there are a few excellent studies that
> show that so-called HIV positive folks respond much, much better to
> nutritional strategies-- [snip]
Yes, many of the drugs in question are toxic, and alternative approaches should be tested. However, for *some people*, treatment with some drugs works. Since this is the case, *all people* should be given the *option* to use whatever treatment is available (including access to a decent diet, which is also denied to most South Africans).
>
> The consensus amongst HIV/AIDS
> > activists is:
> >
> > * anti-retrovirals are shown to lower the risk of mother to child
> > transmission of HIV. Thus they should be provided by the government.
>
> of course, there are a growing number of medical scientist who are
> questioning the very notion of retro-virals, any debate about AIDS
> aside...
Sorry, I'm not on your wavelength here - are you saying that growing number of scientists are questioning the existing of retro-virii? That's news to me, and I work in genetics - so I'd be interested in who these scientists are, and where there articles have appeared. (BTW. while I am quite familiar with the problems posed by peer-review, etc. I tend to distrust WWW sites as a source for information - I find it very difficult to get a sense of the honesty of data published on the WWW)
>
> > * various medicines to treat opportunistic infections which AIDS suffers
> > suffer from should be acquired cheaply, however possible (e.g. via deals
> > with pharmacos, or via compulsory licensing) and provided. *NOTE:* even if
> > you don't believe HIV causes AIDS, you should support this. Yet Mbeki, and
> > the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, oppose this, and an ANC
> > spokesperson compared the illegal import of a generic equivalent of the
> > drug fluconazole to 'apartheid era biological warfare'.
>
> again, this only makes sense if you believe that people are suffering
> from AIDS.
Well, the people in question are suffering from a collapsed immune system and opportunistic infections. Whether that is a symptom of AIDS or not is not the issue - they need treatment for those opportunistic infections. Again, why call the effort to provide that option 'biological warfare'.
also, "black" folk both here and in africa have every
> reason to be suspicious of ANY drug coming out of ANY pharmaceutical
> company. the pharmceutical companies are in the business of making
> money, not making people healthier.
I know that all too well. However, one of the ways to make people healthier is to sell a successful product. If anadin headache tablets didn't work for me, I'd not buy them. Also, while I distrust the pharmaco-industrial complex deeply, they do have to go through various certification processes to get drugs on the market. I have a hard time believing that all those processes are corrupt - that would be a conspiracy on a scale I'd find hard to accept
the language employed by msimang
> (and i am no fan of mbeki's politics) may have been a little over the
> top but that said, the world would be a much better place if folks
> heeded or gave studied consideration to "black paranoia" more
> frequently (i know you did not call it that but that's was the subtle
> message behind the media assault on mbeki earlier this year).
BTW. the ANC statement on 'biological warfare' didn't come from Tshabalala-Msimang.
I agree with you to some extent on the "black paranoia" bit, and view the media coverage of the HIV issue to be more than a little bit skewed by the predominantly white owned and run media's willingness to use the veil of 'science' to beat Mbeki on the head (and promote shitheads like Tony Leon of the DA (main white party in South Africa)).
I am not, however, convinced that the "paranoia" on offer is genuine. I saw Mbeki last week at an awards ceremony, and his happy relationship with the doyens of white business is cause for disgust. So, I'm faced with a problem of judgement: am I more sceptical about Mbeki and co.'s honesty, or am I more sceptical about HIV dissidence?
After all, both sides of the coin - the HIV orthodoxy and the HIV dissidents - are part of the same Western scientific complex.
[snip]
>
> > * an honest debate on HIV/AIDS is necessary. This is not possible when the
> > ANC accusses COSATU (the union federation) of being 'infiltrated by TAC'
> > when it criticises Mbeki.
> >
> yes, certainly...
>
> > Mbeki's position is, almost certainly, the result of a combination of
> > single-minded promotion of the GEAR macro-economic policy (a kind of
> > self-imposed SAP designed along with researchers from the World Bank and
> > (white Afrikaner dominated) Stellenbosch university) and an authoritarian
> > disregard for suffering.
>
> again, i am no mbeki fan but i really don't see this. you'll have to
> elaborate.
Mbeki is promoting GEAR, the Growth, Employment And Redistribution policy. This is the ANC's home-baked Structural Adjustment Programme, which demands reduced spending on social services, including health. There are strict budget deficit caps in this policy. A lot of the pre-'does HIV cause AIDS' debate was around these spending caps, and other economic issues.
For instance, the provision of short-courses of retro-virals to stop mother to child transmission of HIV: this was raised, then the Health Dept. said there was no money, then activists showed that the cost of anti-retrovirals was less than the cost of dealing with children with HIV/AIDS in public hospitals - all along, no-one has questioned the HIV / AIDS link. The implication of government policy was becoming clearer every day - as Costa Gazi said, it was clear that the government was weighing up the cost of anti-retrovirals vs. the chance that it could simply ignore children with HIV/AIDS, leaving them to be cared for by relatives. Fingers started pointing towards the GEAR policy...
Then, suddenly, Mbeki conveniently discovered the AIDS dissidents, apparently after browsing the WWW one night. It all sounds a bit suspect.
>
> In the end, the debate on HIV and AIDS has been deployed as a delaying
> tactic in South Africa.
>
> in what sense?
As described above, the AIDS debate in SA was moving from an 'education' perspective to a focus on the need for remedies and treatment from the Health Dept - which would have cost significantly more. The discussion on whether HIV causes AIDS conveniently allowed Mbeki and co. to sidestep or delay the question of the impact of GEAR on the health of SA's people.
Peter -- Peter van Heusden <pvh at egenetics.com> NOTE: I do not speak for my employer, Electric Genetics "Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower." - Karl Marx, 1844 OpenPGP: 1024D/0517502B : DE5B 6EAA 28AC 57F7 58EF 9295 6A26 6A92 0517 502B