Black People : aids and the media

Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by Therious, Sep 16, 2004.

  1. Therious

    Therious Banned MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,109
    Likes Received:
    1,290
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    it seems the media is having a field day with this down low stuff. now they can blame aids on blck men and feel no backlash. they have alaways done this but ever since that guy wrote his down low book its suddenly a blk thing. is there no such people as liberache, tommy morrison, rockafeller, greg luganis, the dad off of the brady bunch? yet evry report i c is about homosexual blk men, or married blkk men on the down low, like the governer of new jersey never happened. oh well just wanted to vent...lets not forget with all of their statistical bull, wht people comprise the majority of aids cases in this country!

    according to the cdc white americans infected with aids as of 2002 is...364,458

    blk ppl is..347,491

    latino....163,940

    so if u want 2 believe the cdc wht ppl are the largets number of hiv infected out of any other demograph. yet on their web site (cdc) in their groups at "high risk" category only blks, hispanics are listed as "high risk". and yes i know there r more wht pplin the pop than blks so the percentages blah blah blah, the fact is if u take the cdc 4 their word is the majority of aids victims r wht not blk.

    so should wht women not be in "fear" of infection from wht men on the down low???

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#cumrace

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance.htm <<notice in their "populations"

    at risk category wht ppl who r the majority of infected(in the u.s) r not listed!

    by the way, exactly how accurate is this cdc? they r obviously a racist orginization looking at their web page.
     
  2. MrBlak

    MrBlak Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9
    I would take the AIDS situation in the black community very serious if I were you. There are 2 things we need to separate here.....the facts....and the perception of who is "at risk" and who is "to blame" for the spread of AIDS.

    One only needs to ask black people if they know anyone who has caught or died from AIDS to know it is serious. All the blame game and this idea that only minorities are "at risk" is racism.....but bodies piling up is for real. We should all take precautions.
     
  3. Therious

    Therious Banned MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,109
    Likes Received:
    1,290
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    i do take aids seriously . in 2002 their were 347,000+ (according to the cdc) blks reported to be infected, thats not including un reported cases. however is 347,000 out of 20-30 million+ really an epidemic???? i say hardly,

    dnt get me wrong though safer sex or even no sex until your married with a partner u can trust and r ready to start a family with is the best route. but i just dnt buy this epidemic going by stats it simply is not an epidemic.

    they make it as if ppl r dropping like flies left and right, they are not! 347,000(2003 STATS NOT KNOWN) out of 37 MIL + is ROUGHLY 1 % OF THE BLK POPULATION. THATS NOT AN EPIDEMIC.
     
  4. MrBlak

    MrBlak Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9
    It is more "epidemic" in Africa....but with so many in our community taking AIDS for a joke, it will be epidemic...I mean how many blacks in America had it 10 years ago? The rate at which infection is increasing WILL have this as an epedemic soon enough. Would you rather wait till it reaches 1 million cases to take it serious and call it what it is? Not everyone takes it serious like you and me. Denying these stats simply fuels the arguments of people who dont believe any blacks are at risk and keep screwing around unprotected.

    We have the luxury of looking at the destruction caused in Africa where no one believed it was serious 15 years ago. We have no excuse to sit by and let it get bad before taking it serious.

    There are African countries that have gotten things under control now and some may have a LOWER infection rate than Black Americans......that is cause for embaressment dont you think?
     
  5. bigtown

    bigtown Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ratings:
    +31
    WHITE MALES HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO TAKE AWAY OUR MANHOOD BRO, YOU KNOW THAT. DURING SLAVERY, THEY RAPED OUR WOMEN IN FRONT OF US. AFTER SLAVERY THEY GAVE THE SISTAS WELFARE AND JOBS AS MAIDS WHILE MAKING US JOBLESS, WHICH MADE US OBSOLETE IN THE HOME. NOW THEY ARE USING THOSE D.L. PUNKS TO CAUSE DISTRUST OF US AMONGST OUR WOMEN. PERSONALLY I THINK D.L. GARBAGE IS ONE OF HETEROSEXUAL BLACK MALES AND WOMENS' BIGGEST ENEMIES TODAY. I HAVE NO LOVE FOR THE SCUM. WOMEN NEED TO MAKE US BROTHERS TAKE HIV TEST BEFORE ANY SEXUAL CONTACT HAPPENS, AND WEAR CONDOMS AT ALL TIMES. THE D.L. BLK MAN IS AN ENEMY.


    THAT'S MY "BIG" OPINION.
     
  6. OldSoul

    OldSoul Permanent Black Man PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    909
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Staying Alive
    Location:
    Bronzeville USA
    Home Page:
    Ratings:
    +976
    Information on the False African Aids Epidemic


    ...Third, the sheer scale of the AIDS epidemic in Africa has been used as an argument for African origins. In this scenario, AIDS must have been in Africa longer than elsewhere for it to have affected so many people. On the grounds that the health services of most African countries cannot afford the diagnostic tests for AIDS, the World Health Organization has different criteria for defining AIDS in Africa, based on signs and symptoms only, from AIDS in the rest of the world [see "Horton hears the W.H.O." for more details, in particular, "The Human Cost" for the effects mis-diagnosis]. (31) This case definition includes patients who have prolonged cough, fever and weight loss, the classic presenting symptoms and signs of tuberculosis and other diseases common in the tropics. Both clinical criteria and diagnostic tests that fail to distinguish between HIV and treatable diseases common in Africa are used, separately or together, to estimate the extent of the HIV epidemic in Africa.
    There are other reasons to dispute the scale of the African AIDS epidemic.
    http://way.net/dissonance/aidsafr.html

    Is AIDS Devastating Africa?​

    According to the 1999 World Health Organization (WHO) report, the total number of actual diagnosed AIDS cases on the African continent is about equal to the total for AIDS in America even though Africa, with its 650 million people, has more than two times the population of the USA. (61) Africa is often cited as a worst case example of what could happen in America despite figures that demonstrate that 99.5% of Africans do not have AIDS, and among Africans who test HIV positive, 97% do not have AIDS. (62)
    Unlike in the United States, AIDS in Africa may be diagnosed based on four clinical symptoms -- fever, involuntary loss of 10% of normal body weight, persistent cough, and diarrhea -- and HIV tests are not required. (63) The four clinical AIDS symptoms are identical to those associated with conditions that run rampant on the African continent such as malaria, tuberculosis, parasitic infections, the effects of malnutrition, and unsanitary drinking and bathing water. These symptoms are the result of poverty and other problems that have troubled Africa and other developing areas of the world for many decades. http://www.aliveandwell.org/

    The alarming tone of WHO's joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, "AIDS epidemic update: December 1999" (UNAIDS December 1999), announcing that Africa had gained 23 million "living with HIV/AIDS", because they are "estimated" carriers of antibodies against HIV, since the "early 80s" (WHO, Weekly Epidemiological Record 73, 373-380, 1998) is equally surprising in view of information available to the agency. Neither the WHO nor the United Nations point out that Africa had gained 147 million people during the same time in which the continent was said to suffer from a new AIDS epidemic. Likewise, South Africa has grown from 17 million to 37 million in 1990 (United Nations Environment Programme, June 15, 2000), and to 44 million now ("HIV/AIDS in the Developing World", U.S. Agency for International Development & U.S. Census Bureau, May 1999). In the last decade South Africa has also gained 4 million HIV-positive people (A. Kinghorn & M. Steinberg, South African Department of Health, undated document probably from 1998, provided at the Pretoria meeting). Thus South Africa has gained 4 million HIV-positives during the same decade in which it grew by 7 million people.

    Moreover, although the 23 million "estimated" HIV-antibody positives are said to be "living with HIV/AIDS" by the WHO, the agency does not offer any evidence for morbidity or mortality exceeding the modest numbers, ie. about 75,000 cases annually, reported by the it's Weekly Epidemiological Records (see above).

    The agency's estimates of HIV-positives are indeed just "estimates", because according to the 1985-Bangui definition of African AIDS as well as to the current "Anonymous AIDS Notification" forms of the South African Department of Health - no HIV tests are required for an AIDS diagnosis (Widy-Wirski et al., 1988; Fiala, 1998).

    In addition the WHO promotes the impression of a microbial AIDS epidemic, by reporting African AIDS cases cumulatively rather than annually (WHO's Weekly Epidemiological Records since the beginning of the epidemic). This practice creates the deceptive impression of an ever growing, almost exponential epidemic, even if the annual incidence declines (Fiala, 1998).

    It would follow that the estimated increases in African HIV antibody (!)-positives do not correlate with decreases in any African population. On the contrary, they correlate with unprecedented simultaneous increases in the country's populations - hardly the "catastrophe" imagined by the Washington Post and propagated by the WHO and the American AIDS establishment. But this deceptive AIDS propaganda biases a scientific analysis of African AIDS by all those who are not aware of the facts.
    http://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2.html
     
  7. NNQueen

    NNQueen going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2001
    Messages:
    6,375
    Likes Received:
    1,430
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +1,862
    You know what? I'm at the point where I say let's not play the number games, let the white people do that and Black people just focus on the truth which is driven by facts.

    MrBlak...I agree with you. Regardless of the number of Black people infected, regardless of whether we can consider it an epidemic or not, the fact that this "man-made" virus can and is devastating us as a people should be ENOUGH for us to take it seriously and take all necessary precautions until its been eradicated. Do we know ENOUGH about what's being done with research to find a cure for HIV/AIDS?

    As long as it's a problem for us, let's keep spreading the word, behaving responsibly, teaching our children and increase our demand for research to find a cure. We need to stop always internalizing "racism" and start pushing our demands forward in a collective and aggressive way.

    JMO...Queenie :spinstar:
     
Loading...