Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Synergy

"99.95% of all Africans do not have AIDS"

Recommended Posts

The author (and probably all the authors on the website) is one of those "HIV does not cause AIDS" idiots. They're a group of conspiracy theorists who think that AIDS is caused by doing drugs and having anal sex, and that HIV is a harmless virus that has nothing to do with AIDS. They make wild accusations - that the CDC is controlled by the gay lobby, that that most people reported to die from AIDS actually never had it, that antiretroviral therapy actually causes AIDS, and other such nonsense. Scientific journals refuse to publish their articles for much the same reason they refuse to publish articles about creationism.

 

If you're running an AIDS scenario as a major part of your case, you should have indicts for the major AIDS deniers. Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick, Tom Bethell, Phillip Johnson, Hiram Caton, Celia Farber, Christine Maggiore, Kary Mullis, and Harvey Bialy should be on your list. Some of them are scientists, so don't expect to shoot them down just by pointing to lack of quals. You need to be prepared. Have author indicts, and have competing evidence for the claims. A good start for general info would be would be HERE, but it seems you will need to google each author individually to find author indicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article I linked to above:

 

MYTH: There is no AIDS in Africa. AIDS is nothing more than a new name for old diseases.

 

FACT: The diseases that have come to be associated with AIDS in Africa - such as wasting syndrome, diarrheal diseases and TB - have long been severe burdens there. However, high rates of mortality from these diseases, formerly confined to the elderly and malnourished, are now common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged people, including well-educated members of the middle class (UNAIDS, 2000).

 

For example, in a study in Cote d'Ivoire, HIV-seropositive individuals with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) were 17 times more likely to die within six months than HIV-seronegative individuals with pulmonary TB (Ackah et al. Lancet 1995; 345:607). In Malawi, mortality over three years among children who had received recommended childhood immunizations and who survived the first year of life was 9.5 times higher among HIV-seropositive children than among HIV-seronegative children. The leading causes of death were wasting and respiratory conditions (Taha et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:689). Elsewhere in Africa, findings are similar.

 

Also, some good links on AIDS denial:

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/focuson/hiv/resources/default.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The author (and probably all the authors on the website) is one of those "HIV does not cause AIDS" idiots.
I don't want to bust open that particular can of worms here, but Charles L. Geshekter doesn't exactly fit the profile of "idiot." Fulbright scholar, college professor with a specialty in African history, etc. He has WAAAAAAAAYYYY better quals than that moonbat people are always quoting in their Spark briefs. What's your problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tell that to the girl who got raped by an hiv infected person

tell that to the doctor who got infected with hiv from a patient

tell that to the victim of some malady who got tainted blood donated by an hiv infected person

tell that to nurse mayinga (probably)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for that
np :)

 

I don't want to bust open that particular can of worms here, but Charles L. Geshekter doesn't exactly fit the profile of "idiot." Fulbright scholar, college professor with a specialty in African history, etc. He has WAAAAAAAAYYYY better quals than that moonbat people are always quoting in their Spark briefs. What's your problem?
Credentials aside, he's a loony who pushes psudoscience. The list of idiots I posted above includes a professor of biochemistry who denies the HIV-AIDS connection. I already pointed out: "don't expect to shoot them down just by pointing to lack of quals."

 

David Irving is an expert historian and Holocaust denier. Charles Thaxton has a PhD in p-chem and denies evolution. They also meet my definition of "idiot."

 

It's not like I'm venting and slandering to boost my ego here. I'm recommending debaters do their homework on some authors that will cause them problems (on either side of the debate), and pointing them in the direction of a NIH page so they can prepare themselves. So then, what's your problem?

 

tell that to the girl who got raped by an hiv infected person

tell that to the doctor who got infected with hiv from a patient

tell that to the victim of some malady who got tainted blood donated by an hiv infected person

tell that to nurse mayinga (probably)

True enough. But I think the fact that it's offensive goes without saying.

 

Meh, AIDS cases deserve to lose anyway.
I don't think there will be many straight-up AIDS cases. I expect AIDS will be an an advantage for the majority of cases next year, but rarely the soul advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh, AIDS cases deserve to lose anyway.

Why the hell would that be anyway? So we shouldn't do anything about the deadliest disease on the planet? We shouldn't do anything about an ailment that are making people's lives hell until they die? We shouldn't do anything to help people? I hope you get AIDS so I can say "Sorry dude but fuck off."

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why the hell would that be anyway? So we shouldn't do anything about the deadliest disease on the planet? We shouldn't do anything about an ailment that are making people's lives hell until they die? We shouldn't do anything to help people? I hope you get AIDS so I can say "Sorry dude but fuck off."
I don't think he was talking about the impact but rather the internal link to the impact.

 

I too think people running a straight up generic "lol give more money to africa to solve aids" affs should and will lose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if people use that evidence, won't the evidence that AIDS is around 30% be far more widespread?

 

True, but possibly not good enough. There is plenty of literature from the HIV denial camp that indicts the "mainstream statistics" and gives specific reasons why they shouldn't be trusted. To answer this argument, you should probably do a little more than just cite the correct statistics. You will need to explain why the UNAIDS and WHO statistics are correct, and why your opponents have it wrong.

 

The link I posted above should get you just about everything you need. A dozen or so cards attacking some specific authors, answering common claims, and smearing the HIV denial camp in general should be more than enough to cover your tail.

 

If you find that a local team is actually running this argument, you could go even further. There's enough literature out there to cut a pretty good kritik of HIV denialism with a solid punishment paradigm impact and in-round implications including homophobia, unsafe practices, racism, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too think people running a straight up generic "lol give more money to africa to solve aids" affs should and will lose

 

Maybe those cases will be usntrategic because of the wide c/p ground and the timeframe debate against d/a's, but how do they "Deserve to lose"? AIDS is a serious public health issue globally and particularly in Africa, hopefully it will be addressed by some affirmative with success. If anything an AIDS prevention aff deserves to win, it will just be more difficult then some small case which few people write about, because it is a less prevalent issue in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Money = Solvency" cases are usually dismal failures. This will especially be true for AIDS cases next year, in light of the billions already allocated through PEPFAR. The massive negative ground is only half the picture. Neg will have a demolition run on case.

 

There's nothing wrong with cases that claim AIDS scenarios. There will probably even be some respectable cases that do focus mainly on AIDS. But the successful ones will have to do something creative that doesn't overlap with existing programs or donate too much neg ground.

 

If an aff does little more than send ARVs and blank checks to Africa, yes, it deserves to lose. It shows a serious lack of understanding of the complicated obstacles to preventing the spread of AIDS. It will and should be out-classed by case-specific disads and counterplans and gigantic solvency guts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...