fayfreethinkers.com

I wrote a research paper on the titled subject sometime back when I was in high school, but unfortunately I no longer have that paper anywhere. But I've always wanted to revisit this subject and this forum is as good as any, especially for more potentially controversial issues.

My argument is basically:

-AIDS in Africa is diagnosed (and statistically extrapolated) much differently than AIDS cases in the USA. One major difference is the lack of a positive HIV test. In the US, one must have a positive HIV test and at least one of about two dozen other ailments to be properly classified as having AIDS, whereas in Africa, according to the so-called Bangui definition (1985, revised slightly in 1994, I think), one could have 10% weight loss and a fever to be diagnosed with AIDS. News media rarely distinguish this fact as they conveniently lump African AIDS with USA AIDS. Makes for a more sensational story, I suppose. There have been many efforts by well-meaning people for some time to make African AIDS appear more predictive of what's to come to the USA, make it seem more democratic in whom in afflicts, but the statistics have never been there to back this hope up.

-My gut instinct here was that this is a major reclassification of traditional epidemics that have plagued war-torn, politically corrupt, and economically unstable countries in Africa for centuries. Perhaps celebrities or wealthier governments would be less willing to give to nations afflicted with such histories. Drug companies can make money selling treatments and look good in the process (though there is some moral uncertainty in prescribing an AIDS cocktail made for a US diagnosee to someone in Africa who may be afflicted with a range of other illnesses and circumstances); countries "afflicted" by an AIDS epidemic are more likely to be able to receive cash infusions or donations from other countries as a worthy cause; and certain organizations like WHO can justify more funding for their particular mission.

Does all this makes more sense than the hyper-promiscuity normally insinuated of Africans when the AIDS epidemic is discussed in the media?

DAR
Interesting. I had never heard of any of this before.

D.

It was my understanding from 15-16 years ago, via Pres. Clinton, that African nations could not even afford HIV test kits. Thus, when the symptoms
arose the diagnosis was just about automatic.

Anti-HIV drugs are sold in African nations at a fraction of what the cost here. My partner is a nurse. She was attending a Vietnamese patient in a local
hospital. The patient had been admitted and the admitting physician had omitted to note that she was HIV positive. My partner while giving the patient
an IV was accidentally poked by the patient's IV needle. Thus, partner was exposed to HIV.
What ensued was a bit of nightmare. They gave her injections of the HIV medicine which costs $15,000 per treatment. Hospital paid. Then within a few
months they terminated her employment. Mds were 99.5% sure partner had not contracted HIV. HIV meds force the recipient to gain weight because AID-HIV
victims have a difficult time keeping their body weight up to near normal.

The best thing President Obama can do about HIV-Africa is to rescind Bush's policy of no sex ed in our foreign aid packages. Also under Bush's orders our
foreign aid is prevented from dispersing any type of birth control, not even prophylactics.

I guess my concern was more that the effects of circumstances and history that have traditionally plagued some African countries like war, corruption, malnutrition, etc... is simply being reclassified as AIDS. It may be true that HIV tests are too expensive to administer effectively in Africa, but it's clear that they are suffering from all sorts of diseases and problems, so why not call or reclassify most of it as AIDS and extrapolate some statistics to generate pity and cash infusions? If this is actually the case, then it doesn't make a difference whether sex education is included in US AIDS relief packages or not, as it won't solve the traditional ailments of poorer Africans--malnutrition, dirty water, economic instability, war, etc.... Even though the AIDS drugs that pharmaceutical firms may provide to Africans might be only a fraction of the cost in the US, it is still done at a profit, for PR reasons, or some other business expense that can be written off or deducted somehow. And some of these AIDS drugs could actually do more harm than good if given for the wrong reasons.

There has been some news stories suggesting that DC is now succumbing to an AIDS crisis like some African nations, and I suspect more money will be donated or given as a result of this narrative. The meme will be: If it could happen in the US's capital, then no one is safe. And invariably, of course, to argue otherwise is to be portrayed as homophobic or inhuman or insensitive somehow.