300,000 S. Africans died in the 2000s because the gov treated AIDS with garlic and beetroot

[thekingsmen]

The title of the thread. Read it again and then revisit your initial post.......​

Nowhere in the article or the title of the thread was that claim even made. How the HELL did you even come to the conclusion that it had been?

Reading IS Fundamental......​

Yes....so the title states...
300,000 S. Africans died in the 2000s because the gov treated AIDS with garlic and beetroot.

Where is the proof that these people died from garlic and beetroot?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Yes....so the title states...
300,000 S. Africans died in the 2000s because the gov treated AIDS with garlic and beetroot.

From your post:​

How did one immune enhancer and immune booster kill 300,000 S.Africans?

From the article:​

More than 300,000 South Africans died needlessly in the early 2000s because the government of President Mbeki preferred to treat AIDS with garlic and beetroot rather than antiretroviral drugs (Chigwedere, Seage, Gruskin, Lee, & Essex,2008).

The article and thread title don't say that they were 'killed' by garlic and beetroot. They 'died' from AIDS and not receiving meds proven effective in treating their illness in MILLIONS of cases worldwide.

Reading is Fundamental

​

 

[thekingsmen]

From your post:​

From the article:​

The article and thread title don't say that they were 'killed' by garlic and beetroot. They 'died' from AIDS and not receiving meds proven effective in treating their illness in MILLIONS of cases worldwide.

Reading is Fundamental

​

1. So when I used killed I should have used died ? So where is the proof that these 300,000 died from beetroot and garlic. The answer is still missing here my friend. I don't bring any article to coli that blame something in the title but don't have a reason for it in the article.

2. Those people dying from AIDS is really questionable b/c how many of those 300,000 have been tested for other health problems? Heart Disease, Colon and intestinal problems, cancer, etc. For example alot of people who have had cancer, die from other causes that were enhanced by the cancer cells like those with heart disease and immune deficiencies. AIDS may have been the enhancer for these other ailments but people would never know b/c clowns like OP assume that the natural products is the reason they are dead.

Has anyone actually taken a medical class in the coli? I have....

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So when I used killed I should have used died ? So where is the proof that these 300,000 died from beetroot and garlic.

 

[Liu Kang]

@thekingsmen,

Here's the study of the article :
http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fullt...g_the_Lost_Benefits_of_Antiretroviral.10.aspx

South Africa is one of the countries most severely affected by HIV/AIDS. At the peak of the epidemic, the government, going against consensus scientific opinion, argued that HIV was not the cause of AIDS and that antiretroviral (ARV) drugs were not useful for patients and declined to accept freely donated nevirapine and grants from the Global Fund. Using modeling, we compared the number of persons who received ARVs for treatment and prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission between 2000 and 2005 with an alternative of what was reasonably feasible in the country during that period. More than 330,000 lives or approximately 2.2 million person-years were lost because a feasible and timely ARV treatment program was not implemented in South Africa. Thirty-five thousand babies were born with HIV, resulting in 1.6 million person-years lost by not implementing a mother-to-child transmission prophylaxis program using nevirapine. The total lost benefits of ARVs are at least 3.8 million person-years for the period 2000-2005.

 

[thekingsmen]

Dafunk, im asking for you to address the debate. I respect your viewpoint so is it difficult to speak on mine.

 

[thekingsmen]

@thekingsmen,

Here's the study of the article :
http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fullt...g_the_Lost_Benefits_of_Antiretroviral.10.aspx

1. HIV and AIDS are 2 different things
2. The OP title mentions Garlic and Beetroot and then the article goes off the deep end without explaination why they even mentioned it except for once in the first paragraph.

3. This study evens mentions eligibility to receive the drug.
4. This study isn't a natural healing vs drugs from the WHO
5. Im not here saying those people shouldn't or should take the drugs, I'm here to address why the natural way was thrown under the bus for no apparent reason other than an agenda.

6. The study doesn't mention any of these people's health history. If they have diabetes, have heart disease, high blood pressure, asthma, cancer, etc. Think of the poverty situation in S.A. before saying it was the garlic and beetroot. Think about it before assuming that without a strong immune system, these people would still survive as long as they did with a just the drug alone.


Thanks for the info Kang....greatly respected.

 

[Liu Kang]

[...]
Thanks for the info Kang....greatly respected.

The article doesn't seem to be complete and there's too much references and too many variables. So yeah, I definitely understand your position.

Then about the study, the number may be inflated because of multiple probable causes of death but I think that the people who made it took a blood sample on the corpses and if they contained HIV antibodies, that meant they had AIDS and died "from" it (from the study's point of view). It's not illogical for me that they thought that way. It's true that nobody directly dies from AIDS because it's the opportunistic infections that do the lethal work. AIDS is a state, a syndrome. But the presence of HIV in the body will necessarily lead the infected to AIDS and antiretroviral medication can prevent that or at least slow the transition down greatly. Then knowing which infection did the deed is a matter of point of view.

HIV, by decreasing the body's protection, is like a Trojan Horse. It doesn't kill, but it weakens the castle's defense and then ease the access to it for the belligerent army. Then does it really matter to know which corps, or which solider killed the king ? When the front gate is down, and the army is in, it's over. If it wasn't for the Trojan Horse, nobody would be in (or not that fast at least).
I think that what the study was about IMO (I won't lie, I didn't read it, just looked at the charts) : all the deceased had HIV.
Did they have AIDS, were they close to have it ? Far from ? Did they have another lethal disease ? I don't know but I don't think that's the study's point.

 

[thekingsmen]

The article doesn't seem to be complete and there's too much references and too many variables. So yeah, I definitely understand your position.

Then about the study, the number may be inflated because of multiple probable causes of death but I think that the people who made it took a blood sample on the corpses and if they contained HIV antibodies, that meant they had AIDS and died "from" it (from the study's point of view). It's not illogical for me that they thought that way. It's true that nobody directly dies from AIDS because it's the opportunistic infections that do the lethal work. AIDS is a state, a syndrome. But the presence of HIV in the body will necessarily lead the infected to AIDS and antiretroviral medication can prevent that or at least slow the transition down greatly. Then knowing which infection did the deed is a matter of point of view.

HIV, by decreasing the body's protection, is like a Trojan Horse. It doesn't kill, but it weakens the castle's defense and then ease the access to it for the belligerent army. Then does it really matter to know which corps, or which solider killed the king ? When the front gate is down, and the army is in, it's over. If it wasn't for the Trojan Horse, nobody would be in (or not that fast at least).
I think that what the study was about IMO (I won't lie, I didn't read it, just looked at the charts) : all the deceased had HIV.
Did they have AIDS, were they close to have it ? Far from ? Did they have another lethal disease ? I don't know but I don't think that's the study's point.

Great response and I think those type of things need to be addressed to cover the whole basis of real discussion and scientific facts. Without that it's just saying things like "These people died of this but no real explanation or conclusion". Cause and Effect need to be applied.