The Generation who watched our African brothers and sisters get put on the trains? - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-17-2004, 04:49 PM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
anitram's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,440
Local Time: 12:12 AM
The World Health Organization has studies showing that the more money being given is just prolonging the lives of people that already have AIDS
There are two forms of biomedical research: one centres around finding a cure and or preventative measures to curb the disease, while the other centres around treatment of disease.

Out of the many thousands of infectious diseases, do you know how many we have eradicated? ONE.

I am certain you are not an epidemiologist, a virologist, microbiologist or immunologist, therefore your understanding of HIV is probably relatively pedestrian, judging by your comments at least. HIV comes in two types, endemic to different geographic locations, with HIV-1 being considerably more virulent. Comparisons of nucleotide sequences indicate that HIV-1 has passed from chimpanzees (P. troglodytes) on at least three independent occasions, while HIV-2 was passed on from C. agys, a mangabey. Therefore, again, the idea that if you abstain from premarital sex and needle sharing will save you from infection is patently wrong.

HIV accumulates many mutations in the course of infecting a SINGLE individual. This is because HIV has the ability to generate 10exp9 to 10exp10 virions every day, and the mutation rate is estimated to be 3x10exp-5 per nucleotide base per cycle of replication, which, if you do the relatively simple math will tell you that in the course of A SINGLE DAY, in a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, multiple mutations, and therefore variants of HIV, have been generated. As a consequence of this high variability, HIV has a particularly high resistance to antiviral drugs, because when they are administered, variants of HIV which carry mutations conferring resistance to the said antiviral drug will emerge and expand until former levels of plasma virus are regained. In some cases, resistance to some protease inhibitors appears after ONLY A FEW DAYS. If you look at AZT, the resistance takes months (still short) to develop only because resistance to zidovudine requires a minimum of three or four mutations in the viral reverse transcriptase.

Therefore, while vaccination looks like an attractive solution, there are many problems here. ONE, the virus replicates quickly and causes sustained infection in the face of even very strong CTL/Ig responses. TWO, we do not yet know whether you need CTL responses or Igs to mediate immunity. THREE, if CTLs confer protective immunity, you need to use live attenuated viruses to make the vaccine, and there are ethical issues here. FOUR, the irus can persist in latent forms as a transcriptionally silent provirus.

So, now you tell me, if the vaccine is a hundred years away, or 50 years away, or an infinity away, then what do we do? HIV is in the population now, it has become endemic in certain parts of the world. Again, we have eradicated ONE disease in all of human history, and HIV is so much more complex. You cannot eradicate AIDS. It is a dream for you, and seemingly a racist one at that. AIDS is here to stay, so now we have to ask ourselves how to treat it. A good chunk of the money is spent on the development of potential vaccines, the rest on treatment. We must do both, because we cannot get rid of HIV entirely. There will always be people who carry the virus latently. They can then infect individuals later on, if their virus emerges and starts generating virions once again. How do you deal with this?

To stop the spread of AIDS, we need a combination of prevention and education, both of which are not even very successful in the first world, much less the third. You need money for that, you need a certain worldview and you need religious establishments to come to their senses regarding sex education. To treat AIDS, and stop person-person transmission, you need research. Research looking into HIV treatment SHEDS LIGHT on a potential vaccine cure. The two go hand in hand.

There are a lot of things at fault with your posts, but your blatant disregard of what is scientifically true and reasonable is likely the worst.

Since you say we should educate ourselves, please do read up on it.

I don't have time to type up all of the really good references for you, but take a look at the following journal articles and free your mind...

Lancet 1997, 350:1617-1621
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997, 94:10018-10023
Science 1998, 280:1875-1880
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1994, 10 Suppl 2:S261-S264
Nat Med 1999, 5:612-614
Science 1993, 260:1270-1272
Annu Rev Public Health 1995, 16:253-282
N Engl J Med 1996, 335:343-345
Cell 1998, 93:673-676

Just a few.

anitram is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 02:21 AM   #107
The Fly
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 63
Local Time: 04:12 AM

In 2001, an AIDS infected person in Cuba was dying every 3 days. In South Africa, an AIDS infected person was dying every 2 minutes. South Africa has a population of 44 million, Cuba has a population of 12 million. South Africa's' population is almost 4 times greater, yet their fatality rate from AIDS is exactly 3000 times greater than Cubas. So, South Africa has FOUR times the population of Cuba, but THREE-THOUSAND times the amount of AIDS-fatalities as Cuba. For the year 2001, 120 AIDS-infected people died in Cuba, 360,000 AIDS-infected people died in South Africa. This comparison by no means invalidates the relation between Cuba and South Africa.

On January 1st, 2001 at 4 a.m. South African time, 120 people had already died of AIDS, only four hours into the new year. It would take Cuba all 365 days of that year to come up with 120 fatalities from AIDS, the numbers are staggering.

America is said to be the richest country in the world, and the state of Connecticut has the highest per capita income of the entire nation. For the year 2001, 5,932 people died from AIDS in Connecticut, the richest state in America. Connecticut has 3.4 million residents, it is quarter the size of Cuba, but Connecticut has exactly 50 times the AIDS-fatality rate that Cuba has.

So, in a quick comparison, the poorest parts of Africa have an AIDS death toll which is THREE-THOUSAND times greater than Cuba. The richest part of America has an AIDS death toll which is FIFTY times greater than Cuba. Cuba is a pioneer when it comes to AIDS, with only 120 people dying of AIDS just three years ago, it's safe to say that probably only 60 or 70 people will die of AIDS this year in Cuba. Education for AIDS is the wrong way to go, Elimination of AIDS is the correct way to go. With education, there is an endless supply of people that you must educate, as more people are being born day after day. Even with education, a person can still be raped and educated people get hooked on drugs also and end up using dirty needles, education is the wrong way to go for AIDS. If all you had to do was sit people down for a few hours, have them watch an informative video and pass out a few pieces of educational papers, AIDS would have been wiped out years back.

Once again, Cuba has the cure, the cure being the remedy, the remedy being the solution, and as we have seen by those numbers, Cuba has the solution. The cure does NOT have to come in a pill, vaccination, or needle form. As long as people keep thinking the cure for AIDS will be something that you can get over the counter or from your doctor, thousands more will keep dying in Africa. It's silly what's going on, there are people working around the clock in labs all over America and the rest of the world, trying to develop vaccinations and cures for AIDS, and the tiny island of Cuba known for poverty which is just miles off the Florida coast is light years ahead of America and Africa when it comes to battling AIDS.

Bono has the best intentions in the world, I think he's the best entertainer to ever walk the planet, but I just don't think he's going about the fight of AIDS in the correct way. Like I said, if you think education is the way to fight AIDS, you will have to educate the kids that are born tomorrow, the next year, and 10 years after that. AIDS education is a never-ending cycle, and Bono better be prepared to live another million years to keep educating every child being born in Sub-Sahara Africa. If you think vaccinations are the way to go, you have to develop one first, then mass produce it, then you have the fun job of going around Africa poking an estimated billion people in the arm with a needle, but I guess if Bono and Beyonce split up the population of the continent, they only have to vaccinate 500 million people each And, when they're done vaccinating those estimated 1 billion people in Africa, they then still have to stay there for years to keep vaccinating all the children being born daily.

Bono instead wants to ship $billions dollars of worth of medication to Sub-Sahara Africa, with this medication having the effect of prolonging the lives of people with AIDS. It's a noble thing that Bono is doing, but prolongong the life of an AIDS-infected person has its ramifications. It's only common sense, that the longer a person lives, the more people a person comes into contact with. A person that spends 60 years on this planet will befriend and acquaint themsevles with more people than a child who gets killed riding his bike at the age of 5. The longer a mother lives, the greater the chance that she will have more babies. The longer an AIDS-infected man lives, the greater the chance that he will have intercourse with more people.

So, let's say there is a 20 year-old woman named Sally in South Africa right now, let's say she has AIDS and doctors say she has 5 years to live, so she'll die when she's 25. But, here comes Bono, and out of the goodness of his heart, he's bringing with him money and powerful medication to prolong Sally's life. So, with this medication, she might make it to the age of 35 or maybe even to the age of 45, which is a great improvement over her prior estimate which only gave her 5 years to life. But with those additional 10 or 15 years she has gained, she now has gained 10 or 15 years to have more children, she has gained an additional 10 or 15 years to have intercourse with more people, she has gained an additional 10 or 15 years to spend in a hospital where medical needles might be entering her body, she has gained an additional 10 or 15 years to use drug-needles if she happens to be a drug addict. That is the reality of what is going on in sub-sahara Africa. We're all in agreement that what Bono is doing for Sally is a great thing, but with Sally living longer, odds are and history shows that she is going to have more children, and that is a FACT. I don't care if you go use demographics of Africa or America, your average 40 year old woman has more children than the average 20 year old woman. The longer a woman lives, statistically she will have more children. Now, count up how many "Sally"s there are in sub-Sahara Africa, it's in the hundreds of thousands, and if they're all going to be living an extra 10 or 15 years, get ready for more AIDS-infected babies being born than has ever seen before in Africa. These AIDS-infected babies are being born with no hope, and every year more of them are being born, every year more money is entering Africa to fight AIDS, and then more and more AIDS babies are being born, and the trend will continue just like it has for 20 years now.

AIDS has been upgraded to a 'catastrophe' level in South Africa. According to the best estimates of U.S. experts, one-quarter of the entire South African population will die of AIDS. One fifth of South Africa's adults are already believed to be infected with the HIV virus, which leads to AIDS. Back in the year 2000, President Clinton said that AIDS is a "threat to national security" after seeing the numbers from South Africa, after years of Clinton and America sending $ hundreds of millions to South Africa, Clinton had to come out and admit things were getting much worse, not better. President Bush then became President, he has given $millions to South Africa, and once again, the problem is getting worse. I'm not even taking into account the money and manpower being sent to Africa to fight AIDS from all the other countries in the world, which has also been going on for countless years. As more money is being spent in Africa, year after year we keep seeing the infection rate and the fatality rate get worse. It's the situation which "Sally" keeps perpetuating which is making things so much worse in South Africa.

The BBC reported how hundreds of thousands of AIDS-medication tablets were stolen when they were delivered to Uganda. Once you start dropping off all this medication, you then have to turn around and make sure corrupt druglords and illegal-businessmen don't get their hands on it and control the whole supply, that's just another problem with sending in medication and hoping it makes its way around the entire continent.

If Bono wants to STOP the progression of AIDS in Africa and especially in South Africa where he visits most often, he has to give up on the failed method of the past 20 years. How many more years of the numbers getting worse will have to occur before people realize that it's not working. Between the $billions being sent into Africa, and the $ hundreds of millions that U2 has in the bank, Bono needs to have some luxurious hospitals/hotels built just for AIDS-infected residents, and once these residents enter these hotels, they are forced to stay within those walls forever. They can allow to have meetings with family/friends, but they should not be allowed to venture outside the walls of those hospitals/hotels. Of course it's a violation of a person's civil rights to keep them locked inside such a hospital/hotel and not leave them the opportunity to walk around society, but it's more of a violation of civil rights to keep allowing babies be born with Hiv/Aids and to know these babies have no hope. US Experts under the Clinton administration said that a quarter of South Africans now have AIDS, they said this in 2000 after decades of funding and they said the situation is getting worse. At this rate, you won't have to worry about people's civil rights in South Africa as there won't be any people left with current stats showing how an AIDS-infected person is dying every 2 minutes in South Africa.

If an AIDS baby is born tomorrow, all this money on AIDS-education won't do a thing for that baby. If you educate a 15 year old girl on AIDS in South Africa and she is raped on the way home from her AIDS-awareness class by an AIDS-infected man, her education won't do her much good. Education is the wrong way to go. Vaccination is the other wrong way to go, Cuba had the lowest rate of AIDS-deaths in the year 2001, Cuba doesn't have a vaccination for AIDS, and Cuba will never need a vaccination for AIDS.

You can drive by any Merck, Pfizer, or other major drug company building tomorrow, and you'll see Mercedes and BMW cars parked outside, and inside you'll see mostly white people searching for a cure, and they're getting paid lots of money from big government funds and contributions. They've been getting $ hundreds of millions for years from governments and contributors, they have no cure yet, but they have some fancy cars in the parking lot. After years of not arriving at a cure, they're given more money, and they still fail to find a cure, and that failure then leads to these whites in the drug companies getting more and more money to find the cure, and that trend is also continuing. If you're John Doe working at these companies in the lab all day, your constant inability to find the cure for AIDS means you have a job tomorrow, and if you can't find the cure tomorrow, there's always the day after that. Once your John Doe finds the cure, the company he works for could make massive profits and money, but unless John Doe has lots of shares of that company, he won't make a thing, he'll be out of a job since the government will no longer be contributing research money. I know that if I was John Doe, I would be accepting the money and just sitting in the break room all day watching TV. It's an outrage that the white 'scientists' are making $millions off this AIDS situation, instead of 100% of the money going to exact places affected by AIDS the most.

If all world governments cut off all contributions to 'scientific' research money, and instead used this money to build luxurious hospitals/hotels in Africa, you would then and ONLY then see the AIDS situation in Africa get better. If all the poor AIDS-infected people living in shacks in Africa right now were allowed to live in 5-star hotels with the best of food, entertainment, with the one stipulation that they must remain in these single-gender hospital/hotel settings around the clock, within 9 months no AIDS-infected baby would ever be born again in Africa. What a human-rights victory that would be, the poor AIDS-infected people are taken out of the shacks and streets and put up in the best of luxury where they get the best of food and medical care. But the biggest human-rights victory would be that within 9 months of the construction of these luxurious hospitals/hotels no AIDS-infected baby is ever born again. And Eureka, you have solved the problem. You also no longer need AIDS-education, since all babies being born are born without AIDS and they will not be allowed to get AIDS since these clean babies will not be living in the hospital/hotel settings. You then won't need a vaccination either, since there is no AIDS to vaccinate against. And we know that the above scenario is 100% possible, since Cuba has accomplished it. The only reason why these hospital/hotel settings can't be built in Africa is because all the current AIDS funds are being used to build drug research buildings in the rest of the world. The white scientists across Europe and America are making $millions, Merck even has locations in Macedonia and Cyprus, while the problem of AIDS has become a catastrophe in Africa.

Instead of Bono saying that "people are standing around with buckets of water", he should be saying that people are standing around putting all their effort into trying to discover one big magical bucket of water, when a big magical bucket isn't necessary. A cure of a medicine form isn't necessary to cure AIDS, but the drug companies won't admit it. Between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 2002 the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association and its members gave $57.9 million in political contributions. The data show that there has been a steady increase in adult AIDS mortality in South Africa during the 1990s. The mortality of young, adult women has increased rapidly in the last few years with the mortality rate in the 25-29 year age range in 1999/ 2000 being some 3.5 times higher than in 1985. As more money is being spent, more people are becoming infected, and more people are dying, and with the $billions that Bush is promising to give to Africa, expect fatalities to double by the year 2010.

U2LipstickBoy is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 03:06 AM   #108
Jesus Online
Angela Harlem's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Your suggestion of the best way to control the HIV/AIDS spread is inhumane, U2LipstickBoy.

Besides which, how much do you think it would cost to implement such an extreme idea? You stated that up to a quarter of the population will die of it, remember this is a very poor region. Who will pay for their isolation and incarceration? If you are thinking in dollars, rethink some more. Go and find out just how much it costs (comparitively) to lock someone up in jail for life. Apply this with exchange to the South African people...Doesn't quite sound like the most plausible, albeit clinical, solution after all, does it?

The solution is going to take a whole lof of patience, dedication, money and time. Regardless of how it is approached. I hope you can see how your suggestion is as unrealistic to some, as theirs is to you.
<a href= target=_blank></a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 05:03 AM   #109
love, blood, life
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:12 AM
I agree with Angela, what you're proposing is absolutely inhumane. It just seems that you're simply repeating your point of view over and over again and not even responding to the questions or criticisms other people have made in response to it.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 11:00 AM   #110
Blue Crack Addict
anitram's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,440
Local Time: 12:12 AM
The cure:

User CP ---> Edit Ignore List
anitram is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 11:37 AM   #111
follower's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 01:12 AM
I won´t say a word, the article says by itself. But I´ll repeat, that´s the way the AIDS crisis can and should be approached in Africa as well. Remember, this is not a First World country. And it´s not Cuba either.

COLUMN: Winning the war on AIDS, Brazil style

By Andrey Vakhovskiy

The Dartmouth Free Press (Dartmouth College)

(U-WIRE) HANOVER, NH -- "There are two wrong approaches to the global threat of HIV/AIDS. One is to underestimate or ignore it. The other is to despair. The first can only be described as irresponsible. The second is unjustified." - Kofi Annan, secretary general of the U.N.
For too long, denial was the main obstacle in the fight against HIV/AIDS. This, however, is no longer the case. Despair has replaced ignorance as the most substantial obstacle in the battle against the disease. After recognizing the scale of the crisis, developed nations have become mired in inaction. This attitude must change before we can ever effectively wage a battle against the pandemic.

Rooted in this newfound despair, several arguments have been presented for why we cannot effectively combat HIV/AIDS in the "Third World." Some say that poor nations lack the necessary health-care system and resources. Others claim that poor "Third World" residents are incapable of adhering to the complex regimen of anti-retroviral drugs. Still others claim that "Third World" cultural norms make it impossible to wage a battle. All these arguments are symptomatic of the despair many feel about the HIV/AIDS pandemic. But despair is unjustified. Indeed these challenges are real, but the situation is not hopeless. There is at least one nation that has defied all odds and has effectively waged a war on HIV/AIDS.

At first glance Brazil -- a nation of 170 million people, a per capita GDP one-fifth that of the U.S., and a limited health-care system -- seems an unlikely leader in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The Brazilian government's efforts, however, have produced encouraging results.

In 1994, the World Health Organization (WHO) projected that Brazil would have 1.2 million cases of HIV by the year 2000. Today, the number of infected people is estimated at 530,000 and the number of AIDS-related deaths has been cut by 50 percent since the inception of the government program in 1995. In addition to bringing down the death rate, the Brazilians have also succeeded in another, and perhaps more important area, prevention. According to WHO statistics, the infection rate in Brazil has been brought down to 1995 levels, and has now stabilized. The government is largely responsible for this remarkable improvement. But how did Brazil do it?

The approach is two-fold --prevention and treatment.

The government's efforts include handing out 800,000 condoms with popcorn at city movie theaters and tossing them to parade goers. Government advertisements about safe sex abound. A T-shirt with a picture of a condom and the caption, "catch one of these instead of catching AIDS" is distributed in poor neighborhoods. Recently, the Brazilian congress entertained a motion that would require all pornographic films to carry a safe sex public announcement.

While prevention and education are the cornerstones of the program, Brazil has pioneered the area of treatment as well. It is here that it has stirred up major controversy. Brazil makes a free anti-retroviral drug cocktail available to all patients infected with HIV. American and European companies charge exorbitant amounts for the treatment, putting the drugs far out of reach of the vast majority of Brazilians. To deal with these huge costs, the Brazilian laboratories have begun to manufacture their own generic versions of patented drugs, but at a staggering reduction in cost. American pharmaceutical companies charge $10,000-$15,000 per year for the treatment; Brazilian generics cost $3,000 and are expected to drop to as low as $700. Brazil manufactures eight of the 12 drugs needed for the cocktail. But two of the drugs it imports -- Efavirenz and Nelfinavir -- constitute 36 percent of the AIDS budget.

The Brazilian program has demonstrated that treatment and prevention can complement each other and need not be considered in isolation, as has often been the case. For instance, treating HIV/AIDS limits its spread. According to the WHO, the anti-retroviral drug Nevirapine can be used effectively to limit mother-to-child transmissions, which are the highest cause of child HIV/AIDS globally. Also, the availability of life-extending treatment increases the incentive to get tested, and reduces the stigma associated with AIDS. Treatment transforms AIDS from a cataclysmic plague to a treatable disease.

The Brazilian successes are indeed encouraging, especially when compared to the rest of the world. Perhaps the most startling feature of the program is its cost-effectiveness. According to Brazil's Jornal do Commercio, the government's costs are 72 percent less than the prices charged by drug companies. Due to continued research, Brazilian drug prices are also falling steadily. According to the Brazilian Health Ministry's Web site, the price of domestically produced drugs went down 72.5 percent between 1996 and 2000.

Even with these savings, the program still costs in the order of $300 to $400 million per year. The Brazilians, however, claim that the program pays for itself; the World Bank agrees. It reported that the HIV/AIDS program was producing net savings of $190 million per year. According to Brazilian estimates, 146,000 hospitalizations were avoided between 1997 and 1999. The program has also caused a dramatic decrease in the incidences of opportunistic infections, diseases that attack the weak immune system of AIDS patients. Citomegalovirus, which attacks patients in the late stages of AIDS, was reduced by 69 percent in the same period. In addition to the medical savings, there are many other positive externalities. For example, AIDS patients are now able to remain in the workforce.

The bottom line is that Brazil has discredited all the arguments that are used to justify inaction. No medical infrastructure? Brazil did not have a Western-quality health system, but was still able to institute more than 400 neighborhood clinics to provide testing and distribute AIDS drugs. What about the cost? The Brazilian program pays for itself. How about an uneducated populace being unable to take the drugs correctly? The Brazilians have disproved this as well. A recent New York Times article reports that the rate of correct drug usage is the same in Brazilian slum dwellers as in residents of San Diego.

Having said this, it must be noted that Brazil does have several advantages over Africa or Eastern Europe. The program does not need to battle with deep-rooted cultural norms that could hinder a safe sex message. It is also a fairly rich country, by "Third World" standards, and has a stable political system. The model is uniquely correct for Brazil and will need to be modified substantially for use in Africa, Eastern Europe or Asia. But it can certainly be used as a guide.

Having watched the Brazilian experience closely, the United Nations has finally come to realize that there is no excuse for inaction. "The simplistic argument that treating AIDS is expensive is no longer convincing," said Pedro Chequer, head of the UNAIDS program for South America. "Offering treatment is a question of morals and ethics."

With this new attitude in mind, the General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS has recommended establishing a world AIDS fund. Kofi Annan has said that the world AIDS problem can be dealt with "an annual expenditure of $7 to $10 billion. That is five times what is now being spent -- but is only a quarter of New York City's budget."

In response to this, world leaders seem to cite the same old disproven arguments. Costs, inadequate health systems and cultural norms will all make a program impossible, they say. Some in the Bush administration seem to agree. Andrew Natsios, the top foreign aid official in the administration and the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has been quoted in the Boston Globe as saying that Africans "don't know what Western time is. Many people in Africa have never seen a clock or a watch their entire lives." The champion of efficiency that he is, Natsios has rejected treatment and wants to concentrate on prevention.

The numbers, unfortunately, are consistent with Natsios statements. The U.S. has pledged $200 million to the Global AIDS fund, but this is not part of the Bush budget, and it remains to be seen where the money will come from. The lack of resolve on the part of the Bush administration is tragic, but not unusual. Other nations are still unable, or unwilling, to realize that effective treatment programs are possible in the "Third World."

The lesson to learn here is that actions can be taken at reasonable costs and with great results. We have empirical proof. All we need is leadership. The U.S. and other developed nations are in a position to encourage real change. One only has to look at the great public health efforts of the past, be they smallpox or polio, to see that change is possible and despair is not justified.

follower is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 11:57 AM   #112
follower's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Another article, more updated (Nov 4th 2003), about an African country, Angola, that has already been helped by Brazil, showing that it is possible to fight AIDS in Africa.

Brazil joins Angola's Aids fight

By Graciela Damiano
BBC Focus On Africa magazine

Organisations from Brazil are helping Angola tackle its potential Aids crisis.

Brazilian journalists are running a media campaign on the state channel Nação Coragem (Brave Nation), including regular radio programmes, TV spots and in-depth reports on different aspects of the virus.

Angola, like several other southern African countries, relies on Brazilian expertise in dealing with HIV/Aids. Brazil's campaign against the illness is regarded by the World Health Organisation as one of the most successful.

"Communications when dealing with Aids is very difficult because it cannot be just propaganda," Sergio Guerra, a managing director of Marketing Link, one of the advertising agencies involved, told the BBC Focus On Africa magazine.

"It is not about creating some sort of pun to gain visibility. It has to be didactic and correct because you cannot let HIV-positive people be stigmatised."

Migration risks

Although Angola's Aids prevalence rate is believed to be far lower than in the countries around it, at 5.5% of the adult population, there is concern that the virus could rapidly spread - partly due to the return of large numbers of Angolans who fled to neighbouring countries during the country's civil war.

According to the UN High Commission for Refugees, 200,000 fled to Zambia, 163,000 to DR Congo, 24,000 to Namibia and 16,000 to Congo-Brazzaville.

These countries are among the worst affected by HIV/Aids, with an infection rate of more than 20%.

But Brazil's HIV prevalence rate is 0.7% - and it is that success that is causing other countries to seek their help.

Brazilian journalists also produce a TV programme in Botswana with documentaries and live discussions on the subject, and the country has also announced that it will set up a factory in Mozambique to produce cheaper anti-retroviral drugs.

Mr Guerra said he found the challenge to promote awareness in Africa even bigger than in Brazil.

"Here, sex is seen as leisure and children as wealth. Men want many children," he said.

He added that other problems included the high level of illiteracy - especially in the Angolan countryside - and catering for the different languages, which makes any health campaign much more complex and expensive.

"[To do a proper campaign] you need to have multiplication agents to reach the people in rural areas," he said.

"The authorities, community leaders, they all need to be made aware of the dangers of HIV/Aids.

"We need to be very sensitive to cultural traditions."

'Invest in prevention'

Mr Guerra estimated that an ideal campaign against HIV/Aids in Angola could cost up to US$30m.

He stressed he was disappointed that Angola was not a priority when the Aids pandemic is discussed at international forums.

"The United States announced that they are giving $15bn to fight Aids in the next three years, but they are giving nothing to Angola," he said, adding that he would like to see more money invested in prevention.

"For each dollar that you invest in prevention you save $10 or $100 in treatment."

The programme is already having its successes, however.

Nação Coragem has made a number of stories on how HIV tests are performed part of its broadcasts.

Since then there has been an increase in voluntary testing in many areas of Luanda.

At one health centre, 87 people were tested in 2002 - while the figure for the first seven months of this year is 455.

follower is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 11:59 AM   #113
The Fly
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 63
Local Time: 04:12 AM
inhumane ?

Inhumane is to let AIDS-infected people die in shacks and in fields in South Africa. Inhumane is to let babies be born with AIDS and with no hope. Inhumane is to continue the same practice of dealing with AIDS which is leading to the deaths of one person every 2 minutes in South Africa. All AIDS groups and international groups know for a fact things are getting worse in South Africa, even Bill Clinton had to come out and admit it.

You'll see in a few years that the $billions promised to South Africa will make things worse, a lot worse. Because as we have seen, the $ hundreds of millions given to South Africa in the 1990's made thing worse. The more money you give to South Africa, the worse things get, that is a FACT.
U2LipstickBoy is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 12:21 PM   #114
New Yorker
Sherry Darling's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Originally posted by anitram
The cure:

User CP ---> Edit Ignore List

Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 12:51 PM   #115
The Fly
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 63
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Angela, first off, it is NOT unrealistic. Unrealistic is something that cannot happen, we know this can happen, it has already happened in Cuba. It's not my 'suggestion', it's a FACT. Of course South Africa is a poor region, Cuba is also poor. The AIDS-fatality rate has no relation to poverty levels, the richest part of America has an AIDS-fatality rate which is 50 times HIGHER than the poor nation of Cuba. So you cannot say it's unrealistic, and you cannot say it has anything to do with poverty.

Angela, you said that patience is needed. The solution is NOT patience, when a person is dying every 2 minutes, patience is not the quality you want. Angela, you then said that "money and time" are needed. South Africa has been given hundreds of millions of dollars, international manpower, and 20 years, and the AIDS-fatality rate is getting much worse.

Unrealistic is to think that education will work. We know for a FACT that education does not work, we've been educating, the numbers are getting worse. America has been educating on the harm of tobacco-use and smoking for years and keeps putting more money into education against tobacco-use every year. Between 1991 and 1999 cigarette smoking among black students has increased by 56 percent and by 29 percent among Hispanic students in America. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiles numbers for drunk-driver fatalities in America. In 1994, 17,308 people died on American roads due to drunk-driving. In 2002, 17,419 people died on American roads due to drunk-driving. After 8 years, $millions of dollars of education, tv commercials, a heightened awareness, tougher laws, the problem of drunk driving got WORSE.
Those numbers right there just shows that education does NOT work when it comes to these problems that affect people.

It wouldn't cost any more money to take AIDS-infected people off the streets and out of the fields and put them in luxurious hotel settings. At Bono's own website, he even says that 70% of people in sub-sahara Africa live on $2 a day. Bono admits at his own website that $19 billion was given in 1990, , and over $12 billion was given to this region every year since then. So, if you take the 14 years of as least $12 billion a year, that's $168 billion, and now Bush promised another $15 billion would be given to Africa, Bill Gates gave $50 million of his own money, the grand total given to Africa over the past 15 years has exceeded $200 billion dollars. A house can easily be built in South Africa for $100,000, so with $200 billion dollars that has already been given, there should be 2 million nice new houses built over in Africa. Instead, there are just a handful of homes and hospitals built, but the scientists who failed to come up with a cure all have state of the art buildings at their drug factories with fancy sports cars in the parking lot.

The more money being given to research and education over the past decade has led to the fatality rate INCREASING, and that is a fact.
U2LipstickBoy is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 12:55 PM   #116
War Child
Katey's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 719
Local Time: 12:12 AM
You'll see in a few years that the $billions promised to South Africa will make things worse, a lot worse. Because as we have seen, the $ hundreds of millions given to South Africa in the 1990's made thing worse. The more money you give to South Africa, the worse things get, that is a FACT
No what we will see in a few years if people god forbid were to take on your view will be the horrible ramifications of leaving a continent behind.. that is a legacy I simple am not willing to pass on.The facts remain that governments all over are still not living up to the millenium development goals. Facts remain there is still much indifference. Africa is not a continent of doom and gloom .. that continent has a remarkable capacity to overcome and of hope and human spirit. But while everyone debates who deserves what and why, while the infrastructure and absortive capacity debates continue.. HIV and Aids does not take a break while these arguments are made.. even one life lost is to much if it could have been prevented

.. with a true multilateral effort it will get much better,

Plus you have made little effort to mention the amount of money Africa has been repaying in debt to rich countries , through IMF etc..How execatly do you expect an economy to strive when the human capacity continues to be taken away.

I don't think you have put much effort into researching where that money has actually been directed towards. Also don't think you have factored in what Africa can absorb which is much greater then what has been promised.

Basically I think you don't know what you are talking about U2 Lipstickboy.. and I can't even give you points for trying.

A little example of how the money helps ( from the Global Fund )
Rwanda is Africa's most densely populated country. Although more than 13% of its adults live with HIV, only 500 of them have access to antiretroviral drugs (ARVs).
Extraordinary adversity calls for extraordinary initiatives and Rwanda has developed an aggressive plan to combat HIV/AIDS. With its first Global Fund grant, Rwanda will equip 97 health centers to offer testing, counseling and treatment. And 75% of health care personnel in the country will be trained in HIV/AIDS care and support.Most remarkably, the Fund's grant will provide ARVs for 6,000 Rwandans by the end of 2004
Katey is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 01:17 PM   #117
Blue Crack Supplier
BVS's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,997
Local Time: 11:12 PM
u2lipstickboy you're funny.
BVS is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 04:28 PM   #118
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Ok you still haven't addressed the fact that what a couple thousand people with AIDS were interred in Cuba, but there are MILLIONS of people in Africa with AIDS. It's impracticle to think that that many people can be rounded up. Yes cuba is poor, but most of africa is much poorer with much less technologically advanced. You can't compare something that happens on a small island and expect to implement it on a huge continent. You keep saying that cuba has stamped out aids, but they haven't, they've only lessened the number of infected people. Yes their tactics "helped" the situation, but they have far from cured it. You recommend putting them all up in 5 star hotels? Do you really think you are going to be able to convince people to pay for that? People will never go for it. We won't even do that for our own citizens. We won't even house our homeless. Even if I did think that this approach was a good one, the logistics of such an operation are more than prohibitave.

You also mentioned how hard it would be to administer a vaccine if they had one, to go to all the villages and innoculate that many people, etcetera. But it has been done before. Small pox was eradicated from the planet by doing just that. People went to all the small villages all over the third world and convinced people that this shot would keep them safe from the disease. Now small pox is a thing of the past.
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 06:11 PM   #119
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hartford, America
Posts: 8
Local Time: 04:12 AM
I agree with Lipstick Boy. Most of the AIDS infected are rubbish types anyhow. I'd prefer not to have contact with them.

Perhaps send the American infects to a community created in the south somewhere. Enlist HEAVY armed security to ensure they won't leave and try to infect others.
DynamicAmerican is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 06:30 PM   #120
War Child
Katey's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 719
Local Time: 12:12 AM
thats a joke right?

Katey is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©