Friday, 26 September 2008

Hiv/Aids exaggeration.

While all the hype about your chance of getting murdered in South Africa is nothing more than the wishful thinking of blowhard expats , however there is one thing more over hyped and exaggerated in South Africa.


Before I get into the issue I'm going to issue an obvious disclaimer : I'm not a virologist and I'm not invited to the inner board rooms where the statistics are cooked up. You should always be careful when having sex to use protection. There are plenty of nasty things you can catch including the worse std of all : children.

With that said I will argue today that the information we get regarding the prevalence of hiv/aids in general is grossly sensationalistic and inflated.

Let us start with a common nonsense statistic you will hear down at the pub.

1 in 5 (4,3?) South Africans are infected with the hiv virus.

Actually according to the official estimates around 1 in 9 South Africans are infected by Aids. Firstly this is a "worst case scenario" that makes predictions based on things like prevalence of hiv in new born children and from those being tested at hospitals.

But let's look closer at this 1 in 9 prediction.

A few facts about Aids.

Studies carried out world wide have stated that a heterosexual male would need to have around 1000-3000 unprotected exposures to the virus to stand a 50% chance of getting the virus. That means you need to have unprotected sex with someone with hiv an average of 2000 times to stand a decent chance of getting it.

For hiv to spread from person to person it requires that both parties have some form of an open wound. Exposure to vaginal fluids, saliva or semen etc do not spread the disease. The virus must go directly from one blood stream to the next or it dies immediately. Therefore the relative biology means that the figure is about half the amount of exposures for women and three times less that for gay men (Anal sex is the most likely form of sex to induce tearing of the skin.

So it would seem that for 1 in 9 people to have have contracted aids through the traditionally perceived methods that there is some kind of extreme gangbang non stop orgy going on in the country that I haven't been invited to. No , the idea that I'd not be invited to an irgy is silly ....clearly sex alone can not explain the 1 in 9 figure. Either we must prove that 10 % of the country have had unprotected sex with people with hiv on average of 2000 times , or we must admit that the 1 in 9 is simply not feasible.

When one considers that the estimates for other std's such as gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes (which are relatively very easily transmitted)are actually lower than those of hiv/Aids(which is relatively very difficult to transmit) then we have a big problem. Something is clearly not matching up.

It's been suggested by some credible scientists that this strangely high estimate comes from the fact that the estimates are being based on a group of people who notoriously tests falsely positive : pregnant women. More controversially it's been suggested that the traditional paradigm with which we understand the hiv virus in Africa is in fact deeply flawed and need scientific re-evaluation. This is the school of thought that that can be associated with our health minister. The idea is that hiv/aids has a third force acting on it other than sex alone to account for the high infection rate.

Another thing to consider is that when the only group of people who you could legally test without consent were tested they showed only a prevelence of 0,17 %. (17 out of 1000 people). Who was this group ? They were the prisoners of South Africa. A group who you would think would have hiv aids coming out of their ears due to the infamous prison rape and general class from which they come from. So why this low rate ? What does it tell us ? Is this a more realistic figure of hiv prevalence ? Is the fact they get 3 square meals a part of it ? Is someone lying about the figures ? What is going on ?

Another thing to consider as I made in previous articles is the very real possibility that with all the financial incentive to cook the books in regards aids , that in fact a lot of this is going on. There is big research and pharmaceutical money at stake....huge money ! And where there is huge money to be made , corruption always follows.

Then there is the school of scientists who find the link between hiv and aids to not correlate directly, with some even denying the existence of hiv (as it's never been isolated purely). They argue that if you give a person with a poor diet and low immune system the stressful news he is dying and follow that up highly toxic drugs that you really have no need for some mysterious virus to explain them dying from diseases like tb.

Also if indeed there was 1 -9 aids rate we've been told (for the past 15 years at least anyway) then we'd expect to be seeing as a best case scenario 800 000 deaths a year from it. Although strictly speaking you'd expect this to be much higher. In fact we see only 15 000 aids deaths a year with another possible few of 50 000 tb deaths (some might argue) possibly also covering up aids deaths. This really does make it seem that somewhere , someone is not quite telling us the whole truth with this 1 in 9 story.

Each of the above issues alone warrant an article of their own and I will do so in good time. Today however I just ask the questions for your own personal consideration and research.

So I think we can admit that there is surely enough huge holes in this 1 in 9 version to pretty easily debunk it. If you asked me to suck a number out of my thumb based on the actual amount of deaths and prison samples and likelihood of contracting the disease sexually , I'd say probably around less than 3% of South African have Aids. But again you really can't take my word for it and should look into it yourself. I am open to suggestions that it might be higher , but it would really surprise me to find anything close to 10% that I couldn't with great ease disprove. And before you shout and scream , later when I have the time I will provide credible references for all the numbers I've thrown up there. Possibly only as late as Monday though.

As I said before it's always better to be safe than sorry. I understand the view that it can't hurt to make people hyper aware of the dangers by overstating them if necessary. However I feel if we follow this too far what we will have is a whole bunch of traumatized people who secretly feel they have a good chance of having contracted aids , when in fact its minuscule. These people are less likely to get tested , more likely to engage in anti social escapism behavior such as drinking (to curb their fears). They are more likely to have phobias about getting too close to someone interpersonally and thus may engage in more promiscuity. They may even give in to a feeling of hopelessness and just engage in more unprotected sex than they normally would. The stress itself will have a negative effect on all aspects of their life, including personal and health.

Once again I urge everyone to never allow this information to make them more apathetic about using protection/being faithful in their sex lives. Certainly the less you think it can happen to you , the more likely it will be smart.

Below is a video you can watch if you're interested in why people would be "crazy" enough to question the link between hiv and aids.


the_weasel said...

"Anal sex is the most likely form of sex to induce tearing of the skin" ha ha ha

We'll take your word on that!

The Rooster said...

I don't know missy. You seem to have something stuck up there yourself.

Anonymous said...

After you started making statistical claims without citing your sources, I stopped reading. I think that was about the 3rd paragraph.

When you say bullshit like "studies around the world show", I take no notice because those "studies" can mean anything.

Cite your fucking sources, or you'll be seen as nothing more than a fool trying to seem smart.

The Rooster said...

What a shame you stopped reading. I specifically stated I would state all the sources no later than monday.

I care enough about this issues to take the time...but it's a friday for f-sakes. I don't care THAT much.

Anonymous said...

You're also a moron, Rooster. You completely overlooked the prevalence of the world's largest industry: drug trafficking and abuse.

Sex is only one variable of the AIDS equation. There are loads more.

You really don't know what you're talking about. But because it's Friday, I'll let it slide.

Anonymous said...

"What a shame you stopped reading. I specifically stated I would state all the sources no later than monday. "

Well, then you should have posted this nonsense post on Monday.

The Rooster said...

We have a drug problem yes...mandrax, tik, cocaine (in some classes)...but nothing to do with needle sharing. You would blame our aids statistics on needle sharing ? Seriously , how out of touch are you ?

The Rooster said...

Nope. I've been wanting to write about this for ages...just wanted the results of my aids test to come in (which they did today). Never smart fucking with mother irony now is it ?

Anonymous said...

1 - the government has been known for resisting ARV distribution, and even has been taken to court.

2 - it's in the government's financial interests to not distribute ARVs

3. - if the stats are "cooked", why didn't the government simply "cook" the stats to make them less "sensational"? (since we're going down the road of conspiracies)

Anonymous said...

"You would blame our aids statistics on needle sharing ? Seriously , how out of touch are you ?"

Listen white boy, you don't live in the townships. You've probably only ever been into one to say "I've been into a township". Talk about of touch? You better shut the fuck up.

The Rooster said...

If your position is that the stats are not cooking , you need to explain the anomolies.

Why are 800 000 people not dying of aids each year ? Why did prisoners test such a low prevalence ? Why would hiv (which is far , far harder to spread) be more prevelent that other common easily spread stds ?

"Just because !" is not an acceptible answer to these very valid questions.

The Rooster said...

Seriously you are talking out of you ass. Years of reading about this issue and never once came across one person crazy enough to even factor in the imagenary trend of needle sharing in South Africa. What else should we take into acount ? The easter bunny ?

The Rooster said...

Maybe the toothfairy is not washing up between clientele !!

Anonymous said...

"If your position is that the stats are not cooking , you need to explain the anomolies."

- I'm not saying the stats are correct, but I'm not saying they're wrong either. There's that saying "70% of all stats are wrong".

"Why are 800 000 people not dying of aids each year ?"

- don't be stupid, Rooster. People can live with HIV for years on end.

"Why did prisoners test such a low prevalence ?"

- which prisoners? which country? according to which survey?

"Why would hiv (which is far , far harder to spread) be more prevelent that other common easily spread stds ? "

- HIV can lie dormant for years, without the recipient knowing. This isn't cut and dry.

the_weasel said...

Hey Roosta, you really got me there. I feel so insulted. I'd feel even worse if you could spell.

The Rooster said...

- don't be stupid, Rooster. People can live with HIV for years on end.

And how long have they been saying that 1 in 5 people have hiv ? At least since 1993 (and probably way before). In 15 years if this stat was ever true the mim amount of aids related deaths possible would be 800 000. Actually with the snowballing effect it should be much more ! I'm sorry ...15 000 (best case) to 80 000(worste case) just does not cut it !

The total number of deaths in the whole country last year was only 591 000. That's not to say aids isn't having an fact we see about 100 000 more deaths now than in 1997 per year. It is and it exists....but 10% of the population (given in africa most people are not expected to live much longer than a few years with the disease) assuming a consitant new reinfection rate (which they do) would have to mean AT LEAST 800 000 people a year.

The Rooster said...

Regarding the hiv is sexually transmitted claim I pulled this from this page

I challenge Dr. Gareth Lloyd to come up with the names (even one will do) of the persons who are documented to have shown that AIDS (or even HIV) is sexually transmitted. I know of no such study. In fact, the scientific, medical literature is full of evidence that neither AIDS nor HIV is sexually transmitted. It is only assumed that they are.

The results of the world's best scientific study that attempted to measure the efficiency of heterosexual transmission of antibodies to HIV was conducted by Nancy Padian and her colleagues (Padian NS, et al. (1997): Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in northern California: results from a ten-year study. Am J Epidemiol 146: 350-7).

The most striking result of the ten-year study is that Padian et al. did not observe any HIV-negative sex partners becoming HIV-positive from years of unprotected sexual intercourse with their HIV-positive partners. I repeat—NOT ONE HIV-negative sex partner became positive during the 10- year study. Therefore, the observed transmission efficiency was ZERO.

However, to avoid reporting a zero efficiency for the sexual transmission of HIV, Padian and colleagues assumed that the HIV-positive sex partners in their study must have become positive through sexual intercourse before entering the study. Using that assumption, they estimated that an HIV-negative woman would have to have sexual intercourse 1000 times with HIV-positive men before becoming HIV-positive herself. Even more astounding, HIV-negative men would have to have 8000 sexual contacts before becoming HIV-positive. Virtually identical figures have been reported by others (Gisselquist, D., et al., HIV infections in sub- Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission. Int J STD AIDS, 2002. 13: p. 657-666; Jacquez, J.A., et al., Role of the primary infection in epidemics of HIV infection in gay cohorts. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 1994. 7: p. 1169-1184).

The Rooster said...

So given that there is a mountain of evidence that states that sex alone can simply not account for hiv (not to mention a rate of 1 in 9) do you people explain it ?

It's a huge problem and it needs to be answered. If sex is indeed not such a big issue in hiv then doesn't it make a pretty strong case for those proposing things like a persons diet play a big role ?

DR Beetroot seems more sane the more you know about this issue.

The Rooster said...

However please not that it is not my position that hiv is not passed sexually. It is my position that it is extremely difficult to pass on sexually and therefore

a) The stats are too high.
b) There are other factors at play other than sex (and the stats are too high).

The Rooster said...

For those interested in the rather wonky science behind "aids" ...I can suggest this book.

I still distance myself from the hiv does not cause aids stance. That would far too irresponsible a position to take until the world can come together (as mr Mbeki suggested)as put their arguments on the table in an objective environment and prove it one way or another.

Anonymous said...

The total number of deaths in the whole country last year was only 591 000.

- this is what citing sources is important. my source says 2008 had around 800000 deaths. 300000 is a lot of ppl. therefore we can't continue.

DR Beetroot seems more sane the more you know about this issue.

- hahaha, she's a politician with a political agenda and a budget. she is also no longer in power, thankfully, since no one gives a shit about what she says.

So given that there is a mountain of evidence

- mountain? a mole hill, you mean.

The Rooster said...

for the lazy ammongst you , here's a video about it..

Anonymous said...

And how long have they been saying that 1 in 5 people have hiv

- that's very possible, when you understand how HIV works. not everyone who has HIV-1 or HIV-2 is going to die. HIV-4 is generally known as AIDS.

Anonymous said...

o god, gary null??? you're not serious...

the guy is a talk show host and doesn't even have an advnaced degree in medicine, and is a fucking hippie who opposes medicine and rates himself as the best in the country in fitness and health.

in the gentle words of Penn and Teller: BULLSHIT!

Anonymous said...

O, and gary null believes that magnets can heal ppl, even though there is no scientific body of evidence and observation that supports this.

the man is obviously very credible as sources go.

Anonymous said...

As Thabo Mbeki hands over the reins to Kgalema Motlanthe on Thursday, the curtain will come down on an era of the African National Congress that has spanned the past 96 years.

"He will switch off the lights, so to speak," says his younger brother and political commentator Moeletsi.

Although not banished from the party's ranks, Thabo Mbeki's departure from the government just months after the heated Polokwane race draws a line in the sand between the ANC as we know it, and the ANC as it is emerging.

"We used to look to the ANC for stability," Moeletsi notes. "Now it's a source of instability for the country."

For more than a week, Moeletsi has closely followed the movements of the comrades, for the most part with growing unease, disagreeing with their every step.

Recalling his brother from the Union Buildings was a violation of the constitution on the party's part, he argues, the consequences of which are still unknown.

Moeletsi got whiff of what was coming several days before the president's forced resignation. He was travelling in Europe when he heard about the national working committee's strong recommendation to the party's decision-making national executive committee that Thabo had to go.

It came as no surprise. That the comrades "would get carried away" in this manner is in keeping with the "triumphalist attitude" that runs through the Zuma camp today, Moeletsi believes. "I now expect anything from the ANC; nothing surprises me."

The problem, however, is that the new leaders know no bounds. "It's like a jersey. Once you pull a thread and it starts running, it keeps going and you don't know where it will end.

You may end up with no jersey, or with a big hole in it. The problem is that the person cutting the thread doesn't know how to make a jersey. They don't know how to stop the thread running, as it rapidly unravels."

And that is the problem with the events of the past two weeks, in his view. Anyone who felt Mbeki was violating the country's constitution should have reported it to parliament and let parliament initiate a process of investigation, Moeletsi reckons.

An impeachment may have followed had there been solid enough grounds to do so. "And then we would have had a public hearing, like what happened to Bill Clinton when he was found to be in violation of his office. And then the public can judge."

Had he had the opportunity to advise his brother, "I would have told him to say 'impeach me and then prove it to parliament. Provide the evidence'. I think that would have been the right and honourable thing to do."

At party level, Mbeki's voice could also have been heard through a disciplinary hearing, he argues. The ANC is a private organisation.

Many people forget that. And a private organisation holds private trials behind closed doors to get to the bottom of a dispute."

Instead, the ANC chose to recall the incumbent president based on inferences drawn in Judge Nicholson's judgment - "a recipe for disaster for the country", in Moeletsi's view.

That's the problem with taking unconstitutional actions. There's no knowing where it will lead. We need look no further than Harare for the worst example of anti-constitutional politics, or cast our minds back to Kenya, to see it in its extreme.

"If you start to entertain unconstitutional actions, you are really inviting trouble when the constitution is ignored by political parties."

A bit of modesty at the leadership level of the ANC would do no harm these days. "But they don't have the modesty to know what they know and what they don't know," Moeletsi adds.

"I think the comrades don't really know what the real world is made of and they are doing things which are way out of their league."

The ANC is "overreaching themselves and could do a lot of harm to this country".

Some suggest that the latest moves would make their father, Govan Mbeki, turn in his grave. Like father, like son, he too devoted a lifetime to the struggle in the name of the ANC. But Moeletsi believes his father would barely have raised an eyebrow at the recent happenings, "because the old man saw the demise of the old ANC long before we did".

"I remember, a few months before he died, I was complaining to him about what I called the behaviour of the right wing. And he amused me, because he said he could no longer tell which is the right wing and which is the left wing in the ANC."

Why Thabo Mbeki did not pursue an impeachment process is unclear. Instead, he resigned and lodged an appeal against the Nicholson judgment at the Constitutional Court, which is still pending.

"I suspect he also realised that the era is over, because this is the end of an era." Even if the outgoing president was able to avoid an impeachment, the liberation movement as we know it is gone, says Moeletsi.

"I don't know where the ANC is going, but it is not going to be the one that was there for the past 96 years".

ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe still likes to call his political house a broad church.

To Moeletsi it's no more than "a pretty ill-defined group", of which he is still a member but no longer represents all that he stands for.

Gone is the old black elite which guided black society for nearly 100 years. The Fort Hare graduates are nowhere to be seen in motley crew.

No legal minds like those of Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo. No more powerful individuals. Not nearly as much intellectual muscle.

Not quite the moral authority of yesteryear, with the party now headed by a man still fighting court challenges. "They (the old leadership) would never have thought they could lead the ANC with that track record," Moeletsi adds.

"There is a new era now and anything is possible. It's unpredictable.

"Are there any lawyers in the group that's there now? How many economists are in the NEC? How many engineers? How many doctors? How many PhD holders? How many people with master's degrees? I haven't heard much about those. This is a totally different ANC."

It was the old ANC that Thabo encountered as a youth and went on to serve for 52 years of his life, rising up from the ranks of the Youth League to the upper echelons of the movement, where he was groomed for leadership later in life, a position that was taken from him at Polokwane.

"Thabo has been an activist all his life," Moeletsi says, "for as long as I can remember. In primary school, I remember when he was expelled from Lovedale High School for his opposition activities."

What his older brother will turn his hand to next is unclear. The idea of a leadership institute was mooted several months ago. However, as he steps into the twilight, it is no longer his performance, but his legacy, that will come under scrutiny.

"He has made his contributions to this country," his brother says, as he looks back on the Thabo Mbeki era. He sees the 1989 Harare Declaration as his single most important contribution.

It was an agreement brokered by himself and Tambo, and which paved the way for negotiations with the apartheid regime to begin.

"But the ANC didn't just get up and start negotiating. He had to persuade the Organisation of African Unity that this was the right time to do it and had to get their approval before he could start negotiations."

Tambo was not in good health at that time, "so Thabo was carrying that particular torch".

Securing the 2010 Fifa World Cup is without a doubt the Mbeki government's greatest achievement, he believes. "It was a massive recognition by the world community of South Africa's ability."

The opening of the African Union can't be discounted, nor his brother's outlook on the continent. "He was way ahead of everyone on Africa.

"And he has made his mistakes," Moeletsi says, "no doubt." The Aids debacle is the one that stands out most in his mind.

To the world back then, it was denialism. To Moeletsi it was "the wrong policy for such a big problem affecting our country".

The other blight on his brother's political character is clearly Zimbabwe. A missed opportunity, in Moeletsi's view; a lost chance "to show that South Africa can make a real contribution to building a democratic Africa".

It was on the issue of Zimbabwe that Moeletsi became one of the most vocal critics of the Mbeki administration, to the point where many felt it was a personal spat between the two brothers. But Moeletsi is quick to note that he hails from a family of hotheaded political activists - "just listen to my mother these days".

The Mbekis come from an old liberal tradition with entrenched liberal values of the old black elite. "And there are absolutely no walls between us on account of differences of opinion about what the ANC should and shouldn't do."

The irony is that Thabo Mbeki chose to support Robert Mugabe, publicly at least, to the point of securing him another few years in office.

The Zimbabwean power-sharing deal was announced on the eve of the Nicholson judgment, which brought Thabo down. In its wake lies a cabinet in crisis.

"Jacob Zuma says he has instructed them (the cabinet ministers) all to stay, but many are leaving," Moeletsi notes after 14 ministers and deputies tendered their resignation, with a possibility of more to come. "You are kind of entering an era of anarchy."

It's clearly a crisis that reaches beyond the cabinet - but a crisis that Moeletsi views only in the Chinese sense of the word: "It is both a danger and an opportunity at the same time."

The danger showed its face on Tuesday, when the rand took a nosedive in the wake of Finance Minister Trevor Manuel's "resignation", which wiped billions of rands off the JSE and dented investor confidence.

The ratings agencies are speaking out: "Where are you guys going?" asked Moody's. "You are a big-risk country as it is, and you are playing with fire."

The opportunity, on the other hand, is for the ANC to take stock and maybe come up with a leadership that will have a new vision and be more coherent in their outlook.

The Rooster said...

Drop the ad hom attacks you fucking James Randi wannabe's. If you watched the video you'd see it's all clips of actual credible scientists talking science. So don't bother trying to beat the strawman...that low brow logically fallacy bullshit won't fly by me. Attacks the arguments made or shut up. This is a serious issue bigger and more important than your aspirations to be James Randi.

Behind every fucking hyper rationalist is someone whose mind is stuck in the 19th fucking century dogma. Discourses come and go stick firmly to one makes you redundant. The video outlines some very interesting arguments and it would be dogma of the highest kind to dismiss them because they are not popular. We have 5000 years of recorded human history to show us how time after time society has staunchly defended ridiculous ideas en masse .

How can you pose as if you represent progress and rationality whilst aligning yourself against all that question the status quo and dismissing it on the mere basis that it is different. The people in the video are all credible virologists ...discredit them with virology if you can , or be humble enough to reserve your option.

Fucking backseat 19th century reductionists are everwhere....ask a question about anything and they rush in to defend the conventional wisdom with a series of ad hom attacks without ever adressing your question ....a veritable pillar of dogmatic mediocrity holding back and isolating the truly insightful and brilliant. It's always been the way and always will.

You the talentless , clueless cannonfodder for intellectual stagnation.

Anonymous said...

Drop the ad hom attacks you fucking James Randi wannabe's.

- what's your obsession with this guy? you've said his name on your blog many times, when someone attacks your comments. not sure what your point is.

The video outlines some very interesting arguments and it would be dogma of the highest kind to dismiss them because they are not popular.

- in that case, it MUST be factual and true. just like a michael moore documentary, which is always completely unbiased and has no agenda. ever

How can you pose as if you represent progress and rationality whilst aligning yourself against all that question the status quo and dismissing it on the mere basis that it is different.

- that's quite a sweeping assumption you made there, angry little man.

You the talentless , clueless cannonfodder for intellectual stagnation.

- that's fine, Shakespeare, but gary null is still a talk show host who thinks that magnets heal ppl.

Anonymous said...

Drop the ad hom attacks

You the talentless , clueless cannonfodder for intellectual stagnation.

- hahahaha!

varkots said...

Good on you for questioning conventional wisdom. Reading up a bit on all this shit but fuck me, take that video off. Watched the first 5 minutes and my bullshitometer went of the wall.

Someone said around 2 min: "When people look at data and come up with two different explanations it stops being science" What a sneaky fucking bullshit attack.

That is saying, "If I disagree with your science, then it is no longer science..." what freaking young earth, creationist logic bullshit is that?

Anyways... don't trust that video :p

The Rooster said...

Of course I encourage you to make up your own mind. You seem to have done so a little prematurely for me because there is a lot of powerful stuff in the video worthy of your time. But's your prerogative.

I think you misunderstood the quote. I think what they are saying is that when you draw two CONTRARY conclusions from the same data, then something might be flawed in your correlation or a third force factor might need to be considered.

The Rooster said...

Oh stop moaning that I insult people. Stupid pussy ass tree hugging far left liberals and your insistance that it's more important to speak nicely than truthfully. Fucking fascists.

varkots said...

2:25 Guy says HIV has never been seen.

The virus can be clearly seen with electron microscopes.

2:30 When two different parties come to differnet conclusions it is no longer science.

I have been over that :P You can't invalidate someone's data just by disagreeing with it. That is what creationist do. For example check this Does that mean people saying the earth is round are now wrong? The point is, they are asking you to ignore the scientist and agree with them. Subtle manipulation.

2:50:(also see 4:00) Because of the money people make from AIDS drugs no has no an incentive to see the truth.

Uhm, the scientist that work for the particular drug company maybe, but thousands and thousands of other scientists don't have money invested in AIDS. Remember science relies on pier review.

3:10 If a Hypothesis fails to deliver results, we have to reconsider that hypothesis.

I hereby crown him captain obvious. It is even called an hypothesis for that reason, duh. Maybe he is a real scientist but it has nothing to do with anything else that has been said yet. Let us sprinkle some established truth in there and somehow tie it into our truth. Mwhahaha

4:00 I am Gary Null....

I make money from selling alternative opinions, books and medicines, I am the owner of the supplement and media company Gary Null & Associates... I get annoyed when proper scientists and medical doctors damage my bottom line with pier reviewed studies discrediting magnetic healing so I hit back with my own brand of propaganda called alternative medicine, just like a sangoma, who needs microscopes and pier reviewed studies when I can appeal to your gut, we all know how powerful the gut is.

Bah, he is a quack. I can show you documentaries that proof that jesus was a magic mushroom and that the holocaust never happened and that the moon landings were fake. They all follow this formula more or less... lets stick with better sources your brought up some interesting points.

The Rooster said...

Since I started moderating the blog it's often tempting to just delete posts like the last one. Not because I have no response , but bacause its in my opinion distorting the facts and refusing to see things in context. I won't though sure folks your views will always be welcome here no matter how extreme.

varkots said...

"Since I started moderating the blog it's often tempting to just delete posts like the last one.
Not because I have no response , but because its in my opinion distorting the facts and refusing to see
things in context."

I am refusing to see things in context? Oh.. YOUR context... now I see.

You can make a very valid point but if exhibit B is bullshit then it is bullshit and that video has flies and maggots all over it and should be called out.

If you don't like that, I will fuck off and leave you to your crusade it is your blog after all, but if you are sort of inviting an open discussion then try and not be such a condescending shit bag.

The Rooster said...

You are welcome to stay and post you opinion until you hert is content. I may seem condescending...but i think you will find it's just an unintentional juxtaposition between me being myself and everyone else being a dumbass.

Anonymous said...

Rooster says
"be sure folks your views will always be welcome here no matter how extreme."

Rooster also said
"The next comment you make saying the same redundant thing is not getting posted."

"To the poster who thinks i'm censoring him. Go back and read my warning . I said stop being repetitive and offer arguments based on honest in context unfudged statistics. The moment you do this your comments will make their way back onto the site allong with the old ones"

So which is it rooster?

Heres another fine mess you gotten yourself into Laurel.

Anonymous said...

that video's bullshit, like the previous person says.

micheal moore can';t be taken seriously even if he has good bits of information in his films. gary null is the same.

and he believes magnets heal ppl!

the video is biased and so isn't a fair representation of the "facts" anyway.

oh, and rooster, you threaten to delete posts if they are repetitve, but you repeat yourself all the time about "not deleting comments on this blog". seirously dood...

Anonymous said...

@ anon 3.23

James Randi has an international reputation as a magician and escape artist, but today he is best known as the world's most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

Randi has pursued "psychic" spoonbenders, exposed the dirty tricks of faith healers, investigated homeopathic water "with a memory," and generally been a thorn in the sides of those who try to pull the wool over the public's eyes in the name of the supernatural.

I'd rather be a James Randi than a Barbara Gaskin wannabe.

Anonymous said...

Since I started moderating the blog it's often tempting to just delete posts like the last one. Not because I have no response , but bacause its in my opinion distorting the facts and refusing to see things in context.

i agree with varkots... it IS because you have no response. you even had to convince us that it's because you "do" have a response.

you speak about "context" as if it's some global standard. whose context are you talking about? by the looks of things, it's your own.

and unless someone agrees with you, they're "out of context" or "stupid".

rooster, you accuse others of the very things you are guilty of, mate.

varkots said...

"In fact we see only 15 000 aids deaths a year with another possible few of 50 000 tb deaths (some might argue) possibly also covering up aids deaths. This really does make it seem that somewhere , someone is not quite telling us the whole truth with this 1 in 9 story."

Better late than never hey...

New Health Minister speaks up about HIV and Aids

More than 6 500 new HIV infections occur daily world-wide - about 1 000 of these are in South Africa.

5.5 million South Africans are infected with HIV - the highest number in the world.

More than half of all South African public hospital admissions are Aids-related.

Only about 550 000 people are currently receiving Aids medication in South Africa

Nearly 1 000 South Africans die from Aids every day.

The Rooster said...

100% total bullshit.

You're actually trying to argue that more people have hiv (and extremely difficult virus to get) than herpes, gonnorea , syphalis (all very easy to catch) put together ? In the words of the afrikaaners...KAK.

1000 south africans die everyday from aids ? That would be 360 000 south africans every year...the death certificates in this country report 15 000 aids related deaths....and 40 000 tb related deaths. Even if every single tb related deaths was in fact really aids that would be a maximum of 55000 deaths. And there's no good reason to believe that they are aids related other than to perpetuate a myth sold to us from greedy pharmaceutical companies. People have always been dying from tb in africa....they're just relabelling it aids to sell us their tocix drugs. It's fucking disgusting.

You want to debate this go to the forum and I'll own you all day my little boy.

varkots said...

There is no big conspiracy brother, there are too many eyes on this. You know, scientific journals, pier review and shit like that, by really smart people, waaaaay smarter than you, or I will ever be.

Interesting stat here for you:

South Africa total recorded deaths from all causes.

1997 316,505

1998 - 365,053

1999 - 380,982

2000 - 413,736

2001 - 452,896

2002 - 499,494

2003 - 552,825

2004 - 567,488

2005 - 591,213

Total increase - 87%

What is killing all the people then?

varkots said...

I found some more info in the little time I have, I'm at the graft.

Check this

Now also check this, world death rate:

So 1: We have one of the highest death rates in the world.

And 2: We have an accelerating death rate.

So if it isn't AIDS, what is it?