On 30 Sep, 22:11, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >But, you propose this solution to everyone - which sounds like a
> >sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.
> >Besides the fact that I personally like a drop or two of whiskey, and
> >a pint or two of beer from time to time.
> >Your puritanism is not an appealing solution, imo.
>
> Label it as unappealing, that is your prerogative. But you just
> conceded that it is a solution all the same. Which is a far cry from
> Tims original position.
>
> And appealing or not, the original premise that Baha'u'llah prescribed
> a course of action that is somehow harmful is negated by your own
> concession and the facts that be.
>
> >Are you trying to suggest that because I seem to have understood what
> >Tim was getting at, while you went off at a tangent assuming that
> >because Tim hadn't mentioned the fact that AIDS also affects poor
> >people it meant that he was unaware of the large number of deaths due
> >to AIDS in Africa, and foaming at the mouth about it too, that it
> >makes ME paranoid?
>
> Actually yes. It's paranoid to assume or defend a person making the
> assumption:
>
Er - no. My ability to understand Tim's post comes from my superior
reading ability, and my anger comes from the fact that you're trying
to put words in his mouth.
Calling me paranoid just sounds like a gratuitous insult to me.
> > that malaria does NOT affect the rich, which is a reason why
> >the western press doesn't talk about it much.
>
> Here's what was originally stated:
>
> >What about malaria? The only reason AIDS gets more press is because it
> >affects the rich and famous while malaria does not
>
> By the way, it was you who introduced the term, "Western press". Now
> that we're talking paranoia, why should it matter whether they're
> western or eastern press?
>
We're only talking paranoia because you thought it was a good idea to
start calling me names!
> He's at least unaware that the media is not pandering to the rich by
> publicizing it.
>
> Doesn't using a phrase like, "foaming at the mouth" seem to
> personalize things a bit? Actually my Jaw is on the floor and here is
> why:
>
> >I don't know what the "CDC" is, by the way.
>
> Center for Disease control.
Sorry. Your jaw is on the flaw because I don't happen to know the
acronym of an organisation you mentioned?
I'll explain it on your terms:
>
Your sarcasm is noted.
> That's the government organization where the western press go to get
> their info on AIDs to publicize it for the rich people who want to
> exploit the africans by making money off of their all too expensive
> malaria vaccines.
>
> I'm just paraphrasing, isn't this what was said?
>
No - you are still being sarcastic.
> >Yet some of the rich are rich only because the malaria vaccine is too ex
pe
>
> nsive for the 2.7 >million people killed by malaria every year (Bremen et
..
> al. 2001).
>
> By virtue of your silence on the matter and your vigilance with
> respect to me I'll assume that you agree with him.
>
I haven't a clue what you mean by this.
> "The Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) was established by Program for
> Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) through a US$50 million seed
> grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. MVI seeks to
> accelerate the development of promising malaria vaccines and ensure
> their availability for the developing world. For further information
> about MVI and PATH, visit the Web sites atwww.MalariaVaccine.organdwww.pa
th.org."
>
> Is that the rich person you're talking about. Is that the person who
> donated 50 million? He certainly must be making money off that
> vaccine. Do a good deed and look at how people act?!?
>
Why are we talking about whether or not rich people make money out of
making donations to malaria charities?
> >> Even should this disease be contained at 1.5 million per year in
> >> Africa, it an expectation that a major plague affecting us all could
> >> emerge from this population of AIDS victims.
> >I don't see this assertion in the abstract you quote.
>
> "AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections :: epidemiology
>
> Przegl Epidemiol. 2008 ;62 (1):113-21 18536233 (P,S,G,E,B)
> [Tuberculosis in Europe and Poland--new molecular families and new
> resistance patterns]
>
> At present despite methods of fast recognition of the disease and
> efficient antituberculosis drugs not only we cannot contain the
> epidemic but we can see an increase in new cases of tuberculosis
> including its drug resistant variety. Causes of aggravation of the
> situation are varied and ought to be examined separately in case of
> any particular region. One of the major ones are bad programmes of
> fighting against the disease or their inadequate realization, ignoring
> a problem of tuberculosis in developed countries, lack of money for
> treatment in developing countries and coincidence with HIV virus.
> <snip>"
>
> This is one citation of many, but it makes my point. HIV in poorer
> countries serves as a breeding ground for TB and drug resistant TB
> giving it a springboard from which to infect the entire population
> (that's you, me and the rich people the western media are pandering
> to), not just AIDs patients.
>
So by "major plague" you meant TB? Is it usual to call TB a "plague"?
I notice that in answer to my saying that the assertion you made isn't
backed up by the abstract you quoted, you have in facted quoted a
different abstract.
> >Erm - Prof Kalings of the international AIDS foundation doesn't seem
> >to be panicking about AIDS here. So why are you?
>
> "The first postmodern pandemic: 25 years of HIV/ AIDS "
>
> Maybe it has something to do with the word pandemic in title of the
> paper?
>
I read the whole abstract and based my reaction on my understanding of
that.
I guess, even scientists like to have attention grabbing headlines -
and I imagine that there is a scientific definition of "pandemic" that
doesn't necessarily match the "Arrgh - we're all gonna DIE!"
connotations of the popular understanding of the term.
> Here's a Wiki quote:
>
> "A pandemic is an epidemic of infectious disease that spreads through
> human populations across a large region; for instance a continent, or
> even worldwide.
>
Yes - that was what I thought the word meant. I still say that on
reading the abstract you provided, it doesn't seem to me that Prof.
Kalings is panicking about this.
> AIDS is now a pandemic.[4] In 2007, an estimated 33.2 million people
> lived with the disease worldwide, and it killed an estimated 2.1
> million people, including 330,000 children.[5] Over three-quarters of
> these deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa,[5] retarding economic
> growth and destroying human capital.[6]
>
> According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a pandemic can start
> when three conditions have been met:
>
> the emergence of a disease new to the population.
> the agent infects humans, causing serious illness.
> the agent spreads easily and sustainably among humans"
>
Considering that the world contains 6 billion people, I'm still not
panicking.
> Am I teaching a C.E. course now? (That's continuing education)
Were you this sarcastic to your students?
> I
> think my point was made three postings back, so I plan to drop this.
>
Well, thank you for a conversation that has more content than most of
the ones I have at trb - but I was planning to drop this too.
> Drink up if you must. Nobody will ever force you to be a Baha'i. Or if
> you want to be Baha'i and still think drinking is to your benefit,
> consult with your physician and make the prudent choice.
>
> Call us puritanical and in some areas I'll take it as a compliment.
> But don't deceive yourself, no amount of intellectual discourse will
> ever decide if Baha'u'llah is or isn't a divine person.
>
> "The story is told of a mystic knower, who went on a journey with a
> learned grammarian as his companion. They came to the shore of the Sea
> of Grandeur. The knower straightway flung himself into the waves, but
> the grammarian stood lost in his reasonings, which were as words that
> are written on water. The knower called out to him, "Why dost thou not
> follow?" The grammarian answered, "O Brother, I dare not advance. I
> must needs go back again." Then the knower cried, "Forget what thou
> didst read in the books of Sibavayh and Qawlavayh, of Ibn-i-Hajib and
> Ibn-i-Malik, [1] and cross the water."
> [1 Famed writers on grammar and rhetoric.] 52
>
> The death of self is needed here, not rhetoric:
>
> Be nothing, then, and walk upon the waves. [1]"
>
> (Baha'u'llah, The Four Valleys, p. 51)