Jump to content

HIV 'epidemic' in Philippines. UN


Recommended Posts

UN exec sees an HIV 'epidemic' in Philippines-

Thursday, March 19, 2015
 

AN OFFICIAL of the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) said Thursday the Philippines is already facing a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) "epidemic" given the "fast and furious" spread of the disease.

UNAIDS Country Director Bai Bagasao said the 22,527 HIV cases in the country can already be considered as an epidemic, although it is not yet a "generalized" one.

"Ang kagandahan pa din is it is concentrated dito sa Pilipinas. Ang concentrated epidemic, hindi pa kita sa general population," said Bagasao.

She said the country remains fortunate that the persistent HIV spread is concentrated mostly among men-having-sex-with-men (MSMs), commercial sex workers (SWs), and overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).

She added that the spread in the country of HIV can already be considered as "fast and furious" given the trend of new cases being recorded monthly.

From only 250 reported cases per year from 2000 to 2008, the number has ballooned to 3,338 cases in 2012.

"There have been and shall be more than 5,000 new HIV cases per year beginning in 2013," said Bagasao.

The UNAIDS official attributed the spread of HIV in the Philippines to continued low condom use, especially among the most-at-risk population.

Their data showed that less than 40 percent of MSMs use condoms while 65 percent of SWs practice safe sex.

Both are lower than the target 80 percent condom use among most-at-risk population.

Aside from the 22,500 HIV cases, Bagasao said they believe that the actual number is higher than the records of the Department of Health (DOH) for the period 1984-2014.

"No country can say the exact number of people living with HIV. The 22,500, that is the medium range. But it can go as high as 35,000 right now," said Bagasao.

The difference, she said, can be attributed to the continued refusal of individuals to undergo HIV testing over fear of stigma.

Bagasao then warned that the country may be in danger of missing Millennium Development Goals (MDG) 6, which is to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS by 2015 and begin to reverse the trend.

"For the MDG for HIV, it is threatened. We are nowhere near the goal as shown in the indicators," said Bagasao. (HDT/Sunnex)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cipro

    11

  • Paul

    6

  • poby

    5

  • youngwillie

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My last few years working, was with a medical goods manufacturers, and we worked closely with UNFPA, UNAIDS, and various other agencies, European, US, and International.   Thus I got to see the orig

It is tricky to know how to start with this pile of ignorance, especially as you're insistent on reinforcing the old saw that HIV is a 'Gay plague' and that you cite "Liberated Christians in 1994" as

Considering the facts about 'epidemics' like this I always wonder what is actually behind these sort of announcements.    Do we (the news consuming idiot-machine that is the general public) like to

Posted Images

KennyF

History tells us that most cases are homosexual or drug related.

 

How much risk is there for "normal" people?

 

KonC

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

History tells us that most cases are homosexual or drug related.

 

How much risk is there for "normal" people?

 

KonC

 

None,specially to ones that are happily married on Comeagain Island.  Ther maybe are many two week millioneres who would need to take note thou.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
youngwillie

History tells us that most cases are homosexual or drug related.

 

How much risk is there for "normal" people?

 

KonC

 

Most cases in Africa are spread between so-called normal men and women.

 

I'd take a wild guestimate and say most cases of HIV in the world are in sub Saharan Africa.

 

If you ever boffed anyone who boffed anyone else it's probably wise to use a rubber.

 

No?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
goldeagle

History tells us that most cases are homosexual or drug related.

 

How much risk is there for "normal" people?

 

KonC

History tells us that most cases are homosexual or drug related.

 

How much risk is there for "normal" people?

 

KonC

This is just so obviously untrue. The idea is blown out of the water by just the fact that sex ratio of AIDS victims is about even. If most cases really were 'homosexual or drug-related'then the victims would be overwhelmingly male, when they are not. In fact in some parts of the world, including the United States,there are more female victims of HIV/AIDS than male. In sub-Saharan Africa, where there is most cases, the sex ratio is about even. Edited by goldeagle
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

Most cases in Africa are spread between so-called normal men and women.

 

Men -> women works a lot better than women-> men, it's the nature of the bug. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

This is just so obviously untrue. The idea is blown out of the water by just the fact that sex ratio of AIDS victims is about even. If most cases really were 'homosexual or drug-related'then the victims would be overwhelmingly male, when they are not. In fact in some parts of the world, including the United States,there are more female victims of HIV/AIDS than male. In sub-Saharan Africa, where there is most cases, the sex ratio is about even.

 

 Bullsh*t. 

 

US CDC says that HIV infections are massively biased towards people who have sex with men and IDU. 

 

 

rrhiv_fig04b.jpg

 

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Link to post
Share on other sites
youngwillie

 Bullsh*t. 

 

US CDC says that HIV infections are massively biased towards people who have sex with men and IDU. 

 

 

rrhiv_fig04b.jpg

 

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

OK that's good.

 

The post was about a potential epidemic in the Philippines, not the USA.

 

Very few infected people in Africa will be gay. Even fewer will be drug addicts.

 

I still think most HIV cases worldwide would be in Africa. (Passed between men and women)

 

Conditions in SEA not being a kick in the arse away from conditions in Africa, I'd also say that the Philippines would be "ripe" for an epidemic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

OK that's good.

 

The post was about a potential epidemic in the Philippines, not the USA.

 

None of the points you raised were specific to a nation, and I have never seen any evidence that the biology of the infection is different based on locale. Straight guys CAN get it. Perspective however is that the infection is fairly rare to start with, and on top of that is hard for a man to get unless he's being f*cked in the ass or poked with needles.

 

Look at the two charts. 

 

  • The two biggest slices of those pies are 'people who are ejaculated into'. 
  • Next is 'people who poke themselves with heroin needles'
  • A tiny wedge is 'guys who don't admit to being f*cked in the ass or taking illegal drugs' - I will leave it as a reader exercise to work out why that wedge might be bigger than reality. 
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
youngwillie

 

None of the points you raised were specific to a nation, and I have never seen any evidence that the biology of the infection is different based on locale. Straight guys CAN get it. Perspective however is that the infection is fairly rare to start with, and on top of that is hard for a man to get unless he's being f*cked in the ass or poked with needles.

 

Look at the two charts. 

 

  • The two biggest slices of those pies are 'people who are ejaculated into'. 
  • Next is 'people who poke themselves with heroin needles'
  • A tiny wedge is 'guys who don't admit to being f*cked in the ass or taking illegal drugs' - I will leave it as a reader exercise to work out why that wedge might be bigger than reality. 

 

 

Of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

Considering the facts about 'epidemics' like this I always wonder what is actually behind these sort of announcements. 

 

Do we (the news consuming idiot-machine that is the general public) like to hear this sort of news? If so why? Does it titillate us? Do we like to see 'bad' people punished, in a way that's similar to the famous horror show survival rule 'don't fool around (sexually) in a horror film'? Does the instinctive fear and horror of 'invisible death' (poisons, infections, etc.) lend itself to selling this sort of news? I don't understand really. 

 

Or is it a more direct thing, where someone stands to benefit from public awareness and fear related to this? Does some vocal group benefit from this and are they diverting attention, in much the same way that huge amounts of cash are spent on research for one type of cancer that kills far fewer people than another sort of cancer which is barely funded, like breast vs prostate cancer?

 

Is it an attempt to divert our attention from other things that influential people and other agencies wish to make less a subject of public scrutiny?

 

I don't know, but I find THOSE issues a lot more interesting than this sort of 'news'. If you keep it tucked and/or use a rubber, buy your own fresh heroin needles or forgo injecting narcotics with others, and a few other things EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN does, this is really a non-story, isn't it?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole hiv epidemic thing is just another media beat up.  HIV is serious no doubt about that.  Most especially if you the receiver of anal sex or an intravenous drug user.  But for conventional sex between a man and woman, hiv transmission is highly unlikely.  Male to to female vaginal sex transmission is very difficult as the vagina is a hostile environment for the HIV virus.  Female to male vaginal sex transmission is very nearly impossible unless there is bleeding apparatus and/or an already compromised immune system.

 

Many victims prefer their gayness be kept in the closet so point to prostitutes and such rather than reveal the truth of how they got it.  Especially in African countries, where homosexuality is hugely stigmatized.

 

http://www.libchrist.com/std/facts.html

 

HIV infected prostitutes, with only a few exceptions, are intravenous drug abusers. Cases of sexually acquired HIV among drug-free prostitutes are almost unknown. In literally only a handful of cases have female prostitutes transmitted HIV to a client, and drug abuse by both the prostitute and the client has been documented in almost all those cases.

Every major review of female prostitution by medical authorities of Western nations has concluded that drug-free female prostitutes are not susceptible to HIV and are not, and will not be, the means of infecting the general population.

 

No documented case of AIDS exists anywhere in the Western world of a drug-free heterosexual who contracted AIDS from a primary carrier (like a hemophiliac) and then transmitted the disease to a healthy, drug-free third party.

 

HIV is a scary serious risk.  But only if you like it up the bum or inject drugs from dirty needles.  But such is a very inconvenient truth for the PC elite.  By making it about everybody, it gets a lot more sympathy and support.  But facts are facts.  HIV requires access to the bloodstream.  The colon is extremely good at passing the virus into the blood stream.  But a healthy vagina, much less so.  And if you cock isn't all cut up and damaged then it's almost impossible to get it, especially from a vagina that also isn't cut up.

Edited by poby
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
easy44

I think two things are fairly obvious.  The first is that the so called "epidemic"  didn't suddenly just happen here in the Philippines.  HIV infections have been developing at the same rate as they are everywhere else and they were either never accurately reported here or ignored or covered up, take your choice.

 

The second thing is that UNAIDS has a vested interest, an economic one, in suddenly uncovering the new "epidemic" in the Philippines.  The Philippines is relatively untouched so far, by the HIV/AIDS  NGO's, compared to places like Thailand and the hotspots in Africa and represents a fresh opportunity to extend their reason for being.  I believe you always have to follow the money trail.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
For Real

Bullsh*t.

 

US CDC says that HIV infections are massively biased towards people who have sex with men and IDU.

 

 

rrhiv_fig04b.jpg

 

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

These stats support what I am about to say.

Specialist in the field have repeatedly told me HIV is effectively transmitted in the blood, other fluids in contact with other bodily fluids not so much.

The poop chute will burst thousands of capillaries every time one takes a dump and un natural (anal) sex and and infected semen has an odds on chance for transmission every time. What is also a problem is a great majority of HIV positive men (and women) are quite happy to share this with other partners.

I'd be interested to see what percentage of women HIV positive have practiced anal sex (though figures will never be accurate). Anal sex in a heterosexual relationship increases chances more than a couple where the man has a sore do get and the female is menstruating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spydoo

Considering the facts about 'epidemics' like this I always wonder what is actually behind these sort of announcements. 

 

Do we (the news consuming idiot-machine that is the general public) like to hear this sort of news? If so why? Does it titillate us? Do we like to see 'bad' people punished, in a way that's similar to the famous horror show survival rule 'don't fool around (sexually) in a horror film'? Does the instinctive fear and horror of 'invisible death' (poisons, infections, etc.) lend itself to selling this sort of news? I don't understand really. 

 

Or is it a more direct thing, where someone stands to benefit from public awareness and fear related to this? Does some vocal group benefit from this and are they diverting attention, in much the same way that huge amounts of cash are spent on research for one type of cancer that kills far fewer people than another sort of cancer which is barely funded, like breast vs prostate cancer?

 

Is it an attempt to divert our attention from other things that influential people and other agencies wish to make less a subject of public scrutiny?

 

I don't know, but I find THOSE issues a lot more interesting than this sort of 'news'. If you keep it tucked and/or use a rubber, buy your own fresh heroin needles or forgo injecting narcotics with others, and a few other things EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN does, this is really a non-story, isn't it?

That's actually pretty easy to answer, if one isn't paranoid. Governments pay organisations to reduce health risks among their population. These organisations then publicise the number of people being infected with diseases so people take precautions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..