because it portrays South Africans, and Africans in general, as somehow barbarically unique in their beliefs. There is evidence of similar abuses towards children during times of societal stress and disease in every part of the world, at every time in history, including in Europe during the Bubonic plague. That doesn't make it any better, but it also doesn't make it a "South African" belief, or, as is often implied, a black South African belief.

South Africa has an Aids problem primarily because the government is in denial and refuses to actively facilitate both education and the distribution of affordable anti-retroviral treatment to people living with HIV. Imagine what the world would look like right now if SARS had gone unreported, untreated, and unchecked. An epidemic is an epidemic, and just because behavioral factors are involved in the spread of disease does not excuse any government or health official from recognizing it and acting to stop it.

-T

It's the Year of the Dragon.

[Scratch 0]

Quote

For any other disease with the transmissability/fatality characteristics of AIDS, quarantine would be a matter of course. For quite a number of reasons, the freedom to spread the disease is a legally protected right

HIV is not easily transmitted. A certain series of controllable events has to take place.

At the risk of indulging in a personal attack I find your comments about quarantine disgusting.

I have either (hopefully) misread your post.
Or you have not thought it through clearly.
Or maybe you will just be more comfortable living in a Stalinist or Nazi type state.

[Taz 0]

winsor

Quote

For any other disease with the transmissability/fatality characteristics of AIDS, quarantine would be a matter of course. For quite a number of reasons, the freedom to spread the disease is a legally protected right.

You can't have it both ways.

Are you suggesting that the only way to slow the AIDS epidemic is through quarantine? If so, you are sadly misguided. Every disease requires multiple approaches to slow it down. We need to stop prejudice, ignorance, racism, and deliberate dismissal of the huge numbers of human beings killed by AIDS before the disease will be stopped.

Just in case you or anyone else was thinking that this disease is something that only happens to other people and only affects those in South Africa or other "far-away" places, it is now widely acknowledged that the human security implications of HIV/Aids are going to affect everyone, including those in developed countries. With groups like teachers, parents, and police officers rapidly dying from the disease, the gaping hole in the social fabric of developing countries widens the gap between rich and poor, creates easy breeding grounds for conflict, recruitment of combatants, and illegal weapons trafficking, and ensures the perpetuation of global instability.

Wake up.

-T

EDIT to add one good source:

http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/Papers/65/Paper65.html

It's the Year of the Dragon.

[metalslug 31]

Quote

Though people are trying to get the message through to the masses they are fighting the African culture of multiple partners and numerous children ie: Having unprotected sex with as many women as possible.

I'm inclined to agree with Skyrad on this, which makes me wonder why I should feel less apathetic towards those that appear unwilling to help themselves. The sufferers in the above category aren't looking for a prevention to AIDS, they are looking for a cure.. so as to be able to continue with a promiscuous (and fundamentaly unhealthy) lifestyle and simply not suffer from it.
It's a form of Darwinism. The weaker people, whether intellectualy or physicaly, will die.. and this has been nature's way since the dawn of time.

Quote

.....creates easy breeding grounds for conflict, recruitment of combatants, and illegal weapons trafficking, and ensures the perpetuation of global instability.

And if HIV/AIDS were eradicated tomorrow ?
It would fascilitate a breeding ground of... breeding more humans.
Increased longevity, accelerated overpopulation and all the problems that go with that.. until nature is able to spawn the next epidemic to balance itself.

Which is the lesser of the two evils ?

[Erroll 49]

Quote

Every disease requires multiple approaches to slow it down. We need to stop prejudice, ignorance, racism, and deliberate dismissal of the huge numbers of human beings killed by AIDS before the disease will be stopped.

I agree completely. A so-called developing country such as Uganda was able to arrest the spread of Aids through a concerted effort by all parties involved - the state, NGOs, local authorities and the general population. The key to this drive was education, and as the article states : backed up by firm political commitment, including the personal involvement of the head of state, President Yoweri Museveni. .


How can we be expected to educate our populace when our President's personal involvement is to deny that HIV causes Aids and our health Minister's political commitment is to prescribe garlic, onions and oil?

[Scratch 0]

Quote

It's a form of Darwinism. The weaker people, whether intellectualy or physicaly, will die.. and this has been nature's way since the dawn of time.

Just wait until some of these 'weak' people, sick, starving and desperate, come knocking on your door with gun in hand.
They have nothing to lose except their pain and certainly care nothing for you and yours.

A truly intelligent person would be very afraid.

[Taz 0]

Quote

It's a form of Darwinism. The weaker people, whether intellectualy or physicaly, will die.. and this has been nature's way since the dawn of time.

There are many reasons why this statement is clearly grounded in ignorance. Here are my top four.

1. Quoted from the paper I referenced, from an independent research organization, in an above post:

"HIV/AIDS, as one of the infectious diseases to have emerged over the past few decades, is unique in several ways. In contrast to diseases such as Malaria and Tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS does not strike hardest at the young, the weak or the elderly. As Peter Piot, executive director of UNAIDS argues, HIV/AIDS “is devastating the ranks of the most productive members of society with an efficacy history has reserved for great armed conflicts”.

2. Darwinism, from the American Heritage Dictionary: "A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

While often misused to justify everything from ethnic cleansing to apartheid to allowing the spread of AIDS in disadvantaged communities, Darwin intended his theory for use in a specific biological context, that of evolution. The application of Darwin's work in the "social" realm, as you have used it, has long been acknowledged as a cheap manipulation.

3. Taking your definition of Darwinism at face value however, your assertion raises a few other questions: do you believe in modern medicine? Do you believe that you have the right to be treated for a disease that does have a cure? After all, this just causes you to live longer, when you might otherwise have died to make room for the "stronger" of the species. Following this logic through to its conclusion, we would have no prevention or cures for any type of illness, since contracting an illness of any kind would be a sign of weakness. An argument that is both circular and counter-productive.

4. In your argument, you claim the right to "pick and choose" which sufferers are worthy of care and which are not. Ostensibly, those who contract HIV through unprotected sex, and in specific those who have contracted HIV through unprotected sex and are also from an "African culture" are not worthy of care and should be allowed to die, whereas one might assume you would take pity on a child who had been raped. Somewhere on the spectrum between your stereotypes of who has the disease lie the majority of those who are infected: white and black, male and female. Ask yourself this:

There are four people in an airplane that is going to crash, and one parachute that will save someone's life. One is a child going to school, the second is a young woman supporting her entire family financially, the third is a successful businessman, and the fourth is an old man with children and grandchildren. If given the choice, who would you save? (Assuming the person who gets the parachute will use it and live).

Does your opinion change if: the woman is supporting her family through sex work? If the old man is Nelson Mandela or some equally important and revered world figure? If the businessman is in the business of selling nuclear weapons to terrorists? If the child is mentally retarded?

The point is, you never have enough information to judge someone's status or to judge whether they should live or die. By adopting a false Darwinian stance, and leaving it "to nature", you condemn some people to die and allow others access to the medicine, care, and education that would allow them to live. Examine your own prejudices before playing God.

-T

It's the Year of the Dragon.

[Ripple 0]

Well said.

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[metalslug 31]

Granted, I concede I have possibly taken the original Darwinian definition out of its original context.. although I'm very tempted to suggest that a creature's intelligence is "...the natural selection of small, inherited variations..."
If a person chooses to engage in a lifestyle that is hazardous, having being informed as such, and then bitching at the world when harmed, then that is foolish, possibly even stupid.
We dont see many skydivers blaming anyone other than themselves when they hook in and femur themselves.
True, many AIDS sufferers acquired the condition through no fault or negligence of their own and for these people I do have genuine sympathy.. but they are the exception, not the norm.

Granted too; I'm thrilled that medical technology exists to save me from potentialy fatal conditions that I may foolishly inflict on myself in a lifetime, but I very much doubt that I would die feeling bitter towards mankind for not doing enough to save me if existing medical science did not allow for it.

Quote

Examine your own prejudices before playing God.

And do you believe in God, ma'am ?
What if these four passengers were left to fight it out for the parachute ?
Chances are the businessman would win.. and it would be God's will, not so ? ..or does God not play God either ?

--Edited for spelling.

[Scratch 0]

Quote

What if these four passengers were left to fight it out for the parachute ?
Chances are the businessman would win.. and it would be God's will, not so ? ..or does God not play God either ?

Consider this seeing that there are so many references to God's will being made.

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you"

I really hope for your sake that one day one of your family does not contract sexually transmitted AIDS.
Imagine it is your beautiful 16 year old daughter.
THAT will put you in an interesting moral dilemma wouldn't it.

Oh wait... never mind, I can see it from your view point. That one is fucked, little slut. Ship her of to the camps and make another. It is really simple I suppose.

[metalslug 31]

Quote

THAT will put you in an interesting moral dilemma wouldn't it.

Not at all. Assuming she acquired the condition through her own fault or negligence, then she would have failed herself a person, and I would have failed her as a father.. and it will be our fate, our consequence, to deal with it as a family as best we could without crying out at the world to deal with it for us. The responsibilities towards one own family cannot be compared to the reponsibilities towards a global community.

[Scratch 0]

Quote

The responsibilities towards one own family cannot be compared to the reponsibilities towards a global community

Your family lives within the global community.
You cannot separate the one from the other.

Quote

she would have failed herself a person,

No, she would have made a silly mistake with grave consequences. I would hate to have my mistakes define my worth as a person.

[Taz 0]

Quote

We dont see many skydivers blaming anyone other than themselves when they hook in and femur themselves.

How is a poor black person in Africa contracting HIV different from an experienced skydiver hooking in?

Most skydivers have been educated, thoroughly, about the dangers of low turns. They have all undergone a course of study that they were able to pay for, in order to be cleared for jumping and landing a canopy. Most poor black Africans have little to no education about sex, its dangers, or how to make it safer. If they did, hypothetically, have this education, you assume they have access to affordable and quality contraception, i.e. methods of prevention, i.e. condoms, and in the case of most women, bargaining power in their relationships. This is just not true.

In many places it's not true because people who give this kind of education are denied funding and access. Why? Because the United States goverment/USAID is currently staffed by people who think contraception and sex education is somehow morally wrong. They block funding at the United Nations for the exact kind of prevention that could empower people to save their own lives.

Again, your formulation of HIV positive people is simplistic, and that is the biggest problem I have with your arguments:

Quote

a person chooses to engage in a lifestyle that is hazardous, having being informed as such, and then bitching at the world when harmed,

vs.

Quote

many AIDS sufferers acquired the condition through no fault or negligence of their own and for these people I do have genuine sympathy

It's more complicated than this. Women, a particularly at-risk group, do not have enormous power over their reproductive and sexual lives in most parts of the world. Does that mean they don't want to have sex? No. But it means they may not be able to negotiate condom use, or abstinence, or HIV testing, in a relationship whether it is casual or within a marriage. If they still willingly have sex with a partner, and contract HIV/Aids, which category do they fall into?

In answer to your other question, my belief in God is irrelevant here. What I do believe is that we do not exist in isolation from each other. I believe that it is both naive and disastrous to assume that HIV/Aids is "someone else's problem" that will never affect me. I believe that I have no right to judge those who are HIV positive. Dispensing life-saving drugs, education, and prevention measures to some populations and not to others as a matter of principle is judgment of the most prejudicial kind.

Throughout history, in times of upheaval there have been people who create stigma and blame to isolate minorities and those who suffer from both biological and social illnesses (like poverty). Those people are always proven wrong with the clarity of hindsight. William Sloane Coffin, civil rights and antiwar activist, in his most recent book defines hell as ''truth seen too late.''

-T

It's the Year of the Dragon.