... wasn't it consensus among scientists? One of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the last 30 years: The AIDS scare.
Actually, the article gets neither the medical facts nor the social history correct. The problem is that someone in the WHO has made a statement: now that statement is being leapt upon and repeated, especially by those with various social and political agendas. The medical fact remains that AIDS is already epidemic. It's not at all time to say, "Whew, it was no big deal." They didn't eliminate smallpox by downplaying it, either.
Considering that, according to the CDC, the population with the highest new infection rate for HIV is heterosexual teenagers, I think the WHO has really missed the boat, and done a disservice.
That's very interesting, Art. This is at least the second piece I've seen making this point (I got the link off Arts & Letters Daily). As someone who has lost friends to AIDS - including a very dear one - I certainly would hope that the information that is disseminated is the correct information.
I've read all the relevant articles, including the one that has so excocised the Guardian blog man to whom you link.
Essentially, people don't get AIDS if they follow the preventative strategies that we all know so well. Nobody has got the science wrong (and I don't think this is in dispute).
Predicting the spread of epidemics is hard because it depends on human behaviour. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, in some African countries, human behaviour does lead to AIDS infection -- there are many tragic victims. However, if you look at Uganda, this is a good case history of what can be done to contain and reduce an epidemic caused by a known vector.
As Art says, so long as people know not to perform behaviours that may lead to AIDS, that is the main thing. Unfortunately, in some African countries, there are innocent victims, mainly women, because of ignorant beliefs.
The Guardian man is quite umimpressive. I think his article is more important to him than the problem and tragedy of AIDS.
Maxine, I agree. I felt very much as if there was some sort of other agenda behind the Guardian article, then mere reporting. It's not impossible to believe, unfortunately. One wonders also if there was some non-medical agenda behind the WHO statement, too.
The African situation is going to remain the same, probably, because of various problems regarding education, availability of condoms and treatments, and even social conditions that mitigate against people doing what they can. It's also hard to teach sex ed to people who are just struggling to merely survive. Some of the high-level AIDS zones do overlap with warfare zones, and similar problems, unfortunately. The international population planning information about all this rather disagrees with the WHO assessment, to be honest, from what I've read about it.
Actually, the article gets neither the medical facts nor the social history correct. The problem is that someone in the WHO has made a statement: now that statement is being leapt upon and repeated, especially by those with various social and political agendas. The medical fact remains that AIDS is already epidemic. It's not at all time to say, "Whew, it was no big deal." They didn't eliminate smallpox by downplaying it, either.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that, according to the CDC, the population with the highest new infection rate for HIV is heterosexual teenagers, I think the WHO has really missed the boat, and done a disservice.
That's very interesting, Art. This is at least the second piece I've seen making this point (I got the link off Arts & Letters Daily). As someone who has lost friends to AIDS - including a very dear one - I certainly would hope that the information that is disseminated is the correct information.
ReplyDeleteI've read all the relevant articles, including the one that has so excocised the Guardian blog man to whom you link.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, people don't get AIDS if they follow the preventative strategies that we all know so well. Nobody has got the science wrong (and I don't think this is in dispute).
Predicting the spread of epidemics is hard because it depends on human behaviour. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, in some African countries, human behaviour does lead to AIDS infection -- there are many tragic victims. However, if you look at Uganda, this is a good case history of what can be done to contain and reduce an epidemic caused by a known vector.
As Art says, so long as people know not to perform behaviours that may lead to AIDS, that is the main thing. Unfortunately, in some African countries, there are innocent victims, mainly women, because of ignorant beliefs.
The Guardian man is quite umimpressive. I think his article is more important to him than the problem and tragedy of AIDS.
Maxine, I agree. I felt very much as if there was some sort of other agenda behind the Guardian article, then mere reporting. It's not impossible to believe, unfortunately. One wonders also if there was some non-medical agenda behind the WHO statement, too.
ReplyDeleteThe African situation is going to remain the same, probably, because of various problems regarding education, availability of condoms and treatments, and even social conditions that mitigate against people doing what they can. It's also hard to teach sex ed to people who are just struggling to merely survive. Some of the high-level AIDS zones do overlap with warfare zones, and similar problems, unfortunately. The international population planning information about all this rather disagrees with the WHO assessment, to be honest, from what I've read about it.