The Presidency of Thabo Mbeki was in many ways an utter disaster. Insecure, angry, vindictive and far too sure of his own ability to know everything and be the cleverest person in the room, Mbeki acted in ways that had devastating effects on especially poor and black South Africans. This was never more evident than on the issue of HIV/AIDS.
As I pointed out last week, a new study by Harvard researchers estimates that the South African government would have prevented the premature deaths of 365,000 people earlier this decade if it had provided antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and widely administered drugs to help prevent pregnant women from infecting their babies.
Yesterday the New York Times published an article about this study, reminding us again how disastrous Mbeki and his Minister of Health have been to the health of our people. That is one of the reasons why I do not share Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s view that the recalling of Mbeki was a dreadful and constitutionally problematic step.
Our Constitution requires that the President retains the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly and if he or she loses that confidence, the NA can institute a vote of no confidence in the President. That is how our quasi-Westminster system was designed to operate and there was nothing wrong with the ANC recalling Mbeki after it lost confidence in him. In fact, Mbeki should have been recalled long ago and it is an indictment of the ANC that it took so long for them to get rid of this man.
That is also why, so far, I am a rather big fan of President Kgalema Motlanthe, who acted on the first day of his presidency two months ago to remove the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, a polarizing figure who had proposed garlic, lemon juice and beetroot as AIDS remedies. The subsequent appointment of Barbara Hogan was also an inspired choice. According to the New York Times Hogan said:
“I feel ashamed that we have to own up to what Harvard is saying,” Ms. Hogan, an A.N.C. stalwart who was imprisoned for a decade during the anti-apartheid struggle, said in a recent interview. “The era of denialism is over completely in South Africa.”
What a breath of fresh air! Just imagine how Ms Tshabalala-Msimang would have responded to this study and weep for South Africa and its long suffering people. A President who can fire an incompetent and criminally negligent Health Minister and appoint a person of the caliber of Hogan would get my vote. Pity he will not be the ANC’s election candidate next year.
But the New York Times article also contains other very interesting tidbits. It refers to an article written by Ngoako Ramathlodi in which he recounts the way in which Nelson Mandela was humiliated during a 2002 ANC meeting after he made a rare appearance to question the party’s stance on AIDS.
Mr. Ramatlhodi described speakers competing to show greater loyalty to Mr. Mbeki by verbally attacking Mr. Mandela as Mr. Mbeki looked on silently. “After his vicious mauling, Madiba looked twice his age, old and ashen,” Mr. Ramatlhodi wrote.
Mr. Ramatlhodi himself acknowledged in a recent interview that in 2001 he sent a 22-page letter, drafted by Mr. Mbeki’s office, to another of Mr. Mbeki’s most credible critics, Prof. Malegapuru Makgoba, an immunologist who was one of South Africa’s leading scientists. The letter accused Professor Makgoba of defending Western science and its racist ideas about Africans at the expense of Mr. Mbeki.
In 2000 Mr. Mbeki had provided Professor Makgoba with two bound volumes containing 1,500 pages of documents written by AIDS denialists. After reading them, Professor Makgoba said in an interview that he wrote back to warn Mr. Mbeki that if he adopted the denialists’ ideas, South Africa would “become the laughingstock, if not the pariah, of the world again.”
But Mr. Mbeki indicated last year to one of his biographers, Mark Gevisser, that his views on AIDS were essentially unchanged, pointing the writer to a document that, he said, was drafted by A.N.C. leaders and accurately reflected his position.
The document’s authors conceded that H.I.V. might be one cause of AIDS but contended that there were many others, like other diseases and malnutrition.
The document maintained that antiretrovirals were toxic. And it suggested that powerful vested interests — drug companies, governments, scientists — pushed the consensus view of AIDS in a quest for money and power, while peddling centuries-old white racist beliefs that depicted Africans as sexually rapacious.
“Yes, we are sex crazy!” the document’s authors bitterly exclaimed. “Yes, we are diseased! Yes, we spread the deadly H.I. virus through our uncontrolled heterosexual sex!”
The letter written by Mbeki’s office contains astonishing new proof of Mbeki’s denialism. In the usual Mbeki way, it refers to the very real and despicable racism prevalent in the West, and then uses this to question the science around HIV/AIDS. It is astonishingly lacking in logic and suggests to me that Mbeki may not be as clever as we thought he was. It argues that because public health policy in the West has often been informed by racism, the scientific research on HIV and ARVs – done in laboratories in the West to save the lives of people in the West – must also therefore be suspect.
So for Mbeki, HIV tests, the science around the causes and progression of HIV and the miracle ARV medicines developed in Western laboratories now saving the lives of millions of people around the world, cannot be trusted because to trust this would be to accept a view of Africans as rapacious, sexual beings. Mbeki’s letter also questions whether South Africa has an HIV problem at all – despite the fact that between 12 and 20% of pregnant women tested at clinics are found to be HIV positive. Who cares about scientific tests and the lives of ordinary poor and black South Africans if wounds have to be licked, scores settled and arguments won? This letter should be exhibit A in the indictment of Mbeki’s Presidency.
But what also struck me of the article is the fact that all those ANC NEC members were “competing to show greater loyalty to Mr. Mbeki by verbally attacking Mr. Mandela”. Mr Zuma did not speak up then. Neither did Mr Ramatholdi. They sat there quietly while their leader was promoting quackery masquerading as a politically correct pro-African intervention. Why did so few speak up then? Were they scared of Mbeki? And if so, what does it say about their honour and their commitment to the betterment of the lives of the masses of our people? Why did they choose to rather keep the leader happy than to do something that would save the lives of hundreds of thousands of South Africans? How do they sleep at night?
Now Ramatlhodi – and many others who sat quietly while Mbeki’s quackery was allowed to kill thousands of South Africans – are of course Jacob Zuma supporters. Will they (are they already?) showing the same kind of disastrous loyalty to a new leader with feet of clay? Is that the inevitable result of a mindset that holds the Party and the Leader to be more important than principle, than the truth, than the lives of our people?
Is that why there is not a snowballs hope in hell that the ANC will ditch Zuma and nominate Motlante to be our President after the next election? Is the ANC doomed to repeat the mistakes it made in the past by blindly following Zuma over the cliff? We will see. If Hogan is retained as health minister after the election, if the NPA is allowed to try and prove its case against Zuma in court, if ANC leaders do not sit silently by while Zuma and his cohorts undermine the judiciary, I would be the first to admit that maybe the ANC has learnt something from the Mbeki disaster.
For the sake of South Africa and all its people, I sure as hell hope it has.
Judging by the characters the ANC has pent up in its youth league, I doubt that the ANC has learnt anything.
Looking at the education system, with its OBE, which has been criticised by the founder of OBE itself as not being sufficient when you are dealing with a time frame like, say, from grade 1 to matric, I can’t understand why this was implemented. South Africa had a world class education system. It would’ve been far easier and far more sensible to build on what we had – namely take the old education system, which was reserved to whites, and expand it to the townships as is – than to try and bundu bash into unchartered territories of education.
OBE was designed for martial arts and learning how to fly a plane, where your outcomes is in fact the only criteria for mastering the craft.
Thabo Mbeki desperately tried to indoctrinate us in this ideology of African solutions for African problems. The problem with that approach is that AIDS is not an African problem. It’s a medical problem and it requires a medical solution.
Kgalema is a decent man. Pity he’s stuck with the ANC mafioso.
Garg Unzola
no one is holding up Kgalema from resigning.
He can excercise his const right to associate anytime.
He can resign anytime he wants to. So don’t aver as if the ANC is holding up Kgalema for F***K sake!
Very scary stuff! I wonder what is next… Thank you Prof for the sources of information…
I HAVE NEVER VOTED IN THIS COUNTRY
IT WOULD BE MY FIRST TIME NEXT. I COULDN’T VOTE FOR XHOSAS
NOW I AM GOING TO VOTE NGENXA KA-ZUMA
I ONLY VOTED FOR IFP IN PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT OURF PROVINCE -KZN IS PROTECTED FROM XHOSAS
NOW I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT ZUMA
WELL I AM SORRY MY VOTE IS NOT A SECRET
Poor little Lindelani. Did you qualify to vote before this anyway? The way you keep shouting your filth at us you clearly have an emotional age in the mid-teens. I’d have guessed your real age at not much more than 20.
Yes, one of the good things about the recall of Mbeki was the changes in the health ministry. Will Hogan also do something about the state of our provincial hospitals? I remember Manto visited Provincial hospitals in the Eastern Cape not too long after the Routledge debacle and then declaring that there is nothing wrong with the state of public hospitals in the Eastern Cape.
I have not voted since 1994. I have registered to vote for the first time this year (registration was not a requirement in 1994). I have no idea who I am going to vote for.
I am still hoping that the ANC will decide to ditch Zuma.
Another white racist Pretoria high court judge has sentenced a black offender (who is only 25 years) to four life terms.
The guy is allegedly accused of being a serial rapist.
I am totally against rape and victimisation of women
There’s no justification to this crime.
Yes the guy might be wrong but considering his age and the fact that he’s the first offender (mitigating factors) he’s doesn’t derve more than one life sentence.
It goes to prove the harshness of judgements given by white judges to black offenders
This is nothing but rasict act, white judges make sure that they deliver the impossible harshest sentence ever when the black person is involved
on the other hand we have seen very much more linient sentences (on more or less similar criimes) given to whites offenders
thousands of them are given suspended sentences or correctional supervision
some of them are to be are pushed to be considered for parole
To all the black practitioners the struggle goes on I make a call to scrunitise on the matter.
this is a harshest reality
i will never rest until REAL justice is done to all
If i become a judge one day, i would reverse the table
i will convict a white offender before i hear the matter this is what they currently doing to us
Months ago i lent of a white magistrate who entered a guilty verdict before the matter is heard – the reality is white judges/magistrates do these things on daily basis so long as the offender is black
don’t mind the typos and gramma as ussual!
Lindelani
‘Another white racist Pretoria high court judge has sentenced a black offender (who is only 25 years) to four life terms.’
Hello. Did I just read about a coloured judge who sentenced a 19 year-old (with a mental age slightly less than that) white mass murderer to 176 years in jail.
Who complained? No one that I know of. He is a criminal and has been sentenced harshly for a heinous crime. Full stop. Race does not come into the judgment. The crime itself of course was all about race.
Hi Pierre,
I read the letter and can confirm that not once does Mbeki state that HIV does not cause AIDS (in fact that issue is wholly absent in the text). Indeed the letter permeates with concern (which otherwise would not have been present if indeed the writer was not concerned of HIV/AIDS). The content of the letter can be summarised as:
1. a critique of the criticism of the RSA government based on its inclusion of “dissident” in its consideration of the means to meet the challenge of HIV/AIDS;
2. a critique of the inconsistencies between the contents of Magkoba’s approach in Mokoko and his contradictory approach in the issue of HIV/AIDS;
3.Critique of the prevalent tendency of judging that which is considered correct on the basis of the acceptance of the subject matter by the majority of professionals in any one field (in this case medicine) rather than based solely on facts. In this regard I refer you to the hubris of relying on the “best practice” as extolled by the majority of any one profession, be it Accountants (Enron, Worldcom, etc), bankers (the present financial crisis, Lawyers (the multiplicity of pre-1994 judgments in defence of apartheid), etc. Mbeki cites the example of the majority of medical practitioners concluding that blacks were responsible for the Bubonic plague in the turn of the century because of a majority consensus of practitioners in-spite of facts proving otherwise. I quote: “On the other hand, the scientists who differ with him seem to justify their “scientific” propositions on the base that opinion polls, among scientists and the ordinary people, demonstrate popular support for their views… And yet, almost by definition, new scientific truths are a repudiation of popular and generally accepted views, which makes scientific originality inherently n act of scientific rebellion… On the contrary, the epoch making scientist, the revolutionary scientific thinker, must swim against the powerful force of the incoming tide”. In this regard, you will recall that it was a “scientific fact” that the earth was flat until it was proven otherwise by dissidents who were accordingly persecuted.
4. He critiques the theories and modalities pertaining to the study of the origins of HIV/AIDS and the basis of the conclusion that it originated in Africa. He does not reject these theories out of hand and questions the means of their conclusions.
5. He questions why HIV/AIDS is endemic in Africa and not in Europe or America, particularly if we assume that Africans are no more or less sexually active/promiscuous as Westerners yet bear the brunt of the disease. A perfectly valid enquiry in my opinion!
6.He raises the issues relating to the toxicity of ARVs (more specifically AZT).
7. He cites medical scholars who question the extent of the incidents of HIV/AIDS.
All the above questions were raised eight years ago and yet there are still no coherent responses but for a greater advocacy of ARVs. South African society is still ignorance of the nature of HIV and AIDS, save for the fact that theer is a causal reaction between the two and that the channel of infection is body fluids. Hogan is a hero to Pierre because she’s not concerned about knowing more about HIV/AIDS and therefore find novel solutions, she’s much more happy doling out ARVs! Yet even those who dole out ARVs accept that they are not the solution. I myself believe that ARVs are a temporary part of the solution but most certainly not THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION.
Fact of the matter is that Pierre, and any other person in this dear world, can try hard to find evidence of this Mbeki denialism and will fail dismally. When reading the letter I was struck by how little we still know about HIV/AIDS, save for the fact that ARVs and Condoms are the only solutions. It’s a pity that Mbeki stopped this debate, to our detriment.
If Mbeki is a denialist for asking experts to explain anomalies and controversies in the study of HIV/AIDS, which they duly fail to respond to, I am also a denialist, and so are those who question the state of our law enforcement, race relations, transformation, the existence of BEE and other race based policies (in fact anything that deviates from the norm).
Sarah Palin,
We are complaining about the sentence 176 years
It is very much linient the guy deserve about 4-5 life terms (with no parole at all!)
176 years for killing more than 10 people is nothing but an insult to us- in any event he just killed the baboons and he will be out before you know it
White people get so much publicity when they involved in criminal cases and we even asked for our opinions (public) – who cares?
But black people are just sent to jail like potatoes- end of the story
Vuyo // Nov 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“When reading the letter I was struck by how little we still know about HIV/AIDS, save for the fact that ARVs and Condoms are the only solutions.
Mbeki’s letter indicated how little he (Mbeki) knew not what was scientifically known. Please avail yourself of the vast body of literature on AIDS before venturing into this subject. You are out of your depth!
“It’s a pity that Mbeki stopped this debate, to our detriment.”
Thank goodness he stopped because he was making a colossal ass of himself and our country.
The behavior of gay people, in the ealry 80’s, the main reason for all the AIDS deaths. The one who are still alive should be tried at the Hague. YES, I SAID IT.
Vuyo // Nov 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“It’s a pity that Mbeki stopped this debate, to our detriment. ”
If i could I would kiss you for saying this.
The behavior of gay people, in the ealry 80’s, is the main reason for all the AIDS deaths. The ones who are still alive should be tried at the Hague. YES, I SAID IT.
Vuyo // Nov 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“It’s a pity that Mbeki stopped this debate, to our detriment. ”
If i could I would kiss you for saying this.
Yes, I can see how a white racist from Pretoria is relevant to a black racist president. Thanks for pointing that out, Lindelani!
Only, if the judge from Pretoria were racist, then the accused could have appealed on that basis. Don’t forget who runs the judicial system. Yes, the ANC. Judges are not elected, they are appointed, despite sometimes being white, female, Indian, coloured, straight, gay or any other malediction you can think of.
Of course they also have a considerable amount of training, but I guess that doesn’t matter if the judge is white. I mean that automatically makes a judge bad, while being black automatically makes a judge good. Judge Nkola Motata is a prime example of how black judges are automatically superior, even after allegedly driving recklessly into other people’s gardens and acting like a savage while drunk.
So what exactly are your views concerning Kgalema, AIDS and the ANC? Because those were the topics, not racism.
“That is also why, so far, I am a rather big fan of President Kgalema Motlanthe, who acted on the first day of his presidency two months ago to remove the health minister,”
LOL. Just for your information Pierre : Kgalema is acting president and “Zuma and his cohorts” are in fact calling the shots. And don’t forget about Zimbabwe now my friend, or how long Robert Mcbride lasted the day when Zuma took over.
“He questions why HIV/AIDS is endemic in Africa and not in Europe or America, particularly if we assume that Africans are no more or less sexually active/promiscuous as Westerners yet bear the brunt of the disease. A perfectly valid enquiry in my opinion!”
Well, in Britain having unprotected sex is considered an incredibly stupid thing to do. Skin on skin (or nyama-nyama, as it is called) is apparently the preferred way of having sex in Africa. Also note that Europe has a much older, more established and much more efficient public health care system than Africa whereas we delayed the ARV roll-out until a few years ago.
Also, if HIV originated in Africa (I’m not saying it did, I’m just saying..) it follows that Africa is more likely to have an AIDS epidemic than the West. In the same way, the West had a Bubonic plague epidemic which Africa didn’t have, purely because it originated there and ended up being contained there. Similarly, there is an Asian bird flew epidemic, because it originated there.
Also, roughly 1 in 1000 Europeans have some kind of HIV immunity. Perhaps us Africans have less natural immunity resistance to HIV? Africans tend to be more resistant to malaria and sleeping sickness than Europeans. Should Europe get a malaria epidemic, it would be far more devastating in Europe than in Africa.
Tatera // Nov 27, 2008 at 4:43 pm
As a black person in South Africa, I do not need to avail myself to any AIDS literature. AIDS lives around me, I know it well. But I have and orthodox AIDS theory is shaky.
Think about it. Almost 30 years after this disease was discovered from gays in America, science has nothing substantial to defeat it. All that science has for us are these ARV’s that should be taken as soon as possible, for the rest of a patients life. Now someone is making a killing, figuratively and literally.
I would speculate the same of Vuyo, as he succinctly puts it in his post.
lindelani maseko
“To all the black practitioners the struggle goes on I make a call to scrunitise on the matter”.
Please speak for yourself, you are an embarrasment to black practitioners
khosi // Nov 27, 2008 at 4:56 pm
As a responsible person in any country you should become familiar with the scientific literature before coming to any conclusions or make statements. And if you knew it (AIDS) so well why do you not find the cure? You will be a very rich man!
However, I see you want to entertain conspiracy theories without proof; therefore, I am not interested in debating the matter any further.
Khosi – you’ve been awfully quiet the past few weeks – is it the trouble with Zim and the fact that your ‘blue-eyed-boy” Thabo Mbeki has been ousted from his position that’s getting to you? Your whole take on HIV/AIDS however sucks, to say the least especially blaiming its spread only on gay people. What about the people in Mid Africa (not necessarily all gay) that ate monkeys infected with HIV (I read somewhere that that is where the HIV virus originated from) who have started spreading the virus through heterosexual sex? And, if it was only a gay thing, how come heterosexuals are also infected at times?
Tatera – Please go to ANC, Know your Constitution … – I believe I have put an extra twist on the morality of Zuma debate. Khosi, you are also welcome there. Anybody is.
Tatera // Nov 27, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Now you are being pedantic and infantile. Maybe if dissident scientists had the same resources as orthodox ones, we would have a cure for HIV.
Also, friends and loved ones who have died from this disease are not a conspiracy to me, they are a reality.
@ khosi
The sooner people stop categorizing themselves by the color of their skin the better – just a comment…
Anyhow it may be relevant to understand that there is no cure or vaccine for the common cold virus despite 100 years of research so in the scheme of things the “AIDS” cure is not so late (unfortunately).
ARV’s usually work (ask Magic Johnson 20 years later) and conspiracy theories distract and kill. More than that ARV’s also more often than not prevent the transmission from mother to child.
Afro-centric, no – Euro-centric, no – Sino-centric – no.
Life-centric – yes.
Khosi – the reason I say your take on the whole issue sucks (talk about pedantic and infantile – homophobic I would say) is this that you’ve said: “The behavior of gay people, in the ealry 80’s, is the main reason for all the AIDS deaths. The ones who are still alive should be tried at the Hague. YES, I SAID IT.”
Anonymouse // Nov 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Who discovered & coined the term HIV and where, how did that happen. Also from which population group? I will give you a clue. They recently won a Nobel prize for it.
Please do not twaddle along, answer directly and clearly.
Khosi – humour me. You and Thabo Mbeki and Mantho?
Nobody Special // Nov 27, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Let us also ask Nkosi Johnson and the hundreds of thousands who have perished while on ARV’s.
Anonymouse // Nov 27, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Neither of those people have won a Nobel prize. Cheat and google it.
Nah – not necessary – I’m not the one writing exams here – the test is you guys’, who can’t take it that Thabo Mbekis is being criticised
I agree with Vuyo. I have also searched in vain to find somewhere where Mbeki infact said HIV does not cause AIDS. Perhaps some of the scholars and well informed people here can point me to the source. My guess is that most of the people here are just jumping to the bandwagon that Mbeki is a denialist who does not believe that HIV causes AIDS. I dare you to prove me wrong!!
It seems to me we are, once again, falling for the trap of listening to whatever is written in these newspapers and whatever noise the likes of TAC are making!
What I do know for a fact is that the current govt policy on AIDS was adopted and overseen by the very same Mbeki and Manto that are now made the scapegoats for all the deaths we see everyday. I would have thought that if they did not believe that HIV causes AIDS (like we are made to believe) the messiah (read the current Health Minister) would have had to start from scratch – there would have been no policy when she moved into office. However, we all know that she did not start from scratch. In fact, I doubt that she has adopted any policy at this stage. My guess is that she is simply working on what she found there and simply being congratulated by everyone for really doing nothing, at least at this stage!!
AIDS is a problem for SA, there can be no denying that fact. However, is it such a wrong thing to interrogate the issue of what can be done and look at the alternatives to get rid of this scourge once and for all?
“Now Ramatlhodi – and many others who sat quietly while Mbeki’s quackery was allowed to kill thousands of South Africans – are of course Jacob Zuma supporters.”
Prof – is that perhaps why the (now disbanded Scorpions), who had on the same day the law was passed made public that Ramathlodi is being charged, has now indicated that all charges against him have been dropped?
Khosi – this was just to show you that I am not only anti-Mbeki, but also anti-Zuma. I think Comrade Kgalema would make a much better President – not that I like the current ANC though.
Anonymouse // Nov 27, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Well I believe in what he stands for. Crucify me if you want. Giordano Bruno was also crucified.
Sometimes I am still amazed at the ability of people to defend the indefensible. Mbeki’s questioning of HIV orthodoxy cost hundreds of thousands of lives as has now been concluded in an authoritative study. He has blood on his hands – the blood of innocent poor black South Africans. Scientists (like Makgoba) knows very much about HIV and in twenty short years came up with ARV’s which a recent study showed will prolongue the life of a 20 year old with 49 years. Mbeki questioned this easily verifiable fact. He also question other easily verifiable facts such as the fact that HIV is more prevalent in Africa not because Africans are more promiscuous and have more sexual partners than people in Europe or America but because some African cultures have different social arrangements which might make it more acceptable to have more than one long term partner at the same time. But because it did not fit in with his ideological view he refused to accept these easily verifiable facts – and hundreds of thousands of people died. It reminds me of my cousins defending apartheid. Jees.
lindelani
ru4 real ? Morons like you give even the IFP a bad name.
Pierre De Vos // Nov 27, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“Scientists (like Makgoba) knows very much about HIV and in twenty short years came up with ARV’s which a recent study showed will prolongue the life of a 20 year old with 49 years.”
I am sorry man, but this is bullshit. Could you please point us to this 20 year old who is now 69. Because if you can’t, how do you even begin to call that a study.
So – although I think HIV/AIDS is a problem in Africa I think we would do much better on tackling TB and malaria primarily and by improving living conditions and improving basic health services.
The problem with Mbeki was not so much his views that poverty must be alleviated but his polemical approach to the AIDS problem and his confrontations with the AIDS orthodoxy. The message he send out to the world was wrong and it hurt the image of our country. Besides that Mantho, with her drinking problem, had no idea what she was doing and couldn’t even deliver on basic health services.
Khosi I agree with you. HIV/AIDS was first identified in the early 80s, it boggles the mind how a study can show that ARVs can prolong life by 49 years when it is factually impossible for anyone to have been using ARVs for that long. The earliest date when ARVs (such as AZT) were approved for treatment was in the early 90s (18 years ago)! The only way to estimate an additional 49 years lifespan through ARV use is through computer modeling (i.e. speculation). Pierre you must desist from peddling clearly brazen falsehoods. If you are a fan of ARVs, by all means celebrate them (I also believe our people should have access to them and the choice to use them); but please dont manufacture facts to amplify your argument.
Pierre De Vos // Nov 27, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“… He has blood on his hands – the blood of innocent poor black South Africans. …”
Did the Nationalist government top this?
What is the definition of Crime against Humanity?
@Vuyo
It’s called induction. Remember you don’t always have to observe something in order to prove it.
The World Health Organisation recommends ARVs for our area where people are already confirmed to be HIV positive and suffering from an advanced stage of HIV, where resources are scarce. The kind of ARVs they recommend is not to cure HIV, but to significantly enhance the quality of life of those who are basically doomed to die from HIV already.
The other issue is mother-to-child HIV transfers, where ARVs have proven to be effective. In other words, an HIV positive expectant mother can get ARV treatment to try and prevent her unborn child from getting the HI virus. This kind of treatment can reduce the risk for the baby of getting HIV from 25% to 1%.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiretroviral_drug#Current_treatment_guidelines)
That means if you contracted HIV from your mother at birth, you can put 24% of the blame on Thabo Mbeki because he prevented us from looking at this problem soberly thanks to his racist snake oil ideology.
Let me put it to you this way: if you were suffering from a life threatening disease, would you trust a qualified doctor to prescribe a cure, or would you trust Dr Beetroot to give you a potato, beetroot and lemon mix and some time off digging a peace garden?
“It’s called induction. Remember you don’t always have to observe in order to prove it.”
Hmmm – some may call it “induction”; Others might prefer the term “extrapolation”. Me, I like “thumbsuck” better. Perhaps, garg unzola, you might give us an example of where observation in order to prove something isn’t necessary. A case similar to the one under discussion would be helpful.
And now TM refuses to comment – he says all these decisions were taken by the “collective”. Aaaaarggghhh – this lack of accountability is a disease.
Peter
I am convice the Arms deal was a “collective” decision as well, Maybe Zuma should try Beetroot to get the NPA off his back!
Vuyo, good thing you are not a scientist. See article published in Lancet (probably the most respected medical journal in the world) in 2008 on pp 293-2099 entitled “Life expectancy of individuals on combination antiretroviral
therapy in high-income countries: a collaborative analysis of
14 cohort studies”. Always a good thing to read stuff before making comments that might expose you as a bigoted ignoramus. That is where Mbeki fell down.
Lol, there are some nutcases in these threads…
The crux of the matter, the way I read it, is that suddenly all these avid TM fans are now JZ fans. The Prof is right – where were these beacons of truth when Nelson Mandela, one of the greatest men to walk this earth (Lindelani – you should read about him, you might learn a few things), was getting torn to shreds by a bunch of little insecure men, who were trying to make a name for themselves? Where were they when our ex-health minister turned South Africa into an international laughing stock at the World Aid’s Expo in Canada, with her vegetable display?
They were nowhere. Now suddenly they’re saying all the right things in line with what JZ is saying – AIDS denialism is terrible, we must get tough on crime (there was no crime problem a while back when TM was pres, remember?), etc etc. It sounds all well and good, but that’s just because of the denialistic stubborn drivel we’ve had to deal with for the last few years.
These suddenly inspired men were still nowhere when Julius Malema uttered his now infamous “Kill for Zuma” comments, because the ANC didn’t see a problem with it. They haven’t piped up about the attacks on the judiciary by ANC members (until the verdict went “the right way” of course). And so on…
So basically, we’ve got a bunch of people who supported TM, until he was no longer the flavour of the month, and now support the new flavour of the month – JZ. There is still no independent thought, and very little (although admittedly more, albeit somewhat selective) self-criticism of the ANC.
What good is it if leaders are beyond criticism? It doesn’t matter what they say or don’t say, the issue here is what COULD they say if they wanted to.
Short answer – nothing the ANC wouldn’t let them, because then they would lose their jobs and cushy positions and benefits, and the ANC has made it abundantly clear in the last few years that those are worth much more than principles, morals, and integrity.
Prof, honestly now! Who is now actually in charge at Union Buildings? Even a gardener on the street knows that it is the very Jacob Zuma whom yo’al so dislike as president. I can almost asure you that Motlanthe gets directives from Zuma on all key issues of the country – its no secret. You will have noticed that even The Elders met Zuma first and then Motlanthe on Zim issue, u then heared Motlanthe using a harsher tone (more or less like JZ that same day) on the Zim issue….Please give credit where it is due. JZ is ALREADY your president and thank God you seem to be liking everything he “President Zuma” has done so far…..you are finally seeing the light-thank heavens!
Mzo, for evidence of Mbeki’s Aids denialism see http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71639?oid=82478&sn=Detail. Quote:
FRONT PAGE
FEATURES
NEWS
COMMENT
RESOURCES
SUBSCRIBE
home
COMMENT
# OPINION
# REPLIES
Home > Politicsweb > COMMENT > OPINION
OPINION
Click here
Click here
Here is the evidence of Mbeki’s denialism
James Myburgh
12 July 2007
A reply to the Minister in the Presidency, Essop Pahad.
In an article in The Star last week the Minister in the Presidency, Essop Pahad, attacked the journalist Patrick Laurence. Laurence’s article of the previous week, he wrote, suffered from “sloppy journalism and woefully inadequate research”, lacked “rigour”, reproduced “inaccuracies as fact”, and made assertions without “producing any substantial evidence”. It was, Pahad concluded, an “illiberal” and “irresponsible” abuse of freedom of the press.
And what had Laurence done to provoke this tirade?
He had questioned the propriety of Pahad touting for sponsorship for Ronald Suresh Roberts’s recently published ‘biography’ of President Thabo Mbeki. And he had commented that the book itself erred in pretending that Mbeki had never dallied with AIDS “denialism.” (Laurence’s response to Pahad on the first issue can be found here.)
Pahad accused Laurence of trotting out the “old trope of the president being an Aids denialist without providing one shred of evidence.” President Mbeki, Pahad insisted – citing Roberts as his authority -”has never denied that HIV causes Aids.”
For all those who actually witnessed Mbeki’s contestation of the scientific orthodoxy on HIV/AIDS between 1999 and 2002 – and regardless of whether they supported or opposed his endeavours – Pahad’s contention is a laughable one.
As such it is tempting to dismiss it out of hand. Yet that would be to underestimate the power of forgetting, the determination of the presidency to rewrite the historical record, and the capacity of such simple propaganda – endlessly repeated – to distort the memory of historical reality.
“Where”, Pahad asked rhetorically, “has the president actually denied the link between HIV and Aids? Where is the evidence of denialism?”
The following account will try and provide an answer to those questions, by setting out the evolution of President Mbeki’s views on the causal link between HIV and AIDS between 1999 and 2002. Mbeki was not born an AIDS ‘dissident’ he became one. And understanding the chronology is a necessary counter to the insidious effects of the disinformation currently being disgorged by the presidency.
I
In October 1998 then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki and the then Minister of Health, Nkosazana Zuma, put a stop to the health department’s piloting of anti-retroviral treatment for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission – for reasons which remain inexplicable.
It was only the following year that (now President) Mbeki was first introduced to the “alternative viewpoint” on HIV/AIDS, through the writings of Advocate Anthony Brink. According to the best available evidence Mbeki only really began taking a serious interest in the ‘dissident’ literature in late October 1999 – although he proceeded to immerse himself in the subject thereafter.
The initial attraction of Brink’s writings to Mbeki lay in his emphasis on the toxicity of AZT. This provided a new rationalisation for his (by then) already longstanding refusal to allow the provision of this drug through the public healthcare system.
Mbeki’s other guide into this alternative view was the journalist Anita Allen. They met in November 1999 after Mbeki responded to earlier efforts of hers to contact him. The two worked closely together over the following few years on the HIV/AIDS issue.
In late January 2000 David Rasnick, a leading proponent of the ‘dissident’ theory on AIDS, was contacted by President Mbeki’s Office. He was sent eight questions which Mbeki had asked of the Minister of Health, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang – with her answers attached. Rasnick, and a colleague, Dr Charles Geshekter replied at length by fax the following day.
They stated that while the minister’s answers “faithfully reflect the views of many in the medical establishment, nevertheless, her responses expose many of the problems and contradictions inherent in trying to understand AIDS in Africa.” They suggested instead that five even more fundamental questions be asked, including “Does HIV cause AIDS?”
Elsewhere in their response they stated that the “real causes of AIDS in Africa” were “socio-economic status, poverty, malnutrition, tuberculosis, diarrhea, respiratory infections, malaria and other parasitic infections.”
At the end of February the health department announced that, on Mbeki’s instigation, an international panel of experts was to be convened in May to re-assess various aspects of the science of HIV/AIDS. According to Mbeki’s spokesman, Parks Mankahlana, the panel was to review “everything about AIDS” including, “whether HIV leads to AIDS, whether there is something called HIV, for an example.”
In the run up to the meeting of the panel Mbeki did not directly question the link between HIV and AIDS, but instead stridently defended the right of AIDS ‘dissidents’ (such as Rasnick) to do so.
On the April 19 Deputy President Jacob Zuma read out a statement to parliament, on behalf of the presidency, which stated that Mbeki would not prejudge the conclusions of the panel’s scientific inquiries. “Accordingly, at no point has the President said that he challenges the view that HIV causes AIDS, or the contrary.”
On May 3 Cabinet announced the composition of the thirty member panel (there were a further three facilitators). At least 14 out of the 30 were signatories to internet petitions contesting the “hypothesis” that HIV causes AIDS. See here and here (and here). Among the questions the panel was tasked to answer was: “what causes the immune deficiency that leads to death from AIDS?”
Shortly before the panel met on May 6 a further three non-dissidents were added to the panel (to give them a slight majority) – reportedly after intervention by the Clinton administration. As others have pointed out, this 50/50 split – which implied equal legitimacy – represented a rigging in the ‘dissidents’ favour, as they represented an extremely marginal viewpoint in the scientific community. Or, to put it in ANC language, they had been given a ‘minority veto’ by Mbeki.
In his address to the panel Mbeki stated that he was “embarrassed to say” that in reading up on the AIDS epidemic [in late 1999] he had “discovered that there had been a controversy around these matters for quite some time. I honestly didn’t know. I was a bit comforted later when I checked with a number of our Ministers and found that they were as ignorant as I, so I wasn’t quite alone. What we knew was that there is a virus, HIV. The virus causes AIDS. AIDS causes death and there’s no vaccine against AIDS. So once you are HIV positive, you are going to develop AIDS, and you are bound to die”.
In late May 2000 Mbeki was asked, during a BBC online interview whether he though HIV led to AIDS. He replied: “That’s one of the issues that the scientists are discussing. I’ve never made any judgement on that. It is an issue they are debating.”
Thus, after taking an interest in the dissident literature in late 1999 Mbeki had by May 2000 defended the legitimacy of, and provided a public platform for, the AIDS ‘dissidents’. He was on record as saying that he had neither rejected, nor accepted, the view that HIV caused AIDS.
II
It was on July 9 that Mbeki first publicly questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS. In his address to the International AIDS conference in Durban he stated that it seemed to him that the phenomenon of immune collapse among black Africans could not be blamed on a single virus.
In an interview with Time Magazine, September 4 2000, Mbeki stated that, “the notion that immune deficiency [AIDS] is only acquired from a single virus [HIV] cannot be sustained.” When asked whether he was prepared to “acknowledge that there is a link between HIV and AIDS?” he replied, “This is precisely where the problem starts. No, I am saying that you cannot attribute immune deficiency solely and exclusively to a virus.”
And much more. Read it.
Spuy, do you have any inside information of how Motlanthe appointed his cabinet? This is not a trick question – I am really interested to know. I am told Motlanthe stayed with Agmet Katrada and his partner – yes – Barbara Hogan in the weeks before he was appointed President. Is it co-incidence that Hogan was then appointed Minister of Health? Maybe, but how do we know? So who decided on the new cabinet appointments? Was it Zuma? The NEC? The NWC? Motlanthe? Anyone with REAL info, please let us know. No platitudes about ANC collective decision making allowed. Only real info of what actually happened would be helpful. If it was Zuma who made these decisions (constitutionally Motlanthe is President, not acting President, and Zuma has no say on the cabinet….) it might provide some mitigation for the fact that Zuma – according the the available evidence – has a prima facie case of very serious corruption to answer. Anyone with ANC infor please come forward and defend your man! I would be thrilled to hear that he was behind Motlanthe’s quite brilliant cabinet picks…..
Clara // Nov 27, 2008 at 8:32 pm (and Khosi and Vuyo)
“Perhaps, garg unzola, you might give us an example of where observation in order to prove something isn’t necessary.”
Some woolly language on the part of Pierre and Garg unzola has led to nit-picking. Of course Pierre can’t find you a 69 year old living on ARVs. He wrote ‘will’ live to 69. What the study did was suggest that this would be case. The proof will come in 60-odd years.
Garg unzola didn’t write that no observation(s) was needed. He wrote “you don’t always have to observe SOMETHING in order to prove IT”.
Likewise here. Scientific research can lead to discoveries that can then be proved.
Astronomers didn’t observe Neptune. But they observed that the orbit of Uranus suggested that there must be a planet further out from the sun that was exerting gravitational pull on it. So they hypothesised, deduced, extrapolated that there’d be a planet at roughly the spot marked x in the night sky and behold there it was. Planet not observed, scientific theories applied, planet observed – proof.
I don’t know whether Clara has access to the web. I have never observed Clara, I have never observed her computer or the computer she has access to. But here in front of me on my screen I see her words. I therefore deduce, extrapolate, infer that both Clara and the computer she uses exist. I cannot prove this myself but it is something that can be proved (sadly, in the age of Big Brother).
Governments have spent millions (billions?) on the Large Hadron Collider. Why? To collide particles that no scientist has ever observed but that have been proved to exist, so that they can test a number of predictions they have made including the existence of a hypothesised particle, the Higgs Boson that no one will ever observe.
More than enough examples, especially as I have wandered so far from the topic at hand. But just to say, modern science is all about hypotheses, predictions and deductions, many of which then lead to discoveries and finally proofs.
khosi // Nov 27, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“Who discovered & coined the term HIV and where, how did that happen. Also from which population group? I will give you a clue. They recently won a Nobel prize for it.”
How can any of this matter? Scientists the world over work in labs isolating viruses, etc to try to cure diseases. It doesn’t mean they invented the virus or that it originated in their lab!
What exactly is your problem with mainstream scientists working on AIDS and producing ARVs? Do you have the same problem with research on cancer? Over three times as many people died of cancer last year than from AIDs. So if someone contracts cancer are you going to recommend they go to a hospital and be treated with chemotherapy or will you suggest something alternative like the grape cure?
pierre
This pathetic strategy of trying to “separate” the “good” ANC leaders from the collective and the NEC is bizarrely reminiscent of the personality cult of Mandela becoming the “good guy” all of a sudden the moment he showed up at RWC 2005 wearing a Springbok jersey.
For your informnation since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend how the ANC works : the revolt against Mbeki’s disastrous policies on AIDS and Zimbabwe was the main reason why he turned against his deputy Zuma way, way back before the 2002 Polokwane conference. The position of “Zuma’s cohorts”, in particularly on Mugabe and the HIV/AIDs problem is well known and documented for everyone else who wants to see.
Correction: that should have been RWC 1995
Clara // Nov 27, 2008 at 8:32 pm (and Khosi and Vuyo)
“Perhaps, garg unzola, you might give us an example of where observation in order to prove something isn’t necessary.”
Some woolly language on the part of Pierre and Garg unzola has led to nit-picking. Of course Pierre can’t find you a 69 year old living on ARVs. He wrote ‘will’ live to 69. What the study did was suggest that this would be case. The proof will come in 60-odd years.
Garg unzola didn’t write that no observation(s) was needed. He wrote “you don’t always have to observe SOMETHING in order to prove IT”.
Likewise here. Scientific research can lead to discoveries that can then be proved.
Astronomers didn’t observe Neptune. But they observed that the orbit of Uranus suggested that there must be a planet further out from the sun that was exerting gravitational pull on it. So they hypothesised, deduced, extrapolated that there’d be a planet at roughly the spot marked x in the night sky and behold there it was. Planet not observed, scientific theories applied, planet observed – proof.
I don’t know whether Clara has access to the web. I have never observed Clara, I have never observed her computer or the computer she has access to. But here in front of me on my screen I see her words. I therefore deduce, extrapolate, infer that both Clara and the computer she uses exist. I cannot prove this myself but it is something that can be proved (sadly, in the age of Big Brother).
Governments have spent millions (billions?) on the Large Hadron Collider. Why? To collide particles that no scientist has ever observed but that have been proved to exist, so that they can test a number of predictions they have made including the existence of a hypothesised particle, the Higgs Boson that no one will ever observe.
More than enough examples, especially as I have wandered so far from the topic at hand. But just to say, modern science is all about hypotheses, predictions and deductions, many of which then lead to discoveries and finally proofs.
khosi // Nov 27, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“Who discovered & coined the term HIV and where, how did that happen. Also from which population group? I will give you a clue. They recently won a Nobel prize for it.”
How can any of this matter? Scientists the world over work in labs isolating viruses, etc to try to cure diseases. It doesn’t mean they invented the virus or that it originated in their lab!
What exactly is your problem with mainstream scientists working on AIDS and producing ARVs? Do you have the same problem with research on cancer? Over three times as many people died of cancer last year than from AIDs. So if someone contracts cancer are you going to recommend they go to a hospital and be treated with chemotherapy or will you suggest something alternative like the grape cure?
@ HIV/AIDS South African denialists on this blog post
“We know that HIV can be prevented and that treatment works. We know that mothers with HIV can remain healthy and their babies can be born free of HIV. And we know that infection rates are relatively low for people under the age of 19.”
Zuma – Just said that.
I hope you can now start to unbrain wash yourselves and start contributing to spreading the message and saving lives.
Use garlic liberally but only when you want to spice up your curry on a Friday night. Take a condom to spice up your sex life.
Pierre, good thing you not a practicing lawyer or you’d have the dubious honour of the most orders de propi. My comment relates to, firstly, YOUR posting and I quote:
“Scientists (like Makgoba) knows very much about HIV and in twenty short years came up with ARV’s which a recent study showed will prolongue (sic) the life of a 20 year old with 49 years.”
Secondly, you cite a study published in an allopathic journal (heavily funded by Gig Pharma) that would therefore invariably interpret HIV from drug intervention perspective (its bit like citing the journal Umrabulo, to prove the bona fides of the ANC!). Thirdly, you cite a study sponsored and funded by both the UK Medical Research Council and GlaxoSmithKline! Do you really expect that GlaxoSmithKline would come with a different conclusion when they are arguably the biggest purveyor of ARVs!?
As to your penultimate comment, a “bigot” refers to a chauvinist, an intolerant, a prejudiced, etc, and “ignoramus” to an ignorant, uncouth, coarse, stupid, etc. In regard to this subject YOU exhibit both traits (i.e. 1 intolerance of a differing perspective or inquisitiveness in regard to HIV/AIDS policy and theory, 2 - clear ignorance of the scientific discourse both for and against the present HIV/AIDS treatment paradigm). I suggest that you stop reading material (regarding this matter) that serves only to reinforce your prejudice, also try reading works that disprove your paradigm (you’ll be surprised at the amount thereof, and certainly not limited to “AIDS Denialists”). But I doubt you will do this, you are too lazy and have liberal credentials to protect (after all, Cameron JA and the rest of the gang would cease to invite you to their famous evening dinners, characterized by jurisprudential discourse, good food, and copious amounts of pinotage).
i apologise for the repeat of my long comment above. I thought it hadn’t gone through first time round.
Vuyo, I have personal experience of HIV and ARVs and I have seen that these medicines work. Pardon me for not taking the time to read the work of the few discredited scientists still peddling their lies when all around me I see people whose lives have been saved by so called toxiic ARVs. I prefer to believe my own eyes rtaher than what a few nut-cases and Thabo Mbeki argues. ARVs continue to save the lives of millions of people and whether these ARV’s are made by evil drug companies or not are really irrelevant for this argument. (We may have an argument about the evil drug companies who make profit out of other peoples misery, but that is for another day.) I would rather be alive and exploited by drug companies than dead and be eaten by worms. But maybe that is just me. You and Thabo Mbeki might have another view, of course.
Vuyo – as Pierre says, ARVs work. Until there is an alternative that actually works as well or at all (do you know of any?) why are you against them? They save people’s lives, allow them to live longer and give them a better quality of life. Would you rather they suffer and die because you object to the use of ARVs?
sarah palin // Nov 28, 2008 at 10:40 am
Sarah, I accept that ARVs are an important component of a holistic treatment regime. I however also believe that this arrogant and glib disregard of all views contrary to the ARV paradigm serve only to hinder attempts at obtaining more effective treatments. If we accept that we are facing a colossal onslaught from HIV/AIDS we ought to cease being one dimensional and dogmatic and explore possible alternatives. This tendency to stifle debate and label people “denialists” serves only to limit collaborative efforts, hence the present difficulties (inspite of massive R&D) in international endeavors to find a cure for HIV and AID. I have close family members who have died of AIDS and some who are suffering from opportunistic diseases resulting from HIV and the resultant AID. It is tragic to see a human being devoured by the opportunistic diseases characterizing AIDS. It is also disheartening to see the negative impact of ARVs (I have an aunt who died as a result of the ministration thereof) and heartening to see them working (I have cousins who recovered after ministration of ARVs). The focus should be on a cure and not on throwing insults at those who take the time to review HIV/AIDS public policy and come to conclusions that differ from the “orthodox”. The focus can’t only be on ARVs but on prevention (which would include education and social-economic transformation in order to eradicate the commoditization of sex), bolstering our healthcare system in order to ensure efficient delivery of medications (including ARVs), promotion of HIV/AID/AIDS related R&D endeavors on a scientific basis (and not based on bigotry) and eradication of conditions that allow diseases of poverty to thrive.
Vuyo – I agree 100% with you. R&D investment should not be restricted to work on ARVs. Major breakthroughs in medicine have often come from thinking outside the box or even accidental discoveries – Pasteur’s vaccinations for example.
But the problem was that the holistic treatment regime was not applied in SA for a few years. ARVs were actually blocked by the Health Dept! Of course we should be working on prevention, as you say, but in conjunction with cure while the wheels of socio-economic and educational change grind along.
Vuyo // Nov 28, 2008 at 10:59 am
“…The focus can’t only be on ARVs…”
………………………………………………………….
That is where most people seem to have missed the point!
People seem to understand that AIDS kills by employing the opportunistic deseases which are ordinarily curable but cannot be cured in a person with AIDS due to that person’s immunue system having been weakened by HIV!
The fact, which was allegedly to be said by Mbeki, is that AIDS in itself does not kill! It just creates an opportunity for other deseases to kill with relative ease by weakening the immunue system.
This also means that the strategy to be employed against HIV/AIDS should primarily focus on prevention for those who are not (yet) infected by HIV. Secondly, it should focus on creating suitable environment for a person’s immune system to be strong or be boosted. This is the reason why Manto Tshabalala-Msimang suggested the ‘you know what’ . This method, needless to say, is much more safe as it is entirely natural and does not result in the introduction of more foreign substances to the body, one foreign substance being te virus itself.
The reason why Mbeki was not keen on administering the ARVs could be because of the fear that these drugs are firstly toxic and he had the support of the so-called “denialists” in this view. Secondly, there was another fear that these drugs sometimes instead of boosting the immunue system, causes it to be weak because they put too much pressure on it on top of the pressure from the virus.
This, I believe, caused Mbeki to think that the best way to deal with HIV/AIDS is not to roll out the ARVs and benefit the capitalistic West but to provide conditions for people which would make it easier for them to have stronger immunue systems, like advising people to eat beetroot, garlic, etc. which are said to boost the immune system, to provide better living conditions for people, better medical care, job opportunities so that peopl emay afford decent lifestyles.
However, I believe one of the obstancles to this plan of his was that by then it was a little too late; he did not have time to properly plan and implement a proper plan against HIV/AIDS. Admittedly, his plan was good, very good, but it was a long term one and it required co-operation of all the sectors of the South African society. However, three main obstancles stood on his way.;
There was a high number of people who were being ravaged by the virus whilst he was still consulting and getting more information on the virus to make a good decision. Secondly, what put pressure on him was the almost overwhelming “scientific evidence” that the HIV causes AIDS and that ARVs can prolong the lives of people with HIV despite his obvious persimissism pertaining thereto. Thirdly, the international community, from which this “scientific evidence” and the very costly ARVs emanated, was putting pressure on him to develop a policy against HIV/AIDS which would of course involve the roll out of the ARVs.
@Clara:
Perhaps, garg unzola, you might give us an example of where observation in order to prove something isn’t necessary. A case similar to the one under discussion would be helpful.
Certainly. An autopsy would reveal that a person may very well have died as a result of Aids complications. Note that you do not necessarily observe that the person suffered from Aids, because a flu could kill a person suffering from Aids, but other factors (white blood cell count, etc) which are observed indirectly lead you to induce that the person in question may have suffered from Aids, even before you directly observe the HI virus in the person’s blood stream.
In more broad terms, if I found someone with an aberration to the head, and they don’t get up and boogie, I deduce that someone hit the person over the head with a blunt object. I can prove that this is or is not the case, without directly observing the blunt object hitting the person’s head and without a blunt object lying nearby. I can observe the size of the wound, the surface area of the impact, I can use the average force necessary to knock a person down, consider the weight of the person, etc and prove to you that a blunt object did in fact knock this person down, or not, without observing a blunt object hitting the person down.
I’m sure you agree that there is something like gravity, although nobody directly observes gravity, only its effects. It’s an induction that there is something like gravity, as gravity is not directly observed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Pierre De Vos // Nov 28, 2008 at 10:31 am
Garg Unzola // Nov 28, 2008 at 11:57 am
Sne // Nov 28, 2008 at 11:42 am
Vuyo // Nov 28, 2008 at 9:48 am
Three of the people that I know who have died and were HIV positive, died of cancer. All three were on ARV’s and in all three ARV’s looked as if were of help to their health. All were Africans and under the age of 30. Now Africans under the age of 30, dying of cancer is an unknown. Add to that, all from a common social group, then you will see the problems we are dealing with.
Does this so called ‘inductive reasoning’ take such cases into account? My thing is that, as ARV’s are rolled out in this country, lets watch closely as causes of death change from pneumonia, TB, fungal, bacterial, viral to cancerous infections. And then science will list cancer as an opportunistic infection as well.
Three of the people that I know who have died and were HIV positive, died of cancer. All three were on ARV’s and in all three ARV’s looked as if were of help to their health. All were Africans and under the age of 30. Now Africans under the age of 30, dying of cancer is an unknown. Add to that, all from a common social group, then you will see the problems we are dealing with.
Does this so called ‘inductive reasoning’ take such cases into account? My thing is that, as ARV’s are rolled out in this country, lets watch closely as causes of death change from pneumonia, TB, fungal, bacterial, viral to cancerous infections. And then science will list cancer as an opportunistic infection as well.
I will have to agree with you khosi. ARV’s are exteremly toxic and to deny that is a criminal attempt to mislead ignorant people. They are like chemotherapy and should be taken as an absolutely last resort when the patient has progressed to advanced or late stage of AIDS. Definitely not to be handed out over the counter just like happy pills like the TAC was suggesting.
One of the very few things that Mantho got right at the end http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4951a1.htm
I do not think for a second that we have been really objective when it came to ARVs and the information relating to ARVs and their effects… We need to educate ourselves with information from credible sources with no hidden agenda!
Yes, ARVs are toxic. As stated above, it is not recommended for our country, given our socio-economic circumstances, to apply ARVs as an attempt to cure an incurable disease. It is prescribed as a means to alleviate those who are basically dead on their feet already and to prevent mother-to-child transfers, for which they are effective.
For the latter treatment, you don’t need long-term ARVs. You need a 28 day regime to significantly increase the chances that your baby will not be born with HIV.
The issue is not whether ARVs are toxic or not. The issue is why we were denied medical treatment by those without any medical treatment on the basis of a medical opinion by those without any medical expertise (a lawyer, a journalist and a president who is trained as an economist).
Not giving in to the evil capitalists is not a good excuse as most of the ARVs would have made it to our country via foreign aid. In other words, it would not have cost us a cent.
Latter should read:
The issue is why we were denied medical treatment by those without any medical expertise who based their policies on the medical opinion of those without any medical expertise.
Garg Unzola // Nov 28, 2008 at 2:49 pm
……………………………………………………………..
I am absolutely positive that even if Mbeki had dished out the ARVs and it turned out that they procure the consequences which he feared they would, then he would still have been blamed for the death of hundreds of thousands of those who had taken the drugs!
Then you would have been one of the people asking why he did not research into the opinions of the so-called “dissidents” about the dangers or the toxicity of the ARVs. Either way the former President would not have behaved in an acceptable way in your eyes. You would most probably have argued that he wasted millions by buying the ARVs instead of investigating the claims of the “dissidents” in order to save lives of the poor South Africans. You would have argued that he took the easy way out.
However, as a leader with a backbone and who is not afraid to be opinionated and to air his views, he decided to take the difficult way out to protect the unsuspecting poor from exploitation by the ARVs manufacturers!
@ Khosi
Sorry for your loss.
It is not surprising that the three people you know who died of Aids related diseases, in fact died of cancer.
Please see the following quote from the Mayo clinic, one of the worlds most outstanding hospitals.
“If you’re infected with HIV, you’re also more likely to develop certain cancers, especially Kaposi’s sarcoma, cervical cancer and lymphoma, although improved treatments have reduced the risk of these illnesses.”
Source: Mayo Clinic
Nobody Special – “I hope you can now start to unbrain wash yourselves and start contributing to spreading the message and saving lives.”
Ooh, this made me laugh! Especially the bit that one should start to “unbrain” oneself and, “wash” oneself and start contributing to spreading the message. JZ’s shower!! Ha.ha, ha!!!
Ozoneblue – “I will have to agree with you khosi. ARV’s are exteremly toxic and to deny that is a criminal attempt to mislead ignorant people.”
Have ARV’s killed Edwin Cameron and Zackie Achmat? If so, when? (Not yet in the news.) If not, how long have they survived the toxic effect thereof and lived, well, quite a happy life? And, why are ARV’s still so freely available (not classified as a poison) and distributed by governments and people that care?
Khosi – “Now Africans under the age of 30, dying of cancer is an unknown.”
Now even you would (or rather, should) know, Khosi, that you are talking shit. Go look on the slab’s in medical schools, where cadavers are being dissected, and see how many black people (under the age of 30) have died of, inter alia, throat cancer, and who were not HIV positive. Well, if that isn’t the case anymore, it certainly was during the late seventies, early eighties. I have attended such classes at University – medicina forensis.
@Sne:
However, as a leader with a backbone and who is not afraid to be opinionated and to air his views, he decided to take the difficult way out to protect the unsuspecting poor from exploitation by the ARVs manufacturers!
I do not dispute the fact that Mbeki is a very good economist. However, an economist doth not a doctor make. Having backbone is one thing, but if Mbeki had that much backbone, why did he prevent our health ministry from going to international Aids conventions? Why did he decline to discuss his dissident Aids theories in public? It is as if he did not want anyone to think differently from his dissident Aids theories, which he got second hand from a lawyer and a journalist. Let’s not forget that lawyers are paid to twist stories and journalists are paid to make up stories. But let’s falsify your theory.
Botswana did not err on the side of ARV roll-outs and they managed to at least contain the problem in their country. The life expectancy in Botswana is about 5 years more than that of South Africa.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html
Re: the Aids intervention in Botswana:
Thanks to the commitment of the Government and its partners, Botswana’s PMTCT programme is now one the most effective in the developing world, serving over 95% of all women in need 33 . Services have been established in all public facilities through the Maternal Child Health/Family Planning system, which serves over 90% of all pregnant women. Test results from between November 2006 and February 2007 indicate that less than 4% of babies born to HIV positive mothers were infected – a rate comparable with the USA and Western Europe.
http://www.avert.org/aidsbotswana.htm
So much for the ‘Aids is caused by malnutrition and racism’ theory. Note that Botswana worked with the West to combat a serious disease and they managed to attain some manner of success comparable to that of the developed world. South Africa focused on nutrition, which made the problem worse.
It follows that if Mbeki followed his African head instead of his African backbone, I would still have respect for him as my leader. I have no problem with questioning prevalent notions provided that you really are keeping an open mind and not exchanging one soapbox for another because you are trying to save face. People are dying. Screw Mbeki’s dignity.
Anonymouse // Nov 28, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Well, did you find three of those coming from the same social circle? And I did verify this with people who got their medical training pre-1999. To them – unknown – was the answer.
‘late seventies, early eighties’ – what a conspicuous time in our liberation history.
Ozoneblue and Sne: I am surprised by your posts as it does not conform with my personal lived experience, nor with the most recent scientific research (as opposed to political posturing and conjecture) on HIV/AIDS and new generation ARV’s. Research shows that while first generation ARV’s often had serious side effects for at least some individuals, the ARV’s that have come on stream in the past two to three years have almost no side effects – except for people who have started taking it so late (CD4 count less than 100) that their immune systems have been almost fatally compromised. People who die after started taking ARV’s all started treatment too late – not too early. Latest research suggests it is better to start ARV treatment sooner rather than later (unless one has serious liver problems) and if taken early enough will have a dramatic effect on the standard of living and longevity of a person living with HIV – all such persons. There is no controversy about these things amongst any credible scientists – just as there is not any controversy about the fact that the earth moves around the sun and is round – because the research have been done and the results are known through actual experience. It is sad that some people still do not believe this but there is no need for an argument on these issues. What there is a need for is to keep pressurizing pharmaceutical companies to do more ethically sound research on HIV (and other medical issues like Malaria where little research has been done because mostly poor black people contract it) and to lower the prices of ARV’s. Your attempt to suggest that there is, is not based on credible information, but on ideologically and emotionally driven beliefs not supported by the lived experience of people living with HIV or by science.
Pierre De Vos // Nov 29, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“other medical issues like Malaria where little research has been done because mostly poor black people contract it”
WOW!!!
Pierre, can you provide proof this statement? If you cannot, then we are free to believe that HIV was created to ensure the suffering of the very same black people that you supposedly speaking on behalf of.
Garg Unzola // Nov 28, 2008 at 8:46 pm
You quote a report, then you say:-
“The life expectancy in Botswana is about 5 years more than that of South Africa.”
I went to the report that you quoted and this is what is says:-
Botswana total population: 50.16 years
male: 51.28 years
female: 49.02 years (2008 est.)
South Africa total population: 48.89 years
male: 49.63 years
female: 48.15 years (2008 est.)
50.16 – 48.89 = 1.27
Where did you get the 5 years from? Pierre de Vos’s exaggeration handbook maybe?
Let me give you another piece of information on your beloved Botswana. Roughly 1 in 5.5 of the whole population of Botswana are HIV positive. South Africa is sitting at roughly 1 in 10.
You see, if you tell a person that there is a remedy for irresponsible behavior, you are in fact giving a green light to that behavior. You are in fact saying that it is fine to contract HIV because government will give you pills to ‘live longer’. Over the period of the ARV program, new infections have gone on unabated in Botswana.
So, I say to you, fine Botswana with, as you say, the help of the West has managed to ensure that almost half of their population will be drugged up with ARV’s very soon. Hardly something to be proud of, let alone emulate. Imagine if something similar happened in South Africa. If one is to accommodate the ARV longer life theory, and with half of our population HIV positive, 24 million of us would be on ARV’s. That is exactly what pharmaceutical should hope for and are working towards.
As Mugabe would say:- Botswana, Botswana, Botswana OOOHhhhhhh.
@Khosi:
Do you know anyone who has ever had ARVs? I do. The prof does too, apparently. They’re still alive. The persons I know do not have HIV or Aids. I also know people who died from Aids. Coincidentally, they did not have access to ARVs.
Re: life expectancy in Botswana: I disregarded the decimals. I looked roughly at the life expectancies and rounded them roughly in my head. I apologise for rounding them wrong, although the key word is roughly. It was not an attempt to distort the figures, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered to include the links..
Fact remains Botswana has a higher life expectancy than South Africa. We are the largest economy in Africa, yet Botswana can afford first world health care while we can’t? Why not? Why should there life expectancy be on average 1,27 higher than ours? How is it claimed that Botswana managed to contain their HIV epidemic while we didn’t? If your claims are true, namely that Botswana has a 1 in ~6 HIV infection rate, and we have a 1 in 10 infection rate, how is it that their life expectancy is more than ours? Surely, a sixth of the population is more than a tenth of the population?
I’m not suggesting that it is fine to contract HIV. To say that shows lack of insight on your behalf. It is to suggest cutting yourself is fine because you have band-aid in the closet. That’s highly flawed reasoning. What you are suggesting is analogous to saying band-aids do not heal wounds, therefore we shouldn’t use them for people who have a cut.
Again, ARVs are not meant to cure Aids. They are meant to alleviate the suffering of those who are suffering from Aids (for which they do work) and they are meant to prevent mother-to-child transfers (for which they definitely work). They also work when someone is exposed to contaminated blood to prevent HIV and Aids.
Again, the ARVs would not have cost South Africa a cent. We were offered international aid. If the pharmaceutical companies were to benefit form this, they were not going to benefit from our pockets in any event.
Re: 1 in 10 does not equate to half of the population (!!!). In any event, ARVs are recommended to those who are already as good as dead and to those who are at risk like unborn children and people recently exposed to contaminated blood (medical staff who get pricked; rape victims, etc).
In the first case, the ARVs would have to be taken in the long term. It still does not amount to half the population, in neither our case nor in the case of Botswana. In the last case, the ARVs are not taken in the long term. The treatments differ, but it is my understanding that you need a 28 day regime to reduce the risk of getting the HI virus. That’s it. 28 days of nausea and you have your life ahead of you.
Besides, if you had to choose between Botswana and Zimbabwe, which one would it be? (The life expectancy in Zim is 44,28; 2008 estimate, from my same link).
Garg Unzola // Nov 30, 2008 at 5:16 pm
“To say that shows lack of insight on your behalf. It is to suggest cutting yourself is fine because you have band-aid in the closet. That’s highly flawed reasoning. What you are suggesting is analogous to saying band-aids do not heal wounds, therefore we shouldn’t use them for people who have a cut.”
Well…. actually you are wrong and you are the one lacking insight. Let me explain it to you in lay man terms that, hopefully, you will understand. Young girls in our country, today, are getting pregnant because the welfare system ‘rewards’ them with child grants. Grants are not meant as a reward but common people do not see it that way. Similarly, ARV’s might not be meant as a cure, but people will apply them as such. There is no two ways about it. Add to that, the AIDS disability grant that ‘rewards’ low CD counts and you have a powder keg itching to explode. You know, I have a friend, an educated person, who at times practices unsafe sex then goes to another friend, who is a doctor, to get ARV’s to stop an infection. That is how bad the situation is on the ground.
The solution to HIV is not ARV’s. The solution is stopping the infections. Because science continues to fail us here, the key is altering behavior. I do not understand how behavior can be altered and infections stopped if people are given reasons to behave irresponsible.
HIV/AIDS is a social problem. It needs social responses in order for it to be resolved. Telling people of magic pills, will only exacerbate the problem. Your Botswana is a prime example of this. The drunken driving on our roads is also an example.
You say:-
“How is it claimed that Botswana managed to contain their HIV epidemic while we didn’t?”
The claim here is that people are living longer with HIV. That claim does not look at how sick they are while they are living longer. Also remember, as this is a social problem, the longer they live the bigger the chance of that infection being passed to the next person. Cold but true.
People die without ARV’s, on ARV’s and despite ARV’s. I have personal experience of this.
Garg Unzola // Nov 30, 2008 at 5:22 pm
When I say, half the population, I mean if our prevalence rate was as high as Botswana.
I chose South Africa’s measured response to the problem. I was watching CNN last night and I was shocked at the low base of thought that our new health minister is applying to the problem.
@Khosi:
Ah, I see what you are saying. You are quite right in that regard. My personal political convictions seem to agree with yours. I don’t agree with this nanny state that we are hungering after either. People should accept responsibility for their actions. It does feel to me that this is another topic though.
If it is true that ARVs stop infections, then certainly we need ARVs to be freely available. Nevertheless, the kind of medical treatment you want to get is a private matter for you to decide in consultation with your doctor (or your sangoma..). It has nothing to do with Thabo Mbeki or Dr Beetroot.
I do agree that people need to be more socially responsible. However, if you look at America’s abstinence only sex eduction system and its dismal failures, that’s not a realistic programme to follow. Certainly, teach abstinence in conjunction with all the rest and try to alter behaviour with level-headed straight talk, but by the same token we need to cater for the very real possibility that most people are not going to be socially responsible.
I must start by saying that I too, think that Mbeki should have been recalled along time ago but for different reasons that he was actually recalled. I am not a Zuma supporter and believe that one of Mbeki’s leadership failures was not to groom a better successor.
I am in agreement with Mbeki, however, that there is a sense of racism regarding the orgination of the HIV. Since it was first discovered in the USA and similtaneously in Germany, all the arguments that I have heard that it originated in Africa have either been inconsistant or illogical. This I think is where the racism begins.
I also agree with Mbeki that ARV’s should not be put forward as the first line of defence against HIV. ARV’s are toxic and cause irreparable liver and/or kidney damage. The fist line of defence should be a healthy life style; eating foods with documented healing qualities like garlic, beatrut, lemons, etc. Ofcourse, once the CD8 count is below 200, ARV’s must be administered. HIV DOES cause AIDS but poverty is a catylyst.
I also agree with Mbeki that the pharmacutical companies are not the best place to get the research information, their first obligation is to the shareholders, therfore to profit. Any of their research must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Garg Unzola I am glad that Khosi has managed to make you realise his point of view, which I support, and you ended up agreeing with him!
It is unfortunate that there are misleading adverts on tv meant to “educate” us about HIV/AIDS by telling us that this is a “manageable desease”! This is a blatant lie! If it were manageable then why should people be careful not to contract it!? Why should people shy away from getting “rewards” for a low CD4 count as Khosi has quintessentially pointed out?
[...] Kgalema Motlanthe, HIV/AIDS and the ANC – Constitutionally Speaking Share and [...]
HIV/AIDS is still rampant today and there is no cure for it. we need to practive safe sex all the time because an ounce of prevention is still better than a pound of cure.,,