Rooster, I know that your ears will prick at the sound of “AIDS CONSPIRACY” talk and I know you have a contrary position on HIV and AIDS. I also know that that position has been defeated in the scientific arena. Fortunately, you are not the president of this country and your conclusions do not affect the lives of millions of people, so keep on believing. It matters not. Mbeki does not have that luxury and there is no excuse for his governments inaction on the matter. The vast weight of evidence has always been against him yet he acted in contradiction to that evidence with his paranoid unproven conspiracy theories. It was more than reckless, it was criminal.
This 22 page letter drafted by the Mbeki office to Prof. Malegapuru Makgoba is quite revealing. Aids was seen, by Mbeki, as a racist attack on Africans. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081125_AIDS_Document.pdf
If you can read all that it's from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?pagewanted=all
But was Mbeki just trying to see both sides of the story? --In a column in The Sunday Times of Johannesburg on Oct. 19, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, a senior party member now running the party’s 2009 election campaign, recounted how Mr. Mandela, known affectionately as Madiba, was humiliated during a 2002 A.N.C. 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.
But then perhaps Madiba is part of this Bilberberg group.
Rooster, I know that your ears will prick at the sound of “AIDS CONSPIRACY” talk and I know you have a contrary position on HIV and AIDS. I also know that that position has been defeated in the scientific arena.
___________________
I don't believe in any "Aids conspiracy". But my ears do pick up when I hear so called scientists display an attitude that conveys because an issue has a consensus that no further adaptions for third party forces that further the reductionism of an issue to further pin point it's direct cause and effect, should be taken into the data pool and accomodated and assimulated in the theory. That's NOT how the scientific method works.
That's plain fucking dogma. And when HIV Aids affects sub Saharan Africans to such an extent once has to seek correlations. Given that aids is a disease that requires up to 100 000 unprotected exposures to stand a good chance of getting it, yet is said to be in prevelence as high as something as easy to get like herpes in the region you have the responsibility to ask what is the third force.
Promiscuity and unprotected sex are just not satisfactory statistical indicaters. The "radical" suggestion Mbeki proposed was that was
a) a low immune system via poor diet not a third party force ? b) In such people with already low immune system would ARV's be as effective without changing diet and adding vitamins etc ?
The conspiracy comes in when groups like UNAIDS and WHO make bullshit correlations between the "growth of the aids epedemic" when all we are observing is the "growth of testing for HIV" in sub saharan Africa. Do you remember the biggest killer always adevrtised on S.A tv in the 70's and 80's ? SANTA ? (South African TB association). Long before "aids" was part of the picture.
Absurd claims are made such as 1 in 4 people in South Africa have Aids. Baseless absurd claims. The truth is closer to 1 in 14. and it's still not in the top 10 killers of people in this country even if you add TB into the mix.
Yet world wide histrionic pity parades are in place all over the world to secure your donations in full knowledge at least at the top of the distortions and manipulation of the data. That's not so much a conspiracy as a business scam by big pharma, WHO and UNAIDS. After all who the fekk helps S.A pay for our ARV's ? Who held onto their precious patents making he medication very expensive until we showed them the middle finger ?
Just read fucking more and get your head out of this dream world you belive in where manipulative sociopaths don't engineer society to meet their greedy agenda's.
Rooster, you so obviously have no idea what you are talking about and I could go to lengths to show you what really went on during the Mbeki AIDS denial years but why should I bother. Your boner for Mbeki has you in a tizz and clearly you censor comments that show you to be patently wrong (you know what I'm talking about) so I will just ad lib a few ad homs and see if it gets through the new Fowl Net that you have erected.
"I don't believe in any "Aids conspiracy" - Rooster
"The conspiracy comes in when groups like UNAIDS and WHO make bullshit correlations between the "growth of the aids epedemic" when all we are observing is the "growth of testing for HIV" in sub saharan Africa." - Rooster
--Facepalm--
"That's not so much a conspiracy as a business scam by big pharma, WHO and UNAIDS." --Rooster
What's the difference?
-----------------------------
"Absurd claims are made such as 1 in 4 people in South Africa have Aids."
Who exactly makes these claims?
UNAIDS / WHO puts it at around 11% in the population over 2 years of age.
http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/monitoringcountryprogress/2010progressreportssubmittedbycountries/southafrica_2010_country_progress_report_en.pdf or
---------------------------- "and it's still not in the top 10 killers of people in this country even if you add TB into the mix"
Overall, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease was the seventh leading cause of death, accounting for 3,1% of all deaths in 2009. It was the sixth and eighth leading cause of death for males and females, respectively. Tuberculosis was the leading cause of death in all provinces except for Free State and Limpopo, where influenza and pneumonia were the leading causes of death. Tuberculosis was also the leading cause of death in the majority of district municipalities.
"Who held onto their precious patents making he medication very expensive until we showed them the middle finger ?"
And then the Treatment Action Campaign had to go to the courts in 2002 to force Mbeki to give them out to the public even after big pharma said they will supply the drugs for free. (Big Pharma company's are in a complicated capitalist bind. I don't think they are evil as such but you won't get any argument from me about the serious ethical problems they create. Perhaps this gives a hint http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_pogge_medicine_for_the_99_percent.html)
-----------------------------
"Just read fucking more and get your head out of this dream world you believe in where manipulative sociopaths don't engineer society to meet their greedy agenda's."
How very simplistic. All our problems can be strung around the heads of those manipulative sociopaths and crucified with the rest of our sins. Boy are you getting dumb Rooster. I respect your stand against the Boer Mafia but too much time on the Internet has left you stunned and confused. You should get out more and you will see that it's not just shit that floats, cream floats too.
"aids is a disease that requires up to 100 000 unprotected exposures to stand a good chance of getting it" - R
How does this even start to make sense? Are you factoring all sexual exposures taking place or just those with an HIV infected partner? Do you even know what a virus is and how it works or what exponential growth is? What is this 100 000 number you have dreamt up?
"because an issue has a consensus that no further adaptions for third party forces that further the reductionism of an issue to further pin point it's direct cause and effect, should be taken into the data pool and accomodated and assimulated in the theory. That's NOT how the scientific method works. ....That's plain fucking dogma." -R
Remember that we are talking about a Scientific Consensus. If the vast majority of the peer reviewed material, that has been subjected to the scientific method, shows a consensus then you can't just dismiss that consensus as dogma and you can't set your Aids policy against the teeth of this consensus. How does your logic work? You paint a picture where Mbeki's government is following orthodox aids treatment guidelines but is just "hearing the other side" as a point of Prudence. This is demonstrably wrong and that is the point of the whole thing. People died because of this thinking.
aids is a disease that requires up to 100 000 unprotected exposures to stand a good chance of getting it" - R
How does this even start to make sense? Are you factoring all sexual exposures taking place or just those with an HIV infected partner? Do you even know what a virus is and how it works or what exponential growth is? What is this 100 000 number you have dreamt up?
____________________
Various studies. I did jump the shark though...it's 1 in 1000 from male to female but much lower the other way around. And that's unprotected sex. Both parties need to have an open wound, the virus doesn't just jump from person to person like the flu. Just do some research and you will come around. Of course if both parties have an std that massively increases the chances of them having an "open wound". The point remains that just "having a lot of sex" alone can't account for the prevalence of the virus in certain demographics and third party forces SHOULD therfore be considered.
Remember that we are talking about a Scientific Consensus. If the vast majority of the peer reviewed material, that has been subjected to the scientific method, shows a consensus then you can't just dismiss that consensus as dogma and you can't set your Aids policy against the teeth of this consensus. How does your logic work? You paint a picture where Mbeki's government is following orthodox aids treatment guidelines but is just "hearing the other side" as a point of Prudence. This is demonstrably wrong and that is the point of the whole thing. People died because of this thinking.
_________________-
No. In fact it can be argued and has been by many scientists that if you purely administer ARV's to people who eat a poor diet you will kill them faster than heal them. Mbeki was asking for a scientific debate to discuss this FACT and how to best implement ARV's and if indeed they were the best path in the current African context. He never denied aids. I have posted videos of Mbeki speaking about aids and they can easily be youtubed. It's a 4 parter and he fully explains his extremely rational prspective on aids. "Denialist" is a convenient throw away slur that does not describe his extremely intelligent hollistic and scientific thinking on the matter. In fact in studies done in Africa it was proven that a "placebo" vitamin extended life longer than ARV's wre managing. Hence the A.N.C rhetoric about eating more veggies such as beetroot and others (high in vitamins and widely available) and garlic ( a natural antibiotic) and the media spun this into "mbeki believs beetroot can cure aids !"
It was a deliberate effort to paint mbeki like some kind of african witch doctor with mambo jumbo supersticions and a radical, when in fact the man is extremely intelligent, conservative, rational and well educated.
Yes I really liked Thabo Mbeki. I would think with Zuma and crew more people would wake up to what a gem we had in him rather try label him with such bullshit allegations.
Any fucking populist can just say " free shit for everyone". He just was crying to make sure it would help not kill people and be treated and pushed out in the right context and manner. After all Mbeki did decide to make ARV's part of his policy.
Why do you have such a boner for ARV's by the way ? There are lots of people who have lived and still are with aids for over 30 odd years without ever taking them chossing instead healthy living etc. They are a vicious toxin originally intended as a type of chemo therapy. Any rational person would pause before shoving them down the throat of people with immune systems comprimised by poor diet and evironmental factors.
But I agree that ARV's have shown a fantastic effect in prolonging the lives of people with Aids provided their health is treated in a hollistic context. This is pretty much consensus now and the reason why they are free in South Africa.
"Why do you have such a boner for ARV's by the way ? "
Perhaps I'm a pawn for the pharmaceutical companies or maybe you can explain it better that I can.
"But I agree that ARV's have shown a fantastic effect in prolonging the lives of people with Aids provided their health is treated in a hollistic context."
-----------------------------------------
"Are you kidding me ? You've never heard or seen that claim made over and over again for the past close to 20 years?"
Now this is classic. Type "1 in 4 people in South Africa have Aids" with inverted commas into google. One hit comes up
Shut up Whitey: A good read by ThaboMbeki (2009) shutupwhitey.blogspot.com/.../good-read-by-thab... - page27 Dec 2011 – Absurd claims are made such as 1 in 4 people in South Africa have Aids. Baseless absurd claims. The truth is closer to 1 in 14. and it's still not ...
I'll let you draw your own conclutions.
Perhaps you mean 1 in 4 South African women between ages 20 and 29 are infected with the virus but now that is very different
-----------------------------------------. "There are lots of people who have lived and still are with aids for over 30 odd years without ever taking them chossing instead healthy living etc."
You could attribute all the credit to healthy living but then you would be wrong. What about giving credit to the myriad viral and human genetic factors. Some long-term non-progressors (LTNPs) are infected with poorly replicating or even defective strains of HIV. These variant viruses may be less infectious, less able to evade the immune system, or less harmful to host cells.
Or genetic factors like HIV co-receptors: HIV uses cell-surface proteins in addition to CD4 as “co-receptors” to gain entry to cells. One of these co-receptors, CCR5, exists in a truncated, defective form that HIV cannot use. A person with two copies (or “alleles”) of the mutant gene (a delta32 homozygote) is highly, but not absolutely, resistant to HIV infection. What about HLA alleles or even signaling proteins known as cytokines/chemokines or innate proteins that accelerate the naturally high mutation rate of HIV to unsustainable levels. We don't hear too much about them coming from those "vitamin" snake oil merchants.
------------------------------------------
"Given that aids is a disease that requires up to [1000] unprotected exposures to stand a good chance of getting it"
School boy statistical error.
If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 1 million, that does not mean that if I won the lottery, that means I must have played it one million times. Nor does it mean that the average lottery winner played the lottery one million times. It means that out of every one million times anyone plays the lottery, one person will be expected to win. Now add exponential growth to this and the added risk factors for South Africa and you end up with what we have now, a shit load of people with HIV.
------------------------------------------
"Both parties need to have an open wound, the virus doesn't just jump from person to person like the flu. Just do some research and you will come around."
Infection could also happen through direct absorption through the mucous membranes in the genitals, but yes, some sort of wound will make it easier. As far as I know nobody says it jumps from person to person like the flu. I'm actually tempted to use that most overused of words in internet discoure "strawman" but ... oh shit I just did.
"The point remains that just "having a lot of sex" alone can't account for the prevalence of the virus in certain demographics and third party forces SHOULD therfore be considered."
It was considered. And even when it was shown to be incorrect was still given considerable airing in the scientific community. In fact John Maddox, then-editor of the scientific journal Nature had this to say about the man at the heart of the SA fiasco:
"[Duesberg] forfeited the right to expect answers by his rhetorical technique. Questions left unanswered for more than about ten minutes he takes as further proof that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Evidence that contradicts his alternative drug hypothesis is on the other hand brushed aside...Duesberg will not be alone in protesting that this is merely a recipe for suppressing challenges to received wisdom. So it can be. But Nature will not so use it. Instead, what Duesberg continues to say about the causation of AIDS will be reported in the general interest. When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if " possible be published.—Maddox, 1993
I think that was a first for science. -----------------------------------------
"No. In fact it can be argued and has been by many scientists that if you purely administer ARV's to people who eat a poor diet you will kill them faster than heal them."
Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy, or HAART involves following a complex selection and regiment of drugs catered to an individual's needs. This does not equate to "shove drugs down peoples throats" and as you can see it's not how it's done now.
-----------------------------------
"Mbeki was asking for a scientific debate to discuss this FACT and how to best implement ARV's and if indeed they were the best path in the current African context."
Mbeki privately did/does not believe that HIV causes AIDS and his actions speak louder than his words(in public). First he said that ARV were not affordable while at the same time spending R45 Billion on weapons we did not need. Then, in response to these concerns about the cost of Nevirapine, its German manufacturer offered to provide it to the state for free. Mbeki's government rejected the offer, insisting that they first required results of research from tiny operational pilots in a handful of sites, despite the drug having been cleared by the US's FDA and WHO, amongst others and that these trials would only be completed in a further 5 years. Mbeki through his minister had asked the Cochrane Centre, the gold standard of medical research, to look into the efficacy and risk of Nevirapine in 1999, they had reported back later that month that it was less expensive then AZT, safe and effective. This report simply gathered dust while 70 000 babies per year were born to HIV-positive mothers.
Simple stated, Mbeki embroiled himself in a conspiracy theory where he implicated Big pharma companies the CIA and western powers in a plot to discredit him and his Africanness and turn a profit at the same time. It was an insult to his considerable intellect.The Mail & Guardian printed a transcript from an ANC caucus leaked by ANC MP Andrew Feinstein in which Mbeki proudly admitted to all this amoungst cheering from ANC members and crys of "viva Thabo viva". It's old news.
I'm not hear just to criticise you Rooster. Most of my posts have been supportive of you but don't do what Mbeki did and surround yourself with idiots just because it's easier and makes you look good. You may be the king in rightwing ass whooping but if you want to stay sharp in other areas of commentary I'll try my best to indulge you. If, like me you learn best through conflict, then I'll keep stirring the phutu. This is the way I like to learn about a subject and now you have my motive for posting here (that and it feels good to be smug from time to time - admit it).
Does not make for good reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Rath
He is basically taking what doctors/scientists have been saying for years, a healthy diet is the cornerstone of good heath, and turned it into spin to sell nutritional supplements as cures for myriad diseases. I especially like this one, "Rath and his lawyers write that the pharmaceutical industry then started apartheid in South Africa as part of a global conspiracy to "conquer and control the entire African continent." This was Mbekis boy. It's becoming so easy these days to make a point, find some flaw in the pharmaceutical industry / FDA / WHO / Climate Science / Government and by default your point becomes the correct one.
Mbeki privately did/does not believe that HIV causes AIDS and his actions speak louder than his words(in public).
__________
A telepathic mind reader lecturing me on being wary of going against the grain in science. If we never went against thew grain we'd still be animists. This principle is basically what I'm defending Mbeki on. In a world where on a daily basis pieces are moved into place for big profits at the expense of human well being and often lives through the militiary industrial complex, the oil and big pharma indistry etc one is right to be skeptical. That's not to say like some loons that everything the media promotes is false or has a hidden agenda. Skeptics are often wrong but it's dogma to say "we have consensus (when firstly the consensus is basically promoted by layman ignorance and you don't really)therefore anyone who proposes different is wrong. If we thought like that we'd be flat earthers.
Again Mbeki never denied the strong correlation between hiv and aids. And if he did I have yet to see any evidence of it. I've seen plenty of innuendo and sensational news headlines that when I resarched them were taken way out of context to claim he does. So when the media is doing this, yes, my bullshit radar does start to question the agenda. Cuis bono is the first question I apply to anything claimed by a person in power acting under the guise of philanthropy. "To whose benefit ?" And sadly because so often in a dog eat dog world it's sociopaths who rise to positions of power the answer is far too seldom "To the benefit of society rather than enrichment of a few individuals."
____________________
First he said that ARV were not affordable while at the same time spending R45 Billion on weapons we did not need. _______________________
No president has the authority on his own to either make such a purchase or veto it.
_________________________
Then, in response to these concerns about the cost of Nevirapine, its German manufacturer offered to provide it to the state for free. Mbeki's government rejected the offer, insisting that they first required results of research from tiny operational pilots in a handful of sites,
_______________________
Which speaks to his genuine concerns about the negative effects the drugs could have on people in the African context with an African diet etc.
_________________________- despite the drug having been cleared by the US's FDA and WHO,
_____________________
Facepalm. WHO who keeps making up hyperbolic stats about aids in Africa taken from bogus focus groups like pregnant women ? WHO who make a living through inflating the phenomenon to gain grants, donations and promoting use of the same drugs ? And don't get me started on the F.D.A. They're so full of scandals their credibility is a shambless. So again I think you are being extremely harsh to not empathise with Mbeki's good intentions and rational cynicism.
Was he wrong ? Probably. Has it costs lives ? MAYBE. But if he was right it would have cost a lot more lives I.M.O. and it probably has ben rushed out and already done so. After all we'd had ARV's for X amount of years and although the contraction of the virus has started to slow down the death rate keeps growing.
I'm not hear just to criticise you Rooster. Most of my posts have been supportive of you but don't do what Mbeki did and surround yourself with idiots just because it's easier and makes you look good. You may be the king in rightwing ass whooping but if you want to stay sharp in other areas of commentary I'll try my best to indulge you. If, like me you learn best through conflict, then I'll keep stirring the phutu. This is the way I like to learn about a subject and now you have my motive for posting here (that and it feels good to be smug from time to time - admit it).
___________________
Feel free to criticise as much as you like. How boring it would be if we all agreed.
I can't always be right but I've stuck by my guns through this. Mbeki was demonised by the media through taking his views out of context and trying to make him sound like a savage witch doctor( which was gulped down by the confirmation bias some whites have towards blacks without looking into the matter) when in fact he's highly educated and a strong proponent of rationality with a massive respect for western culture and promoting Africans to emulate it (African rennaisance etc).
"A telepathic mind reader lecturing me on being wary of going against the grain in science"
So what you are saying is his deliberate obstruction of conventional AIDS treatment, who's efficacy had already been proven successful in a variety of contexts around the world, was based on a whim? That he took the conscious decision to forestall treatment to HIV positive pregnant woman, FOR YEARS, just for the sake of prudence about an "African Context", where that prudence was underpinned by nothing more than a scattering of "trails" that were so pathetic that they would be laughed off the pages of any reputable medical journal as being proof of nothing. Consider the stakes here. These are not the actions of a man that is just airing the alternatives; especially when it's being served up along side all his documented conspiracy rhetoric about the IMF, CIA, Pharma, attack on Africanness etc, etc. His actions are only logical when in consideration of a real belief.
I would be a Flat Earther if I had no evidence against the position. The gradient of the earth is nearly zero, if all the evidence in my narrow perspective points to the earth being flat and everything I needed to do - build houses, roads, travel, farming, hunting - worked under that assumption. What I would not do is stop planting crops because somebody asserts that the earth is actually doughnut shaped or square or round or an inverted tetrahedron, without proper/any justification. Science does not precluded alternative hypotheses, they are innate in the process, but if science is to be of any value then it can not hold all positions to be equal. You place your bets on the position that is most reasonable and supported and if/when that position changes, then you change; it's that simple. Objective truth (if there is such a thing) is only obtainable through omniscience and we don't have that. This is the antithesis of the dogma that you suppose.
It is simple arithmetic to reach a ball park figure of the cost in human lives if conventional wisdom on AIDS treatment was correct and was not implemented. So here is the crux: Did Mbeki have enough evidence/reason/justification to delay/hinder/retract ARV treatments and AIDS education for as long as he did. I would argue that he did not and that his mistake cost hundreds of thousands of lives and we have never heard so much as an apology or admission from him or his infallible comrades in the ministry. I'm not so much of a bleeding heart as to be consumed by this revelation but I'm sure as hell not going to suck his dick and tell him what a good job he did. The line is too long and my preferences too different.
Mbeki: intelligent, complicated, paranoid, controlling, in many ways brilliant, and wrong on AIDS. That is my position simply stated. I also think that his strangle hold on the ANC unwittingly squeezed the Zumas of this country into political power but that is a story for another time.
Firstly easy on the hyperbole. Aids according to the MRc accounts fo 15 000 deaths a year with tb said to make up a further 80 000. Let's generously assume that ALL TB cases are aids related (although as SANTA will insist that's simply not close to true or aids has been here longer than we know).
_________________
So here is the crux: Did Mbeki have enough evidence/reason/justification to delay/hinder/retract ARV treatments and AIDS education for as long as he did.
_________________
Aids awareness has been the policy of the A.N.c for decades. Drive through rural South Africa (take tyhetranskei for example) and find me a town that doesn't have some billboard warning against the disease. Or a clinic without posters and pamplets discussing it. It's flat out wrong that the A.N.C (or Mbeki) was dewnying the existance of Aids.
I respect your opinion that he may have delayed a bit longer than was responsible or correct. But I also put it to you had it been rushed out without context it would have killed more than cured (arv's). I don't think the issue is quite as black and white as you are presenting it.
May I out of curiosity enquire as to what your dog is in this fight ? Which orginisation do you represent ?
"May I out of curiosity enquire as to what your dog is in this fight ? Which orginisation do you represent ?"
Ok, but I have to warn you that it's a pretty boring story. With that disclaimer: My name is Ryan. I'm a 35yr old handyman/electrician. My girlfriend is French and I'm living in Paris for a while to learn French before I move back to Durban where my family live. I miss SA a lot so I sometimes check in on your blog and news24 etc in my free time (sad). I don't post often but I like your antagonistic style and it keeps me coming back. The fact that you don't back down, can be simultaneously rude and understanding, and argue in logic till the end means that posters can't just get away with saying any old shit or they will end up getting pawned. Your writing style is also chaotic and full of character and fun to read.
As a side note: One good thing about Paris is that the group of people I associate with are mostly highly educated as my girlfriend works in the cultural field (don't extend the sentiment to the public at large, I just don't know). Although I feel pretty stupid over here in conversation most of the time (even when they drop into English and speak about topics relating to South Africa) I can identify with what you were saying about the rarity of good conversation in South African (so I've been trying to brush up myself). Try having a conversation about the dualistic nature of consciencness - blank stare, and then, "Ah yes, Consciousness Nduba. That corrupt ANC official. Fucking government", comes the answer.
Well that's my honest answer which is probably about 150 words too long. I'm just another chump with a keyboard.
22 comments:
Rooster, I know that your ears will prick at the sound of “AIDS CONSPIRACY” talk and I know you have a contrary position on HIV and AIDS. I also know that that position has been defeated in the scientific arena. Fortunately, you are not the president of this country and your conclusions do not affect the lives of millions of people, so keep on believing. It matters not. Mbeki does not have that luxury and there is no excuse for his governments inaction on the matter. The vast weight of evidence has always been against him yet he acted in contradiction to that evidence with his paranoid unproven conspiracy theories. It was more than reckless, it was criminal.
This 22 page letter drafted by the Mbeki office to Prof. Malegapuru Makgoba is quite revealing. Aids was seen, by Mbeki, as a racist attack on Africans.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081125_AIDS_Document.pdf
If you can read all that it's from here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?pagewanted=all
But was Mbeki just trying to see both sides of the story?
--In a column in The Sunday Times of Johannesburg on Oct. 19, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, a senior party member now running the party’s 2009 election campaign, recounted how Mr. Mandela, known affectionately as Madiba, was humiliated during a 2002 A.N.C. 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.
But then perhaps Madiba is part of this Bilberberg group.
This is the scientist who's advice Mbeki still clings too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
or more humorously here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPejT6-pAwY&feature=channel_video_title
Rooster, I know that your ears will prick at the sound of “AIDS CONSPIRACY” talk and I know you have a contrary position on HIV and AIDS. I also know that that position has been defeated in the scientific arena.
___________________
I don't believe in any "Aids conspiracy". But my ears do pick up when I hear so called scientists display an attitude that conveys because an issue has a consensus that no further adaptions for third party forces that further the reductionism of an issue to further pin point it's direct cause and effect, should be taken into the data pool and accomodated and assimulated in the theory. That's NOT how the scientific method works.
That's plain fucking dogma. And when HIV Aids affects sub Saharan Africans to such an extent once has to seek correlations. Given that aids is a disease that requires up to 100 000 unprotected exposures to stand a good chance of getting it, yet is said to be in prevelence as high as something as easy to get like herpes in the region you have the responsibility to ask what is the third force.
Promiscuity and unprotected sex are just not satisfactory statistical indicaters. The "radical" suggestion Mbeki proposed was that was
a) a low immune system via poor diet not a third party force ?
b) In such people with already low immune system would ARV's be as effective without changing diet and adding vitamins etc ?
Where the fuck is the conspiracy ?
The conspiracy comes in when groups like UNAIDS and WHO make bullshit correlations between the "growth of the aids epedemic" when all we are observing is the "growth of testing for HIV" in sub saharan Africa. Do you remember the biggest killer always adevrtised on S.A tv in the 70's and 80's ? SANTA ? (South African TB association). Long before "aids" was part of the picture.
Absurd claims are made such as 1 in 4 people in South Africa have Aids. Baseless absurd claims. The truth is closer to 1 in 14. and it's still not in the top 10 killers of people in this country even if you add TB into the mix.
Yet world wide histrionic pity parades are in place all over the world to secure your donations in full knowledge at least at the top of the distortions and manipulation of the data. That's not so much a conspiracy as a business scam by big pharma, WHO and UNAIDS. After all who the fekk helps S.A pay for our ARV's ? Who held onto their precious patents making he medication very expensive until we showed them the middle finger ?
Just read fucking more and get your head out of this dream world you belive in where manipulative sociopaths don't engineer society to meet their greedy agenda's.
Rooster, you so obviously have no idea what you are talking about and I could go to lengths to show you what really went on during the Mbeki AIDS denial years but why should I bother. Your boner for Mbeki has you in a tizz and clearly you censor comments that show you to be patently wrong (you know what I'm talking about) so I will just ad lib a few ad homs and see if it gets through the new Fowl Net that you have erected.
"I don't believe in any "Aids conspiracy" - Rooster
"The conspiracy comes in when groups like UNAIDS and WHO make bullshit
correlations between the "growth of the aids epedemic" when all we are
observing is the "growth of testing for HIV" in sub saharan Africa." - Rooster
--Facepalm--
"That's not so much a conspiracy as a business scam by big pharma, WHO and UNAIDS." --Rooster
What's the difference?
-----------------------------
"Absurd claims are made such as 1 in 4 people in South Africa have Aids."
Who exactly makes these claims?
UNAIDS / WHO puts it at around 11% in the population over 2 years of age.
http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/monitoringcountryprogress/2010progressreportssubmittedbycountries/southafrica_2010_country_progress_report_en.pdf
or
http://apps.who.int/globalatlas/predefinedReports/EFS2008/full/EFS2008_ZA.pdf
----------------------------
"and it's still not in the top 10 killers of people in this country even if you add TB into the mix"
Overall, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease was the seventh
leading cause of death, accounting for 3,1% of all deaths in 2009. It
was the sixth and eighth leading cause of death for males and females,
respectively.
Tuberculosis was the leading cause of death in all
provinces except for Free State and Limpopo, where influenza and
pneumonia were the leading causes of death. Tuberculosis was also the
leading cause of death in the majority of district municipalities.
http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/statskeyfindings.asp?PPN=P0309.3&SCH=5097
-----------------------------
"Who held onto their precious patents making he medication very expensive until we showed them the middle finger ?"
And then the Treatment Action Campaign had to go to the courts in 2002 to force Mbeki to give them out to the public even after big pharma said they will supply the drugs for free.
(Big Pharma company's are in a complicated capitalist bind. I don't think they are evil as such but you won't get any argument from me about the serious ethical problems they create. Perhaps this gives a hint http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_pogge_medicine_for_the_99_percent.html)
-----------------------------
"Just read fucking more and get your head out of this dream world you
believe in where manipulative sociopaths don't engineer society to meet
their greedy agenda's."
How very simplistic. All our problems can be strung around the heads of those manipulative sociopaths and crucified with the rest of our sins. Boy are you getting dumb Rooster. I respect your stand against the Boer Mafia but too much time on the Internet has left you stunned and confused. You should get out more and you will see that it's not just shit that floats, cream floats too.
"aids is a disease that requires up to 100 000 unprotected exposures to stand a good chance of getting it" - R
How does this even start to make sense? Are you factoring all sexual exposures taking place or just those with an HIV infected partner? Do you even know what a virus is and how it works or what exponential growth is? What is this 100 000 number you have dreamt up?
"because an issue has a consensus that no further adaptions for third party forces that further the reductionism of an issue to further pin point it's direct cause and effect, should be taken into the data pool and accomodated and assimulated in the theory. That's NOT how the scientific method works. ....That's plain fucking dogma." -R
Remember that we are talking about a Scientific Consensus. If the vast majority of the peer reviewed material, that has been subjected to the scientific method, shows a consensus then you can't just dismiss that consensus as dogma and you can't set your Aids policy against the teeth of this consensus. How does your logic work? You paint a picture where Mbeki's government is following orthodox aids treatment guidelines but is just "hearing the other side" as a point of Prudence. This is demonstrably wrong and that is the point of the whole thing. People died because of this thinking.
Who exactly makes these claims?
_____
Are you kidding me ? You've never heard or seen that claim made over and over again for the past close to 20 years?
aids is a disease that requires up to 100 000 unprotected exposures to stand a good chance of getting it" - R
How does this even start to make sense? Are you factoring all sexual exposures taking place or just those with an HIV infected partner? Do you even know what a virus is and how it works or what exponential growth is? What is this 100 000 number you have dreamt up?
____________________
Various studies. I did jump the shark though...it's 1 in 1000 from male to female but much lower the other way around. And that's unprotected sex. Both parties need to have an open wound, the virus doesn't just jump from person to person like the flu. Just do some research and you will come around. Of course if both parties have an std that massively increases the chances of them having an "open wound". The point remains that just "having a lot of sex" alone can't account for the prevalence of the virus in certain demographics and third party forces SHOULD therfore be considered.
Remember that we are talking about a Scientific Consensus. If the vast majority of the peer reviewed material, that has been subjected to the scientific method, shows a consensus then you can't just dismiss that consensus as dogma and you can't set your Aids policy against the teeth of this consensus. How does your logic work? You paint a picture where Mbeki's government is following orthodox aids treatment guidelines but is just "hearing the other side" as a point of Prudence. This is demonstrably wrong and that is the point of the whole thing. People died because of this thinking.
_________________-
No. In fact it can be argued and has been by many scientists that if you purely administer ARV's to people who eat a poor diet you will kill them faster than heal them. Mbeki was asking for a scientific debate to discuss this FACT and how to best implement ARV's and if indeed they were the best path in the current African context. He never denied aids. I have posted videos of Mbeki speaking about aids and they can easily be youtubed. It's a 4 parter and he fully explains his extremely rational prspective on aids. "Denialist" is a convenient throw away slur that does not describe his extremely intelligent hollistic and scientific thinking on the matter. In fact in studies done in Africa it was proven that a "placebo" vitamin extended life longer than ARV's wre managing. Hence the A.N.C rhetoric about eating more veggies such as beetroot and others (high in vitamins and widely available) and garlic ( a natural antibiotic) and the media spun this into "mbeki believs beetroot can cure aids !"
It was a deliberate effort to paint mbeki like some kind of african witch doctor with mambo jumbo supersticions and a radical, when in fact the man is extremely intelligent, conservative, rational and well educated.
Yes I really liked Thabo Mbeki. I would think with Zuma and crew more people would wake up to what a gem we had in him rather try label him with such bullshit allegations.
Any fucking populist can just say " free shit for everyone". He just was crying to make sure it would help not kill people and be treated and pushed out in the right context and manner. After all Mbeki did decide to make ARV's part of his policy.
Why do you have such a boner for ARV's by the way ? There are lots of people who have lived and still are with aids for over 30 odd years without ever taking them chossing instead healthy living etc. They are a vicious toxin originally intended as a type of chemo therapy. Any rational person would pause before shoving them down the throat of people with immune systems comprimised by poor diet and evironmental factors.
But I agree that ARV's have shown a fantastic effect in prolonging the lives of people with Aids provided their health is treated in a hollistic context. This is pretty much consensus now and the reason why they are free in South Africa.
"Why do you have such a boner for ARV's by the way ? "
Perhaps I'm a pawn for the pharmaceutical companies or maybe you can explain it better that I can.
"But I agree that ARV's have shown a fantastic effect in prolonging the
lives of people with Aids provided their health is treated in a hollistic context."
-----------------------------------------
"Are you kidding me ? You've never heard or seen that claim made over and over again for the past close to 20 years?"
Now this is classic. Type "1 in 4 people in South Africa have Aids" with inverted commas into google. One hit comes up
Shut up Whitey: A good read by ThaboMbeki (2009)
shutupwhitey.blogspot.com/.../good-read-by-thab... - page27 Dec 2011 – Absurd claims are made such as 1 in 4 people in South Africa have Aids. Baseless absurd claims. The truth is closer to 1 in 14. and it's still not ...
I'll let you draw your own conclutions.
Perhaps you mean 1 in 4 South African women between ages 20 and 29 are infected with the virus but now that is very different
-----------------------------------------.
"There are lots of people who have lived and still are with aids for over 30 odd years without ever taking them chossing instead healthy living
etc."
You could attribute all the credit to healthy living but then you would be wrong. What about giving credit to the myriad viral and human genetic factors. Some long-term non-progressors (LTNPs) are infected with poorly replicating or even defective strains of HIV. These variant viruses may be less infectious, less able
to evade the immune system, or less harmful to host cells.
Or genetic factors like HIV co-receptors: HIV uses cell-surface proteins in addition to CD4 as “co-receptors” to gain entry to cells. One of these co-receptors, CCR5, exists in a truncated, defective form that HIV cannot use. A person with two copies (or “alleles”) of the mutant gene (a delta32 homozygote) is highly, but not absolutely, resistant to HIV infection. What about HLA alleles or even signaling proteins known as cytokines/chemokines or innate proteins that accelerate the naturally high mutation rate of HIV to unsustainable levels. We don't hear too much about them coming from those "vitamin" snake oil merchants.
------------------------------------------
"Given that aids is a disease that requires up to [1000] unprotected exposures to stand a good chance of getting it"
School boy statistical error.
If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 1 million, that does not mean that if I won the lottery, that means I must have played it one million times. Nor does it mean that the average lottery winner played the lottery one million times. It means that out of every one million times anyone plays the lottery, one person will be expected to win. Now add exponential growth to this and the added risk factors for South Africa and you end up with what we have now, a shit load of people with HIV.
------------------------------------------
"Both parties need to have an open wound, the virus doesn't just jump
from person to person like the flu. Just do some research and you will
come around."
Infection could also happen through direct absorption through the mucous membranes in the genitals, but yes, some sort of wound will make it easier. As far as I know nobody says it jumps from person to person like the flu. I'm actually tempted to use that most overused of words in internet discoure "strawman" but ... oh shit I just did.
"The point remains that just "having a lot of sex" alone can't account for the prevalence of the virus in certain demographics and third party forces SHOULD therfore be considered."
It was considered. And even when it was shown to be incorrect was still given considerable airing in the scientific community. In fact John Maddox, then-editor of the scientific journal Nature had this to say about the man at the heart of the SA fiasco:
"[Duesberg] forfeited the right to expect answers by his rhetorical technique. Questions left unanswered for more than about ten minutes he takes as further proof that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Evidence that contradicts his alternative drug hypothesis is on the other hand brushed aside...Duesberg will not be alone in protesting that this is merely a recipe for suppressing challenges to received wisdom. So it can be. But Nature will not so use it. Instead, what Duesberg continues to say about the causation of AIDS will be reported in the general interest. When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if " possible be published.—Maddox, 1993
I think that was a first for science.
-----------------------------------------
"No. In fact it can be argued and has been by many scientists that if you purely administer ARV's to people who eat a poor diet you will kill them faster than heal them."
Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy, or HAART involves following a complex selection and regiment of drugs catered to an individual's needs. This does not equate to "shove drugs down peoples throats" and as you can see it's not how it's done now.
-----------------------------------
"Mbeki was asking for a scientific debate to discuss this FACT and how to best implement ARV's and if indeed they were the best path in the current African context."
Mbeki privately did/does not believe that HIV causes AIDS and his actions speak louder than his words(in public). First he said that ARV were not affordable while at the same time spending R45 Billion on weapons we did not need. Then, in response to these concerns about the cost of Nevirapine, its German manufacturer offered to provide it to the state for free. Mbeki's government rejected the offer, insisting that they first required results of research from tiny operational pilots in a handful of sites, despite the drug having been cleared by the US's FDA and WHO, amongst others and that these trials would only be completed in a further 5 years. Mbeki through his minister had asked the Cochrane Centre, the gold standard of medical research, to look into the efficacy and risk of Nevirapine in 1999, they had reported back later that month that it was less expensive then AZT, safe and effective. This report simply gathered dust while 70 000 babies per year were born to HIV-positive mothers.
Simple stated, Mbeki embroiled himself in a conspiracy theory where he implicated Big pharma companies the CIA and western powers in a plot to discredit him and his Africanness and turn a profit at the same time. It was an insult to his considerable intellect.The Mail & Guardian printed a transcript from an ANC caucus leaked by ANC MP Andrew Feinstein in which Mbeki proudly admitted to all this amoungst cheering from ANC members and crys of "viva Thabo viva". It's old news.
Looks like there are some people that would see your hero in jail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyBjnPFGkjU
While YouTube can be fun it's a lot harder to digest this sort of information
http://aids.harvard.edu/Lost_Benefits.pdf
and followup paper
http://www.springerlink.com/content/108174nr1788q73w/fulltext.pdf
I'm not hear just to criticise you Rooster. Most of my posts have been supportive of you but don't do what Mbeki did and surround yourself with idiots just because it's easier and makes you look good. You may be the king in rightwing ass whooping but if you want to stay sharp in other areas of commentary I'll try my best to indulge you. If, like me you learn best through conflict, then I'll keep stirring the phutu. This is the way I like to learn about a subject and now you have my motive for posting here (that and it feels good to be smug from time to time - admit it).
Remember this little gem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/924889.stm
Don't call me Manto. Classic. It was a circus. We only want to believe the conspiracies we can't see.
Rooster, sorry if I'm boring you but is this the shit you buy into?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTB26ttjl9o&feature=related
Does not make for good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Rath
He is basically taking what doctors/scientists have been saying for years, a healthy diet is the cornerstone of good heath, and turned it into spin to sell nutritional supplements as cures for myriad diseases.
I especially like this one, "Rath and his lawyers write that the pharmaceutical industry then started apartheid in South Africa as part of a global conspiracy to "conquer and control the entire African continent." This was Mbekis boy. It's becoming so easy these days to make a point, find some flaw in the pharmaceutical industry / FDA / WHO / Climate Science / Government and by default your point becomes the correct one.
Mbeki privately did/does not believe that HIV causes AIDS and his actions speak louder than his words(in public).
__________
A telepathic mind reader lecturing me on being wary of going against the grain in science. If we never went against thew grain we'd still be animists. This principle is basically what I'm defending Mbeki on. In a world where on a daily basis pieces are moved into place for big profits at the expense of human well being and often lives through the militiary industrial complex, the oil and big pharma indistry etc one is right to be skeptical. That's not to say like some loons that everything the media promotes is false or has a hidden agenda. Skeptics are often wrong but it's dogma to say "we have consensus (when firstly the consensus is basically promoted by layman ignorance and you don't really)therefore anyone who proposes different is wrong. If we thought like that we'd be flat earthers.
Again Mbeki never denied the strong correlation between hiv and aids. And if he did I have yet to see any evidence of it. I've seen plenty of innuendo and sensational news headlines that when I resarched them were taken way out of context to claim he does. So when the media is doing this, yes, my bullshit radar does start to question the agenda. Cuis bono is the first question I apply to anything claimed by a person in power acting under the guise of philanthropy. "To whose benefit ?" And sadly because so often in a dog eat dog world it's sociopaths who rise to positions of power the answer is far too seldom "To the benefit of society rather than enrichment of a few individuals."
____________________
First he said that ARV were not affordable while at the same time spending R45 Billion on weapons we did not need.
_______________________
No president has the authority on his own to either make such a purchase or veto it.
_________________________
Then, in response to these concerns about the cost of Nevirapine, its German manufacturer offered to provide it to the state for free. Mbeki's government rejected the offer, insisting that they first required results of research from tiny operational pilots in a handful of sites,
_______________________
Which speaks to his genuine concerns about the negative effects the drugs could have on people in the African context with an African diet etc.
_________________________-
despite the drug having been cleared by the US's FDA and WHO,
_____________________
Facepalm. WHO who keeps making up hyperbolic stats about aids in Africa taken from bogus focus groups like pregnant women ? WHO who make a living through inflating the phenomenon to gain grants, donations and promoting use of the same drugs ? And don't get me started on the F.D.A. They're so full of scandals their credibility is a shambless. So again I think you are being extremely harsh to not empathise with Mbeki's good intentions and rational cynicism.
Was he wrong ? Probably. Has it costs lives ? MAYBE. But if he was right it would have cost a lot more lives I.M.O. and it probably has ben rushed out and already done so. After all we'd had ARV's for X amount of years and although the contraction of the virus has started to slow down the death rate keeps growing.
I'm not hear just to criticise you Rooster. Most of my posts have been supportive of you but don't do what Mbeki did and surround yourself with idiots just because it's easier and makes you look good. You may be the king in rightwing ass whooping but if you want to stay sharp in other areas of commentary I'll try my best to indulge you. If, like me you learn best through conflict, then I'll keep stirring the phutu. This is the way I like to learn about a subject and now you have my motive for posting here (that and it feels good to be smug from time to time - admit it).
___________________
Feel free to criticise as much as you like. How boring it would be if we all agreed.
I can't always be right but I've stuck by my guns through this. Mbeki was demonised by the media through taking his views out of context and trying to make him sound like a savage witch doctor( which was gulped down by the confirmation bias some whites have towards blacks without looking into the matter) when in fact he's highly educated and a strong proponent of rationality with a massive respect for western culture and promoting Africans to emulate it (African rennaisance etc).
"A telepathic mind reader lecturing me on being wary of going against the grain in science"
So what you are saying is his deliberate obstruction of conventional AIDS treatment, who's efficacy had already been proven successful in a variety of contexts around the world, was based on a whim? That he took the conscious decision to forestall treatment to HIV positive pregnant woman, FOR YEARS, just for the sake of prudence about an "African Context", where that prudence was underpinned by nothing more than a scattering of "trails" that were so pathetic that they would be laughed off the pages of any reputable medical journal as being proof of nothing. Consider the stakes here. These are not the actions of a man that is just airing the alternatives; especially when it's being served up along side all his documented conspiracy rhetoric about the IMF, CIA, Pharma, attack on Africanness etc, etc. His actions are only logical when in consideration of a real belief.
I would be a Flat Earther if I had no evidence against the position. The gradient of the earth is nearly zero, if all the evidence in my narrow perspective points to the earth being flat and everything I needed to do - build houses, roads, travel, farming, hunting - worked under that assumption. What I would not do is stop planting crops because somebody asserts that the earth is actually doughnut shaped or square or round or an inverted tetrahedron, without proper/any justification. Science does not precluded alternative hypotheses, they are innate in the process, but if science is to be of any value then it can not hold all positions to be equal. You place your bets on the position that is most reasonable and supported and if/when that position changes, then you change; it's that simple. Objective truth (if there is such a thing) is only obtainable through omniscience and we don't have that. This is the antithesis of the dogma that you suppose.
It is simple arithmetic to reach a ball park figure of the cost in human lives if conventional wisdom on AIDS treatment was correct and was not implemented. So here is the crux: Did Mbeki have enough evidence/reason/justification to delay/hinder/retract ARV treatments and AIDS education for as long as he did. I would argue that he did not and that his mistake cost hundreds of thousands of lives and we have never heard so much as an apology or admission from him or his infallible comrades in the ministry. I'm not so much of a bleeding heart as to be consumed by this revelation but I'm sure as hell not going to suck his dick and tell him what a good job he did. The line is too long and my preferences too different.
Mbeki: intelligent, complicated, paranoid, controlling, in many ways brilliant, and wrong on AIDS. That is my position simply stated. I also think that his strangle hold on the ANC unwittingly squeezed the Zumas of this country into political power but that is a story for another time.
Firstly easy on the hyperbole. Aids according to the MRc accounts fo 15 000 deaths a year with tb said to make up a further 80 000. Let's generously assume that ALL TB cases are aids related (although as SANTA will insist that's simply not close to true or aids has been here longer than we know).
_________________
So here is the crux: Did Mbeki have enough evidence/reason/justification to delay/hinder/retract ARV treatments and AIDS education for as long as he did.
_________________
Aids awareness has been the policy of the A.N.c for decades. Drive through rural South Africa (take tyhetranskei for example) and find me a town that doesn't have some billboard warning against the disease. Or a clinic without posters and pamplets discussing it. It's flat out wrong that the A.N.C (or Mbeki) was dewnying the existance of Aids.
I respect your opinion that he may have delayed a bit longer than was responsible or correct. But I also put it to you had it been rushed out without context it would have killed more than cured (arv's). I don't think the issue is quite as black and white as you are presenting it.
May I out of curiosity enquire as to what your dog is in this fight ? Which orginisation do you represent ?
"May I out of curiosity enquire as to what your dog is in this fight ? Which orginisation do you represent ?"
Ok, but I have to warn you that it's a pretty boring story. With that disclaimer: My name is Ryan. I'm a 35yr old handyman/electrician. My girlfriend is French and I'm living in Paris for a while to learn French before I move back to Durban where my family live. I miss SA a lot so I sometimes check in on your blog and news24 etc in my free time (sad). I don't post often but I like your antagonistic style and it keeps me coming back. The fact that you don't back down, can be simultaneously rude and understanding, and argue in logic till the end means that posters can't just get away with saying any old shit or they will end up getting pawned. Your writing style is also chaotic and full of character and fun to read.
As a side note: One good thing about Paris is that the group of people I associate with are mostly highly educated as my girlfriend works in the cultural field (don't extend the sentiment to the public at large, I just don't know). Although I feel pretty stupid over here in conversation most of the time (even when they drop into English and speak about topics relating to South Africa) I can identify with what you were saying about the rarity of good conversation in South African (so I've been trying to brush up myself). Try having a conversation about the dualistic nature of consciencness - blank stare, and then, "Ah yes, Consciousness Nduba. That corrupt ANC official. Fucking government", comes the answer.
Well that's my honest answer which is probably about 150 words too long. I'm just another chump with a keyboard.
Nah, you're no chump. And I do thrive on the animosity and debate so keep it coming. Keeps my mits up.
Thanks for the honest answer. Refreshing. Check out www.themcfearless.com for my lighter(or is it darker ?) side.
Post a Comment