AIDS acquired immune deficiency syndrome is the name used to describe a number of potentially life-threatening infections and illnesses that happen when your immune system has been severely damaged by the HIV virus. There's currently no cure for HIV, but there are very effective drug treatments that enable most people with the virus to live a long and healthy life. Flu can be very serious if you have HIV. Ask for your free flu jab at:
These questions were critical given the arguments already advanced in Chapter 2 of this report on the cause of AIDS or whether an HIV antibody positive test could be declared indicative of infection by HIV in the absence of isolation of the virus from seropositive patients.
Several panellists argued that the answers to these questions would fundamentally influence the debates as well as any recommendations that could be made on the issue of surveillance.
However, there were two opposing schools of thought on the issue of HIV surveillance. Thus a more useful marker is AIDS disease. At that stage, AIDS had been identified mainly in homosexual men, haemophiliacs and other recipients of blood products, intravenous drug users, their partners and infants.
Dr Gayle described the purposes of surveillance as being to estimate the magnitude of the epidemic and assess trends.
There was a debate arising largely from the school of thought that questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS and around the philosophy underlying the current public health surveillance practice.
Other concerns that were debated included whether surveillance tools such as the serological ELISA test are sufficiently sensitive and specific to accurately detect true HIV-positive status; whether measuring sexual behaviour, for instance, is informative, since the causal link between HIV and AIDS is still in question, and whether mathematical models are reliable predictors of epidemics.
There were some in this latter group who even argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the notion of an AIDS epidemic in Africa.
Dr Abdool-Karim, preferring to use his own study data, similarly showed antenatal prevalence statistics from Hlabisa KwaZulu-Natalwhich rose from 4. He indicated that this increase was characteristic only of the Southern African epidemic.
Prof Duesberg contended that scientists and non-scientists alike typically diagnose an infectious epidemic A discussion on whether hiv causes aids the grounds of a sudden increase in the morbidity and mortality of a given population. In the case of an epidemic, the general trend is that the numbers of the affected population would decline significantly, and a relatively immune population would emerge and would be resistant to the new epidemic for a considerable length of time.
In support of his argument, Dr Abdool-Karim cited data from the South African Demographic and Health Survey, which suggests that while infant mortality was on the decline in the mids, an upward trend in infant mortality had been observed in the survey.
He indicated that the case fatality rates among HIV-positive infants had increased from 4. Dr Makgoba expanded on this theory by presenting data that demonstrated that the infant mortality rate among HIV-negative infants in Soweto was 17 per 1 live births, in comparison with per 1 live births among HIV-positive infants.
The national infant mortality rate is 42 per 1 live births. He further discussed paediatric mortality research conducted at Johannesburg General Hospital by Cooper, which showed that mortality trends had remained more or less constant between and Dr Mhlongo pointed out that increased access to healthcare facilities and the easing of travel restrictions from rural to urban areas as a result of the recent changes in the political climate in South Africa were bound to lead to changes in the profile of patients in clinics and hospitals.
Free access to healthcare facilities by pregnant women enabled impoverished people to seek medical attention in hospitals that would previously have denied them access. With respect to adult mortality, Dr Makgoba presented data from the South African Department of Home Affairs that the Medical Research Council had received only a few days prior to the second meeting of the panel.
It was for that reason that he could not make the data available to other members of the panel prior to his presentation. Dr Makgoba made the following observations on the basis of the data: The groups most affected by AIDS range between the ages of 20 and 40, with a peak in deaths at the age of 30 for women and 35 for men.
He further presented data for the period from April to Maysuggesting an almost exponential rise in AIDS deaths over the four quarters. The Actuarial Society projected deaths using two scenarios: Prof Whiteside confirmed Dr Makgoba's observations and added that in a recent census conducted in Malawi, two million people could not be accounted for.
Dr Chalamira-Nkhoma from Malawi shared similar observations, suggesting that HIV would have contributed to a decrease in the growth rate from 3.
Prof Whiteside further argued that similar observations had been made in the Rakai district of Uganda where the population pyramid had hollowed out. His concluded that these deaths could only be attributed to AIDS deaths.
Dr Fiala and other panellists responded to the South African mortality data presented by Dr Makgoba with the argument that they were unable to analyse and adequately comment on the statistics as they had not been presented with the information prior to the verbal presentation in the second panel discussions and had therefore not been afforded the opportunity to apply their minds to the data.
Dr Bialy's views were that if South Africa had not already determined the epidemic before external influence, the observations made on the epidemic might not be real. In this aetiological theory he distinguished three hypotheses: She quoted from Dr M Sussers' manuscript for a forthcoming encyclopaedia on public health: This is similarly the case with conditions related to syphilis and tuberculosis.
She explained that modern-day epidemiologists share a multi-causal perspective that deviates somewhat from Galileo's seventeenth century formulation that causes should be necessary and sufficient, and Koch's subsequent postulates, which served to guide the search for specific organisms as one-to-one causes of given diseases.
This view was challenged by Dr Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos, who turned the argument around to support an alternative theory that AIDS may be caused by another agent e. Chemical agent by concluding that, if a factor can cause disease without necessarily being sufficient, then we can have AIDS without HIV.
Scientifically that is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Views expressed by panellists in other discussion suggest that this may not necessarily be unusual and could be influenced by the progression of disease state or tests used.
One school of thought argued that poor economic status was a sufficient risk factor in the acquisition of AIDS. Another argued that low socio-economic status and poverty contributed to circumstances that would increase the risk of acquiring AIDS, but that these factors are not in themselves sufficient in the acquisition and spread of AIDS.
Dr Bertozzi cited Mohanda and Allan, who wrote on the basis of their research in Tanzania, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Zaire that the initial spread of HIV and the initial cases of AIDS that were identified in the population were not correlated with lower socio-economic status, rather the opposite was true, they were correlated with higher incomes and higher educational achievement.
This position was supported by observations made by Dr Mugwera, who demonstrated that the earlier cases of HIV were in men from Rakai district who were involved in trade with Tanzania and whose socio-economic status was relatively higher than those who had not initially contracted HIV.
Discussing paediatric mortality and the work done by Professor Cooper in Johannesburg, Makgoba said that mortality trends had remained more or less constant between and For years, we have read and heard this statement: “HIV the virus that causes AIDS.” credit: plombier-nemours.com But what if, all this time that statement was not really medically accurate?
THE GREAT AIDS DEBATE THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD. By Huw Christie. New African May South Africa is coming alive with discussion and hopes for the government's "Expert Panel of Inquiry" into the assumptions about the causes of AIDS, how to properly diagnose it, and which treatments are genuinely helpful.
Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome The primary causes of death from HIV/AIDS are opportunistic infections and cancer, and that open discussion of HIV and homosexuality in schools will Causes: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Learn more about the stages of HIV and how to know whether you’re infected. Download Consumer Info Sheet. Expand All Collapse All.
|History[ edit ] A constellation of symptoms named " Gay-related immune deficiency " was noted in|
|About HIV/AIDS | HIV Basics | HIV/AIDS | CDC||The inquiry made up of international experts has been called by President Thabo Mbeki, and is being co-ordinated by health minister Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang and her advisor Dr Ian Roberts. Indications are that the "International Panel" which is to include scientists challenging the HIV-causes-AIDS theory that the world has become so used to, could begin in early May, though the health department is progressing cautiously.|
What is HIV? HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. It is the virus that can lead to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or AIDS if not treated. people with HIV could progress to AIDS (the last .
HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. It is the virus that can lead to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS, if not treated. Unlike some other viruses, the human body can’t get rid of HIV completely, even with treatment. HIV & AIDS, Communication, and Secondary Education in Kenya Majority of the respondents, 90 were in agreement that a blood test is a sure way of getting to know one’s HIV status.