Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Who Gave The Africans AIDS


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#76 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:59 AM

we don't know that the male from the 60s was a prostitute, Gazi, but it is possible.  Furthermore, there are blood samples from people with HIV from earlier.

 

There are also a bunch of diseases which later became AIDS indicators that show up at abnormally high frequencies in Africa in the 70s, with really high mortality rates unlike what those diseases normally see... so...

Really? Where in Africa of the 54 countries? So you think all you need to say is 'in Africa' and your statement is validated? Well if there were any 'bunch of diseases' in Africa the europeans brought it with them since they weren't there before the Europeans. And Europe was always a disease plagued continent from its inset.
 



#77 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,483 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:42 PM

So you're saying the whole world were well informed by practicing safe sex except Africans? You're saying the muslims with their 7 wives were very AIDS enlightened while the majority christian southern Africans were sucking each others' blood? I made no comment as to the origin of the AIDS epidemic but circumstantial evidence and the practice of the Apartheid government is enough to deduction it was in their interest to spread the virus among the African majority. That is the reason quarantine and segregation is always so vital for white populations. It just makes sense.

 

You mentioned those SA nations have a legitimate issue with the WHO, it seems like you're trying to trying to pass the blame to them instead of the white population. They're one and the same. The Apartheid/white government was running the WHO in the Southern African region during that period.

 

Evidence? Yes. The disproportionate number of people with AIDS  in African countries with minority white population. That is NOT a coincidence. You speak like it's beyond white people to have done this when genocide and slavery was routine in that region.

 

So how did the apartheid government spread the disease to central Africa?  You are reaching here.  Your deductions are circumstantial at best and ignore the actual epidemiology of the disease.

 

The "whole world" does not practice female circumcision, and most importantly, the disease didn't arise in "the whole world," but in Africa, where certain lifestyle features not unique to Africa but present there allowed the disease to spread.  Certain types of sex under different conditions have higher rates of HIV transmission.  That's why it spread so rapidly through the gay communities in major US cities.  The majority of the world probably does NOT practice safe sex, but HIV, again, DID NOT originate in "the majority of the world," it originated in Africa.  Africa's situation is dire, and it is important that developed nations participate in assisting people in need there. 

 

Yes, African nations have legitimate issues with various world health participants, including the WHO.  Big pharma is a piece of poo in a lot of ways, but they are not the ones that convinced Mbeki to prevent his health services from treating HIV, nor with having a disinformation campaign.  I have an extremely hard time believing an apartheid government that didn't exist was running the WHO in the late 90s to mid 2000s, and the WHO was advocating a different strategy than what Mbeki went with (which amounted to sticking his head in the ground).

 

Sorry, but a history of slavery and terrible poo does not substantiate nor provide evidence of a vast white-person conspiracy to kill Africans in Africa.  You have no evidence of such a thing because AIDS is not a white person conspiracy to kill Africans.  Sorry.

 

AIDS denialism IS NOT unique to Africa but it is a major problem where it is found, and it had major political acceptance by Mbeki in South Africa and surrounding nations.  See http://en.wikipedia..../AIDS_denialism for details.

 

 

 

Really? Where in Africa of the 54 countries? So you think all you need to say is 'in Africa' and your statement is validated? Well if there were any 'bunch of diseases' in Africa the europeans brought it with them since they weren't there before the Europeans. And Europe was always a disease plagued continent from its inset.
 

 

No my statement is valid based on the evidence I presented earlier in this thread, which you decided not to read and make your ignorance known to the board. Congratulations.

 

In Europe before the advent of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), fatal cases of infection

with Cryptococcus neoformansresembling acute meningitis were rarely described and never in young adults. However,
rapidly fatal cryptococcal meningitis in young Africans has been known to exist in central Africa for at least 30
years, mainly in the lower area of the Congo River basin. Cases have been reported in this area since 1953, particularly
in young patients during the 1950s. It is also known that central African AIDS patients frequently suffer from
cryptococcosis, and there is a possibility that earlier clinical reports of encephalitis were actually fatal cases of AIDS
in young Africans. It appears possible that the central part of the African continent is the area where human immunodeficiency virus originated.

 

Note that this paper was published prior to recent molecular phylogenetic studies on relatedness of SIV and HIV.  In the decade since this paper, we have learned a great deal, but I bring it up because it demonstrates the possible presence of AIDS in Africa for at least 30 years prior to the 2000s.

http://www.ajtmh.org...t/58/3/273.long

 

Why do you think that diseases weren't in Africa before Europeans?  This is patently false... in every possible way... And not only false but uneducated and hilarious given the huge number of diseases that originated in Africa, unsurprisingly give the evolutionary history of humanity there.

 



#78 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,329 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:46 PM

And now we see how stories of purposeful propagating of diseases to native americans from colonialists survive for generations. 



#79 Jangler

Jangler

    Its gonna be just like they say, them voices tell me so

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,995 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:50 PM

HIV1 has had more than one cross over with the earliest currently dated to the thirties.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1088480/

 



#80 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:18 PM

So how did the apartheid government spread the disease to central Africa?  You are reaching here.  Your deductions are circumstantial at best and ignore the actual epidemiology of the disease.

compared to Southern Africa, Central Africa have a much lower AIDS prevalence rate. And guess what, central Africa does NOT have a white minority.
 

 

 

 

The "whole world" does not practice female circumcision, and most importantly, the disease didn't arise in "the whole world," but in Africa, where certain lifestyle features not unique to Africa but present there allowed the disease to spread.  Certain types of sex under different conditions have higher rates of HIV transmission.  That's why it spread so rapidly through the gay communities in major US cities.  The majority of the world probably does NOT practice safe sex, but HIV, again, DID NOT originate in "the majority of the world," it originated in Africa.  Africa's situation is dire, and it is important that developed nations participate in assisting people in need there.

News flash, Africa is NOT the only continent with those who practice female circumcision. Are you making the argument there is more homosexual practice in southern Africa? Not buying it, sex alone could not have catapult the infection rate in SA that high. Bare in mind, I'm not referring to solely South Africa(the country). And who says Africa is in dire? Africa doesn't need your sympathy. 

 

 

Sorry, but a history of slavery and terrible poo does not substantiate nor provide evidence of a vast white-person conspiracy to kill Africans in Africa.  You have no evidence of such a thing because AIDS is not a white person conspiracy to kill Africans.  Sorry.

Sorry, it does. The track record and the circumstantial evidence is too overwhelming to disregard.

 

 

 

Note that this paper was published prior to recent molecular phylogenetic studies on relatedness of SIV and HIV.  In the decade since this paper, we have learned a great deal, but I bring it up because it demonstrates the possible presence of AIDS in Africa for at least 30 years prior to the 2000s.

http://www.ajtmh.org...t/58/3/273.long

All the the sources you provided are invalid if they weren't published before the AIDS epidemic was discovered in the late 1970s. Anything afterwards can be construed as covering their tracks. I'm sure the Central African medical system was not advanced enough to keep track of new disease discovery. Who were making those discoveries in central Africa? Europeans? What were they doing there?

Remember, it's not my argument that caucasians created AIDS to kill Africans. My argument is, after the discovery of the virus they figured they can use it as a population control in that region. That is why quarantine/segregation is an essential part of the white nationalism. The debate over the origin of that disease is pointless because I'm sure whoever was responsible for it would never come forward. Would you ever thought that the CIA would be selling drug to the African American community? But they were. It's no more a secret. Why is it so far fetch that the Apartheid government was poisoning the South African blood bank with the AIDS virus to rid that region of all the natives. After all, smallpox was use in a similar way in order to inherit this great land(America) of ours.(lol)

Believe me, this is nothing for Europeans(Or may I add, at that time?)



#81 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,483 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:02 PM

compared to Southern Africa, Central Africa have a much lower AIDS prevalence rate. And guess what, central Africa does NOT have a white minority.

Central Africa has a much higher prevalence than the rest of the world despite what you have said, which doesn't jive with Africa's HIV/AIDS problem being caused by white people.

 

 

News flash, Africa is NOT the only continent with those who practice female circumcision. Are you making the argument there is more homosexual practice in southern Africa? Not buying it, sex alone could not have catapult the infection rate in SA that high. Bare in mind, I'm not referring to solely South Africa(the country). And who says Africa is in dire? Africa doesn't need your sympathy. 

 

Please re-read what I wrote; I even said that Africa was not unique in the situation it was in with female circumcision, but what was unique was that AIDS originated there.  I never said anything about Africa having more homosexuals at all; I doubt it does, but  Furthermore, there have been issues with AIDS denialism and access to anti retrovirals.  As for your idea that sex alone couldn't account for that, I have no idea why you think that.  One person spread AIDS to 40 others.  Some forms of even heterosexual sex can have upwards of 40% chance of passing on an infection.

 

All the the sources you provided are invalid if they weren't published before the AIDS epidemic was discovered in the late 1970s. Anything afterwards can be construed as covering their tracks. I'm sure the Central African medical system was not advanced enough to keep track of new disease discovery. Who were making those discoveries in central Africa? Europeans? What were they doing there?

Remember, it's not my argument that caucasians created AIDS to kill Africans. My argument is, after the discovery of the virus they figured they can use it as a population control in that region. That is why quarantine/segregation is an essential part of the white nationalism. The debate over the origin of that disease is pointless because I'm sure whoever was responsible for it would never come forward. Would you ever thought that the CIA would be selling drug to the African American community? But they were. It's no more a secret. Why is it so far fetch that the Apartheid government was poisoning the South African blood bank with the AIDS virus to rid that region of all the natives. After all, smallpox was use in a similar way in order to inherit this great land(America) of ours.(lol)

Believe me, this is nothing for Europeans(Or may I add, at that time?)

 

This is illogical; there could be no sources of an AIDS epidemic before there was one.  Furthermore, it is insulting that you think scientists working after the apartheid government fell were still working to advance some secret agenda, particularly considering the papers I'm linking to you aren't even directly related to *South Africa* but to the origin of HIV and AIDS.

 

There is ZERO evidence that an Apartheid government contaminated the blood supply!  That is flat out ridiculous.  Provide support for such an outlandish claim besides the fact that those people were evil.  If that was true, then why is it that in the 2000s, the percent of adults living with HIV in South Africa actually INCREASED?  Why is it that in Botswana, HIV prevalence is HIGHER than in South Africa?  If the Apartheid government wanted to control South Africa, why doesn't South Africa have the highest prevalence of the region? 



#82 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,760 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:06 PM

because you don't poo in your own backyard

 

that and you want to weaken the regions you haven't assimilated

 

not that i believe it, i'm just saying



#83 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,483 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:08 PM

His argument is that they are pooing in their own back yard.



#84 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:23 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Central Africa has a much higher prevalence than the rest of the world despite what you have said, which doesn't jive with Africa's HIV/AIDS problem being caused by white people.

 

 

Please re-read what I wrote; I even said that Africa was not unique in the situation it was in with female circumcision, but what was unique was that AIDS originated there.  I never said anything about Africa having more homosexuals at all; I doubt it does, but  Furthermore, there have been issues with AIDS denialism and access to anti retrovirals.  As for your idea that sex alone couldn't account for that, I have no idea why you think that.  One person spread AIDS to 40 others.  Some forms of even heterosexual sex can have upwards of 40% chance of passing on an infection.

 

 

This is illogical; there could be no sources of an AIDS epidemic before there was one.  Furthermore, it is insulting that you think scientists working after the apartheid government fell were still working to advance some secret agenda, particularly considering the papers I'm linking to you aren't even directly related to *South Africa* but to the origin of HIV and AIDS.

 

There is ZERO evidence that an Apartheid government contaminated the blood supply!  That is flat out ridiculous.  Provide support for such an outlandish claim besides the fact that those people were evil.  If that was true, then why is it that in the 2000s, the percent of adults living with HIV in South Africa actually INCREASED?  Why is it that in Botswana, HIV prevalence is HIGHER than in South Africa?  If the Apartheid government wanted to control South Africa, why doesn't South Africa have the highest prevalence of the region? 

 

 

I don't know where you get your facts from about AIDS prevalence in Africa. I got mind from an updated source. That's the problem with everything you said, you act like you're well informed but don't know the basic statistics about the countries you speak of. A simple google search can help you out. Central Africa's AIDS prevalence is way lower than any other southern African State.

 

I never mentioned Apartheid government scientist because it doesn't take a scientist to contaminate a blood supply.

 

Just so you know, Botswana does have a minority white population. And Botswana was part of South Africa during the Apartheid government. And also, Botswana have a tiny population of 2million to SA's 48million. 



#85 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:19 AM

because you don't poo in your own backyard

 

that and you want to weaken the regions you haven't assimilated

 

not that i believe it, i'm just saying

 

Segregation is an effective quarantine method. It's hard to cleanse out a population with biological weapon if they're your neighbor but if you segregate from them, spread some contagion among them, you can watch them die from a distance. Then all you have to do is remove the corpse and you have a beautiful arable land with beautiful animal and ocean(the story of America). That exact scenario happened in Australia, new zealand, the americas, and it was about to happen in Southern Africa but there were civilizations and a very large African population present, so there were some resistance. Segregation is not as harmless it appear to be. Segregate but equal, there is mean to the madness. White South African were practically putting up walls around their houses to keep out non-whites. Everything start making sense now.



#86 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,760 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:23 AM

When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land.

 

-Desmond Tutu

 

sound familiar?

 

religion is a disease that keeps us from progressing as cultures and as a species



#87 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,483 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:53 AM

I don't know where you get your facts from about AIDS prevalence in Africa. I got mind from an updated source. That's the problem with everything you said, you act like you're well informed but don't know the basic statistics about the countries you speak of. A simple google search can help you out. Central Africa's AIDS prevalence is way lower than any other southern African State.

 

I never mentioned Apartheid government scientist because it doesn't take a scientist to contaminate a blood supply.

 

Just so you know, Botswana does have a minority white population. And Botswana was part of South Africa during the Apartheid government. And also, Botswana have a tiny population of 2million to SA's 48million. 

 

Please re-read what I actually wrote.  I said Central Africa had a higher rate than the rest of the world, that is, compared to the rest of the world, Central Africa has a much higher prevalence.  Were your hypothesis correct, only those states with your "white minority" would have high prevalence relative to the rest of the world.  That is not the case.  You tell me to google things but you have no idea what you are talking about and don't read anything I post.  You create crazy hypotheses with no evidence based on conjecture.

 

It does take a scientist to cover up the crap you're talking about since you are suggesting that all of the research they have done since then is bias and "tracks were covered."  It would also take a whole lot of medical professionals to contaminate a blood supply and then set up a separate blood supply for white people (since nobody would contaminate blood they might need).

 

How far back does this conspiracy reach?  it appears that not only do I know more about Botswana than you realize, but more about Botswana itself. Botswana was NOT part of the apartheid government in South Africa (I'm going to assume you are referring here to the actual Apartheid government that was instituted in the late 40s and not the expansion of inequality under colonialism) .  It gained its independence sometime in the 60s from the UK after refusing to join South Africa, before HIV was even known about.  While I have no doubt it had a white minority that exerted influence over the government, you are basically moving from the realm of crazy hypothesis to conspiracy theory to suggest that white minorities all across southern Africa, even those without the kind of political power seen by the Apartheid government in South Africa, somehow managed to contaminate massive amounts of blood and then subsequently prevent themselves from needing to use it.

 

Finally, the population of Botswana is totally irrelevant when you're talking about prevalence.  Which is why I was talking about prevalence...



#88 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 June 2013 - 06:37 PM

Please re-read what I actually wrote.  I said Central Africa had a higher rate than the rest of the world, that is, compared to the rest of the world, Central Africa has a much higher prevalence.  Were your hypothesis correct, only those states with your "white minority" would have high prevalence relative to the rest of the world.  That is not the case.  You tell me to google things but you have no idea what you are talking about and don't read anything I post.  You create crazy hypotheses with no evidence based on conjecture.

 

How could central Africa have a higher prevalence than the rest of the world when Botswana, Malawi, SA, Lesotho, etc. almost triple their prevalence rate? How about you check CIA WorldFactBook. The least you could do is try to keep up with the statistics since it's the easiest thing to prove. This prove to me you're not arguing based on world knowledge but your heart.

 

One other thing, you keep mentioning central Africa, do you mean the Central African Republic or do you mean the region composing of numerous states? Like the Congo, Angola, CAR, etc. Anyway, whichever you meant you're still wrong, so it doesn't matter.

 



#89 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,483 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 10:02 PM

How could central Africa have a higher prevalence than the rest of the world when Botswana, Malawi, SA, Lesotho, etc. almost triple their prevalence rate? How about you check CIA WorldFactBook. The least you could do is try to keep up with the statistics since it's the easiest thing to prove. This prove to me you're not arguing based on world knowledge but your heart.

 

One other thing, you keep mentioning central Africa, do you mean the Central African Republic or do you mean the region composing of numerous states? Like the Congo, Angola, CAR, etc. Anyway, whichever you meant you're still wrong, so it doesn't matter.

 

 

I wasn't speaking clearly, my reference to the rest of the world was to a global average, not that they were higher than any other region in the world (you are right that they are second to southern Africa in that regard). Prevalence for HIV is estimated to be 0.8% worldwide as of 2011 according to the UN.  Not a single country in central Africa has a lower prevalence than that according to statistics by the UN from that year.  Not a single one.  Most have double or triple that.

 

Central Africa is a region of sub-Saharan Africa; if you follow my posts, that much should have been obvious.  In that region, not a single state is lower than the worldwide prevalence and the average for the reason was around 3.5% in 2011.  I realize that the fact I said "worldwide" included south Africa and therefore confused you; my apologies.  I was comparing central Africa to worldwide averages, which I didn't make clear.  

 

That does not change the fact that central Africa has an extremely high rate of HIV and yet, by your own admission, likes the "white minority."



#90 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:15 PM

I wasn't speaking clearly, my reference to the rest of the world was to a global average, not that they were higher than any other region in the world (you are right that they are second to southern Africa in that regard). Prevalence for HIV is estimated to be 0.8% worldwide as of 2011 according to the UN.  Not a single country in central Africa has a lower prevalence than that according to statistics by the UN from that year.  Not a single one.  Most have double or triple that.

 

Central Africa is a region of sub-Saharan Africa; if you follow my posts, that much should have been obvious.  In that region, not a single state is lower than the worldwide prevalence and the average for the reason was around 3.5% in 2011.  I realize that the fact I said "worldwide" included south Africa and therefore confused you; my apologies.  I was comparing central Africa to worldwide averages, which I didn't make clear.  

 

That does not change the fact that central Africa has an extremely high rate of HIV and yet, by your own admission, likes the "white minority."

I don't see why you're comparing central Africa to the rest of the world when my original argument was that the more southern you go on the continent the higher the AIDS prevalence. And coincidentally the southernmost countries on the continent have the highest white minority and highest AIDS prevalence. It's too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence. 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.