Kenyans protest brutal killing of HIV-infected boy: "NAIROBI (Reuters) - Several hundred Kenyan AIDS activists took to the streets of Nairobi on Thursday to protest at the killing of an HIV-infected boy, whom they say was hacked with a garden fork by his uncle because of his status.
A week after 15-year-old Isaiah Gakuyo was killed in Nyeri in central Kenya, police were still looking for his uncle, who was the orphaned boy's guardian.
About 300 people demonstrated on Thursday, saying the killing highlighted the stigma faced by those living with HIV/AIDS in Kenya.
'The boy was facing violence on a daily basis,' said Inviolata Mwali Mmbwavi, one of the march organisers who runs a group working with Kenyan AIDS victims.
'We don't want this to happen again,' she added to Reuters.
Gakuyo was often beaten and denied food at home, added Asunta Wagura, executive director of the Kenya Network of Women with AIDS.
'We supported him as he was an unwelcome dependent in the family,' Wagura said, adding that the organization had been trying to find him another home.
HIV/AIDS prevalence in the east African country has declined to seven percent in 2003 from about 10 percent in the late 1990s.
Thousands of Kenyans living with the virus cannot access even the cheapest anti-retroviral drugs, which are too expensive in private hospitals and not available in public ones."
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Here is a horrible story that clearly illustrates the need for humankind to be absolutely sure that the HIV=AIDS thesis is correct. Questioning the science - as AIDS dissidents of many disciplines have done worldwide - is no more dangerous than accepting it, as this awful story demonstrates. And there are many other stories like this one.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Finally, mainstream science is catching up with what the alternative health community has known for decades. It's always the way, so...caveat emptor when it comes to health information put out by the mainstream. Let us not forget that medical doctors for decades pooh-poohed the idea that nutrition had anything whatsoever to do with health. In specific, they did not believe in supplements. While many supplements are not particularly effective, and some are dangerous, the concept that human health is positively affected by proper nutrition is certainly sound science, and some supplements are quite efficacious.
Fluoride debate may surge as treated water linked to cancer
Young boys who drink fluoridated tap water are at greater risk for a rare bone cancer, Harvard researchers reported yesterday.
The study, published online yesterday in a Harvard-affiliated journal, could intensify debate over fluoridation and mean more scrutiny for Harvard’s Dr. Chester Douglass,accused of fudging the findings to downplay a cancer link.
“It’s the best piece of work ever linking fluoride in tap water and bone cancer. It’s pretty damning for (Douglass),” said Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group, which filed a complaint with the National Institutes of Health against Douglass.
Douglass, an epidemiology professor at Harvard’s School of Dental Medicine, is paid as editor of the Colgate Oral Care Report, a newsletter supported by the toothpaste maker.
Harvard and the NIH are investigating whether Douglass misrepresented research findings last year when he said there was no link, despite extensive research to the contrary by one of his doctoral students. The NIH gave Douglass at least $1 million for the research.
That student, Dr. Elise Bassin, wrote in yesterday’s Cancer Causes and Control that boys who drink water with levels of fluoride considered safe by federal guidlines are five times more likely to develop osteosarcoma than boys who drink unfluoridated water. About 250 U.S. boys each year are diagnosed with osteosarcoma, the most common type of bone cancer and the sixth most common cancer in children. Bassin notes that more research is needed to “confirm or refute this observation.”
Douglass, in a letter to the editor published in the same issue, said Bassin’s study was a “partial view of this ongoing study,” and urged readers to be “especially cautious” when interpreting the findings."