reply to post by reitze
Read the post again, I didn't call you dumb.
Where's the proof from the scientific community that anything in the documnetary is true? Oh no Aids denialist says there is still major medical
disagreement on AIDS; HIV tests don't work; AIDS in Africa is actually just poverty and amongst gays in the US it's poppers - and if you disbelieve
any of the nonsense you are just dumb. Mr AIDS denialist says HIV does not cause AIDS, and probably doesn't even exist (depending on which denialist
you ask, they're not agreed on the existence of HIV) - and if you don't believe it you're dumb or a shill for big pharma.
I was satirizing the language AIDS denialists use against ME when I question them i.e. If one questions any of their more nonsensical statements then
one is dumb or a shill for big pharma.
You seriously misunderstood the point of that sentence which was to show how the rhetoric of being undermined or insulted also comes from the
That's a clear misunderstanding then.
Let me rephrase it: If one questions the denialists then they call (or imply) one is dumb and being a shill for big pharma. The "you" here is for
anybody who tries to argue with them, and I thought that was clear in that phrase.
That's been my experience across several threads.
Personally I do not believe AIDS denialists are dumb at all, and when I first tested positive I was very much convinced by them myself. In fact, I
don't think it's possible to argue somebody out of that point of view without direct experience, because the denialist discourse deliberately argues
past proven science and the histories of the activist movements, and they keep repeating the same allegations regardless of the science.
It's easy to make allegations, but explaining the science is far more lengthy and difficult, and it's out there for anybody that's interested. In SA
it took court cases with lengthy representations of evidence to finally topple denialism from power.
You brought up the House of Cards film, which by all cultural studies falls under AIDS denialism.
Granted, it's a loaded terminology for people who differ amongst themselves, but that's not my invention, and its what the broader discourse has
For more on the term see: en.wikipedia.org...
I said quite clearly in the thread that I'm against forced sterilizations because ARV treatment makes the chances of mother-to-child transmission
miniscule, and HIV-positive people can be normal parents and raise families. The preventative treatment is not expensive, and a single dose can reduce
the chances of transmission by 50 percent. More advanced treatments can reduce it to 2 percent, and in SA vertical transmission may hopefully be
phased out by 2015: www.irinnews.org...
Unfortunately our former denialist
President Mbeki thwarted all efforts to roll-out the most basic treatments for mother-to-child transmissions, so we only implemented it very late.
At least our experience in SA (with a very high rate of HIV since the mid-1990s) makes it unfeasible and unnecessary to engage in stigmatizing acts on
HIV-positive people, and instead advances in medicine make it possible to lead relatively normal lives both socially and economically, so there is no
justification for forcing sterilization onto positive women. That will simply make people fearful and unwilling to know their status, or to disclose
their status to their partners. Perhaps in the past that was justified, but its unnecessary now, and it's a wrong step for any country, assuming it's
official policy in Thailand. One can discuss family planning and encourage certain precautions, but forced sterilization is a serious break in trust,
especially in cultures that place a large onus on having at least a child or two. In SA HIV reaches into the upper and middle classes, or the ruling
classes, and there's no way they would allow that to be done to them. I would assume that where such sterilizations occur it's also a class issue,
since poor women have long been subject to forced sterilizations for a number of moralistic and eugenic reasons, and it's one reason why the Western
medical system is sometimes mistrusted.
I cannot change people's opinions or try to argue or insult them out of anything.
Neither did I claim to be particularly knowledgeable, but I am representing what I do know.
However, since the denialists are so well represented on the Internet (even if hardly anywhere else these days) I think it's important that the
opposing opinion is also given.
On the one hand I think it's good for people to speculate and question, but on the other hand, if the vast amount of scientists and medical workers
are correct then HIV remains an incurable and transmissible virus that is eventually fatal in the majority of the infected, and it takes certain
active choices to prevent or manage it, and that message remains very important too.
edit on 9-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason