A few hours ago, I heard an interview on the radio (I think it was the BBC) with someone who worked with infertility problems in Africa. I'll try to give a short description, but I make no claims to accuracy; I don't remember the story word for word! Anyway, the gist is, the woman being interviewed described a problem African populations are having with infertility. She described how many families, traditionally, might have something on the order of 7 children, and what stigma and heartache await those who haven't borne any. She spoke of the case of one particular woman, who was married at 18, and after several years of not bearing children, was told by the other family members that she should sleep with her brother-in-law instead (apparently this is a common practice in these situations). When she refused, her husband divorced her (and went on to never have children; apparently his infertility was the probable culprit) and the woman was rejected, ostracized and banished by her family.
Now, the punch line here is that this woman, who was being interviewed, is working there to bring infertility treatments to African communities. Yes, those very same expensive, arduous infertility treatments that were previously purely the domain of wealthy white western career women who waited too long to have children. Does anyone else other than me see something seriously wrong with this concept, as in a misplacement of priorities, and a misunderstanding of what the root problems there really are?
Personally, considering the world state of overpopulation and sheer quantity of unwanted children living in poverty, I consider infertility to be very low on the list of priorities in any country, but especially in coutries that cannot successfully provide for such a large proportion of children they already do have. To hear this interview, one would think that infertility is their main problem. The way I see it, infertility is NOT the problem and perhaps a blessing in disguise. To me the most glaring problem in this story is the way this woman was treated simply for not bearing any children. I think there is something deeply wrong with a society that values a woman only for her ability to give birth, and treats her so poorly when she fails to do so. Why is this situation not the one being addressed? Is it simply because this is their tradition, and this is just the way they are? Well, maybe, and it's probably not our business to interfere with those traditions, but I don't see any reason to indulge or condone such cruel behaviour either. Instead of treating the woman this way, perhaps that family should have adopted a few of the starving, sick children on their own continent! I've also read many stories about the way in which folks there (especially women) with AIDS are ostracized and treated as outcasts similar to the way in which that woman was treated. Again, I believe this problem of cruelty is far worse than the actual problem of AIDS... it is a spiritual blight, whereas AIDS is merely a physical one.
This also reminded me of another interview I heard on the BBC several years ago. It really struck me, which is why I still remember it. This interview was with a couple of people who worked with AIDS orphans in Africa. But, since they were not well funded, they did not do the usual thing of running a clinic and administering AIDS drugs. Instead, they simply took in orphans, treated them for more cheaply treatable diseases like malaria, fed them nutritious food and gave them lots of love and care. They expected that they were simply performing a sort of hospice service; just give the kids as nice a life as possible in their short time here, while not having any expectations of any kind of cure.
Well, lo and behold, were they shocked when those kids DID start getting better and healthier! And, what's even more stunning, is that eventually some of those kids tested HIV negative, and were no longer sick at all! So, in essence, it appears to me that these folks' simple food and care-giving did more for a group of children than any AIDS drugs ever did; the kids got better, lived, and lost the HIV bug. Amazing, eh? To me, stories like this have the potential to blow the whole AIDS industry and underlying HIV=AIDS thesis out of the water. For years before I heard this story, I suspected that there is something fishy about AIDS, based on various things I've read and heard over the years. But of course, most of those sources are not necessarily credible. The South African government is widely scoffed at and ridiculed for holding those same views. I never knew what to think; my undergraduate biology courses were not quite detailed enough for me to make my own assessment of the arguments against the popular AIDS theory, although some of those arguments have always sounded compelling to me. Plus, the fact that some very intelligent folks such as Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner for developing the Polymerase Chain Reaction technique, question the validity of the HIV=AIDS theory lends it all the more credence.
So anyway, when I heard this story on the BBC, I was floored! Here it was, possible evidence (if only anecdotal) that AIDS drugs are a useless ripoff, right there on the BBC, a very credible news source. My feelings for years.... that AIDS could be an immune deficiency stemming from malnutrition plus an accumulation of other illnesses, was finally validated by a source not otherwise known for wild conspiracy theories! So why was nothing more ever made of this story? I heard it that one time, and that was it. One would think this would a breakthrough, just BEGGING for empirical research! Of course, to me, the answer is obvious: corporate greed. The pharmaceutical companies have convinced the world that HIV causes AIDS, and that They are the gods to whom we should bow, because only They have the cure. Nutrition? Loving care? Hah! What's that! Those kids need DRUGS! And why bother wiping out malaria? It's too easy, too cheap! Let's tackle AIDS instead, we'll make much more money that way! Eh, it makes me mad. And this all goes back to my original topic of the infertility story; now it all makes sense. First they make money selling AIDS drugs to Africans, and now they could make money selling them infertility drugs. Who wants to focus on eliminating cruelty, neglect, and malnutrition? Make a profit, sell 'em drugs instead! >:(
StrangeOne posted on Aug 30, 2006
| views: 807
Comments
-
CerealArsonist said on Aug 30, 2006....
Smash the system.
Sorry...that's my answer to everything.
-
secretlife said on Aug 30, 2006....
Providing infertility treatments in Africa is nuts.
They should be providing birth control instead.
People are starving in Africa.
Kids are starving.
Oprah has to go over and open schools for heaven's sake.(sorry I can't help but be snide sometimes)
I wonder who's paying for that program?
On the AIDS thing- I think 1 out of every 3 people in Africa are HIV positive. I'm sure there's an awful lot of mis-diagnosis of the young especially because of all of the other diseases on top of malnutrition.
-
SeanRenaud said on Aug 30, 2006....
First I'll tackle the World Population issue. Sorry we don't have too many people. Not even close yet, it might happen someday but not in the forseeable future.
Second yes we do have a right to tell these people that their way of life is wrong. We have an obligation to judge them, most of Africa is so backwards that it would be better off as a colony of a real country. We in this world would rather watch people starve to death then ever hint that imperialism might have done more good than harm.
They should be providing EDUCATION not birth control, not fertility drugs. There are tribes that believe that the way to cure AIDS is to have sex with a virgin. Until BS like that is eradicated we can't even begin to move on other problems.
Being rich doesn't mean your evil. Being a medical scientist does not make you evil. There is no cure for AIDS if there was we would have done it, period. The Gates foundation is working on a vaccine for Malaria, its just tricky. Oh yeah HIV=AIDS. Period. If love and rainbows were the cure then why does the disease exist at all in developed nations? How did it become epidemic? Why ISN'T ERVIN "MAGIC" JOHNSON cured? Oh yeah there is no cure.
-
secretlife said on Aug 30, 2006....
The answer for AIDS is certainly in education.
And of course then you have to hand out condoms.
You can't just say, 'don't have sex'- that isn't going to work anywhere.
It has to be education AND birth control for the other issues.
You have to provide a way for those you educate to escape the cycle- that means they have to stop breeding. You educate them that nobody in Africa should be having 10 kids. The kids are gonna die. They're going to get sick. It's a cycle of pain-
Then provide the birth control and teach them how to use it.
-
light16 said on Aug 31, 2006....
yeah. i agree with secretlife.
i think it all boils down on the lack of education.
-
StrangeOne said on Aug 31, 2006....
Birth control is right!!! Birth control should be free to everyone in the world who wants it.
SeanRenaud:
First I'll tackle the World Population issue. Sorry we don't have too many people. Not even close yet, it might happen someday but not in the forseeable future.
What?!?! We don't have too many people, are you out of your mind?! Sure, there's plenty of space in northern Canada, and Siberia, and Antarctica, but how many people could live there?! Bah. There are areas in Africa, India, etc. where there are so many people, that they don't have enough CLEAN WATER. How would you like to live in a place where the drinking water gives you diarrhea? When there is not enough clean water to go around, then there are certainly too many people! And moreover, all of these billions of people want to live like Westerners, with all these cars and industry etc. so sooner or later EVERYONE will start polluting like we do and then we'll REALLY be f*cked.
We in this world would rather watch people starve to death then ever hint that imperialism might have done more good than harm.
Ahhh, yes, White Man's Burden. What would those poor, lost souls do without us.
Oh yeah HIV=AIDS. Period.
Prove it.
f love and rainbows were the cure then why does the disease exist at all in developed nations?
I never said just love and rainbows, I said proper nutrition, treatment of other illnesses, and yes love DOES help heal a child. (Read up on studies of children growing up without parental love - they are cognitively impaired).
Because people here suffer from malnutrition and too much disease for their overloaded immune systems to handle as well. We eat a lot of calories, but many people are nutritionally deficient, because they eat crap. That, plus lack of exercise, begins to break down the immune system... then you add environmental toxins, STD's, cancers, etc. on top of that and bye-bye immunity.
Oh yeah there is no cure.
So how do you explain what happened to those orphans?
-
StrangeOne said on Aug 31, 2006....
Oh wow SeanRenaud I just read in one of your blogs that you are African American! That makes your comment about those backwards Africans even more bizarre.. or amusing? I've heard of self-hating Jews, but self-hating Blacks are even funnier!
-
FaithfulDisciple said on Aug 31, 2006....
Impressively analytical post StrangeOne. You are one of those potential budding writers that I refer to in my recent post The Writer Within, What's Your Style honing your skills here at Soulcast.
-
SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2006....
There is enough land in Northern California to give every living being 1.4 acres of land. We can purify water, and grow enough food in the West to throw away left and right. To many people in the wrong places doesn't mean there are too many people.
HIV=AIDS is already proven. Like the Holocaust or 9/11 the burden of proof lies on those going against the norm.
Why isn't Magic Johnson cured? Hell why aren't more people in the US and Europe experiencing these cures? It seems to me more ikely that third world, third rate, poorly equiped doctors misdiagnosed a lot of these children. Particularly since it is pointed out by you that these particular folks WERE POORLY FUNDED.
What would the third world do without us? Starve, die of easily preventable diseases, live in filth and squallor, drink dirty water. We know the answer to that question already don't we?
@Strange- The 25 poorest nations in the world are all African. They are the poorest inhabited continent. Most of the nations are nearly continually in upheval ruled by whichever man has the most guns. HIV and the alledgedly associasted AIDS is epidemic in Africa. Nearly every country in Africa is considered 3rd world. I don't hate Africans, but their cultures and societies are backwards and nonfunctional as is clear by their inability provide the basics to such as food and shelter to their citizens. As for Blacks in America, I don't hate blacks. I hate gangster culture and all the harm it is doing.
Sorry i keep eating up your page.
SR
-
StrangeOne said on Aug 31, 2006....
Faithful Disciple: Wow!!! Thanks!!! It never occurred to me that I could be a good writer (other than research papers). Your words are very encouraging, I will continue to write. Comments/criticism always welcome :)
SeanRenaud:
There is enough land in Northern California to give every living being 1.4 acres of land. We can purify water, and grow enough food in the West to throw away left and right.
Perhaps if we could purify water, that would help matters. But if that's so easy, why aren't we doing it? Why are we letting people die agonizing deaths from diarrhea? As for 1.4 acres of land per person (I assume you mean every person rather than every insect/animal/bird/etc.) that is nowhere near enough. Perhaps, if we were all vegans, that could work. But, I have read in many sources that it takes a lot more land than that to feed all the cows, pigs, and chickens that people like to eat. In fact, it takes 12 times more grain to feed 1 cow than it would take to feed 1person. So, because of humans' appetite for meat, that is not enough land.
Besides, if we really use up all that land for all those people and agriculture to feed them, then we will have lost all our natural areas, all our forests, beautiful deserts, valleys, etc. That is not an earth I'd want to live in.
HIV=AIDS is already proven. Like the Holocaust or 9/11 the burden of proof lies on those going against the norm.
In that case, I don't know why anyone ever bothered trying to prove that the world is round, or that the earth revolves around the sun. After all, that went against the norm.
In other words, in case you don't get my sarcasm, just because everyone believes it doesn't make it true. The problem also lies in the fact that those who control the status quo make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for those who DO try to prove the opposite to do so. How? By denying them research grants, publication in journals, media attention, etc. This is not a fair world for those who think outside the box.
Why isn't Magic Johnson cured? Hell why aren't more people in the US and Europe experiencing these cures? It seems to me more ikely that third world, third rate, poorly equiped doctors misdiagnosed a lot of these children. Particularly since it is pointed out by you that these particular folks WERE POORLY FUNDED.
It appears to me that the fact that these folks were poorly funded is what saved those children. Otherwise, those kids would have been stuffed full of AIDS drugs just like everyone else. And would have continued to waste away slowly half-sick living out the rest of their lives popping pills. The reason why Magic Johnson or anyone else in the western world isn't getting cured is because they continue to live immuno-suppressing lifestyles, while pumping their systems full of AIDS drugs. Eating a fistful of pills is not always the best way to help your immune system fight disease.
What would the third world do without us? Starve, die of easily preventable diseases, live in filth and squallor, drink dirty water. We know the answer to that question already don't we?
Then why didn't old Europe suffer the same fate? Europeans lived in the very same conditions up until quite recently. Now they're fine. If the Europeans were able to figure out how to get themselves out of that fix, what makes you think that the Africans can't do it without our help? Do you think they're somehow... mentally inferior?
I don't hate Africans, but their cultures and societies are backwards and nonfunctional as is clear by their inability provide the basics to such as food and shelter to their citizens.
True, but all societies on earth have been through that at one point or another, and have figured out for themselves how to solve their own problems. I think the Africans deserve the chance to do so as well, without our interference. We may be able to save lives, but it would be at the loss of their dignity.
As for Blacks in America, I don't hate blacks. I hate gangster culture and all the harm it is doing.
Wow! You actually wrote something I agree with :o ;)
Sorry i keep eating up your page.
Hahaha that's quite alright, that's what a blog is for. It's fun to debate :)
-
silverwhisper said on Aug 31, 2006....
strangeone: welcome to soulcast! very interesting blog topic.
sean's absolutely right about the population/overpopulation misperception.
however, i'm most curious about the idea that colonialism did more good than harm. how did ruthless exploitation and--o yeah, slavery--do more good than harm, sean?
ed
-
SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2006....
We can purify water. Hell for the Africans simply understanding the advantages of boiling all drinking water would be tremendous. WE can also desalinate water. We are letting people die of diareha because just don't care and there is no money to be made in saving lives. So the people who are most able to help, aren't.
No I meant 1.4 acres per person. That woudl leave the whole of Asia, Africa, Europe and Australia for farming. I think we have enough room for the cows. The polution issue is something aside.
They do deny them grant money, so on and so forth. The burden of proof was on Columbus to prove that the world was infact round, not flat. He had to prove it to the world, not the other way around.
Maybe, can you deny the posibility of misdiagnosis by people who don't have proper funding? Hey if this cure is working then why isn't information about it leaking, it seems like it would take a huge conspiracy with a lot of people to stop, say you from blogging it, and people with HIV finding out, spreading the word and curing the disease.
Europe didn't do it. Europe was constantly being conquered, reconquered, fought over, made into different empires. The old ways were killed, time and time again. I do believe that eventually Africa will catch up, so will South America. Is it right for us to sit back and watch them starve.
Colonialism was ALWAYS done by a "superior" more efficient society. The exchange of knowledge was beneficial not for the conquerer, but for the conquered. As for slavery while I didn't really defend that I think any logical person given the choice of being born in any random African Country vs being born in America would choose to be born here. I think its better to be a psudo-secondclass citizen, than starving with AIDS and infested water. But that's just me.
-
silverwhisper said on Aug 31, 2006....
sean quoth
the exchange of knowledge was beneficial not for the conquerer, but for the conquered.
it's not like conquerors were dispensing their knowledge for the benefit of conquered. look at what the spaniards did to central america: millions killed both actively and passively (smallpox), vast sums of wealth looted. they didn't leave many people to benefit from any transmission of knowledge, did they?
sean quoth
as for slavery while i didn't really defend that i think any logical person given the choice of being born in any random african country vs being born in america would choose to be born here. i think its better to be a psudo-secondclass citizen, than starving with AIDS and infested water. but that's just me.
so you're more an existentialist than an essentialist then, would you say?
ed
-
SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2006....
They didn't conquer, the looted. A better example would be the how in general all the nations in Europe have similar technology. Or how as the Roman Empire spread it brought with it advanced medicine, construction, mathmatics etc to the tribes they conquered.
Hell still look at South America. Worlds more industrialized, and worlds better living conditions than the the whole of Africa no? India isn't doing to badly either.
-
prucius said on Aug 31, 2006....
Hi. If I can just add my 2 cents. Something I realised quite a long time ago was that there is no solution without love, however, there is a state of mind in Africa that requires a bit of attention. It's a magnification of something we all suffer a little from. African people have a tendency to latch on to someone who is helping them and take them for everything that they can,mostly because they dont see a way of pulling themselves up by thier own boot straps. This isn't a racist thing but merely a state of mind that anyone would adopt when they're in the same situation. The end result is that all of that help and aid gets used up and then more is required, So how do you get more? Put on your poor helpless me attitude, blame other people (previous governments, present governments etc) and agree wholeheartedly with it. If you dont take responsibility for your own condition you make yourself powerless.If you use a self defeating tactic to aid your survival you make yourself powerless. End result = more poverty. There are some who rise above it but for most, well, they just stay where they are. It takes a lot to get a nation up off the ground. There has to be a better way than handouts and loving sympathy (By the way,Sympathy isn't love!).
-
SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2006....
Love. Wront answer. EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. You cannot battle hate, love, pity, jealousy or any other illogical emotion with another equally illogical emotion.
Honestly though they don't really have much of value to start with anyway. What they need to do is just let themselves become a colony, province, whatever the polite word is for that condition of a country with money.
The bottom line is that people in the West don't care. We don't. It doesn't effect us, it isn't our problem.
-
secretlife said on Aug 31, 2006....
except for Oprah.
-
SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2006....
And a few others, but its not enough. It will never be enough until there are investments to be made there. Make into the next hot spot and people will travel in search of opportunity. Start making movies there, start making computers there, start farming there start SOMETHING. Hell make them a production capital so that we can get away from China and the horrible practices that we know they commit.
Or we can stick to what has worked so wonderfully for us. Watching them like sea monkeys, and treating them with a bout the same compassion.
-
prucius said on Aug 31, 2006....
Oh well, This planets just a stop over, why would someone get born into that kind of life anyway. We're born, we grow old, we die, then the good stuff starts. Perhaps love is a misunderstood word. It's not about emotion its about formula. Education may be an answer but there's a whole lot of other shit that needs to get sorted first, Anyway, If you dont care that's cool. Africa is like on a different planet. The western world and Africa, thats a major equation to figure and I dont think anyone has a quick fix, just more talk. They say that before you judge a man you should walk a mile in his shoes.
That way, when you judge him you're a mile away, and you've got his shoes.
-
StrangeOne said on Sep 02, 2006....
SeanRenaud and silverwhisper, I am still as always very surprised when I hear someone disagree that we have a problem with overpopulation. ..
No I meant 1.4 acres per person. That woudl leave the whole of Asia, Africa, Europe and Australia for farming. I think we have enough room for the cows. The polution issue is something aside.
1.4 per person... well then what DO we do with the animals, in that case? Where will they live? And no, the pollution issue is NOT something aside, it is essentially the main problem of overpopulation - especially when that massive population becomes industrialized. If you turn every acre of landmass on earth into farms and suburbs, it will lead not only to life-threatening amounts of pollution but massive deforestation which will threaten air quality. These problems are already starting to happen, quite obviously. It will only get worse.
Hey if this cure is working then why isn't information about it leaking, it seems like it would take a huge conspiracy with a lot of people to stop, say you from blogging it, and people with HIV finding out, spreading the word and curing the disease.
It is because so many people think like you. People are comfortable with the status quo, and refuse to consider that they may have been duped all of these years. It's much more comforting to believe you already have the answers. No conspiracy is necessary when most of the public is so willing to wallow in ignorance.
-
SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2006....
1.4 acres of land is a lot, when you factor in that is for individuals. How many acres of land do you reckon and averag apartment building covers and how many people live there and how much room does that free up. Hell if you take into account that the average person lives in a family of 4 that instantly moves up to 5.6 acres of land per family. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that even hints that the world is overpopulated. Its a popular myth.
The polution problem is vasty exagerated, and really has not hing to do with overpopulation but rather with what kind of technology we use. Why does India have higher population concentration than the US but less pollution. Has to do with cars, factories, etc etc. Poppulation=pollution is a faulty stance. It might be logical but it isn't true.
I'm not comfortable with the status quo, if you read my blogs I'm very against the status quo in a lot of ways for a lot of reasons. It just seems to me that if eastern style medicine was the cure that somebody would know by now. People like me work on facts, so recreate what is claimed to have happened in Africa to youths under monitored conditions. Prove to me that those children weren't a combination of abnormal "magic" cures and misdiagnosed patients from an organization that admits to having been underfunded. I don't even understand how the treatment they received, good food, love, curing of other diseases wouldn't go hand in hand with other treatements. So I suppose prove that current treatements are actually detrimental. Do something?
As far as getting funding researh of course it is denied. Funding research is an investment. Would you invest your money in somebody who was trying to prove that the world was flat? Or a time machine? There has to be reason to believe that this line of study will produce something of worth. So prove it.
-
StrangeOne said on Sep 03, 2006....
You repeating that this is a myth over and over again will not make it a myth. I have lived in apartment buildings for most of my life, and I do not find that this is an ideal way for humans to live. I'd rather have people have less children, to improve the quality of life for those of us existing on earth already - as an example, not having to live in apartment buildings. When I fly over various countries in an airplane, I am continually stunned by how much of the earth we humans have covered with our clearcutting and other crap.
There's no scientific evidence of overpopulation specifically only because you can't make a distinct hypothesis to test (i.e. what number of people means the earth of overpopulated?? So what exactly would you test?) However, there IS ample evidence of pollution, cancers and hormonal disorders stemming from pollution in both people and animals, global warming stemming from too many people using too much technology, etc. There are whole species of animals losing their habitats because of our taking over their land; this is proven too. And all those proven problems stem from overpopulation; this is just obvious. The more people there are driving, throwing garbage around, etc. etc. the more pollution there is - how much more obvious can that be?!?!
I don't know that India has less pollution than the US, at least point me to a link where it says that. If it is true, then just give them time. They haven't had a chance to pollute as much as we have yet, purely for economic reasons. That will, of course, change. When China and India become economically able to pollute as much as the US does, the world will be in *serious* trouble.
I have read a bit of your blogs (you write a LOT, so I certainly haven't read all of it yet!) and from a cursory glance, IMHO, you seem like a fairly status quo conservative... in my eyes. Nothing jumped out at me that was against the status quo... except maybe the lowering the age of consent issue (which I agree with you on! lol :) )
There are people who DO know that the eastern style of medicine cures. *I* know, for example. And I've cured myself of things (not anything as drastic as AIDS!) using methods you would scoff at. So has my husband, and others I know. But the problem is, of course, that those like you instantly scoff. So we who DO know go on using these methods, but most of us do so quietly since any public mention of it invites ridicule. This has been a problem with humanity forever. We as humans would advance much faster if fresh new ideas ruled the day instead of money.
I would love to prove those things for you, but I haven't the facilities nor the money to do it, so you know very well it's a ridiculous request. So after you say "prove it," in the next breath you say "as for getting funding of course it is denied" and then you go and say "prove it" again, that is so hypocritical! You're talking in circles! How do you expect anyone to prove anything with no funding? You want something to be proven, so that it gets funded, but it can't get proven if there's no funding. Completely circular logic. You see, it really is folks like you who are the culprit.
The reason people trying to prove things like that don't get funded is NOT because the line of study won't produce something of worth. That is naive thinking. The reason is all money, money, money. No one will fund a study like that in Africa, because there is not much money to be made with nutritious food and cheap, readily available medicines. AIDS drugs is where the big money is, so they will keep pushing that, and funding that. 'cause hey, "today's medicines fund tomorrow profits!"
And, as an aside, since you mention the time machine. Many physicists today (including the renowned Stephen Hawking) consider this to be a valid possibility. So be careful what you wish for!
-
SeanRenaud said on Sep 03, 2006....
If China and India haven't been able to produce as much polution as we do for economic reasons that still proves that the problem is the technology which can be improved and not the sheer number of people. Just like you can't tell me about how many people are starving until the US isn't throwing away tons of food the problem isn't lack of food its food in the wrong places.
I don't have anything against any proven method. If something worked for you esepcially to cure something like AIDS, cancer or really any serious ailment you need to start spreading the word. Just like homosexuality wasn't accepted as "normal" and I'm all for gay marriage btw, until people started stepping out of the shadows. Why can't you (and by you I mean people of your line of thinking, not you as an individual) convince Jessica Simpson or Tom Cruise that this is a good line of study? You just need to convince somebody with money to purchase facilities.
Something of worth=money. When I said that I meant them as the same thing. I just personally think that if good nutrition would cure AIDS in a place like Africa the amount of money made off of them buying food, buying houses and whatever else they can produce would be more than the amount of money being made off of AIDS medicines. Though I could be wrong.
Yeah how much do you want to bet that now that real physicists believe time travel might be possible that funding to research it has grown?
-
SeanRenaud said on Sep 03, 2006....
If China and India haven't been able to produce as much polution as we do for economic reasons that still proves that the problem is the technology which can be improved and not the sheer number of people. Just like you can't tell me about how many people are starving until the US isn't throwing away tons of food the problem isn't lack of food its food in the wrong places.
I don't have anything against any proven method. If something worked for you esepcially to cure something like AIDS, cancer or really any serious ailment you need to start spreading the word. Just like homosexuality wasn't accepted as "normal" and I'm all for gay marriage btw, until people started stepping out of the shadows. Why can't you (and by you I mean people of your line of thinking, not you as an individual) convince Jessica Simpson or Tom Cruise that this is a good line of study? You just need to convince somebody with money to purchase facilities.
Something of worth=money. When I said that I meant them as the same thing. I just personally think that if good nutrition would cure AIDS in a place like Africa the amount of money made off of them buying food, buying houses and whatever else they can produce would be more than the amount of money being made off of AIDS medicines. Though I could be wrong.
Yeah how much do you want to bet that now that real physicists believe time travel might be possible that funding to research it has grown?
Thanks for reading.
-
StrangeOne said on Sep 23, 2006....
If China and India haven't been able to produce as much polution as we do for economic reasons that still proves that the problem is the technology which can be improved and not the sheer number of people.
Possibly, but the technology is not being improved fast enough to meet the demands of population growth.
Besides, even if all the water, air, etc. is thoroughly cleaned up, I still don't relish a future full of skyrise apartment buildings and no forests. That is not a world I would want to pass down to my offspring.
I don't have anything against any proven method. If something worked for you esepcially to cure something like AIDS, cancer or really any serious ailment you need to start spreading the word.
How? The minute someone like me says a cure worked, someone like you says "yeah right." Anecdotal evidence is usually not good enough to convince anyone, and most people feel more comfortable following the status quo like sheep rather than try something new.
Why can't you (and by you I mean people of your line of thinking, not you as an individual) convince Jessica Simpson or Tom Cruise that this is a good line of study? You just need to convince somebody with money to purchase facilities.
I know you don't mean me as an individual, but I don't see how you can seriously think that any person like me can just go up to Jessica Simpson and ask her for money, no matter how good the reason is! It seems like a ridiculous notion. If I were Bill Gates or someone like him, I would certainly spend my billions researching natural cures and encouraging self-sustenance in Africa rather than giving my money to the drug companies for dubious AIDS medicines and hand-outs to Africa which continue to make them dependent on us.
Something of worth=money.
Therein lies our disagreement. I absolutely do not believe they are one and the same. Do you really think that Britney Spears' or some other popstar music is Of More Worth than the music of almost any other modern musician? Do you think that the work of professional athletes is Of More Worth than the work of physicians or scientists? Or teachers? Or firefighters? C'mon, gimme a break! Since when does money = TRUE WORTH?!
I just personally think that if good nutrition would cure AIDS in a place like Africa the amount of money made off of them buying food, buying houses and whatever else they can produce would be more than the amount of money being made off of AIDS medicines. Though I could be wrong.
I don't think anyone who has a stake in this right now thinks that far ahead. The AIDS money is being made NOW, and it's huge amounts of money, and the people making it have no reason to let go!
Yeah how much do you want to bet that now that real physicists believe time travel might be possible that funding to research it has grown?
Hah, I really doubt it! Very few people with lots of money think far ahead. Perhaps they think one generation ahead to their own children, but even that would be asking a lot. Time travel might be possible, but it's way to early to tell if it could be profitable!
Comment on "Africa, children, famine, AIDS, and other misery"
Related Posts:
infonaturale
posted 6 days ago
| views: 18
|
Unemployment has been a perennial problem in Nigeria and Africa at large. Every regime promises to address the issue of unemployment but... read entire post
bharatbookseo
posted on Nov 03, 2009
| views: 28
|
Bharatbook.com added a new report on "Middle East and Africa Pharma Sector Forecast to 2012" which contains comprehensive information along with rational analysis on Pharma Sector.... read entire post
nancysnare
posted 8 days ago
| views: 25
|
Cheap Flights to Lagos Nigeria provides you the most reliable and Cheapest rates of flights to Lagos Nigeria while the others can't image to offer.... read entire post
credulousjolly@aol.com
posted on Nov 02, 2009
| views: 15
|
When HIV virus weakens the immune system of the body, the person is unable to fight the infection. This life threatening infection caused by HIV is called AIDS. It spread through human. It affects the normal functioning of immune system of the body.... read entire post