African Aids
-
Whats with Africa? Aids started there, poverty is everywhere, conflicts are all over…
-
Education is poor in major parts of Africa, and so is sex ed. People are better off if they have a large family (and have more children). Furthermore protection is not widely available. Health organizations are trying to combat this by testing people and providing free protection and educating people.
Giving woman more say and power also contributes to lower HIV infections and spread.
It's also proven that people with sickle cell anemia (which is more common in Africa than in other parts of the world) may be immune to HIV, but I have no idea if they are also able to transmit the virus.
And you seem to be posting a lot of topics on this particular subject. I am happy to provide you with more information, but don't you think you could compile all questions in the same topic in the relevant forum?
-
Actually HIV is more prevalent in southern Africa, where it was almost unheard of until 1985. The first case was circa 1982 from a white South Africa who got it when he has travelling to California.
Poor health care, poor funding, AIDS denialism and tribal cultures are the main cause of the current health care disaster. Curiously HIV rates in Central/Western Africa are low to moderate.
-
Actually, let me set the record straight…. AIDS is not the root issue, HIV the root issue. That being said, there are actually two main types (referred to as Type 1 and Type 2).
The interesting thing about this is that the roots of HIV-1 are more commonly found within North America which roughly traces back to Europe of all places, but didn't become catastrophic until it reached the US population, starting in California. HIV-2 on the other hand is more common to Africa, and has a distinctly different makeup than the HIV-1 virus that is more prevalent within North America.
Now that all being said, it is important to understand the key difference between HIV and AIDS.... HIV is merely the presence of the virus, however AIDS is technically classified as a CD4 count below 200, which is where other illnesses can begin to set in and create real problems. For those that do not know, the CD4 cells are the particular cells found within your white blood supply that your immune system uses to fight off any foreign substance/matter within your body. In short, the lower the number equates to the more danger you are in, and the higher the number equates to the stronger your system is.
After posting this, I noticed another interesting comment with regards to the lack of protection in Africa
Viral Load is another key thing to take into account when assessing the risks. The only known way in which to suppress the viral load to keep the virus at bay is with proper medications. The problem comes in here where the big pharma companies are all greedy and charge outrageous amounts for their medications, even though the R&D is already long ago paid for. I'll bet that you didn't know that in North America alone (where the companies are the greediest), the average cost of medications to keep someone with HIV alive are approximately $2000 - $4000 for a 30 day supply, depending on the particular pharmacy that you go to. The bigger the pharmacy chain, the more they'll charge. These kinds of prices are just not affordable to the masses, particularly in places like Africa. Granted, the medications you'll find in Africa are much different than the ones that you will find within North America for two different reasons, the biggest of which being the US pharma companies are too greedy to make their drugs affordable to the masses.
-
^ They have generic options that are affordable for developing and underdeveloped nations but keep in mind that most African countries have little or no social welfare system, even though many provide universal access to drugs.
Keep in mind there are many other issues that play a big factor such as denialism or poor public health education. Most people in Africa are very ignorant. A lot of people don't take their meds in SA because they don't want to go to the doctor and be seen as "sick".
-
A lot of people don't take their meds in SA because they don't want to go to the doctor and be seen as "sick".
True…. Although the same can be said about North America as well, just not in as large of a scale. There are a lot of people, even in North America who do not take the meds either because they're not willing to see themselves as "sick" or because they have eroticized the transmission of HIV and do not want to be medicated for it so that they can increase their chances of passing on the virus. The latter of the two categories of course opens a whole other can of worms in terms of legal troubles, since it only takes one person to step up and lay an allegation of failure to disclose your status to land you in jail, regardless of whether or not the allegation is true. I know this for fact as I am living proof of this. These types of things however are more common with people who are not medicated, which in turn only farther perpetuates the stigma surrounding HIV. Things like the "HIV Vampire" that has circulated through the North American media streams however account for only a small minority of people infected with HIV.
What I find fascinating though is the big difference in price with the meds between North America and the rest of the world. Sadly, even in North America, there is also that group of individuals who can be classified as "denialists" who refuse to admit not only that there is a problem with HIV, but also that refuse to acknowledge the difference between the two main strains (Type 1 & Type 2).
-
The HIV pandemic originated in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, some 90 years ago, appearing to resolve the longstanding mystery of one of humanity's most persistent diseases. The research, published in the journal Science, traces the genetic roots of the human immunodeficiency virus, a precursor to AIDS, to the Central African country.
What the research doesn't resolve is the delicate question about how the virus was transferred from primates or non-human apes to humans. But the researchers, mainly from Oxford, point out in a press release that it was "probably through the hunting or handling of bush meat." Yet the paper seems to lay to rest work suggesting that HIV originated in West Africa.
Until now most studies have taken a piecemeal approach to HIV's genetic history, looking at particular HIV genomes in particular locations. It seems a combination of factors in Kinshasa in the early 20th Century created a 'perfect storm' for the emergence of HIV, leading to a generalized epidemic with unstoppable momentum that unrolled across sub-Saharan Africa.
Part of that perfect storm was the country's railway system, a web with Kinshasa at the center, through which about one million people were traveling at the end of the 1940s. Toss in unsafe health care, which treated people for other illnesses with HIV-infected needles, and the sex trade, and the Democratic Republic of Congo was a sure source of pandemic. By the 1970s, health workers discovered AIDS in the United States.
HIV traveled by rail and water "to reach Mbuji-Mayi and Lubumbashi in the extreme South and Kisangani in the far North by the end of the 1930s and early 1950s. They concluded that the spread to these cities gave it "secondary foci" from which it headed to the rest of Africa. "We think it is likely that the social changes around the independence in 1960 saw the virus 'break out' from small groups of infected people to infect the wider population and eventually the world.
People sometimes say that AIDS started in the 1980's in the United States of America (USA), but in fact this was just when people first became aware of AIDS and it was officially recognized as a new health condition.
In 1981, a few cases of rare diseases were being reported among gay men in New York and California, such as Kaposi's Sarcoma (a rare cancer) and a lung infection called PCP. No-one knew why these cancers and opportunistic infections were spreading, but that there must be an infectious 'disease' causing them.
At first the disease was called all sorts of names relating to the word 'gay'. It wasn't until mid-1982 that it was realized the 'disease' was also spreading amongst other populations such as hemophiliacs and heroin users. By September that year, the 'disease' was finally named AIDS.
-
What you say is correct of what is commonly referred to as Type 2 HIV, which is also most commonly found within Africa. There is also another main type, known as Type 1, which is more commonly found within North America. While both major versions of it carry pretty well the same complications, there are actually some variances between the two major types. In fact, it's even possible (as I know someone with it) to be infected with both types at the same time. Unlike 2 strains of the same type, both types can survive independently of one another.
Also, the more common pre-AIDS name that the disease carried was commonly referred to as GRID (Gay Related Infection Disease), at least within North America for some time….
Lastly, I want to point out one point of technicality. Although it is common thought that HIV is required to constitute AIDS, do not fool yourself. Technically, the CDC does not require the presence of HIV to constitute AIDS.... By technical medical definition according to the CDC, AIDS is nothing more than a CD4 count that has dropped below 200, regardless of the presence of HIV. That being said though, HIV itself is what makes things much more interesting once the CD4 count drops below 200, which is why it is regarded in such a manner that one requires the other, despite the technical difference.
I just thought I'd point that out in case it's of any use or value to you..... Aside from those couple of minor things, yes.... You are correct.
-
FYI - I believe South Africa was the second country in the world to make PrEP/Truvada widely available for the public.
-
A lot of people don't take their meds in SA because they don't want to go to the doctor and be seen as "sick".
True…. Although the same can be said about North America as well, just not in as large of a scale. There are a lot of people, even in North America who do not take the meds either because they're not willing to see themselves as "sick" or because they have eroticized the transmission of HIV and do not want to be medicated for it so that they can increase their chances of passing on the virus. The latter of the two categories of course opens a whole other can of worms in terms of legal troubles, since it only takes one person to step up and lay an allegation of failure to disclose your status to land you in jail, regardless of whether or not the allegation is true. I know this for fact as I am living proof of this. These types of things however are more common with people who are not medicated, which in turn only farther perpetuates the stigma surrounding HIV. Things like the "HIV Vampire" that has circulated through the North American media streams however account for only a small minority of people infected with HIV.
What I find fascinating though is the big difference in price with the meds between North America and the rest of the world. Sadly, even in North America, there is also that group of individuals who can be classified as "denialists" who refuse to admit not only that there is a problem with HIV, but also that refuse to acknowledge the difference between the two main strains (Type 1 & Type 2).
The cost of a 30 month supply in Canada is around $1,000-1,400. I heard you can get generic drugs for PrEP in the USA for very cheap (around $300) - not sure if it's true or urban legend.
-
Actually, what you say is partially true… Thankfully, I have coverage that covers mine, but the cost of Truvada alone for PrEP purposes is well over $1000 for 30 days here. The average cost of all combined treatment meds is well over $3000 for a 30-day supply.
As for the meds being cheaper in the USA, HA!!! It's quite the contrary actually. They're often more expensive in the USA
-
only in africa??
-
who said that?
-
i thik it started from america
-
Actually, there are two distinctly different types of HIV strains. There is Type 1, which is more common within North America. This is the strain often thought to have originated in California. Type 2 on the other hand is often said to be the "African AIDS" virus. They are distinctly different in their overall makeup as to have their own unique characteristics and traits, while essentially consisting of the same base virus. Of each type there are several different variations as the virus mutates over time…. So in reality, there is no single root origin of the HIV virus. Each type is thought to have originated in a different geographical region when it first appeared. Do not be fooled though, as HIV had many names long before it was known as HIV. GRID (Gay Related Infectious Disease) was one such name.
The general working theory as to the two different types is similar to how the differences between the white man and the black man's skin pigmentation and facial features originated. It is thought to be an evolutionary adaptation to the localized climate to its geographical origin. So... Before we can discuss the "origin" of the virus itself, we must first be specific as to what type (or "race") of the virus that we're referring to. While such instances are not very common, it is in theory possible to be infected with both Type 1 and Type 2 HIV. I know of at least one person off the top of my head who is coinfected in this manner. They can make for the most unique cases. Such cases however are not very common, but they can occur.
-
Actually, there are two distinctly different types of HIV strains. There is Type 1, which is more common within North America. This is the strain often thought to have originated in California. Type 2 on the other hand is often said to be the "African AIDS" virus. They are distinctly different in their overall makeup as to have their own unique characteristics and traits, while essentially consisting of the same base virus. Of each type there are several different variations as the virus mutates over time…. So in reality, there is no single root origin of the HIV virus. Each type is thought to have originated in a different geographical region when it first appeared. Do not be fooled though, as HIV had many names long before it was known as HIV. GRID (Gay Related Infectious Disease) was one such name.
The general working theory as to the two different types is similar to how the differences between the white man and the black man's skin pigmentation and facial features originated. It is thought to be an evolutionary adaptation to the localized climate to its geographical origin. So... Before we can discuss the "origin" of the virus itself, we must first be specific as to what type (or "race") of the virus that we're referring to. While such instances are not very common, it is in theory possible to be infected with both Type 1 and Type 2 HIV. I know of at least one person off the top of my head who is coinfected in this manner. They can make for the most unique cases. Such cases however are not very common, but they can occur.
Thirty six years ago AIDS was indeed, called "The Gay Plague," gay cancer, or GRID (gay-related immune disorder).
Sadly, because AIDS was first detected in homosexual males, it was largely dismissed because gay men circa 1980 were viewed as dispensable. The medical community considered this a homosexual disease, neither fashionable nor prestigious, and consequently unworthy of serious attention.
USA's government at that time, topped by a staggeringly inept former B-movie actor named Ronald Reagan, was uninterested in anything beyond increased defense spending and domestic budget slashing. Reagan, in fact, did not utter a single public acknowledgment of AIDS until 1987.
Not surprisingly, the news media ignored AIDS in the beginning, preferring instead to report less complex stories about such things as neglected toddlers who tumble down wells.
![😕](https://community.gaytorrent.ru/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/apple/1f615.png?v=hvqg2qn0nb4 ":-\")
-
how come the governments are busy sowing conflict among its people rather than managing the aids problem
-
how come the governments are busy sowing conflict among its people rather than managing the aids problem
Well… Simply put, political decisions are never about what is best for the people anymore. Instead, every political decision that is made these days is all about someone making money off of it. The medications that keep me alive run anywhere from $1200 - $3000 for a 30-day supply, depending on what pharmacy that you go to. When you consider how many thousands of people who are HIV+ and on medications, each one of which will be paying at LEAST $1000 every 30 days in some way, you start talking big-time money to be made. If they were to release a cure for HIV, they would not be able to keep milking this cash cow for all they can, in order to side-line their own pockets.
