HIV/AIDS specifies that infection by an immune-system-destroying virus, HIV, is a death sentence, by making way for lethal “opportunistic” infections which cannot overcome normal immunity.
I remember years ago reading the works of the Perth Group and coming to this realization, that higher 'resting' antibody levels were likely the reason behind higher positivity rates in people of African descent. And this racist aspect of HIV/AIDS also means this group, like gay men, are targeted with pressure to take toxic anti-HIV drugs like PrEP. Rebecca Culshaw Smith talks a lot about this on her substack.
Henry, I don't follow the logic in your statement, "But “undetected or late diagnosis of HIV infection” is not a reason for any particular, or any unusually high, rate of testing HIV+;..." Granted: *undetected* diagnosis can hardly be a reason for ...high rate of HIV+ (that's just a semantic gaffe), but I would think that "late diagnosis" certainly could explain a higher rate of HIV+ in the larger population; because the longer a carrier goes undetected, the longer they would not take precautions against transmission, and the more they would spread the virus around. Now, I'm not arguing for the HIV/AIDS theory here, I'm just saying that, within the framework of the HIV/AIDS theory - which, after all, you are working to defeat with your criticism - the CDC statement, “high rates of HIV infection for Black MSM [are] partly attributable to... undetected or late diagnosis of HIV infection” does follow logically (to my mind). But now I need to go read your paper...
However, "Black MSM" are Men-who-have-Sex-with-Men"; so late diagnosis might lead to small increase in HIV+ AMONG GAY BLACK MEN but they are a small proportion of ALL BLACK PEOPLE and would hardly make ALL BLACK PEOPLE so much more likely to test HIV+
Henry, thanks for that clarification - I apologize for not recognizing the meaning and significance of the MSM characterization. I agree, your argument makes sense now.
Also, the problem is the reasoning the CDC uses here is circular. Black men have more HIV positivity, therefore they must be more sexually active, therefore they have more positivity because HIV is making them positive, but if they aren't having more sex, then the higher positivity rate means they're more sexually active. It's a tautology. It's circular logic. The HIV/AIDS paradigm is designed to be self-reinforcing.
Thank you!
South Africa my country 😭😭😭with high number of HIV positive rate and high take of Arvs
I remember years ago reading the works of the Perth Group and coming to this realization, that higher 'resting' antibody levels were likely the reason behind higher positivity rates in people of African descent. And this racist aspect of HIV/AIDS also means this group, like gay men, are targeted with pressure to take toxic anti-HIV drugs like PrEP. Rebecca Culshaw Smith talks a lot about this on her substack.
Henry, I don't follow the logic in your statement, "But “undetected or late diagnosis of HIV infection” is not a reason for any particular, or any unusually high, rate of testing HIV+;..." Granted: *undetected* diagnosis can hardly be a reason for ...high rate of HIV+ (that's just a semantic gaffe), but I would think that "late diagnosis" certainly could explain a higher rate of HIV+ in the larger population; because the longer a carrier goes undetected, the longer they would not take precautions against transmission, and the more they would spread the virus around. Now, I'm not arguing for the HIV/AIDS theory here, I'm just saying that, within the framework of the HIV/AIDS theory - which, after all, you are working to defeat with your criticism - the CDC statement, “high rates of HIV infection for Black MSM [are] partly attributable to... undetected or late diagnosis of HIV infection” does follow logically (to my mind). But now I need to go read your paper...
I appreciate the thoughtful comment.
However, "Black MSM" are Men-who-have-Sex-with-Men"; so late diagnosis might lead to small increase in HIV+ AMONG GAY BLACK MEN but they are a small proportion of ALL BLACK PEOPLE and would hardly make ALL BLACK PEOPLE so much more likely to test HIV+
Henry, thanks for that clarification - I apologize for not recognizing the meaning and significance of the MSM characterization. I agree, your argument makes sense now.
Also, the problem is the reasoning the CDC uses here is circular. Black men have more HIV positivity, therefore they must be more sexually active, therefore they have more positivity because HIV is making them positive, but if they aren't having more sex, then the higher positivity rate means they're more sexually active. It's a tautology. It's circular logic. The HIV/AIDS paradigm is designed to be self-reinforcing.
Excellent reasoning, Henry.. as always. :-)
Thank you!!