On condoms and other conspiracies
More on that HIV conspiracy theory . This is from Paul Bailie, the executive director of . Paul worked as an academic in Kenya for more than four years before returning to Northern Ireland. For a useful guide to HIV issues, see .
I first heard a very strong anti-condom lecture in the year 2000. It was given by a professor of medicine in Kenya -- let's call him Professor X -- a highly placed man who worked in public health. His theory, as he explained it to my students in Kenya, was that Aids was developed as biological weapon by the USA under Ronald Reagan, with French assistance. Aids was developed, he claimed, to wipe out black people everywhere. He briefly raised the possibility that condoms had been infected with HIV, but he majored on the point that the HIV virus can pass through latex. (This with the anti-condom lobby.)
The college staff challenged him on these theories, and he responded with tales of friends and acquaintances of his who were allegedly assassinated by the CIA for probing too much into the history of HIV.
Professor X is widely respected in church circles in Kenya as a man of considerable erudition and experience (and in many respects he genuinely is so). Consequently, many people -- including some of my students -- accepted accepted his account of the virus.
In his book , Professor Kihumbu Thairu, defends an account not unsimilar to Professor X's view. I can certainly confirm from my own experience in Kenya, Nigeria, Malawi and elsewhere that a great many people believe that condoms are a cause of HIV.
Now, some claims are too bizarre to merit refutation, but, as William rightly says, this theory is dangerous because it deters sexually active people from adopting the only practical means of protecting themselves. Discouraging condom use with scaremongering, pseudo-science and conspiracy theories means that people die needlessly.
To broaden this discussion out, it may interest blog readers to know that polio is resurgent in Northern Nigeria; and this may be party due to the influence of certain religious leaders, who have argued that the as part of a Western plot to kill Muslims.
You may also wonder why people in Africa would listen to the church on health related matters. Remember: in many parts of rural Africa, it is the Church, through Mission Hospitals, that is the primary source of health care, and health education programmes (eg anti-malaria schemes) are often delivered and implemented through Churches. Thousands of lives are saved by these initiatives.
None of what I have said is intended to mock African people. Far from it; I understand very well why so many Africans distrust the West. The track record of the West in Africa is very largely an appalling story of brutality, callous exploitation and gross incompetence, both in the colonial and post / neo-colonial period. Africans have little cause or inclination to look to the West for solutions. It is indeed tragically regrettable that Africans distrust the West when genuine help is being offered, but it highlights the fact that we have to understand the diverse peoples of Africa on their own terms before trying to impose our solutions to their problems.
And let us not get too cosy about levels of knowledge in the West. About 25 per cent of young people in the UK think that , and subscribe to the view that latex is HIV-permeable. Which goes to show, ignorance is not geographically specific.
One difference is that the overall lack of scientific and general education in the populations of Africa, combined with a cultural disposition to trust the pronouncements of leading public figures, means that pseudo-science and conspiracy theories are more likely to be accepted by the general African populace. Then again, before Westerners get too smug, read .
Comments
Of course the almost completely pro contraception media enjoy these regular stories. Makes it easier for them to ignore the fact that condoms aren't working in Africa and pumping in more condoms is only making things work. According to George Satayana, "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." But of course pharmaceutical companies and International Planned Parenthood never forget their aim. It's just different from what it says on the tin.
Those who want some scientific insight in targetting Aids could do worse than read this book:
Yes, the ABC approach is well accepted and you can't just use a barrier method approach to combatting AIDs. But I think you have missed the point of the article. The writer was not commenting in detail on anti-aids strategy. He is making points about the dangerous nature of conspiracy theories, and how they have influenced many Africans.
Does Padraig think that it is right and proper that the Catholic Archbishop of Mozambique is spreading these totally ridiculous conspiracy theories?
The article above is an edited version of my original article which was far too long for publication on the blog. In my original piece, I commended the ABCD (Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condoms, Drugs) approach, and there is no doubt that it is the most effective HIV/AIDS control strategy. It is the policy adopted by nearly all responsible church anti-aids groups.
The AB aspect of the strategy is the best for long term success in preventing the growth of the disease, as the example of Ugandan "Zero Grazing" campaign demonstrates, but the CD element is a necessary aspect for short term control and containment of HIV.
Societal change can be very slow, and in a broadly similar society to Uganda, such as Kenya, the ABCD strategy has not proved quite so effective. However, it remains the best approach.
Another effective strategy is to hugely increase the number of locally based community HIV/AIDS care and counselling centres. Studies show that a high prevalence of such centres, which are trusted by the communities they serve, can radically cut infection rates through education. Grassroots initiatives seem to have more impact than top-down solutions.
Nevertheless, my article was not about HIV/AIDS education or prevention. I was pointing out the unfortunate truth that many highly placed people in Africa buy into the dangerous conspiracy theory that HIV is a biological weapon concocted in America and actively spread by Western powers. The Archbishop in Mozambique is not alone in his views, and no matter how reprehensible we may find his words, he is articulating a pervasive point of view.
See:
One might also add that - as a quick Google search will demonstrate - this conspiracy theory originated in the US and was then actively promoted by the KGB towards the end of the Cold War.
See:
Hi Paul
Would a western Govt infect black people for research? Yes!
The US Govt apologised for mass infection of black citizens with disease for experimentation at Tuskagee....
And AIDS appeared in the same time and place as WHO polio vaccines, across Africa...
´óÏó´«Ã½ Online says;-
"The polio vaccine was given to at least one million people in the former Belgian Congo and what are now Rwanda and Burundi. The site of the 28 vaccination projects correlate closely with the earliest cases of HIV infection."
I have yet to hear a credible explanation for this close correlation. Any ideas?
WHO was also previously experimenting with retroviruses which attack the immune system T-Cells...(a normal practise in disease prevention).
No possibility of cross-contamination Paul?
Also, is monogamy not a viable prevention method worth a mention?
anon
Hello anon,
just a couple of quick points.
1) monogamy: you will notice that in my supplementary notes to the original article, I remarked that the ABCD strategy is best and that the AB part of the strategy was what would make the greatest impact long term. B = being faithful to one partner = monogamy. Sorry that this was not made sufficiently explicit.
2) What we were discussing above is 1) was HIV a deliberately concocted biological weapon, and b) are condoms and polio vaccine being used as vectors in the spread of HIV today.
I can see that you find the WHO polio eradication programme deeply sinister and suspect that they had a hand in the HIV pandemic.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ article that you cite actually contradicts the point that you are making, so I am not sure why you cite it. This ´óÏó´«Ã½ article may be more helpful:
I have no idea if the WHO *accidentally* cross contaminated vaccines, but if they did, then HIV is not a deliberately created biological weapon.
For a sensible opinion on this issue, see:
Hi Paul
Sorry if my email sounded terse, I had written a longer one but it got eaten.
In it I had said first and foremost I respect the fact you are getting your hands dirty in trying to help these people.
Also, I firmly believe people and orgs (WHO included) are innocent until proven guilty, fyi.
Moving on, Tuskagee proved the most civilised and wealthy country in the world -the US- was deliberately using STDS to kill hundreds of specifically black men
This went on from 1932-1972, which would have been the time AIDS began appearing among this type of people groups in different countries around the world.
And there are plenty of reports of pharmaceutical companies doing similarly destructive things today to Africans, and through medical programmes;-
Now regarding, WHO, as many better qualified people than you and I have pointed the finger at them for HIV and/or concluded the virus is manmade;
PLease note I dont know enought to do that and havent done that so lets be clear about that.
But in your haste to squash me like a bug you totally missed the question I asked about WHO;
How do you explain the exceptionally close correlation to the time and place of its activity and the AIDS outbreak in Africa?
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ article I quoted does not actually even begin to answer that question, it simply says that the polio vaccines were not responsible, which I dont dispute.
Whether you win this argument with me is a moot point in your genuine aim; so many people in Africa believe it is a conspiracy then perhaps if you dont address these points you will undermine your own credibility?
I suggest the difference between cock-up and conspiracy could be paper thin in the minds of the people whose trust you are trying to gain.
The Times on 11 May 1987 accused WHO of setting off aids in africa and other countries through smallpox innoculations in the 1960s - hardly crackpots.
WHO records show it had been working on creating an AIDs type virus.
WHO bulletin vol47 p.259 1972 said:
"An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert seelctive effects on immune function.
"The possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be impaired, if the infecting virus damages more or less selectively the cell responding to the virus."
In Federation Proceedings of the US in 1972 WHO said: "in relation to the immune response a number of useful experimental approaches can be visualised."
They apparently suggested a neat way to do this would be to put the virus into a vaccination program and observe the results.
"This will be particularly informative in sibships."
ENDS QUOTE
Now Paul I am not reading more into these extracts than they say, but I would be interested to hear a reasonable explanation for them.
Why was WHO trying to create an AIDS like virus and also proposing to spread it around?
The UK health minister was also questioned about the spread of AIDS through vaccination in the commons if you google it.
So I repeat, I have no evidence to conclude it was a conspiracy but above are some very credible reports of similar conspiracies in Africa and evidence from the mouths of WHO themselves that suggests they were trying to create an AIDS type virus and were considering spreading it.
So I would be interested to hear reasonable and logical comments on the above.
I am fully prepared to have gotten the wrong end of the stick.
But please, dont suggest no Govt or MNC ever deliberately killed black people in the name of science/profit/other.
BTW, I think it quite naive to think you are going to get the truth of any CIA/KGB matters with "a quick google search".
These matters are riven with disinformation.
As a missions director I presume you believe in a secret network of very influentional personalities pressing on every government in the world, headed by the Prince of this world.
And I presume you believe in the utter sinfulness of every man's heart.
Another query is how you - a non-medic- are so able to refute the views of a professor of medicine?
And whether AIDS was a biological weapon will not refute the question as to whether it was ever spread deliberately.
But on biological weapons, it is quite clear that while the most powerful nation on earth was killing hundreds of black men using STD experiments in Tuskagee, it was also spending huge resources developing biological weapons;-
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ claims the US also used biological weapons on its own people without consent;-
So I repeat, I dont have the evidence to mark anyone or any group as anything but innocent until proven guilty, but I find it quite patronising to suggest AIDS could in no way have been a biological weapon (how would you know for certain?)
Several experts in the field have claimed it is most certainly man-made
And to suggest that the civilised west would never deliberately infect people just seems like nonsense, reading the above.
So there go your two main crutches gone.
Whether AIDS was deliberately spread in Africa I will leave to others to judge.
I suspect the answer would be best given by scientists and investigative journalists rather than missions directors though!
Regarding the blog you link to, what qualifications does the writer have in economics or virology?
Here are a list of medical experts who believe it was man-made;-
Regarding the economics of it, who said a motive would have to be economic?
Henry Kissinger chaired a US Govt committee which reportred that overpopulation in the developing world was a national secuirty threat to the US;-
I cant say you are wrong and I am right, but I can say your logic is deeply flawed in the conclusion you reach, at least in my opinion Paul.
interested in your response,
anon
PS Paul, I wonder if it is possible that part of the problem in this type pf story is that thoroughly decent people like yourself find it impossible to conceive that that other people can think and act in exactly the opposite was to you?