Aids Denialists?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mattyrm**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_Jane_Scovill

Anyone heard about this little girl?

Ive just been watching a story about this, and so ive started reading about it. There is a movement that has a dogmatic belief that HIV does not cause Aids, and that little girl died because her mother fell for it.

Does anyone else know much about it? I as usual am inclined to think this is due to some sort of Religious group. The pseudo-scientists that claim the earth is 6000 years old will have alot in common with these guys wont they? Where did it start? Who came up with this nonsense, and what is their motivation?

It seems an absolute tragedy for a child to die because of a parents ridiculous belief system, and i am interested as to why this group exists at all.

**MeanGreenStompa**

There really should be clause under the laws protecting children from child abuse, to protect them from fething idiot parents.

**Melchiour**

From what I have seen it is just a set of people who deny conventional medicine and science on the subject, much like the groups that say vaccines cause Autism. I have seen no reference to any religious affilitaion with the group. The only religious group that would come to mind would be Christian Scientists, who don't really believe in modern medicine. This was not the case here though as the child was prescribed medication as indicted in the story. Also I dont think they deny HIV and AIDS, they just dont take internal medicine and look to a higher power for healing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:There really should be clause under the laws protecting children from child abuse, to protect them from fething idiot parents.

I would prefer a system that kept idiots from having the kids in the first place. Protecting them after the fact is harder on everyone.

**Deff Dread red Edition**

From what I've read, Casper Schmidt was the first to deny that AIDS existed. He said it was some sort of mass hysteria condition rather than a disease.

And I do believe that Jane Scovill's mother was actually convinced that HIV did not lead to AIDS by Peter Duesberg, whom claims its caused(outside of Africa that is)by recreational drug use. He also convinced our former president of this, which was one of the main reasons why he was ousted.

**Mr. Burning**

I would like to be surprised at such things, I really would.

I wonder if the mother was in denial about her own infection? can't say I would be too stable if I found out I was infected and then could pass it on to my offspring. Couple that with someone or a group presenting various 'evidence' to her....Can't condone her actions or inaction at all though.

**Commander Endova**

People will always find reason to be stupid. It's just infuriating that this little girl had to die for it.

I thinnk Mr. Burning has a good point though. Obviously the woman wanted to have kids, but would rather bury her head in the sand about her condition , instead of doing the responsible adult thing.

**Mannahnin**

I don't see any religious connection at all.

People sometimes have unusual beliefs about medicine, or particular diseases. It's particularly tragic when their mistakes harm others.

**dogma**

As ever, understandability does not equate to justifiability.

Its easy to understand why the woman, or anyone for that matter, would deny the seriousness of something like an HIV infection. Especially when given a convenient vehicle for that belief. But that doesn't make her actions justifiable in a world where evidence is treated as the barometer for the worth of belief.

**avantgarde**

Goddamn, that's a good one.

Someday I'd like to start a ridiculous medical claim like this or vaccines cause Autism.

What I got so far is ultrasounds can cause the development of ADD in children.

**mattyrm**

I heard that saturated fat is good for your bones.

**chaplaingrabthar**

I think the ultrasounds = ADD is on to a winner as a BS myth. Now how to disseminate it?

**BluntmanDC**

Social services should have stepped in, there is a point when poeple shouldn't have kids, they get wrapped up in their own desires and forget about the fact that their child will have a crap life.

**avantgarde**

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I think the ultrasounds = ADD is on to a winner as a BS myth. Now how to disseminate it?

I found an article supporting it. Does anyone have any panicky older female relatives you could email this too? It seems that's the easiest way to start.

Ultrasound During Pregnancy
Suggest Routine Exams Not as Safe as Once Thought

SOURCE: Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol. 17(2):179-188, 1995

Ultrasound is used routinely today and usually once or twice during most pregnancies. Physicians and medical personnel have come to believe ultrasound is safe which explains its widespread use. This belief in safety came from the early studies which did not reveal any adverse effects of ultrasound on the human fetus (19,22). However, later investigators reported low birth weight (26) and dyslexia (36) in the exposed children

Moore et al. (27), concluded that the most consistent effect of ultrasound exposure appeared to be low birth weight. This is not supported by other workers (24,33). This conflict in research thereby generates enough doubt to allow ultrasound to be used today.

However, as research becomes more sophisticated, researchers are able to detect effects upon the fetus that were missed previously. Also, as mentioned earlier in this paper, the timing of the exposure during pregnancy is often critical for determining whether there is or is not a harmful outcome on neurological development.

The researchers in this present study, were attempting to determine what effect ultrasound would have if given on two periods early in the test animals’ development. Neurological areas tested included assessment of locomotor activity, learning and memory. The procedure involved exposing 23 Swiss albino mice to two 10 minute ultrasound periods on the sixth and eleventh day of their pregnancies. The offspring were then allowed to develop normally and tested for detrimental effects at 3 and 6 months.

Although the head length and brain weight did not show any statistically significant difference from the average control mice values, the researchers did find the ultrasound exposed group had an 8.6% growth retardation rate compared to 3.3% for the non-exposed control group.

According to the researchers, the animals experienced "hypoactivity and impairment in learning" as a result of the ultrasound exposure. Learning and memory were tested using a standard passive avoidance test in which the mice were placed into a box that contained a lighted chamber and a dark chamber. If the animal walked into the dark chamber it was given a slight .6 milliamp shock for 2 seconds. After a resting period of 1 minute the animal was reintroduced to the lighted chamber. If the animal did not re-enter the dark chamber for 3 minutes it was considered as a sign of the animal having learned. The researchers did find that the ultrasound exposed group required more trials to learn the shock hazard of the dark area. Whereas, 38% of the control animals required more than 3 trials to learn, 58% of the ultrasound group required 3 or more trials to learn.

In summary, the researchers stated,

"The postnatal mortality was significantly higher only in the U + U group (Double Ultrasound Exposed Group),,,,,There was a significant change in the locomotor activity with a reduction in the total activity at 3 and 6 months of age in the U + U group. Latency in learning capacity was also noticed in this group. The results indicate that repeated exposures to ultrasound or its combination with X-rays could be detrimental to the embryonic development and can impair adult brain function when administered at certain stages of organogenesis (organ growth)."

Dr. M. Prakash Hande
Department of Radiobiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, India
Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol. 17(2):179-188, 1995

**Monster Rain**

What a hideous thing to happen.

That poor kid's mother and doctor were in on this madness... she never had a chance.

Another example of why there's no God.

**children of filth**

Another shining example of human stupidity.

People like that shouldn't be allowed to even have children.

**nintendoeats**

Monster Rain wrote:Another example of why there's no God.

Please don't say things like that. You make us athiests sound so silly...

**sonofruss**

Well here in Oregon a married couple were convicted of involuntary manslaughter when there son died from a urinary tract infection that was treatable.
They are members of a religious sect that believe prayer can cure any thing.

**garret**

If god didnt want us to cure ourselves why would he have made organisms that can produce antibiotics and other thing along that nature.
But henestly. The day that women said she was pregnant the shoult have put he in protective custady then force those drugs on her then when the baby is born she is taken awsy from the mother. To harsh?

**Kilkrazy**

sonofruss wrote:Well here in Oregon a married couple were convicted of involuntary manslaughter when there son died from a urinary tract infection that was treatable.
They are members of a religious sect that believe prayer can cure any thing.

Have any Jehovah's Witnesses been prosecuted for denying blood transfusions to their children? Perhaps the circumstance has not yet arisen.

**filbert**

I don't think that any Jehovah's Witnesses have been prosecuted themselves for denying transfusions for their children. I do know there have been a number of cases in the UK where a court order has been sought to 'force' treatment in exceptional circumstances where to not do so would mean death.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If I am reading it correctly, then it is always the patient's choice to refuse treatment; the children of Jehovah's Witnesses are often 'indoctrinated' themselves, for want of a better word, so they too believe that transfusions are evil. I think the law becomes a little cloudier when the child is not able to make a decision or is incapable of doing so. In that case, the parents are the guardians of the child and therefore have the right to refuse treatment. The whole court case argues the right of the doctor to be considered in loco parentis.

**Orlanth**

Such denials are commonplace, so commonplace you won't necessarily recognise them.

Every denial has a root. For someone with AIDS the truth is too hard to accept, so they don't have AIDS.

Anyone still smoking is in this category. It costs you, it kills you, so quit. But they dont, the desire over-rides the true, and every cigarette is an exercise in denial. Here in the UK there is a very heavy duty on tobacco, but people still smoke.

Yes its because of addiction, but addiction can be broken at a point of will and the incentives are there to stop. We know about the risks from inhaling cigarette smoke.

AIDS denial is more or less the same, just less socially acceptable. Besides the poor little girl should be the least of our worries, and not the focus.

The true focus should be on those many many people who get HIV are diagnosed and then carry on one night standing and not using condoms. Its bad enough in the skank resorts, its a collosal problem in Africa.

AIDS denial is so rampant who governments are affected, including the preceding South African regime of Thabo Mbeke. This is not helped by the Catholic church; who while not being in denial of AIDS themselves, still persist in scuppering sex education, especially with regards to use of condoms.

Sometimes the truth is too terrible to accept.

**Kilkrazy**

There is also a growing concept of denial denialism, which denies that denying an obvious scientific fact is denialism.

**malfred**

Orlanth wrote:
Anyone still smoking is in this category. It costs you, it kills you, so quit. But they dont, the desire over-rides the true, and every cigarette is an exercise in denial. Here in the UK there is a very heavy duty on tobacco, but people still smoke.

I'm unhealthy and overweight, and I know this. I keep eating the things I shouldn't and
not doing the exercise that I should. Am I in denial?

**Monster Rain**

nintendoeats wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Another example of why there's no God.

Please don't say things like that. You make us athiests sound so silly...

How do you mean?

**nintendoeats**

I'm on Malfred's side here. I know that going to loud rock concerts and such is going to ruin my hearing (happened to my opa), but dammit music is just better loud. I won't DENY that long term it is bad for me, I simply accept that long term suffering for short term awesomness.

Life is too short.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
nintendoeats wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Another example of why there's no God.

Please don't say things like that. You make us athiests sound so silly...

How do you mean?

Because while god is non-falsifiable, there are at least some better arguments than this. The last thing we want to do is lower the level of debate, as that is more or less what keeps this argument going.

What a mess.

**Monster Rain**

nintendoeats wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
nintendoeats wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Another example of why there's no God.

Please don't say things like that. You make us athiests sound so silly...

How do you mean?

Because while god is non-falsifiable, there are at least some better arguments than this. The last thing we want to do is lower the level of debate, as that is more or less what keeps this argument going.

What a mess.

Wow, what a smarmy thing to say.

I could further justify my statements, if I felt like it. Pretty well actually. Suffice to say that I never intended for my statement to be the "end all be all proof of God's Non-Existence." Note the term "example" used in my post. I'll let an old Yiddish Proverb speak for me "If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows."

Besides, you atheists make yourselves look silly enough without any help from me.

**nintendoeats**

Wait a minute...

Nope, I'm not doing this. Thread stays OT.

**mattyrm**

Still no answers then? My main question is, What is the motivation behind the group? I dont buy its just plain denial. Some people in the group must be aware of their condition, and its repercussions, so if its not religiously motivated, why spend time and money and effort convincing people that HIV and AIDS are not linked?

**nintendoeats**

mattyrm wrote:Still no answers then? My main question is, What is the motivation behind the group? I dont buy its just plain denial. Some people in the group must be aware of their condition, and its repercussions, so if its not religiously motivated, why spend time and money and effort convincing people that HIV and AIDS are not linked?

Well, sometimes it IS religiously motivated, but more often it has to do with guilt and fear of "big pharma." Basicly, people confuse denialism with independance of though, when in reality they are just attatching themselves to the stupid group instead of the evidenced one.

**Monster Rain**

I don't know if looking for reason in their motives is going to be fruitful.

There's all kinds of people that believe all kinds of crazy things. It just seems like there's some junk science out there being touted by people who are perceived to have some sort of authority, and unfortunately some impressionable people buy into it. That's all I can gather from what I've read about it.