"Reducing the secondary complications and infections, which can be just as
fatal as HIV itself to those with weak immune systems, is also important
and, as this trial proves, can have dramatic results."
In other words treating the REAL diseases not the 'AIDS' myth.
_________
Millions of children die needlessly
Nearly 11 million under age 5 succumb each year, largely to easily
preventable illnesses, health experts say.
By EMMA ROSS
The Associated Press
LONDON – The lives of 6 million children under 5 could be saved every
year
if flu shots and other low-cost measures to prevent or treat disease were
more widely used, global health experts say.
Every year, nearly 11 million children worldwide die before their fifth
birthdays, most from preventable causes such as diarrhea, pneumonia,
neonatal problems and malaria. Malnutrition is a major factor in more
than
half those deaths, researchers estimate.
In a series of articles this week in The Lancet medical journal, experts
say inexpensive lifesaving measures - such as breast feeding,
insecticide-treated bed nets, flu shots, antibiotics, newborn
resuscitation and clean childbirth - are not reaching the mothers and
children who need them most.
Scaling up those interventions to a level that would save 6 million lives
a year would cost about $7.5 billion annually, the experts say.
In the 1980s, the world made great progress in reducing unnecessary child
deaths through a UNICEF campaign called the child-survival revolution.
But
the momentum was lost in the 1990s.
"We have dropped the ball," said one of the experts, Cesar Victora,
professor of epidemiology at the Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil.
"Child survival has fallen off the international agenda. We need now a
second revolution to finish this job."
The number of deaths among children under 5 fell from 117 per 1,000 live
births in 1980 to 93 per 1,000 in 1990. Today, the death rate is still
declining but not as quickly - in 2000, it was 83 per 1,000.
Experts stressed two main reasons why progress appears to have stalled.
In the 1990s that HIV/AIDS shifted the world's attention and resources
toward fighting that specific diseases.
"I'm not saying that it was wrong, but child health lost out in that,"
said Hans Troedsson, director of child and adolescent health and
development at the World Health Organization.
The experts noted that the total number of child deaths each year is
greater than deaths due to HIV, malaria and tuberculosis combined.
The other major factor was complacency, experts say.
"We were doing really well," Troedsson said. "There was a kind of
attitude
that the job was more or less finished. That kind of perception meant
that
a lot of investments and commitments to keep the steam in child survival
was actually lost."
Other experts said the death of former UNICEF leader Jim Grant, who
spearheaded the child-survival revolution of the 1980s, left a void in
global leadership as UNICEF's focus shifted toward children's rights and
education.
The U.N. children's agency said it still spends most of its money on
child-survival programs and that many of its newer strategies addressing
children's rights and education translate in the long term to better
child
survival.
"The easy gains have been made," said UNICEF spokeswoman Marjorie
Newman-Williams. "We have now plateaued because the strategies we have to
put in place are more difficult."
Whereas earlier strategies were focused on delivering vaccines and
medicines to clinics, future progress does not necessarily depend on
that,
she said. The benefits of that approach have been mostly mined, she said.
Many of the actions that will reduce the deaths now are those that have
to
be taken into the home, such as breast-feeding, bed nets and proper
infant
nutrition after weaning.
"Those three heavily depend on women's time, women's knowledge and
availability," Newman-Williams said. "And to reduce neonatal mortality,
you have to focus on women's health. This is not a child health
intervention."
Moira de Swardt - 22 Nov 2004 03:52 GMT
"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message
> "Reducing the secondary complications and infections, which can be just as
> fatal as HIV itself to those with weak immune systems, is also important
> and, as this trial proves, can have dramatic results."
> In other words treating the REAL diseases not the 'AIDS' myth.
And what do you think causes the "REAL" diseases in HIV positive
children that makes it necessary for them to be on permanent
antibiotics while HIV (and then still die at the rate of 25%) while
HIV negative children don't have to permanently take antibiotics in
order to ... (implicit statement ... die at a much lower rate than
twenty five percent).
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Black Darkness (Schwartzenegger) - 22 Nov 2004 19:29 GMT
>And what do you think causes the "REAL" diseases in HIV positive
>children that makes it necessary for them to be on permanent
>antibiotics while HIV (and then still die at the rate of 25%) while
>HIV negative children don't have to permanently take antibiotics in
>order to ... (implicit statement ... die at a much lower rate than
>twenty five percent).
Moira, you have already admitted that an HIV+ test result puts
children at high risk for prophylactic drug interventions.
Given what we know in the U.S. today (Standard of Care),
survival is NOT increased by treating asymptomatics with the
toxic drugs.
We KNOW that. Why don't you?
Blackie
Gary Stein - 22 Nov 2004 20:18 GMT
>>And what do you think causes the "REAL" diseases in HIV positive
>>children that makes it necessary for them to be on permanent
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Blackie
Well Frod I see you missed the point entirely as usual with you. Moria was
not talking about ARV treatment at all you dimwit. She was talking about
prophylactic use of antibiotics and other drugs for the prevention and
treatment of OI's.
In that only very limited amounts of ARV medications are available in Africa
it is still the exception rather then the rule for an African HIV/AIDS
patient to be receiving ARV treatment, however there have been better
improvements in the supplies of drugs used in the preventions and treatment
of OI's thus more patients are receiving that type of care.
Gary Stein
Black Darkness (Schwartzenegger) - 22 Nov 2004 20:35 GMT
>>>And what do you think causes the "REAL" diseases in HIV positive
>>>children that makes it necessary for them to be on permanent
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Moria was not talking about ARV treatment at all you dimwit.
Neither was I, you dimwit.
> She was talking about prophylactic use of antibiotics and other drugs
>for the prevention and treatment of OI's.
Despite the ravages of his chronic dementia, it is always good to see
Mr. Swine has come to terms with the toxic nature of those drugs
which he purported to have saved his life so many years ago!
Even though the toxic drugs I spoke of weren't limited to the ARVs,
but were precisely those Moira was referring to.
>In that only very limited amounts of ARV medications are available in Africa
duh.
>it is still the exception rather then the rule for an African HIV/AIDS
>patient to be receiving ARV treatment
duh.
> however there have been better improvements in the supplies of drugs used
> in the preventions and treatment of OI's thus more patients are receiving that
> type of care.
Mr. Swine, it would be less embarassing for you if you would find
someone to read and explain these posts to you. Perhaps a
manager at your Public Relations web misinformation office might be
of assistance.
Blackie
Alex - 24 Nov 2004 12:07 GMT
> "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> order to ... (implicit statement ... die at a much lower rate than
> twenty five percent).
Malaria? TB? Chronic bacterial infections?
Which is why antibiotics work in children "with HIV" in
Africa, but not in male adults "with HIV" in the West?
Misdiagnosis in Africa is waaaay too easy.
Alex
Moira de Swardt - 24 Nov 2004 17:25 GMT
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> "Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht
> > "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > > In other words treating the REAL diseases not the 'AIDS' myth.
> > And what do you think causes the "REAL" diseases in HIV positive
> > children that makes it necessary for them to be on permanent
> > antibiotics while HIV (and then still die at the rate of 25%) while
> > HIV negative children don't have to permanently take antibiotics in
> > order to ... (implicit statement ... die at a much lower rate than
> > twenty five percent).
> Malaria? TB? Chronic bacterial infections?
Most of South Africa is not a malaria area. What is the primary
cause of TB in immunised children? An impaired immune system. And
the primary cause of the impaired immune system? HIV. Chronic
bacterial infections are also a result of an impaired immune system.
> Which is why antibiotics work in children "with HIV" in
> Africa, but not in male adults "with HIV" in the West?
> Misdiagnosis in Africa is waaaay too easy.
Drivel. Malaria looks like malaria to people experienced in dealing
with malaria. TB (except in rare circumstances where it attacks
organs other than the lungs) looks like TB to people experience in
dealing with TB. A variety of chronic bacterial infections is
worthy of investigation even in Africa.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Black Darkness (Schwartzenegger) - 01 Dec 2004 16:45 GMT
> What is the primary
>cause of TB in immunised children? An impaired immune system. And
>the primary cause of the impaired immune system? HIV.
Orwellian training at its very finest. People are so predictably dumb.
>Chronic
>bacterial infections are also a result of an impaired immune system.
Also poverty, poor sanitation and compromised water supplies in the
presence of more parasitic diseases than any other continent on
the planet.
And thus they struggle to rationalize a health status in terms
of what they do to overpopulate.
Thanks UNICEF!
Blackie