WHO: AIDS leading cause of death, disease in women (AP)

[pinto]

Source: AP

By Bradley S. Klapper, Associated Press Writer – 54 mins ago

GENEVA – In its first study of women's health around the globe, the World Health Organization said Monday that the AIDS virus is the leading cause of death and disease among women between the ages of 15 and 44.

Unsafe sex is the leading risk factor in developing countries for these women of childbearing age, with others including lack of access to contraceptives and iron deficiency, the WHO said. Throughout the world, one in five deaths among women in this age group is linked to unsafe sex, according to the U.N. agency.

"Women who do not know how to protect themselves from such infections, or who are unable to do so, face increased risks of death or illness," WHO said in a 91-page report. "So do those who cannot protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy or control their fertility because of lack of access to contraception."

The data were included in a report that attempts to highlight the unequal health treatment a female faces from childbirth through infancy and adolescence into maturity and old age.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_he_me/un_un_women_s_health

---

The issue of clinical trials in HIV/AIDS treatment, mentioned here, is a big one among advocates. While some progress has been made, trials for safety and efficacy are still routinely geared to adult males.

[Demeter]

1. Between STDS, Unsafe Pregnancies and Childbirth, Rape,

abusive family life and social restitutions, there's no joy in being born female. That's why males Jews can honestly thank God they were not born women.

[BunkerHill24]

2. I fear this report is partly speaking of Africa's woman

and woman in general. I know, I've visited South Africa last year, and in South Africa, AIDS has disproportionately infected and affected women who comprise the majority of participants in community organizations and care activities for the sick, and the majority of people infected with HIV/AIDS.

[pinto]

4. Yeah, the numbers for female cases and deaths of women is huge in Africa.

Much more so than in the EU or US.

[mimitabby]

3. since it's women, it's not as important, i guess.

[pinto]

5. I don't think it's that simple an issue.

Some of the problem is the lack of broad well-funded public health systems, access to meds and general civil support systems in some areas of Africa - where AIDS is largely a disease among females. Coupled with ongoing civil strife or civil wars on the continent, those most effected, i.e. women, bear the brunt of the disease.

I'd love to see the UN and the WHO become a more effective presence in Africa. Recognized as neutral participants in any country's day-to-day challenges. They're working at it, yet the barriers and the challenges for both organizations are as complicated as those of the populations they hope to serve are deadly.

[izquierdista]

6. And women of color at that

What some Americans spend on their cat in a year could save the lives of a dozen African women with AIDS.

[bobshin]

7. more "aids/hiv" bs

Unequal treatment is indeed true and so is malnutrition and lack of adequate potable water supplies. The rest is utter bs used to prop up bigPharma.

Notice how the numbers have been going in the direction of the "third world" undernourished under(Western)-educated populations? It's a ruse, always has been...

http://www.naturalnews.com/027355_AIDS_HIV_disease.html

[pinto]

8. The article cited in your post is misleading. And the quotes from Dr. Montagnier are out of context.

Deliberately misleading. Yes, you can be exposed to HIV without becoming infected. That has no bearing on the validity of HIV infection at all. You can be exposed to any number of infectious diseases without becoming infected.

And, yes, the immune system creates antibodies to HIV within a few weeks. That's *exactly* what it is geared to do. The immune system creates antibodies to any infectious disease. Whether the immune response is effective is another matter.

And HIV tests aren't subjective responses to a questionnaire. They are objective blood tests geared to detect 1. antibodies to HIV, indicative of exposure / infection (the ELISA test)and 2. viral particles of HIV itself, confirmation of infection (the Western Blot test).

Labs routinely use 1. and 2. in conjunction to confirm infection with HIV, not a questionnaire.

The lab never sees the questionnaire in most instances. The questionnaire is a separate tool used to discuss harm reduction strategies with those at risk or those infected.

There are many legitimate objections to the practices of "bigPharma", but claiming HIV is a hoax is not one of them.

[macllyr]

9. Western blot detects antibodies to HIV not the virus itself

Just a small rectification :

The western blot test detects antibodies to HIV proteins
(it is a test of confirmation done after a positive of undecisive ELISA test)

Tests which detect the presence of HIV itself and are used in clinical practice are :
- RT-PCR from plasma to measure the amount of viral RNA in peripheral blood
(test routinely made to evaluate the ongoing viral replication under therapy)

- Co-culture of a patient's lymphocytes with those from an uninfected individual,
followed by detection of the virus with antibodies or by PCR/RT-PCR (can be used if I
remember well to affirm an infection in a newborn child).

- Tests to evaluate the viral resistance to antiviral drugs (culture or sequencing)

tests used in research :
- PCR from DNA extracted from cells to measure the frequency of T lymphocytes having
integrated the HIV DNA in their genome (a very low frequency; this test is not
used in diagnostic and follow-up, but for research only)

- etc etc etc.....

[pinto]

12. Duh. I should have said that WB detected key protein bands via

the presence of specific antibodies to those proteins. When we got WB results they always referred to the specific proteins detected. ELISA results always referred to the presence of antibodies in a more generic phrasing. So I got into the sloppy habit of saying that the WB detected "parts of the viral shell itself", or some similar phrase to indicate specificity, when giving a positive result. I wanted to be clear that we viewed the WB as confirmatory with a very minuscule margin of error. (We used the WB as confirmatory to a reactive ELISA (x3).)

Thanks for the rectification and the reminder.

:thumbsup:

[bobshin]

16. Then why do animals test "positive"? Why do samples of blood from

humans and animals before 1970 test "positive"? All the medical mumbojumbo justification cannot explain most of this flawed theory away.

If the test actually indicates something, how is it that those who test "positive" can test negative years later? Does "hiv" "hide" from it's own test?

[bobshin]

10. So there's more money available for "aids/hiv" testing than for...

better education, potable water, nutritious food. Because if you're not saying that then where are these people getting the money to do these multiple tests? You didn't get the point about the tests. There are many instances where people are claimed to have "aids" without a test and without antibodies. The definition is a moving target. The test results would be different if they were sent to different labs. It's useless and deceptive.

And I guess you'd define the following exchange as "anecdotal"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGSlSG3pA5o&feature=related

[bobshin]

11. And then there's those crazies who've gone off the drugs...

More anecdotal evidence that the people are the crazy ones and the medical industry is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCGVZ6oWoTA&feature=related

[pinto]

13. I have never, in my experience, heard of someone being given an HIV+ diagnosis in the absence of

any antibody testing. What one individual claims for himself is purely his choice, but no medical professional would give a definitive HIV+ dx without testing.

In lab testing protocols there are two standards - sensitivity and specificity. The higher the sensitivity and lower the specificity the higher the margin for error. That's why labs use a test with high sensitivity as an initial screen and a test with a high specificity to make an accurate diagnosis.

One follows the other.

AIDS, as a diagnosis, grew over the years as the occurrence of specific infections / malignancies became to be associated with the underlying HIV infection. They are called "AIDS defining infections" and are applied in conjunction with an HIV+ diagnosis. This was done through case studies, not haphazard assumption.

There *was* some politics involved in the process. They mainly involved confidentiality and discrimination. In most US states, HIV was not reportable to the State or the CDC and could be provided anonymously to protect the client's confidentiality. Yet Acquired Immune-Deficiency Syndrome, as a diagnosis, was reportable by law - whether as a name-based report or a codified case report - as are most infectious diseases and practically all sexually transmitted diseases. Reporting is standard Public Health practice geared to determine local, state and federal response to the occurrence of transmittable disease. Medically, docs realized that it was a continuum of one disease process with a number of variations - HIV disease. Yet the HIV / AIDS differentiation was codified. Those standards have changed.

I hear your points about potable water, especially, better nutrition and education. Malaria remains a killer in much of the world, especially of children. Yet I don't see it as an either/or situation. It's all part of a whole.

fwiw, There's a great movement to assist people in underdeveloped countries in Africa to purify water for drinking and cooking. Read a piece about it recently in UTNE. If I can find it again, I'll post here.

[bobshin]

14. Whatever "aids/hiv" may be it is not sexually transmitted...

where's the proof? the gay scourge? or all those fake orphans in Africa? The confidentiality issues were more about keeping the population from sharing the real story. But good try.

and that "great movement" to provide potable water is a blip on the radar screen while billions of dollars goes into "aids/hiv" testing, drugs, "aids/hiv" propaganda,er, "education" from the government/taxpayers. "aids/hiv" clinics in Africa are more funded than anything else, including nutritional food/farming and providing potable water. Mmmm... why could that be? Eerily similar to the Nestle baby formula scam. There's money to be made from poverty especially when they won't question why the money's showing up.

[pinto]

15. I got it sexually. n/t

[bobshin]

17. Anecdotal.

I've never had safe sex and I'm gay and came out in 1980 in NYC.

Only people I ever knew who died are those who fell for it hook, line and sinker and took the drugs.