Comments on: Mbeki, “objective reality” and the truth

By: AliBama

AliBama — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:27:29 +0000

Let the trumpeter’s of “SA’s great progress since ’94″ be reminded that where
you are now, depends on your educational outcomes of previous decades, and
where you’ll be in future depends on your recent education. As Zimbabawe has
been able to survive on it’s substantial educational capital accumulated
in the first decade of imdependance, so also will SA’s destiny be determined
by the educational “progress” since ’94. Try to understand that the HIV that
hit you today, was bought long ago

By: AliBama

AliBama — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:55:30 +0000

_Yes, the very concept of “objective reality” is a mere western construct, imposed
by the exploiting colonists/settlers. A more valid paradigm is [current] “tradition”
which has been vetted and honed by the collective wisdom of the people, over time.
Reasoning by analogy allows tradition to morph, eg. as new technology demands.

By: AliBama

AliBama — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:22:28 +0000

My respect for the prof’s integrity and convincing presentattion of argument
is uncomfortably shattered by his claim:
] there is such a wealth of evidence supporting the fact of fabrication
] (of evidence of WMD) that only a few die-hard George Bush supporter will now
] claim that Bush and his cronies were not thoroughly rotten and dishonest about
] the reasons for going to war with Iraq…
So PLEASE someone, provide argument that I may realise that it’s not just the loonie
left that’s spread a conspiracy theory about GWB. And to help you get started, here
are some prompts: what was GWB’s motive? Selling arms, getting oil contracts?
Did they plan 9/11 too, or was it just an opportunity that they exploited?
How does 9/11 compare with Pearl-Harbour, or is a comparison inappropriate?
Did they know that Saddam was just bluffing, with his ambigious obstruction of
the nuclear-inspectors? Is present Iran a repeat of the GWB farce? Is the 1st gulf
war relevant, and was that terminated, eg. by some document, and if so why was the
no-fly-zone-patrolling and shooting continuing? I.e. am I wrong that the lefties
falsely imply the GWB *started* a new war? How is it that I’ve been fooled by
the GWB gang, when “there is such a wealth of evidence”? What are the other most
evil deed of the GWB gang? Did the US democratise and develop Germany, Japan
and Korea, or is that just a coincidence?
== PS. As a confirmed racist [one who believes that mental attributes are largely
determined by the genes: race & gender], I note that TM’s brother show a remarkable
ability to talk western-logic.

By: Vuyo

Vuyo — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:00:36 +0000

Lastly Pierre, maybe the following quote from another pro-drug lobby “protector” of our constitution may help put things in perspective for you (remember, he had earlier alleged that the emphasis on poverty as a key factor in AIDS was “echoing one of the key dogmas of denialism” (The dead hand of denialism, E Cameron May 9, 2003):

“A malnourished, untended patient, living in a shack and beset with other infections, cannot benefit from antiretroviral treatment alone. She is entitled to broader social opportunities and interventive remedies, including food and housing and clean water and medical care.” (Justice Edwin Cameron, Witness to Aids – 2007)

By: Vuyo

Vuyo — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:45:39 +0000

Pierre, you are an academic linked to a mainstream university and can therefore not be excused for misrepresenting reality. Interact with your colleagues in the sciences and ask them the factors that affect research and development. They will inform you are that they receive most of their funding through collaborative R&D projects with private institutions. They will inform you that the majority of funding for R&D originates from the private sector. They will inform you that R&D projects in the pharmaceutical and medicinal industry is funded primarily by the big pharmaceutical companies. They will inform you that the direction of R&D is motivated by the extent to which the funders perceive a future financial benefit. They will inform you of the many R&D projects they abandoned solely on the basis of funders not seeing any commercialization benefit of the R&D projects, and not on the merits of the innovation or discovery. To cite hundreds of thousands of studies, the vast majority of which have been funded by private parties with a vested interest in outcomes supportive of their paradigm, is not at all persuasive. What is clear to me is that you have sheepishly relied on the volume of studies contradicting Mbeki and therefore concluded that he must be wrong (no different from quoting the volumes of apartheid judgments and on the basis thereof, concluding “they are many therefore they are correct”). The uncontrovertibly reality is that vast amounts have been spent on only one direction of research, and vast sums have been spent on research on one paradigm of treatment. The incontrovertible reality is that peer review and publication, R&D, and even academic fellowships are inextricably connected to the type of R&D that society (i.e. big business) deems acceptable? The incontrovertible reality is that you will not have a career in the HIV or AIDS fields of study unless you adopt the one specific paradigm (in fact you will be called a crackpot and will probably not be able to feed your family). I am mystified why this is so, particularly if the science about HIV and AIDS is so incontrovertible? I would have though that knowledge sharing would help pool resources and expedite the finding of solutions? After all, that is how all human diseases were combated, through pooling of knowledge and resources from the most diverse fields. Interestingly even those who believe in the causal nexus of HIV and AIDS, those who disagree with ARVs as a solution are called crackpots and their academic offices and R&D grants are withdrawn! Mystifying really, and still you have the temerity to suggest that the science of HIV and AIDS is incontrovertibly clear based on “thousands of studies” (peer reviewed by whom, if not those supportive of one paradigm)!

Regards Mbeki, you have clearly not once interrogated the merits of his arguments (hence you illiterately still raise as a smoking gun statements like “can a virus cause a syndrome” and “I have never met anyone who has died of AIDS”, all of which, by the way, he is technically correct), otherwise the glaring inconsistencies on the approach regards AIDS would be obvious to you and you would know that the so-called “discredited” or “rejected” theories have in fact not once even been addressed! In fact the HIV and AIDS debate eventually evolved from the 1999/2000 obsession with HAART to an adoption of a petered down comprehensive approach, globally around 2006, as had been advocated publicly by Mbeki (in simple terms, like the incompetents comprising the “media”, you are stuck in debates and discussions of a decade ago, that in some instance s have been largely resolved). I suppose, though its easier to be safe in condemning what you know very little of otherwise it may just have an impact in your material comfort as well as your reputation as a “liberal”, “activist” and “progressive”, particularly in the TAC, Sachs and/or Cameron circles. A bit like not questioning why backs aren’t allowed to vote because it will shake the boat a bit and likely lead to some material discomfort and maybe even a stint in the dungeons?

I will elect to dismiss your references to personal experience as being mere rhetorical flourish, not intended to be taken seriously. After all, I similarly know as many people who have worsened after using ARVs (and some who died) as I know those who have recovered (and subsequently died of anemia, liver problems, etc); but cannot make incontrovertible conclusions based on these observations. One thing is nonetheless clear, Botswana, the beacon of all that is good in Africa (according to liberals, compradors and the west), with a comprehensive HAART program (partly financed by George Bush’s funds and bound accordingly to source from American companies expensive drugs rather than cheap generics) has not seen a decline in HIV and AIDS cases, has 37% of its adult population either has HIV or AIDS, has continually increasing infection rates, has AIDS orphans galore, is facing problems with resistance and accordingly requires more expensive ARVs, its Health budget is consumed by HIV issues, and yet is considered the example South Africa must emulate! One thing for certain, If I was a share jobber, I’d say buy long as many shares as you cab grab of any company that produces ARVs for delivery in RSA. The financial dividends are the only dividends coming out of this story. And you Pierre can be thanked as one of the greatest salespersons of this racket.

By: khosi

khosi — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:38:56 +0000

@ Pierre De Vos at 15:41 pm

In short, YOU are STILL unable to dispute his questions.

By: Maggs Naidu

Maggs Naidu — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:24:53 +0000

Gwebecimele says:
October 28, 2009 at 15:58 pm

What cannot be denied too is that our local scientists and medical professionals of repute were treated almost with contempt against the views of a discredited quack!

By: Gwebecimele

Gwebecimele — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:58:37 +0000

What cannot be denied is the fact that we never supplied drugs that would have reduced mother to child transmission by more than one third until 300 000 lives were lost. You can add to that our Child and Infant mortality figures which are pathetic by any standards and there is very little to debate. TM might have tried to play commercial games and politics with the pharmaceuticals but at what cost. By the way in my books, this is not his worst moment, he had a good plan it just went horribly wrong.

Never again should we gamble with so many lives!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Pierre De Vos

Pierre De Vos — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:41:52 +0000

Khosi, your argument is illogical: At first scientists were confused about HIV. There were many theories (is the earth flat? is it round?). Then as they did more research the theories of some (HIV causes AIDS; the earth is round) won out over other theories (a virus cannot cause a syndrome; the earth is flat). Today we know the earth is round. We also know that HIV is a virus, that if untreated it will cause the immune system to disintegrate and that if one is treated with ARV’s it will usually halt the progression of the virus. Hundreds of thousands of scientific studies have been done and through aprocess of illimination the theories flirted with by Mbeki was rejected. I do not disprove Mbeki’s theory’s as his theory’s are so discredited (not through people asserting beliefs, but through thousands of scientific studies and through practical experience – today I see a dying patienmt with Aids, tomorrow I give that patioent ARV,s in a few weeks I see that patient recover) that there is nothing to argue about. The fact that you think there is, is scary.

By: Gwebecimele

Gwebecimele — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:38:22 +0000

Sne. Wrong myquestion is not based on any assumption but I will accept PdV choice of not answering my question.