backtop


Print 94 comment(s) - last by dever.. on Dec 6 at 3:41 PM

Will the UN's scenario for AIDS repeat for global warming reports?

A new report from the United Nations acknowledges the agency has routinely overstated both the size and growth rate of the AIDS epidemic.  The new figures reduce the number of worldwide AIDS cases from 40 to 33 million, cuts the number of new cases by 40%, and reveal that the rate of new cases has been, contrary to past reports, slowing for many years. 

The pattern of exaggeration may date back as far as 1995, the year UNAIDS was founded.  Just last year, the UN reported infections were rising faster than "even our worst estimates," and warned of the "dangers of inaction."  

Critics have long maintained the U.N. overstated cases to gain political and financial support.  "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda" said author and AIDS expert Helen Epstein.  James Chin, a former AIDS researcher for the World Heath Organiztion, says even these revisions are higher than the actual number of worlwide cases, which he estimates at 25 million.

In the past ten years, spending on AIDS has grown by 3,000 percent, topping $10B a year, much of that funding going to the UN itself.  But reports commissioned by private governments continued to contradict the official UN stance.  One study in India revealed cases less than half the official figure, and a another China study showed growth of new cases may have been overstated by as much as a factor of 10.

The scandal is eerily similar to the current state of the UN IPCC climate reports, where outside researchers (and even some IPCC panel members) have criticized the official reports as exaggerated and unrealistic. 

Climatologist and IPCC expert reviewer Vincent Gray has called the IPCC process "fundamentally corrupt" and its predictions a fraud.  Dr. Madhav Khandekar, another IPCC expert reviewer, has called the review process scientifically unsound, and notes the latest report fails to acknowledge a growing number of scientists now question the theory of greenhouse gas-based climate change.

Is there a linkage between the UN's handling of AIDS and global warming? According to journalist Claudia Rosett, the UN routinely overstates crises to generate funding, then uses it to fund a massive system of kickbacks, payoffs, and lavish expense accounts.   According to Rosett, IPCC climate pronouncements are just part of this long-standing pattern.

Rosett says the world should take a long, hard look at what the UN has become. 

UN officials in Geneva declined comment.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't Particularly Like...
By gradoman on 11/20/2007 1:35:02 PM , Rating: 5
...how you put AIDS and Global Warming in the same sentence there.

AIDS is killing people and continues to afflict us. That's not so abstract like the big Global Warming is. The figures may be off and people are getting fat off of kickbacks, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it is a major issue.




RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/20/2007 1:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
Why not? The U.N. is just drumming up hype for support. First AIDS, then Global Warming. Whats next? The point is that the U.N. can't be trusted, that they are as corrupt as everyday politicians and what they say should be taken with a very hefty grain of salt. Spreading FUD is what the U.N. is doing right now and it shows. Frankly I'd like nothing better than the kick the U.N. out of the U.S. and tell them to set up shop somewhere else. The U.N. ranks as "basically worthless", what they are now, and what they were originally setup to be are completely different. I'll bet allied leaders from WW2 are rolling in their graves over what the U.N. has become.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By OrSin on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Zurtex on 11/20/2007 2:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, honestly, it's terrible they're drumming up hype for something which will affect and kill many poor people. Pfft, 33 million, wow, that's like 0.485% of the worlds population why should we care?

Sure without them, we'd have no serious international organization to actually get countries to commit any money at all to disaster relief (because even when they do commit they often skimp out and it takes the U.N effort to actually get countries often to pay even half of what they say they will). But hey, it's all like global warming, a conspiracy, but the conspiracy that poor people have the same value to their life as rich people.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/20/2007 2:15:01 PM , Rating: 4
> "Without them, we'd have no serious international organization to actually get countries to commit any money at all to disaster relief "

Interesting you mention disaster relief, as Rosett focuses much of her writing specifically on it. In the case of the 2004 Asian tsunami strike, for instance, dozens of nations instantly committed large sums to the effort.

The UN stepped in and insisted it be the sole distributor of those funds. A year later, it was discovered the agency had spent the majority of contributions on lavish travel fees and expense accounts.

Would the victims have been better off with private charities and governments handling those funds, rather than the UN? Most definitely so.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Nacho on 11/20/2007 5:03:56 PM , Rating: 4
Sources please...


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/20/2007 5:36:38 PM , Rating: 6
Rosett has an entire book on the subject. For an online reference, start with this Financial Times investigation, which found ~ a third of all tsunami relief funds spent on overhead, with the true figure impossible to determine, as many UN agencies refuse to disclose expenditures:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c32c8072-731e-11da-8b42-...

According to this FT story, the UN "pledges an investigation" into mishanding of tsunami relief funds. As is so common with the UN, that promise went nowhere:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85bad830-6440-11d9-bd01-...


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Spartan Niner on 11/20/2007 6:42:21 PM , Rating: 4
In a somewhat related topic (global poverty), the amount of US Gov't donations towards combating poverty are a mere third of US private donations as per Andrew I. Cohen's article "Famine Relief and Human Virtue" in Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics (Eds. Christopher Heath Wellman and Andrew I. Cohen).

In the virtue ethics school of thought (espoused by Cohen and others) we must ask questions such as:

"Where does my money go?"
"How much of my money actually helps the people it's intended to help? 80%? 50%?"
"Is this the most effective use of my money?"

in addition to more troubling questions such as:

"In the grand scheme of things, will contributions merely lead to dependence on foreign aid rather than the necessary changes to prevent starvation?"
"What are the real causes of world poverty?"

Organizations such as UNICEF have a very good record of effective aid and efficiency. However, some people, especially from a libertarian (that's with a little l) viewpoint would argue that membership and participation in organizations such as the UN erode the member nations' sovereignty and merely create another layer of bureaucracy.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have people such as Peter Singer who advocate mandatory giving as a moral obligation.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/20/2007 6:46:30 PM , Rating: 5
It should be the objective of the aid programs to turn them around and get them back on their feet, not have them forever dependent on foreign aid. Just my opinion on the matter. That's why I'm a big fan of what the Gates Foundation does. They seem to have a clearly defined goal rather than throwing money at problems.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By dever on 12/6/2007 3:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
An additional danger of govt donations is that people may feel that any given problem is already taken care of since their tax dollars are supposedly used to fight it. This may reduce the natural tendency of the private sector to give to charities, fostering a sort of "not my problem" mentality. [I feel that it goes hand-in-hand with the dependency mentality and "rights to other people's money" attitude produced by the same govt policies.]

Not only that, but as mentioned already, funds are more efficiently distributed through the private sector, and that distribution directly reflects public sentiment (rather than a few politicians' or lobbiests' sentiments).


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Zurtex on 11/20/2007 8:02:43 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know about the U.S, but the U.K isn't even closing to paying on its commitments for such a disaster. So why you think that individual governments acting in a random fashion, occasionally giving money and with no organization of where to spend the money and how best to help, would be bester, I have no idea...

Private charities are just an excuse for governments who aren't doing their jobs, with the odd notable exceptions of the Red Cross, Amnesty International etc..


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Zurtex on 11/20/2007 8:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
To add on to what I said, I'm not sure about particular incidents you bring up. But often with disaster relief when governments send aide on their own, it tends to be somewhat haphazard and not nearly as much as it could. Governments tend also to spend very little of what the commit.

While I think charities like the Red Cross can help, particularly because the need to remain government neutral. It's just a poor excuse to get the middle classes and the rich to pay what they already should be doing in taxes by guilt tripping them.

Why should a crisis be media popular to get money payed on it? (i.e the amount a charity will get based on how much publicity it gets). Saving peoples lives on how well it plays in the headlines seems pretty inhumane to me.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By mdogs444 on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Keeir on 11/20/2007 10:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I think charities like the Red Cross can help, particularly because the need to remain government neutral. It's just a poor excuse to get the middle classes and the rich to pay what they already should be doing in taxes by guilt tripping them.


From this and your earlier post, you seem to indicate that a government has the responsibility to be "charitable" to its citizens and all humans around the world (at the foot at the wealthier minority).

I would strongly disagree with the statement that its any governments responsibility to be "charitable" or altruistic to the citizens of another nation. A government should always attempt act in the best interests of its citizens. This is rarely ever apparent in cases of "charity" giving such as the Tsunami in South East Asia...

Is it any surprise that many governments are choosing now to spend the money they pledged in charity on projects that directly affect their own citizens? The leaders are no dummies! They know that giving 100 million to Indonesia won't buy as many votes as pumping a 100 million into pork projects.. and this will be true no matter how much people are taxed and the government has to spend.

I for one am glad we have private charities and would say the government only needs to step in when private citizens and private charities have failed.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Zurtex on 11/21/2007 2:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
I do and I disagree in principle with what you say and the pragmatics of how it actually works. I think a lot of the countries who are so lucky to be wealthy, often because they've got there off the back of the poor, have a responsibility to help the less fortunate in the world out.

I don't really have the time or effort to bring up real world examples and argue over them in such detail on this comment page. But clearly this is a fundamental disagreement you and I have, so it's not like we're going to convince each other of the other is right anyway.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By zombiexl on 11/25/2007 10:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I think charities like the Red Cross can help, particularly because the need to remain government neutral. It's just a poor excuse to get the middle classes and the rich to pay what they already should be doing in taxes by guilt tripping them.


So you believe the more you make the higher percentage of your income belongs to the government. That theory is flawed in so many ways. Eventually you end up with a similar income for doing far more work, either by putting in more time on the job, working on higher level degrees or just being more abmitious than others. Hell if we could all bring home the same money everyone would still be flipping burgers.

Realize that people work hard and deserve what they take home. In fact many people deserve to bring home more than they do. All the poor help tax codes help some people get a tax return for far more than they paid in taxes.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By BMFPitt on 11/26/2007 1:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eventually you end up with a similar income for doing far more work, either by putting in more time on the job, working on higher level degrees or just being more abmitious than others.
You fail at math. But just for fun, I invite you to give me an example of 2 people's take-home pay where the only difference is AGI and show where this is true.

quote:
Hell if we could all bring home the same money everyone would still be flipping burgers.
So your dream job is to flip burgers? Well that certainly makes me want to listen to your opinion on the economy.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Keeir on 11/26/2007 7:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So your dream job is to flip burgers? Well that certainly makes me want to listen to your opinion on the economy.


I think you are taking the person too literially. The standard human response is to maximize benifits while minimizing effort. If people can't maximize a benifit, all thats left is to minimize effort. Thus, any job which doesn't require an education or thinking or responsibility will generally be preferred by the "masses" over jobs with hard work and lots of training required... Although there are other "benifits" than money, money has had a fairly broad appeal for centuries.

I think the real problem is that the US spends alot of money taxing people (and enforcing the taxation) to provide social nets that may not be needed if we just didn't tax the people so much in the first place. IE, many of the people that can't "afford" health care -might- be better served by not being taxed at all and buying private health-care rather than the US government increasing taxes to provide public healthcare. We do need to fix the loop-holes that allow billionaires such as Warren Buffet to pay ~18% tax rates, but in such a way that doesn't punish the casual/small-time investor or the middle class as the AMT does...


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Ringold on 11/20/2007 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sure without them, we'd have no serious international organization


Typical. The Red Cross, Mercy Corps, Oxfam as examples an independent groups, USAID as an example of a national group, and religious-based ones like CAFOD -- they're just useless, because they're not government, right?

Those types of groups, especially ones like Oxfam with a corporate culture of efficiency and results, are probably far more effective at putting money to work that groups whose sole responsibility is to continue to exist and make sure donated funds disappear.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By zombiexl on 11/25/2007 10:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, honestly, it's terrible they're drumming up hype for something which will affect and kill many poor people. Pfft, 33 million, wow, that's like 0.485% of the worlds population why should we care?


So in your opinion AIDS only affects poor people? I'll assume you are correct and address this as far as the US goes. If the welfare rats would keep their legs closed they'd be at less risk. They could get off their backs on their feet and into a job they'd have less time to try to f$@# around trying to have more kids to continue to game the system.

They fact is AIDS can affect anyone, but too much money is being spent on somehting that can be stopped. Condoms, keeping your legs closed, not screwing around can all reduce the risk. I'd rather see the money go towards cancer research or something more worhtwhile.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By HaZaRd2K6 on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By porkpie on 11/20/2007 2:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where were you when the Rwandan genocide happened? Where were you when the Sudanese genocide took place?
Where was the UN when all this happened? They did nothing at all to stop either. In fact, after the Sudanese genocide, they put Sudan as a member on their Human Rights Commission!


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By AmbroseAthan on 11/20/2007 2:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
A quick lesson in international politics and why the US provide less help in "human rights violated areas of the world"... (I will be using "state" in the International Politics sense, not referring to individual USA states).

Due to most of those states you listed being "sovereign states" there is very little another country, i.e. a sovereign state, can do. (please refer to this about sovereignty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state )

In general, two sovereign states are not allowed to interfere with each other regarding one state's internal politics. Yes, this does not always get followed, but you are not able to recognize a state as a sovereign power and then interfere in their business (yes, this also gets violated sometimes). While human rights may be being violated within a sovereign territory, any form of "help" provided by another sovereign territory can be seen as an Act of War unless the reigning government has called upon another state for help.

This is why we see so little help go from any state in another's internal affairs. For anyone who has listened to Eddie Izzard:
quote:
Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door; stupid man...


While meant in jest it is true in international political arena; within a sovereign state, its government is allowed to do as it wishes, within reason. This is why the United Nations, and similiar bodies of international law exist. Most of them are so limited in their power though, that there is little they are able to do but try for cease-fires and bring negotiators to the tables.

The waters become even muddier on what is allowed when nations fall into civil war, rather then just human rights violations. If you begin to support one side, you are now joining into the war. If one of your enemies joins the opposing side in the civil war, do you now engage in open war (not a cold war like with Russia, as this is what happened often during the cold war; we both used proxies) with your enemy? Does in turn a domino effect occur to bring more and more states into the war.

This domino effect is how both of the World Wars occurred on such a large scale. The conflicts started between two sovereign states, and spilled out as allies joined each side, further escalating the scale of the war. At the International level, this needs to be worried about.

Claiming any nation is "usesless" in another individual state's internal disputes is pointless, as no state wants to be seen as committing an Act of War on a sovereign state.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Ringold on 11/20/2007 6:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's a beautiful excuse, for a lawyer, to justify apathy when millions are killed. You should work for the UN. :)


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/20/2007 3:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well, since I'm under the impression (based on the vast amount of news, history books, articles, and publications I have read over the years) that the U.N. did nothing to stop these events. If you have some credible evidence that they had a hand in making these go away, then by all means enlighten us. Also, I want you to tell me why the U.N. let genocide go on in Bosnia about 10-12 years ago, and why NATO had to step in and do something about it, rather than your coveted U.N.

After some further research it seems all the U.N. ever did was try it's best to setup a "war crimes tribunal" once the dust settled. Well that's just dandy, tell that to the million or so Rwandan's that were wiped out. Yea, U.N. what a shining example of doing the right thing. /sarcasm


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By howtochooseausername on 11/21/2007 10:56:02 AM , Rating: 2
Let me start of by saying I think that the UN is corrupt and inefficient.

The reason why the UN did noting in Bosnia was because the Security Council did not want to put UN troops on the ground. UN troops act as peace keepers, not peace makers. The security council knew there would be loss of UN lives if put in that situation.

Also in Rwanda, president Clinton took responsibility for delaying action in the conflict, even though UN troops on the ground were dying. The UN commander even knew that a genocide was going to take place and was about to capture arms caches to prevent it, but that very night the Security Council at the insistence of the White House, aborted the mission.

The point of the UN, originally, was to give the super-powers a formal stage to conduct international diplomacy. Although it does work for rich countries, it fails miserably for poor nations.

Truth is, the UN serves American interests very well. I would think that many countries would be happy to have a different world forum than the UN. If anyone argues for the dissolution of the UN they'll find many supporters over the world.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/21/2007 11:13:42 AM , Rating: 3
> "that very night the Security Council at the insistence of the White House, aborted the mission..."

Stuff and nonsense. I'm no fan of Clinton-- far from it-- but blaming the Rwandan genocide on him is pure fantasy. In fact, the UN's own investigation fingered Kofi Annan (then head of peacekeeping missions) for not passing on warnings of an imminent massacre:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm

Fact is, Belgium withdrew their own troops from UNAMIR even before the Security Council voted to withdraw. And that vote was, by the way, unanimous. Every member agreed...and don't give me any piffle about US "pressure" to gain those votes. Fact is, France was by far the most vociferous in calling for the mission cancellation, and none of the other members needed much convincing.

Also, as the genocide was ongoing, the US led the resolution to restore troops to Rwanda. The UN finally agreed...but the measure was held up over costs until the US finally agreed to foot the majority of the bill for the operation itself.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By howtochooseausername on 11/21/2007 12:31:43 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not accusing Clinton of the Rwandan genocide. What I am saying is that the White House knew of the impending genocide in advance.

Here are some references:
quote:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=13...

quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/04/06/rwa...

Of particular interest the quote from the UN commander during that time:
quote:
Gen. Romeo Dallaire, former U.N. commander in Kigali, said: "The day all that started, the U.S. said not only are we not getting involved, we are not going to support anyone else getting involved."


I don't dispute that Belgium pulled their troops, and that France supported the cancellation of the UN mission. But the US did vote to cancel the mission after discussions with the White House.


By howtochooseausername on 11/21/2007 12:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
I would also like to add this link for anyone interested in an investigation into some of the events:

quote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genoci...


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By gradoman on 11/20/2007 2:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Manto Tshabalala-Msimang tells those with HIV to eat garlic and beetroot.


--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5319680.stm

quote:
The new figures reduce the number of worldwide AIDS cases from 40 to 33 million, cuts the number of new cases by 40%, and reveal that the rate of new cases has been, contrary to past reports, slowing for many years.


-- MAsher

UN may be corrupt, but there are worse people out there telling their people to do nonsense like eat beetroot and garlic, or rape a baby, or that they've got a "cure" for AIDS. I would agree with you if you said they needed a kick in the pants to set them right, but to say that they are worthless...? Some of their people have given their lives to their cause...


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By porkpie on 11/20/2007 2:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
No one is saying to ignore AIDS. The point is that there are a LOT of diseases that kill people, and when you wildly exaggerate the effects of one, you pull funds away from other programs that could save more people.

How much of the money given to the UN for AIDS programs actually winds up helping people? Very little I suspect.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Rollomite on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By TomZ on 11/20/2007 4:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
Judging by your personal attacks, it seems pretty clear that the OP struck a nerve with you, and unfortunately you seemed to be lacking any form of intelligent response.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Rollomite on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/20/2007 6:44:35 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Quite frankly, it's my right to voice WHATEVER opinion I might have about anything or anyone.

Indeed you do.

quote:
The fact that I fail to do so inside your defined parameters of "intelligent response" doesn't concern me at all.

Rather than rant on about what I said, you could earn some credibility to refuting what I said with statements backed by links that disprove w/e I said that you disagreed with. That is how "debate" is typically done. Nothing wrong with debating, theres no emotional attachments, just statements, and coroborating evidence. Jason and Michael are usually at odds with each other but can debate reasonably and civily and don't resort to childish name calling.

quote:
You see the name. Skip the posts.

If you would just debate rather than try to make childish statements about the OP, people would gladly read what you have to say and consider its weight in the matter. Your only discrediting yourself.


By howtochooseausername on 11/21/2007 2:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
That sentiment about kicking the UN out of NY is echoed in many places outside of the US also.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By 8steve8 on 11/20/2007 2:20:04 PM , Rating: 1
I don't like it either...

Global warming, man made or not, may be a real threat to human prosperity on this planet.

AIDS is probably not caused by HIV, and just about all the hoopla and media frenzy around aids, is all about HIV...

oh yeah and aids in africa? thats laughable.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By 8steve8 on 11/20/2007 2:24:22 PM , Rating: 1
before i get super-spammed... look into it
even if hiv did cause aids... the transmission rate via hetero sexual sex is 5-10 occurrences in 10,000... thats w/o a condom and when one of the people in teh sexual act has HIV.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By 8steve8 on 11/20/2007 3:59:45 PM , Rating: 1
voted down by ignorance. nice... believe what he UN tells you.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By TomZ on 11/20/2007 4:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
No, you got rated down because of your own ignorance . There is really no question that HIV causes AIDS.

At least you could have tried to support your views with some links or something. Surely you could find some crackpots somewhere on the Internet that share your views on AIDS.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By 8steve8 on 11/21/2007 12:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
i respect u tomz, seen u around here, but i used to also believe as most do theres no question to the causality of hiv->aids.

but the facts simply do not support this. Research it... learn for yourself.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Ringold on 11/21/2007 12:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
Because it's civil back and forth talk, I'll hop in here and merely point out that one can 'research' other theories, such as NASA faking the Moon landing, the Illuminati ruling the world, and the gold standard being somehow desireable, and due to the awesome power of the internet we can find mountains of supporting research and supposed evidence for all of these, and many other, probable scams.

Credibility of sources has to be taken in to account; these sources have to be clearly identifiable and others need to have done similar research or duplicated their work and agree, especially with the idea that HIV->AIDS.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By 8steve8 on 11/21/2007 1:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
agreed, so to prove hiv causes aids, find evidence of a significant amount of healthy (drug-free) people who get hiv somehow and then get an ammune system defficiency. I stress healthy drug free people.. this means no poppers, no coke, no heroin, and especially no toxic anti-hiv drugs.

reliable sources only please.

(good luck with this one).

FTW


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By 8steve8 on 11/21/2007 1:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
1/3 of people with blood infusions die from resulting complications...

so lets not count ppl who get hiv from infusions.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By TomZ on 11/21/2007 9:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
Here's real information to counter your mis-information:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

There are a bunch of MYTHS debunked on that page - I think they wrote those with you in mind. :o)

And please oh please don't go into some conspiracy theories about how the government is lying to its citizens about the real causes of AIDS.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By 8steve8 on 11/21/2007 5:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
i'd just suggest to actually read the studies referenced in your own link... then come back.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By TomZ on 11/21/2007 8:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting there is something on that page that supports your "alternative" view about AIDS?


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By 8steve8 on 11/21/2007 9:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
it doest show a significant amount of healthy people getting aids without drug use...(only by the virus of hiv)..

alot of the problem with those studies it references is it doesn't consider anti-hiv drugs to be "drug use" ,, when in fact they are the most toxic drug for our immune systems...

also out of 300m ppl in this country it talks about like 2 people , getting it without other risk factors... ... obviously thats not significant.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By 8steve8 on 11/21/2007 12:40:47 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.duesberg.com/presentations/$bnAIDSQuiz.pdf
a starting point.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Griswold on 11/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By TomZ on 11/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Rollomite on 11/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By TomZ on 11/20/2007 4:24:13 PM , Rating: 1
Hate to break it to you, but I am a pretty independent thinker. Sure, I read the other opinions stated here and am sometimes influenced, but for the most part my views are my own. You're trying to imagine much more than is actually going on here.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Rollomite on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By TomZ on 11/20/2007 4:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say your imagination is working overtime. I have only ever had a single account, and I don't care enough about your rating to take even 10 seconds to create one.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Rollomite on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By clovell on 11/23/2007 12:08:28 PM , Rating: 4
if we could dispense with the flames and logical fallacies, that'd be fantastic.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/20/2007 6:50:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
. Just log back into your other account, downrate my post like you did here, and continue to preach like you're not one of the Masher Sheeple.

That won't work since your account is restricted to your IP, cookie and various other fingerprinting. Trying to cheat the system earns a lot of people bans.

But you're welcome to try.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Parhel on 11/20/2007 10:54:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am a pretty independent thinker


Yes, you are. But, I have to agree with Griswold on this one. The ultra-conservative blogs and the litany of "me too" posts (I don't mean you) for every topic that one could possibly take a political stance on is ultimately detracting from my favorite site for tech-related news.

Reading the posts here provide a perfect example. Soon, I predict, it will come full circle and everyone here will be congratulating each other for "discovering" that AIDS isn't even a problem.

Of course AIDS is a problem. It's a huge problem. Is it a problem that the UN abuses and overstates the hell out of to gain funding to then misuse, all the while accomplishing very little? Yes, it's that too.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Pythias on 11/21/2007 10:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ultra-conservative blogs and the litany of "me too" posts


But you're okay with the libblogs and the accompanying "me too posts?"

You're a hypocrite, just like the rest of us. Welcome to the club. :)


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By TomZ on 11/21/2007 12:14:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yes, you are. But, I have to agree with Griswold on this one. The ultra-conservative blogs and the litany of "me too" posts (I don't mean you) for every topic that one could possibly take a political stance on is ultimately detracting from my favorite site for tech-related news.

I don't think I've seen an ultra-conservative post ever on DT. I think you're exaggerating quite a bit there. You're probably referring to Michael's global warming skeptic posts, but I don't see how you can even characterize that as "conservative." The misunderstanding and hype regarding GW goes across the political spectrum.

I have an idea - let's all just post what we think and forget about the labels ("conservative," etc.). Probably makes for a better discussion.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By cochy on 11/21/2007 1:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
I second that. "ultra-conservative" is misplaced there.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By cochy on 11/20/2007 8:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Something like this is, albeit only second grade ammunition, good enough for Asher to use to discredit the UN


Are you kidding? We don't need Asher to discredit the UN. Any semi-informed sentient being should know the UN lost all credibility decades ago. The General Assembly at least. That phony body is massively corrupt. Votes are bought (normally African votes) and as a result we have ridiculous resolutions passed. Just look at how closely these resolutions are adhered to world-wide. They aren't. Have a look at the Arab-Israeli conflict for a wealth of discrediting UN information.


By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/20/2007 5:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
The correlation he was trying to make is that the scientific issues coming from the UN seem to be grossly overstated, not that they aren't current/potential issues. Reading the article is one thing, comprehending it is another.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2007 5:54:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...how you put AIDS and Global Warming in the same sentence there.

It is an absolutely relevant comparison to be honest. Trust me when I say that Masher is not the first person out there to link the overstatment of Aids & Global Warming - in fact, its been in many forms of media the past day or so - including newspapers just as the Washington Post.

No one is here discrediting the validity of Aids being a factor of death rates, or using this to debunk whether Global Warming does or does not exist. What this is showing is that the many agencies and political organizations - in this case, the UN - use topics to achieve their political agendas. Its all about MONEY. The more they politicize a topic, they more MONEY they can bring it.

When articles, studies, and research are out there that show the UN is not using all the funds that were donated for these causes appropriately, it is a simple cause & effect study to show that they are making other topics seem much larger than they are to do the same thing.

What the biggest fact in this matter is that no one in the world will sit here and say that Aids is not a killing disease and is a major problem. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Global Warming really exists, is as bad as people are making it out to be, that man is the cause, or that man has the ability to turn it around.

Politicizing something like Global Warming and its "what if" factor to take money from countries to use at your own disposal, in my opinion, is just as bad, if not worse, than taking money for aids and using it at your own disposal.

In closing, my writing was not meant to deter anyone from the thinking that global warming does or does not exist - I have my opinion on it, and you should have your own. However, its pretty plain to see that when the UN is taking peoples money to fight a cause, and in turn, not using the money for that cause, poses a serious issue. When it goes deeper than that, and they are knowingly overstating issues so that can they dig deeper into other countries pockets for their own agenda, is even worse.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Christopher1 on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2007 6:14:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
but we are now finding out that people are becoming immune to it

Im not a doctor, but I have never heard anything about people being immune to the HIV or Aids virus.

quote:
I was sexually active since the age of 3 with other children, and 7 with adults and teenagers. 2,000 sexual encounters before the age of 12..... and yet I didn't get infected? 4,000 now and I STILL haven't gotten infected?

WTF?

quote:
It's time to realize what HIV is: a man-made or man-altered virus that does not come from nature in any way, shape or form.

You are a seriously demented individual. No one in their right mind is going to say that HIV is a man made virus.

And yes, I remember you quite well. You were the one who openly admitted, and thinks there is nothing wrong with being (as you called it) a "pedosexual". If you were having sexual encounters at age 3, then i feel bad for the upbringing you had and what you went through. But its obvious that now you like it and continue to bring it upon other people.

For that I say you are absolutely sick, and hope that no one here on this forum gives you any credit for a single word that you typed out.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Parhel on 11/21/2007 12:03:28 AM , Rating: 5
Here's a few informational sites about this individual:

http://www.wikisposure.com/Christopher_Kidwell

http://www.corporatesexoffenders.com/

I don't know what the policies of DailyTech are, but I personally am very uncomfortable with his posts.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Ringold on 11/21/2007 12:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. That's disconcerting. I'm all for free speech, so won't say anything either way on that, but it colors my view.

How did you find that, anyway? Just googled "Christopher1" and there it was?


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Parhel on 11/21/2007 12:54:32 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, pretty much. I clicked on his post history, and googled his e-mail address. It seems that he posts all over the place promoting pedophilia.

I believe in free speech too. At the same time, I like the DailyTech community, and I would sleep better knowing that the powers that be weren't allowing the site to be used promote child molestation.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/20/2007 6:17:51 PM , Rating: 5
> "There had never been a virus like that before in history"

You mean, besides viral hepatitus, viral hemorrhagic fever, and quite a few others? HIV isn't the only virus around that requires blood exchange for transmission.

> "Either something is seriously wrong there...or AIDS is hard as *bleep* to get."

Option 2 is correct. The transmission rate for HIV is very low...so low, in fact, that it barely qualifies as an infectious disease at all.

> "Genital herpes can live outside the body on towels for 5 days. Same with chlamydia."

What's your point? We know some virii can survive centuries in outer space...others curl up and die at anything outside normal body temperature. Life is a strange and wonderful phenomenon.

> "It's time to realize what HIV is: a man-made or man-altered virus "

Talk about a leap of faith!


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By cochy on 11/20/2007 9:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was sexually active since the age of 3 with other children, and 7 with adults and teenagers. 2,000 sexual encounters before the age of 12.....


Dog years right? No seriously, err?


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By Misty Dingos on 11/21/2007 8:12:55 AM , Rating: 3
You are a sick a twisted indivdual. When you expire what people will do to your grave will not pass for flowers or rain.


RE: Don't Particularly Like...
By HueyD on 11/21/2007 12:18:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think they are trying to link AIDS and Global Warming. I think they are trying to explain how the UN overstates or exaggerates the issue to get money from concerned governments and organizations.


Aids and the weather
By Andy35W on 11/21/2007 3:07:18 AM , Rating: 3
Firstly, if the UN is alarmist in relation to HIV to get more financial and political gain then why is it the UN publishing these revised figures? It is probably more realistic to say that they are relaeasing what they consider more accurate figures now. Some people still think they are still too high, some people still think too low, because obviously nobody actually knows the real number.

So the argument of climate change being overhyped because HIV infections was overhyped falls at the first hurdle because the claim the UN has overhyped HIV infections is probably not true. More accurately they have overestimated the number in the past and now corrected it.

You could say that they are currently overestimating climate change, which is a valid point, however you would then expect that the majority on non-UN scientists would have a common voice in saying that it was an overestimate, but you do not. You have the odd voice like you do with most scientific things.

So I would say there would not be a large correction in the future to downgrade their findings.




RE: Aids and the weather
By masher2 (blog) on 11/21/2007 8:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
> "if the UN is alarmist in relation to HIV to get more financial and political gain then why is it the UN publishing these revised figures?"

Because the discrepancy between the UN figures and those from other sources had grown too large, and been too well documented. Quite simply, they weren't fooling anyone with their old figures, and many researchers were calling into question not only the UN's inaccuracy, but their motives in promoting it.

> "you would then expect that the majority on non-UN scientists would have a common voice in saying that it was an overestimate"

The term "scientists" is rather fuzzy. However, among researchers in the field of atmospheric physics, meteorology, and other closely-related fields, a majority do say just that. That the IPCC report (especially, the politician-crafted "Summary for Policymakers" that the media reports upon) overestimates both the effects of global warming and our ability to estimate them.

> "So I would say there would not be a large correction in the future to downgrade their findings"

The IPCC has already issued several large corrections to downgrade their findings. If you contrast the recent Fourth Report to the previous one, you'll see their projections for maximum temperature change, sea level rise, and many others have been sharply downgraded.


RE: Aids and the weather
By Andy35W on 11/21/2007 9:18:16 AM , Rating: 2
>"The term "scientists" is rather fuzzy. However, among researchers in the field of atmospheric physics, meteorology, and other closely-related fields, a majority do say just that."

Then why is the general public not hearing this then? Scientists are not hesitant to stick the knife in when it comes to "correct" science in the public domain. Look at cold fusion for example.

I think your sentence is an easy sentence to write but one very hard to prove.Some figures would be a start I guess.

>"The IPCC has already issued several large corrections to downgrade their findings. If you contrast the recent Fourth Report to the previous one, you'll see their projections for maximum temperature change, sea level rise, and many others have been sharply downgraded. "

My point still stands because I doubt their main finding, that manmade causes are 90% likely to be a cause of climate change,is not reduced from before, it is increased. I don't think they will be correcting this downward in the future unless new evidence comes to light.

I cannot see a new theory coming to light which will overturn the common scientific concensus.


RE: Aids and the weather
By masher2 (blog) on 11/21/2007 11:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
> "Then why is the general public not hearing this then?"

Excellent question...but one for the mainstream media, not the scientists themselves. Quite a few of them are being very vocal, even to the point of testifying before Congress, writing letters to newspapers, governmental bodies, etc. The media isn't interested, however.

Several of those researchers point out that, when called by a reporter, they're invariably hung up on when their their opinion diverges from what that reporter wishes to hear.

> "My point still stands because I doubt their main finding, that manmade causes are 90% likely to be a cause of climate change"

Ah yes, the infamous Chapter 9 in the IPCC Fourth Report, which establises likely causes for Climate Change. Contrary to media reports of "thousands of scientists", that chapter was reviewed by all of 62 people....over half of which were representatives or employees of governmental agencies. One comment by one of those I particularly enjoyed, "reads well, at least the bits I understood".

Of the remaining 30-odd reviewers who contributed comments to Chapter 9, most were either members of the IPCC report creation staff itself. Only 7 fully independent scientists reviewed the Chapter and of those 7, I know at least two (Dr V. Gray, mentioned above, and Dr. R. McKitrick) sharply disagree with its conclusions. Another (Martin Lewitt) added comments that solar forcing may explain the majority of climate change. A fourth (Gareth Jones) felt the certainty level expressed was too high. That leaves three in agreement that there is a 90% chance man is responsible for at least half of the 0.7 degrees warming we've experienced.

Now contrast that with the dozens of climatologists not asked by the IPCC to review the document who disagree with its conclusions, and your use of the word "consensus" is ill-founded. That consensus exists primarily within the media only.


RE: Aids and the weather
By Andy35W on 11/21/2007 2:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
>Now contrast that with the dozens of climatologists not asked by the IPCC to review the document who disagree with its conclusions, and your use of the word "consensus" is ill-founded. That consensus exists primarily within the media only.

Dozens out of how many in total? If it's 1 000, 10 000 or 100 000 then we know where we stand. You seem to be trying to give an impression of the unspoken majority being against the media backed minority, but unless you can give some actual numbers then actually I think it is the other way around. Any numbers of the total, ideally in a percentage term?

I actually think you are engaged in spin. Take your blog headline for instance. It's hardly neutral is it, in fact it would be considered as leading the jury to be honest

UN Admits to Long-term Alarmism over AIDS Epidemic

Have they, or did you make that up? You say Helen Epetein says that, does she work for the UN? Sounds like a headline for the sensationalist press which is only contradicted if you read the small print.

>"Quite a few of them are being very vocal, even to the point of testifying before Congress, writing letters to newspapers, governmental bodies, etc. The media isn't interested, however"

Well nowadays scientists and researchers have their own websites so I think this line of reasoning can be shot down in an instant. Take the UK Met office website for instance, if they could not get their view across with the mainstream media then they can still post there. So what do I read? They agree with the common consensus. Or is the Hadley Centre completely wrong or pumping climate change for their own evil needs?

Can I ask why you are so opposed to this theory that seems to have a lot of evidence for it? What theory do you support if it is not manmade?


RE: Aids and the weather
By masher2 (blog) on 11/21/2007 5:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "Dozens out of how many in total? If it's 1 000, 10 000 or 100 000 then we know where we stand."

There are only a few hundred researchers in atmospheric physics and related disciplines in the entire world. Most of the IPCC's "2500 scientists" are in unrelated fields. Many are not in the physical sciences at all, but rather economists, government representatives, etc.

> "Any numbers of the total, ideally in a percentage term?"

Obviously, it depends on how one defines the argument. Certainly most would agree that GHGs can potentially affect climate. When you add to that whether its happening today, will continue to happen, to what degree, and whether or not the result will be harmful or not, then the percentage begins to decline.

But this is the important fact. Without a doubt, the vast majority agree that the current state of the science does not support any doomsday scenario. Talk of global warming being "the most serious problem mankind faces" is nothing but sheer fear-mongering.


RE: Aids and the weather
By Andy35W on 11/21/2007 6:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
>But this is the important fact. Without a doubt, the vast majority agree that the current state of the science does not support any doomsday scenario. Talk of global warming being "the most serious problem mankind faces" is nothing but sheer fear-mongering.

I agee with this paragraph, but on the other hand we should not be modern day King Canutes because we do not want to hear something that we do not find palatable.



RE: Aids and the weather
By ivanv4 on 11/22/2007 8:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
Today this came on the bbc news, regarding the UN to considere Chernobyl as a recovery zone now after 20 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7105273.stm

quote:
The declaration comes on the back of a report by the WHO which found "the health impact of the accident was much less severe than was initially feared", the BBC's Thomas Lane in New York says.


quote:
It also said the majority of the affected areas only suffered "low doses of radiation - doses that are close to naturally existing 'background levels'".


So is interesting how the UN is taking back what it has previously said.


Oh come on already.
By Symmetriad on 11/20/2007 3:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to object to your posting the article because it's a legitimate and interesting piece, but linking it to global warming in a blatant and silly attempt to get some discrediting points? It's irresponsible, self-serving and disingenuous in an article that has nothing to do with it, and is nothing but inflammatory and agenda-serving. Your credibility seriously suffers for it.




RE: Oh come on already.
By grenableu on 11/20/2007 3:49:47 PM , Rating: 3
So you only find it "interesting" that the UN has been lying to us for years about AIDS, but don't think its even remotely possible they're doing the same about global warming, even though some of their own scientists say they are?

Seriously, the blind fanaticism of some of you people is really shocking.


RE: Oh come on already.
By Ringold on 11/20/2007 6:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's the left's form of logic:

If it's a group that holds liberal ideals, they can be shown to lie and cheat on absolutely everything but still somehow be trustworthy.

If we were discussing, say, a conservative think-tank, they could produce reliable reports for decades, still be the source of ire for the left, and if they screw one thing up they'd never let them live it down.


RE: Oh come on already.
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2007 6:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
You mean how in the 1980's when the liberals blamed Ronald Regan for the Aids epidemic in the United States? And now how the researchers are saying that Aids actually entered the US around 1969 from a Haitian?

But lets not say that the UN isn't trustworthy!

Oh Ringold, the left-logic indeed.


More pressing diseases
By howtochooseausername on 11/21/2007 11:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that there are many more pressing diseases affecting the world than AIDs.

TB is the number one killer in Africa.
World wide its Heart disease.

The money poured into AIDs relief and research is staggering. I have always believed that money could be better applied to more pressing diseases and education.

Although I don't agree with Michael's figure, I do agree that the AIDs epidemic has been alarmist. The reason for this is that many Hollywood celebrities were hit with AIDs in the seventies and eighties and so it got a lot of media attention.




RE: More pressing diseases
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/21/2007 11:10:02 AM , Rating: 3
Well if hollywood wasn't banging each other all the time, it wouldn't have even been a blip on the radar.


too little too late
By 8steve8 on 11/20/2007 2:27:41 PM , Rating: 3
the UN has used HIV/AIDS to try to win peoples hearts and claim legitimacy for too long... ive long since discredited the UN as irrelevant.




Bureaucracy
By ancient46 on 11/21/2007 11:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
Once it is created it tends to be self-perpetuating. It does not care about the reason it was created or the current state of its mission it only cares about itself. When disasters happen, the government marshals its resources to build its employee base, assemble contractors from the political party contribution base, and to fund the politician's trips to the area. The major sources of real immediate disaster relief comes from the private sector who spend money to achieve results. One only has to look at the early days of Katrina relief to see this. Compare the effectiveness of the government to the private foundations and commercial companies who were able to respond immediately. When you let a government handle relief, it only compounds the disaster.




By Fritzr on 11/22/2007 2:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
Many are complaining because the article says that UN has lied about BOTH Global Warming and AIDS. Of course not ... UN has not lied about only these two. They've lied about these two and many other things when they needed to raise money.

In US the charity guideline is 80-85%+ to whatever the charity is funding ... more than 20% to overhead is considered to be cheating the donors. If UN routinely spends less than 80% of donations on the cause they are collecting for, then they are guilty of mis-using funds.

Red Cross was charged with this after the California earthquake a few years back. Their response is the missing money was being diverted to emergencies that didn't generate massive donations due to national news coverage. This may or may not be a legitimate excuse, but it did cause some top level US Red Cross execs their jobs.

UN funds a lot of relief programs that you need to dig deep to find since they do not make it into the news. While famine relief in <take one from today's headlines> is drawing millions in donations, who is donating for the unreported relief programs? How much of the missing money is going into unreported, but legit programs.

On the other hand there are well documented stories showing where a lot of UN money gets diverted. One such case was Iraq between the 2 Gulf Wars. UN sanctions limited oil sales and required UN license. Reality however is that Iraq's government paid bribes to UN officials (some reports say including Sec Gen Kofi Anan) to sell oil outside the monitored system.

There is fraud in the UN, there is revenue sharing between projects that draw lots of donations and orphan projects. The question remains though ... how much of the hype that is used to generate revenue can be trusted?

As far as Global Warming. The argument that "UN has overstated the effect means that the correct amount is none at all from controllable sources" is faulty since it assumes that either the UN is correct and their numbers are right OR that the amount is zero since the UN has the wrong numbers. The most likely answer is "None of the above". The only thing that is implied by the statement "90% is incorrect" is that the reality is either above 90% or below 90%. Reality does not require that it either be 0% or 90% ... it could easily be 41.5%, 10%, 89%, or even more likely none of these. The most likely range can be found by rounding up all the figures from research groups looking at all the different aspects of GW and dropping the bottom & top figures ... the middle range is the most likely to be accurate.

Some state that HIV does not cause AIDS.

HIV is a virus that is known to infect the immune system. It is known to be able to exist in humans asymptomatically. This means that it causes no visible symptoms.

When the infected immune system cells are depleted enough by the chronic HIV infection then other diseases that would normally be knocked out by the T4 cells take hold and cause the person's health to deteriorate and eventually die. Any patient who has depleted T4 levels, and acquires multiple diseases from a long list of rare diseases that are rare due to normal immune response are said to show symptoms of "The Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome". There may be other things such as immuno-depressive drug therapies that lead to this syndrome, but the number 1 cause is HIV infection.

The UN by overstating the numbers is heading to the same trap that they've already fallen into with global warming. People will say that the UN lied therefore the poblem doesn't exist AT ALL. The reality is that if they say 40 and the real number is 33 then there is STILL 33. That 33 doesn't become 0 just because someone published falsified reports.

HIV immunity is extremely rare, does exist and for those who've acquired immunity through t4 cell mutation is NOT 100%. There are rare HIV strains that do not use the normal infection path and these "hot" strains can and do infect patients with the T4 defect immunity.

A researcher in Africa found a normal immune response that was suppressing HIV completely in a prostitute. This was mentioned in an AIDS documentary aired on PBS in the US. This may or may not have been verified since that time as I have seen no reports verifying either the immune response or showing that what the researcher found was not what it appeared to be. The focus of that piece was on the research being done by African doctors in Africa.

The bottom line is that Global Warming is a problem. It has a human caused component & a normal geological component. There is little agreement as to how much GW or how it is split between manmade and natural sources. Where there is agreement is that when a high profile supporter is shown to have faked reports, people will start throwing out accurate reports that are seen as being to close to the fakes.

The same goes for HIV/AIDS. The fact that the UN has systematically cooked the figures to increase the funds raised does not make HIV fade away as a disproved myth. It does show that anyone seriously interested should not be relying on the UN as their sole source of info :)




.
By Hacp on 11/22/2007 9:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
“This is not a surprise,” said Daniel Halperin, an expert on H.I.V. infection rates at the Harvard School of Public Health and co-author of an article published three years ago arguing that estimates of infection rates were too high. “The writing was on the wall years ago,” he said.

“But,” he added, “this doesn’t mean the epidemic is going away, everything is fine and now forget about it — not at all. There are still about 10 countries in southern Africa that are real nightmares.”




By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/20/2007 4:15:05 PM , Rating: 1
There is plenty of AIDS in the forest.




"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

















botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki