AIDS: a Malthusian Agenda of Depopulation?

[Paragon]

Hiv in many ways is no longer the menace it once was, with current treatment one can can carry on a relatively comfortable life, and given da fact that these drungs are increasingly being made available ..

Vanquish lol..and what are world are you living in? You think HIV/AIDS is no longer the menace it use to be? That must be the uderstatement of the century, sxb. Here let me up date you statistically. Check below: 3 years ago this was the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa;

 

HIV/AIDS statistics ( See Table 1 and 2)

 

It gives you an idea of the pattern of infection. If you look with an open eye and mind, you might just (luckily) realise something! That out of the millions of Africans affected, only 50,000 are getting medical help!! What a shock, isnt it! Now tell me where are these medications you say are available?

 

Moreover let me add, say, if a region as that of Southern Africa has only 2% of the world's population, but is now home to 60% of HIV/AIDS sufferers, wont you get worried? Its quite naive to think depopulation always takes place with the population in mind withou a thought being given to the land they inhabit.

 

As for the origin of the disease, I am not certain, but if a country like South Africa for example, is widely known to have had a Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) projects (such as Project Coast), capable of 'genetically' targetting specifically 'pigmented' races with intent, isnt there a probability that the spread could have been an apathied work. In South Africa it has already happend that they employed a skin-absorbing substance poisonous to only Blacks during the apathied regime. That shall give you a headstart. If not it is no surpise 'cos scepticism is the newly-found African thing . I doesn't have to a substancial scepticism, we do it 'cos our old colonialists taught us so .

 

For more information check; (a) http://stimson.org/cbw/?sn=cb20020113266

...(b) http://www.zkea.com/archives/archive10004.html

 

----

 

That said, I was more concerned with the socio-economic factors of HIV/AIDS Southern Africa's communities. There are many rural households dissolving due to the death of the head or both parents. This dissolvement affects the local community and thus the general society. With women and children (the cornerstone of any community) being the worst affected, will we witness a large scale breakdown of social (economic) structures, hence state aparatus?

[Vanquish_V12]

first of all i said relatively comfortable lives, second of all i do not deny the fact that HIV does make people infected with more prone to die from other diseases, however it can hardly qualify for the exterminations scenerio u have painted for us na i mean. like some1 quite rightly pointed out HIV is spread by vicely life style in most cases.

 

getting back to ur raula concerning the politikin of HIV drugs, well unlike most unrealistic liberal minded ****** i am realist, u cant force big pharma to provide free medication we all have to realize like or not we live in capatalist driven world, they do have to answer to their shareholders which include those same ****** that fight for cheaper drungs but the sametime go nuts when they find out that might affect the bottom line in their companies quarterly reports, so lets keep it real, plus we wouldnt wanna jeopardize any future endevours that seek to cure illness just because they dont deem profitable since governments pass legistation for free handouts.

 

but again dont mistake me for a capalist either, i do agree we need a paradigm shift, oh crap this topic is endless i guess am have to end here b4 i endulge in trashing capatalism.

[Faarax-Brawn]

getting back to ur raula concerning the politikin of HIV drugs, well unlike most unrealistic liberal minded ****** i am realist, u cant force big pharma to provide free medication we all have to realize like or not we live in capatalist driven world, they do have to answer to their shareholders

No one is asking them to give out the drugs for free. What’s the point of them developing drugs when it’s of no use to them?

 

90% of the worlds HIV cases is in the sub Saharan Africa. They shouldn’t be bothered in any way to waste money on research if they are not going to make the drugs cheaper.

It’s a simple case of supply and demand.

[Vanquish_V12]

obviously u r not familiar with the tireless efforts of steven lewis. beside that point, big pharma has no need for the sub-saharan market HIV its chronic disease meaning life-customer who is willing to dish out any whatever price saving the life entails. big pharma knows even at unbelieveably cheap prices most africans still cant afford the treatment, and the truth of the fact is they cant plus there is a huge logistics problem.

[raula]

^^^like Brown said no one is asking for freebies dear-but the opportunity to manufacture generic replicants of the brand names. is that too much to ask? yes we live in a capitalist environment but the fact still remains who gets the power to decide your life; pharm companies or the govt? its neither but atleast my point is that International committees should atleast provide African markets with the resources then for combating "OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTIONS/DISEASES" that tag along with HIV/AIDS patients-atleast then we have a way of elongating lifes and protecting them from severity of the epidemic. And that will constitute "loosening" patent laws that restrict African or thirld world pharmaceticals to manufacture atleast their own drugs JUST LIKE BRAZIL, THAILAND (mind you for them its for HIV/AIDS) why not the Africans :confused: why do we (africans) always lag behind every step-let me not even proceed with IMPERIALISM and RACISM. I mean for godsakes we dont even have the right to manufacture our own "MALARIA" drugs-tis always imported or developed in some lab in S.Africa or Uganda that is a subsidiary of major pharmacetical company like Glaxo and claim credibility to it-yet we still have to buy the brand name while we watch our people die right infront of our eyes.

 

Excuse me Iam not trying to be a moralist here-My point is that we need atleast the International committee on this African Epidemic Case-with the soaring 2/5 cases of AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa; drugs are needed and faster before we loose the whole continent. Statistically, ~10% of AIDS patients are covered by ART(antiretroviral therapy) in Africa :eek:

Sure, dont the pharm-companies atleast think of making some profit by providing to these people-If they weren't so concerned about their high clientele (--> the Rich man's diseases-such as Cardiovascular 'epidemics' that persist in the west)by selling LIPITOR, VIOXX, CELEBREX and such brand names.

 

Ok-sorry I got off-track-but my point precisely-The pharm companies have TOO MUCH SUCKING POWER.

 

I will be back later with breakdown of social fabrics AIDS affected households-a major concern currently is of the millions of orphans, food insecurity, "SURVIVAL SEX," etc.

 

Sources: http://www.who.int/en/

[Vanquish_V12]

Raula who said africans cant manufacture their own drugs, they can do whatever they want as long as they developed the drug. BUT why da hell would some1 give u the right to use knowledge they spend billions to acquire it, see my point.

 

lets face it by forcing pharma to share intellectual property u simply prevent incentive for future research. and like i said even with recent progress of making these drugs a fraction of wha dey cost in developed world, its not even enough to make a dent only about 100 000 africans receive HIV treatment.

[raula]

I understand your point.

[juba]

Originally posted by raula:

"SURVIVAL SEX,"

um i have a couple of ideas what this might mean,but i think ill take ur def :confused:

[shyhem]

I don't really entertain conspiracy theories and AIDS is no different.AIDS in most cases is the result of irresponsible behaviours.U sleep around and we all the know the results,u burn u'r sh!t up.Take a look at muslim countries and u will understand why there is nothing mysterious about AIDS.

[Paragon]

revive it

[SURAMBAYA]

AIDS in the long run might be GOOD for the motherland. They claim Sub-Saharan Africa constitutes 11% of the world's population...and they are growing, really fast. Something like 300 to 750 million between 1975 to 2005. They will click 1 billion in 2020.

 

This growth is nothing but a liability to the rest of the globe. Why? ..Who will feed these people? ..Who will stop them from wars? etc... We all know that continent is and will remain stagnant in all aspects.

 

Population reduction or at least stabilization is necessary here. The only way to achieve this goal, is through diseases, wars and natural disasters... since Family planning couldn't be drilled into the Africans. Therefore, AIDS comes in handy here.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by SURAMBAYA:

AIDS in the long run might be GOOD for the motherland. They claim Sub-Saharan Africa constitutes 11% of the world's population...and they are growing, really fast. Something like 300 to 750 million between 1975 to 2005. They will click 1 billion in 2020.

 

This growth is nothing but a liability to the rest of the globe. Why? ..Who will feed these people? ..Who will stop them from wars? etc... We all know that continent is and will remain stagnant in all aspects.

 

Population reduction or at least stabilization is necessary here. The only way to achieve this goal, is through diseases, wars and natural disasters... since Family planning couldn't be drilled into the Africans. Therefore, AIDS comes in handy here.

How did you ever come to that conclusion? You want to get rid of the weakest to make way for the strongest? What good is that for the mother continent, except being good for Western populations that aren't growing at all?

 

Your thinking is definately Malthusian, and genecidal at the same time. I don't know if you are aware of that.

[Cara.]

This is a very interesting discussion folks. I don't know if the origins of HIV is anything more than natural, but I do know that some African governments could do a much better job of battling the AIDS epidemic. South Africa's blight has a political basis rooted in the leadership willfully blinding themselves to the scope of the problem. In contrast, countries such as Uganda have managed turn the tide of the epidemic by taking effective measures to educate people and implementing policies that actually work.

[Paragon]

^Indeed, Cara.

[Som@li]

Nice topic, thanks paragon for reviving it again.

 

I totally agree that there is some form of conspiracy behind Aids, and idea of depopulation, it does not matter where it originated, it is a big issue in Africa, and developing countries, Rich countries can afford to control it, (affordable and Easy access to condoms,keeping a record of HIV patients, awareness and education, effective legal system to punish those who spread it, far superior medical care,...etc) One person was saying, people can choose not to have sex? and thus stop? can people stop having sex? I don't think so. It is a perfect way of propagating, while still taking the blame for it.

 

Less than 20% of worlds population gets 80% of worlds resources? that is a crazy figure, Some group is trying to stop 80% of population who want their fair share.