Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Who Gave The Africans AIDS


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#91 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • ALL-PRO
  • 16,906 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:14 PM

Your argument was not "as you go down Africa, HIV prevalence increases."  Nobody would dispute that.  Your argument was the cause of that phenomenon and is based on literally nothing but conjecture, which is problematic.  This is particularly the case because the vast number of present day cases of HIV in southern Africa are from sex, at least according to the UN (http://whqlibdoc.who...1502986_eng.pdf).  

 

The vast majority of people newly infected with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa acquire the virus during unprotected heterosexual intercourse (including paid sex) or as newborns and breastfed babies (via motherto-child transmission). Having unprotected sex with multiple partners and having other sexually transmitted infections (especially genital ulcers caused by herpes simplex virus type 2) are the greatest risk factors for HIV infection in this region.

 

Other factors described by the UN as major contributors: Unprotected paid sex, sex between men, injecting drug use, in descending order of importance in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

Contaminated blood in South Africa is not, and likely has never been, a significant issue in the spread of HIV (Note: It could have been an issue elsewhere in Africa, particularly early on, but South Africa got hit hard with HIV far enough after the risk of blood transfusions were known that most had blood testing in place by then).  You are describing a conspiracy of quite large magnitude to create and maintain the epidemic, while covering all of that up for more than a decade, considering they would need to find a way to silence all of the people that would get HIV from blood transfusions.

 

There is no evidence to suggest such a conspiracy exists, merely a correlation between a white minority HIV prevalence. That is not sufficient evidence to blame a white minority for contaminating a blood supply.

 

FWIW, if you want to argue that the Apartheid government created socioeconomic factors in that region that greatly impoverished huge percentages of the population and made them high-risk for HIV, then you'd be more likely to have an argument to be made.  I'm pretty sure I've previously linked papers that deal with the factors that contribute to HIV risk, many of which are driven by poverty.



#92 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:15 PM

There is no evidence to suggest such a conspiracy exists,
 
Yeah, but there is no evidence to suggest it doesn't exist!
 
 
derp derp derp derp HIV derp


#93 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2013 - 09:03 PM

Your argument was not "as you go down Africa, HIV prevalence increases."  Nobody would dispute that.  Your argument was the cause of that phenomenon and is based on literally nothing but conjecture, which is problematic.  This is particularly the case because the vast number of present day cases of HIV in southern Africa are from sex, at least according to the UN (http://whqlibdoc.who...1502986_eng.pdf).  

 

 

Other factors described by the UN as major contributors: Unprotected paid sex, sex between men, injecting drug use, in descending order of importance in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

Contaminated blood in South Africa is not, and likely has never been, a significant issue in the spread of HIV (Note: It could have been an issue elsewhere in Africa, particularly early on, but South Africa got hit hard with HIV far enough after the risk of blood transfusions were known that most had blood testing in place by then).  You are describing a conspiracy of quite large magnitude to create and maintain the epidemic, while covering all of that up for more than a decade, considering they would need to find a way to silence all of the people that would get HIV from blood transfusions.

 

There is no evidence to suggest such a conspiracy exists, merely a correlation between a white minority HIV prevalence. That is not sufficient evidence to blame a white minority for contaminating a blood supply.

 

FWIW, if you want to argue that the Apartheid government created socioeconomic factors in that region that greatly impoverished huge percentages of the population and made them high-risk for HIV, then you'd be more likely to have an argument to be made.  I'm pretty sure I've previously linked papers that deal with the factors that contribute to HIV risk, many of which are driven by poverty.

Oh, the poverty argument. It so happens the southern Africans states are some of the better off countries in the world economically by per capita income. And I don't care what the UN say. Just another European ran puppet organization. I mentioned to you before, unless you have a report that was published before the late 70s it's invalid. Anything otherwise either have an agenda or cover up objective. I don't wanna hear any wolf watching the sheep report. Being that AIDS is NOT a contagious disease, it's almost numerically impossible to have spread that fast being that majority of humans practice monogamy. I'm not buying the idea that every man have multiple partners when majority of men can barely get a girl in any culture.

 

Also, one other major avenue that the Apartheid government could have use in spreading the virus is through their smallpox vaccination campaign.

 

Ask yourself this question, what would be the need for the Apartheid government to have a Chemical and Biological weapon program on a continent with no known enemy?

And might I add, the only such program on the continent. And please reply with another UN report. I'm sure if Europe could rewrite a report on the cause of extinction of the Native Americans/aborigines they'd probably blame it on mass sadness. Yep, they were sad because they weren't allowed to get white women.



#94 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2013 - 09:12 PM

 

As for source regarding the spread of the AIDS virus, I'm sure you would not find it on this white controlled media. After all, who would want to take the burden of such crime on their conscience. This little article, although not detailed but shows the idea existed. Not just mere conspiracy theory:

 

http://ww1.aegis.org...9/AF991114.html

 


 



#95 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • ALL-PRO
  • 16,906 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 10:40 PM

Oh, the poverty argument. It so happens the southern Africans states are some of the better off countries in the world economically by per capita income. And I don't care what the UN say. Just another European ran puppet organization. I mentioned to you before, unless you have a report that was published before the late 70s it's invalid. Anything otherwise either have an agenda or cover up objective. I don't wanna hear any wolf watching the sheep report. Being that AIDS is NOT a contagious disease, it's almost numerically impossible to have spread that fast being that majority of humans practice monogamy. I'm not buying the idea that every man have multiple partners when majority of men can barely get a girl in any culture.

 

So let me get this straight.

 

AIDS isn't contagious? What?  Sex can't really cause HIV apparently, unless it's the apartheid government infecting prostitutes, which couldn't really have participated in the spread of the disease, since "the majority of humans practice monogamy."  The ENTIRE scientific world is participating in a VAST conspiracy orchestrated by a group of people out of power for more than a decade.  Wow.  Let me guess - the UN is actually a puppet of a new age of Apartheid government dedicated to killing Africans?

 

It must suck thinking that every single international organization in the entire world is working together in order to prevent the world from finding out that there was yet another atrocity committed by the apartheid government, one which continued well past it's fall, and one which, despite the TRC, has been completely unreported to the world.

 

 

As for source regarding the spread of the AIDS virus, I'm sure you would not find it on this white controlled media. After all, who would want to take the burden of such crime on their conscience. This little article, although not detailed but shows the idea existed. Not just mere conspiracy theory:

 

http://ww1.aegis.org...9/AF991114.html

 

 

 

Why would this be a burden on... anyones conscious but the people who perpetuated it?  This doesn't support a vast conspiracy, but it does suggest that some element(s) of the Apartheid government were willing to exploit sex workers to spread the disease.  It is worrying, and one would hope somebody investigated it.  However, considering when it took place, it is probably not still ongoing, and it may have helped start the epidemic but I still have a hard time believe the entire world, ENTIRE world, including the government of that country today, is lying to everyone.  Frankly, that is a good find though and I am sure that there are more out there if your version of what happened has ANY basis in fact.

 

I do find it funny you are willing to cite sources after 1970 that support your view point, but no others.  And that that source suggests something you have ruled out as a means of transmitting HIV.

 

That is a terrible tragedy.  I wish that the South African government had access to this information, but I guess the Global Apartheid Conspiracy has prevented them from knowing anything about this.  I guess the TRC was a farce and this information was buried from them completely.

1) Your point was a contaminated blood supply - this does nothing to substantiate that.

2) Two men - out of 7,000 applicants - suggests to me that this is not a widespread conspiracy.

3) It's still deeply disturbing it happened, but the fact that the government in South Africa hasn't brought it up despite spending the better part of the early and mid 2000s have questionable HIV approaches suggests to me that if it was thought to be a major issue by the people in the country itself it would have been made a much larger deal.

 

All that being said, my hats off to you for finding this, it is interesting.

 

btw, regardless of if your comment on the majority of the world being monogamous is true or not, the majority of the world does not have only one sexual partner ever, and some can have multiple within a very very short time period while still being monogamous.



#96 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2013 - 11:38 AM

AIDS isn't contagious? What?

 

AIDS is NOT considered a contagious disease. It's a transmittable disease. Not an air-borne disease. Example of an contagion is the flu or common cold.

 

And lastly, if the Apartheid government intended to kill one black South African one can deduce that they intended to kill them all. It shows that the conspiracy for the annihilation of the blacks in SA was there using AIDS as the bio-weapon. And just because there aren't reports on every case doesn't mean one can't conclude that it was more rampant. 

 

I'm sure the Apartheid government didn't think that the only way they could spread AIDS to the blacks were by injecting a few prostitutes. Being that they had a bio-weapon program they sure knew of all the avenues to transmit the disease to the mass. Through vaccination, blood transfusion in black-only hospitals, etc.

 

 

 

 

 



#97 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • ALL-PRO
  • 16,906 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 10:52 AM

AIDS is NOT considered a contagious disease. It's a transmittable disease. Not an air-borne disease. Example of an contagion is the flu or common cold.

 

 

Oh come on.  Considering our lack of specific terminology and refusal to accept academic publications as sources, I didn't expect you to get into an argument over semantics of word choice used specifically to deal with quarantine measures, since popular use of the word has abandoned that meaning, even if technically correct.  Not to mention, a disease being outside that category does not mean that it can not infect millions; look at malaria, or the outbreaks of yellow fever in the past.  HIV is spread principally through sexual contact in Africa, as it is in the rest of the world. There are cases of >40% transmission rate during heterosexual sex.

 

 

And lastly, if the Apartheid government intended to kill one black South African one can deduce that they intended to kill them all. It shows that the conspiracy for the annihilation of the blacks in SA was there using AIDS as the bio-weapon. And just because there aren't reports on every case doesn't mean one can't conclude that it was more rampant. 

 

I'm sure the Apartheid government didn't think that the only way they could spread AIDS to the blacks were by injecting a few prostitutes. Being that they had a bio-weapon program they sure knew of all the avenues to transmit the disease to the mass. Through vaccination, blood transfusion in black-only hospitals, etc.

 

I don't know that your article supports a vast conspiracy.  The entire point of the TRC was to bring the truth out.  You're also basically claiming that South Africa's current government is hiding the truth, which seems unlikely, since they would have easy ability to know today where the majority of HIV cases originated and how.  

 

There is no evidence of blood transfusions causing the epidemic.  That would be ridiculously easy to spot.  Vaccinations also have no support.  I realize you think that is because the governments of southern African countries for the last two decades are apparently Apartheid puppets and the scientific community has joined the Apartheid cause, but whatever. :P

 

We're just going to dance in circles here, since you are basically saying that you will take no evidence at all against your side since it's all bias.  So I don't see if there's a point in responding.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com