tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229878121183426722.post2818913350374873711..comments2023-10-08T12:27:04.050+03:00Comments on HIV in Kenya: The Implosion of the Killer VaginasSimonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13522180315970081603noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229878121183426722.post-11020247925823792392015-08-12T06:22:54.868+03:002015-08-12T06:22:54.868+03:00Hi David, thank you for your comment. The way data...Hi David, thank you for your comment. The way data is collected has changed many times over the past few decades and would make a study of its own! But my issue is about a decision to change the way data was collected, made in order to exaggerate heterosexual transmission and diminish other kinds of transmission, especially non-sexual transmission.<br /><br />I will be blogging about it later today, but there is no identifiable 'African' HIV pandemic; HIV prevalence in many African countries is lower than in several western countries. The virus evolved in the western equatorial part of the continent, probably around southern Cameroon. It evolved over many decades and only spread slowly towards the east, west and south. The southern countries were the last to experience serious epidemics but they were (and still are) the worst, anywhere. Whereas, the first part of the continent to be affected remains a relatively low prevalence region.<br /><br />So there are several identifiable regions of the continent with very different epidemic histories and very different prevalence figures. But even within most countries, there are high prevalence zones and low prevalence zones. For example, prevalence in several counties in the west of Kenya are higher than any of the southern African countries (and the population is higher than many of them, so a lot of people infected). But in the north and north east of Kenya prevalence tends to be lower than it is in many western countries.<br /><br />There is no single epidemic in Africa; there are countries and parts of countries where HIV prevalence is ridiculously high, and far more countries and parts of countries where prevalence is low. Heterosexuals and heterosexual sex is probably fairly evenly distributed (where there are people, a lot are heterosexual and a lot have sex), but HIV is not evenly distributed.<br /><br />So it is not the data I am questioning, it is the apparent belief that there are these zones where most people engage in superhuman levels of 'unsafe' sex. Because there is no data to support that notion. The belief in the heterosexual origin of HIV epidemics in African countries is not supported by evidence, rather it is controverted by evidence; it is a prejudice, but a prejudice on which the entire, multi-billion dollar HIV industry is built, a prejudice on which many people have built their career, and a prejudice that they defend vigorously, and probably will continue to defend until they retire on a very good pension.<br />Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522180315970081603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8229878121183426722.post-13590025221239352962015-08-12T01:12:03.861+03:002015-08-12T01:12:03.861+03:00Very interesting article. I would be interested i...Very interesting article. I would be interested if scientific data collected around 1998 and 1999 was accurate. At that time I did a paper on the HIV virus for a biology class. The idea that HIV is different by location was being floated, because of its ability to reproduce through reverse transcriptase which mutates the virus fairly quickly through generations. The idea was that HIV in Africa was more easily spread through heterosexual contact because of how it had evolved on that continent. But, when you throw in stigma, it is hard to tell if that was an accurate report and if the mutation truly infected heterosexuals at a higher rate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12355141386941685157noreply@blogger.com