250 babies are born HIV positive every day

About 250 babies are born HIV positive i9n south Africa every
day.

That's according the government's latest Aids statistics, which
were released this week by the Department of Health.

The survey report states that an estimated 91 271 babies were
infected through mother-child transmission. That's 250 a day --
far higher than the 100 a day which had previously been
estimated.

The figure is also higher than estimates by the Actuarial Society
of South Africa (ASSA), which believes that between 60 000 and 70
000 HIV-positive babies were born in 2002.

According to Lindiwe Makubale, the Health Department's chief
director of health information, evaluation and research, the
estimates were worked out according to a formula which did not
take into account the impact of providing the Aids drug
Nevirapine. However, as Nevirapine was introduced at only a few
sites last year, this would not have made a significant
difference to the calculations, she said.

The mathematical formula is to be changed next year to take into
account the extended Nevirapine provision. The statistics are
based on the information gathered by testing pregnant women for
HIV at public antenatal clinics in October each year.

The latest results show that HIV prevalence among 15-49-year-olds
increased from 24,8% in 2001 to 26,5% last year, although the
report says this rise is statistically insignificant.

But experts disagree with the Health Department's interpretation
that the roughly-similar prevalence rates of the past four years
indicate that the epidemic is stabilising. All that is happening,
they say, is that the number of people dying of Aids-related ill-
ness more-or-less equals the number of new infections. This gives
the false impression that the HIV epidemic is levelling off.

"It isn't really about a change in behaviour," said Metropolitan
Aids Strategist Stephen Kramer. "It's about an equilibrium being
reached between deaths and new infections."

Professor Rob Dorrington, chairman of the Actuarial society's
Aids Committee agrees. "Essentially, we expect overall prevalence
to level and even possibly to go down as we get a situation where
more people are dying than are getting infected," he said. "So
it's not really good news, is it?"

The one source of hope, however, is that HIV prevalence among
under-20s appears to have declined slightly over the past four
years. Experts say this could indicate increased abstinence,
faithfulness and condom use.

Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang usually announces the
statistics personally in April. Yesterday they were released
without fanfare on the Internet.

[ Pretoria News, 10 Sep 2003 ]

Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm

"Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@yahoo.com> wrote in

Oy!

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

see below

Steve Hayes wrote:

There is an EXACT History here, as HIV was gleaned from SIV (
Monkies)
It is a SAD story but traceable to "W_H_O" in 1958. One of the
SEVERE
TRAGEDIES of our Planet where the need for disease control
"back-fired". B-0b1

"Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f5fff81.219634673@news.saix.net...
This may sound harsh, but why don't they simply adopt a policy of
forced sterilization and abortion for HIV+ women? It doesn't seem
fair to allow them to reproduce, only to give birth to children
who will suffer short and miserable lives only to die an agonizing
death before they even reach puberty.

I'm sure certain religious groups will vehemently oppose this idea,
but they also will not volunteer their time and money to adopt these
children and pay for their medical treatment.

"Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8e2dnYCe8fKNNOWiRTvUqQ@bravo.net...
|
| "Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:3f5fff81.219634673@news.saix.net...
| > 250 babies are born HIV positive every day
| >
| > About 250 babies are born HIV positive i9n south Africa every
| > day.
| >...
| > The survey report states that an estimated 91 271 babies were
| > infected through mother-child transmission. That's 250 a
day --
| > far higher than the 100 a day which had previously been
| > estimated.
|
| This may sound harsh, but why don't they simply adopt a policy
of
| forced sterilization and abortion for HIV+ women? It doesn't
seem
| fair to allow them to reproduce, only to give birth to children
| who will suffer short and miserable lives only to die an
agonizing
| death before they even reach puberty.
|
| I'm sure certain religious groups will vehemently oppose this
idea,
| but they also will not volunteer their time and money to adopt
these
| children and pay for their medical treatment.
|
|

I might be wrong, but I think nevirapine can effectively stop
mother to child infection.

Rob

I have to say - to Poop Dogg and others with the same opinion; why can't we
sterilizate all people with teeth that are not regulated - or not white
enough? Why can't we kill every unborn baby we are told have a disease?
ESTIMATED from hiv dead babies are not the same as babies dead from hiv.
ESTIMATED babies infected are not the same as babies really infected. How
stupid is it possible to be? Give people clean water, food enough - and
care. I really hate you bloody narsisistic Americans. Evevery child turn to
its own immunse system when it is about eighteen months. But - of course -
telling pregnant African mothers they can not breastfeed their the children
will be a good buisness for the companies selling the substitute. Please
educate yourself in the difference between expected end estimated infected -
and living age. Oh my God..
"Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com> skrev i melding
news:8e2dnYCe8fKNNOWiRTvUqQ@bravo.net...

FOUND A LINK:
www.aegis.com/news/dmg/2001/MG010605.html


| I might be wrong, but I think nevirapine can effectively stop
| mother to child infection.
|
| Rob
|
|

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:50:04 -0500, "Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

It's unconstitutional, for one thing.


Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:23:26 +0200, "Rob MacMillan"
<greencalx@remove-me.mighty.co.za> wrote:

I've heard that it is claimed to reduce the incidence of mother --> child
infection, though not stop it altogether.


Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm

"Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message

South Africa no longer violates human rights. It is part of what
makes South Africa one of the best places in the world to live.
(This is not a denial that South Africa does have problems).

However, women who are HIV positive should be counselled to consider
*not* having children because of the strain pregnancy puts on their
own bodies. Should they decide to have the child/ren anyway, then
she should be advised as to the best ways in which to ensure the
lowest risk of them becoming HIV positive.

On the contrary most of the religious groups who oppose abortion are
giving a great deal of their time and money to the problem of
HIV/AIDS. Nearly all the places which provide care for HIV positive
people are run by religious organisations (all that I can think of
in Johannesburg are Christian), and the ones which are secular in
origin often have a core of religious supporters.

Adoption of all these children is just not feasible in a country
with a 40% unemployment rate, a struggling economy, and a problem on
the scale of that of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. With the best will in
the world it would still be impossible.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

"Steve Hayes" <hayesstw.spamless@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That is the situation, Steve. Of course, childbirth by Caesaerean
section also helps to reduce the risk but it is, of course, surgery
and accordingly has its own risks and disadvantages, one of which is
the high cost thereof.

Another factor that makes quite a difference is the viral load of
the pregnant woman. Should she become HIV positive shortly before
or during the pregnancy, or already be in the later stage of
HIV/AIDS, then there is little chance that the child will not be HIV
positive. If she is pregnant during the stage at which she is
asymptomatic then the chances of the baby later being HIV negative
are higher. (All babies born to HIV positive mothers test positive
initially because they inherit their mother's immunities, but HIV
negative babies don't ever produce their own antibodies and the
conversion from positive to negative is known as "sero-conversion" -
incidentally the only documented cases of people who were once HIV
positive now testing HIV negative.)

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

Rob MacMillan wrote:

My daughter has a freind who married (finally) She has been HIV
for at least 15 yrs or more. (very LOOSE type) SHe finally found
another HIV type to MARRY. The drug mentioned kept the foetus
from the HIV..However MY question is: How long AFTER the child
begins to grow WILL HIV suddenly be a problem.?

The ONLY time she kept the correct BALANCE of WHITE against HIV
was when she was taking MY product...the HIV "food" given NOW to her
by
the GOV't is STILL keeping her balance IN REVERSE! should she STOP
taking it, the HIV MASS would immediately EAT her alive. What the
hell?? B-0b1

Poop Dogg wrote:

AFRICA is HOPELESSLY involved as over 75% are HIV. The craziness
extant keeps it that way! It all started in 1956 and went from there
when "W_H_O"
accidently used several types of MONKEYS to make serum! NOT
realizing
That SIV is endemic to 3 varieties. ALL hell has been loosed since!
B-0b1

Try http://www.inboxrobot.com/news-STDs

hayesstw.spamless@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<3f78e102.195818275@news.saix.net>...

"Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> wrote in message...
You have GOT to be kidding! I've never been there but from what I've
read and heard the country is a cesspool of misery and corruption.
The only trace of civilization was found in the ruling white minority,
and since they have been ousted from power the country has degenerated
into a sewer. The crime rate has soared and close to 50% of the
adult population is infected with HIV (almost all black too, I seriously
doubt the white population suffers the same fate). I can't prove it,
but I've heard anecdotal reports that South Africa is a large manufacturer
of the illegal drug Ecstacy, apparently the sophisticated chemical
laboratories built by the whites have been corrupted by the new black
overlords. Though those of us in America and Europe are too "sensitive"
to voice this out loud, there is considerable worry about South Africa's
nuclear industry which is now under black control.

"Robert McCarty" <sos@Grandecom.net> wrote in message...
I had just heard that possibly 50% are infected in some regions, but 75%
is rather hard to believe (for now at least). I remember hearing about
a possible connection to the 1950s-era polio vaccination program, but
I'm not sure if any evidence was ever found to support it. Frozen blood
samples do indicate human infection as far back as the 1950s, I remember
reading that they somehow extrapolated its introduction to the 1930s.
But for some reason the virus remained in an isolated population, probably
only beginning to emerge into the general population in the early 1970s.
I do wonder where that damn Canadian flight attendent (Gaetan Dugas) got
it. He was likely infected around 1976 and proceeded to spread to
virtually every corner of the North American continent through his job
(some believed the simultaneous appearance of the virus pointed to a
CIA conspiracy).

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:01:41 -0500, "Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

Then what you've heard is probably inaccurate.

Your proposal would violate human rights, and would not be allowed under the
constitution.

While our bill of rights is not perfect, and it is not perfectly enforced, it
is generally acknowledged to be one of the best in the world.



Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm

"Poop Dogg" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
What you've read and what you've heard is largely inaccurate.
Fortunately.


Ah, I see, a racist AND a bigot. Say no more.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

"Steve Hayes" <hayesstw.spamless@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f7b9a34.119288586@news.saix.net...
It is certainly not perfect. In this context the obvious question would be
whose rights are being protected?

Is it the right of HIV positive persons to have unprotected sex with
whomsoever they chose? That is what it appears to be. However, the greater
rights should be in regard to those who are uninfected not to be infected.
These rights are clearly not considered and the same applies to potential
new conceptions. Surely it would be right and just to ensure that no
conceptions of potentially HIV positive children take place?

One question that has not been addressed, but which should be addressed, is
in relation to infected males. Would it not be constitutionally correct to
protect the rights of women by ensuring that all such are rendered both
sterile and impotent? The present interpretation of the Constitution seems
to be in line with the protection given to criminals at the expense of the
law abiding and hopefully,there will come a time when it is seen as the
useless piece of paper that it is and practical and rational decisions will
be taken.

Mark Richardson

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:16:01 +0200, "Moira de Swardt"
<moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> wrote:

It's amazing how newsgroups seem to attract disproprtionate numbers of them.


Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm