How AIDS in Africa was overstated

Discussion in 'Health and Lifestyle' started by manu1959, Apr 6, 2006.

  1. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    3% infection rate not 30%

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12175521/

    AIDS deaths on the predicted scale never arrived here, government health officials say. A new national study illustrates why: The rate of HIV infection among Rwandans ages 15 to 49 is 3 percent, according to the study, enough to qualify as a major health problem but not nearly the national catastrophe once predicted.

    The new data suggest the rate never reached the 30 percent estimated by some early researchers, nor the nearly 13 percent given by the United Nations in 1998.
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    69%?!!?!?!

    that's insane. there is going to be no one in that country in a few years at that rate.

    On another note, are they going to return all the money we gave them to fight the disease since its apparently not as bad?
     
  3. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Of course not. The whole reason for the distortion in the first place was to...get money.
     
  4. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    Hobbit, I don't think you've been to Africa. I have and you can see many people walking around on the street with full blown AIDS. Multiply that by the number of people who don't have obvious symptoms and you are still talking about an epidemic, regardless of the percentage you want to put on it.
     
  5. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,885
    Thanks Received:
    2,071
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,775
    Either way, there is no reason at all for our government to be giving one penny to countries to "fight AIDS". If you want to those countries to get money then open up your checkbook and donate to a charity. Forcing all of us to give to these types of 'charities' via taxes is immoral.
     
  6. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    Then we shouldn't be paying astronomical taxes for anything else either. That way we might have money left for charity or religion or whatever we want to spend it on.

    News today is Bush wants approval to build 125 nuclear (or nucular as he says) bombs. Face it, after the first 3 or 4 are detonated we won't need the rest. Armageddon will have been unleashed. It's a waste of money. Taxes and spending should be cut for everything.
     
  7. deaddude
    Offline

    deaddude Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,403
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +77
    Dont we have enough Nuclear bombs to kill everyliving thing on earth (except perhaps a few cockroaches) 5 times? Seems kind of pointless to make more.
     
  8. The ClayTaurus
    Offline

    The ClayTaurus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,062
    Thanks Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +333
    Consider it penis enlargement.
     
  9. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    Producing new Nucs seems to be a reasonably move to me. Ever shot old ammunition and have multiple misfires?

    I’m sure the intricate electronics in a Nuc are subject to deterioration over a period of years. When we need one, should we just hope it works?


    MissileMan could tell us for sure. However, it seems like a no brainer to me.
     
  10. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    Why would we "need" 125? If they go stale wouldn't it be smarter to build a few at a time. I for one don't think the world can withstand the detonation of 125 nukes.
     

Share This Page