by Big Dog on Jun 9, 2008 at 12:24 General
The World Health Organization (WHO) has accepted as truth that the threat of a heterosexual AIDS pandemic has disappeared. That was nice of them but there never was a threat of a pandemic. HIV and AIDS are transmitted, mostly, through high risk behavior such as IV drug use with shared needles, homosexual sex and sex with those who engage in high risks.
Certainly the possibility exists that monogamous heterosexuals can get the disease. this can happen through tainted blood transfusions and exposure to contaminated body fluids (as in health care workers). However, the risk of contracting AIDS has always been low for heterosexuals who do not engage in sexual activity with high risk partners. The risk of a heterosexual pandemic has never really existed. Yes, outbreaks can occur and heterosexuals can get AIDS but the likelihood of a pandemic was close to zero, or nonexistent.
The whole issue was suggested years ago when homosexuals were singled out as having high risk for the disease based upon their sexual practices. They complained about the suggestion that their lifestyle put them at higher risk and they believed that if AIDS were only recognized as a pandemic in their group (and those of other high risk behaviors) then research and funding for a cure would be minimal. By including the average every day heterosexual they were able, in their minds, to get research money directed toward curing the disease. This idea is ridiculous. We have not halted the research into the cure for lung cancer based on the fact that smokers are more likely to get it.
In all this time research money and time has been wasted looking for ways to stop a pandemic occurrence of heterosexual acquired AIDS when money and time would have been better if it had been focused on those most likely to get the disease. It took quite a bit of time for people to state the obvious.
The study still has unanswered questions:
But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?” The Independent
I have certainly not looked at the data but off the top of my head I would have to say it is because Washington DC has a larger population of homosexuals and IV drug users than does North Dakota. There are not as many people engaging in high risk behavior in North Dakota as there are in DC. Washington is a bastion of liberalism and the “do what you want in life” mentality, so when coupled with the population demographics, it stands to reason that DC will have the higher rate. Also, the National Institute of Health is in DC and there are research hospitals as well so it also stands to reason that some of the population migrated to DC for [inclusion in] research, testing and treatment.
The waste of time and money over the years is attributable to a politically correct attitude that said we could not single out high risk groups. This makes as much sense as spending years researching the affects of sickle cell anemia in whites who do not come from [have ancestry in] Africa, South or Central America (especially Panama), Caribbean islands, Mediterranean countries (such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy), India, and Saudi Arabia. Since the disease affects mostly African Americans in the US it would be a waste of resources to do expansive research in whites. This is the same principle for AIDS research.
Once again, political correctness rears its ugly head…
E-mail Print This Post