Here is the answer to a question which has been lurking in the recesses of my mind for a while. If it's been on mine, chances are you will have wondered about it too. Where are we with testing pregnant women for HIV?
Only expectant females in the Waikato are routinely screened. A positive case has just been discovered sparking calls for urgent nationwide testing. Fortunately the baby can be prevented from contracting the virus.
The woman would not have been identified under the district health board's previous policy of testing only "high-risk" women, he said.
Waikato is the only district health board in the country routinely testing pregnant women for HIV.
Nine district health boards are preparing to screen but only a handful are likely to begin in the next six months.
Dr Mills said New Zealand had the opportunity to act now so it didn't repeat some of the disasters around the world.
A report by Aids charity Avert on South Africa showed that because authorities didn't act fast enough there, percentages of pregnant women with HIV rose from 0.8 per cent to 30.2 per cent in 15 years to 2005.
Secret lawyers
1 hour ago
7 comments:
It's not guaranteed that an HIV+ pregnant woman's child will be HIV-. In South Africa there are many HIV positive babies, born that way.
The whole article is yet another example of the output of the AIDS Industry.
One HIV+ woman does not mean that a hetrosexual epidemic is starting.
This is that epidemic that the AIDS Industry has been promising for the last 15 years and still it has not appeared.
The number of people who get AIDS via Hetro sex in NZ is so small that one person is news worthy.
The numbers this year for new HIV cases are actually down on last year if the six monthly trends continue.
The numbers of HIV+ in South Africa is now regarded at approx 3-5% not 30% the only people who stick to the 30% figure are people who suprise are getting funding for aids work.
I dont beleive that testing pregnant women for HIV does not effect the HIV infection rate very much. Though it does allow you to treat them to reduce the chance of a HIV+ baby.
SB
SB - get into the real world. One transmission from mother to child being prevented saves a life and lots of money being spent on that child. It also identifies a previously undiagnosed HIV+ person and, hopefully, prevents further spread of the infection with responsible behavior.
I don't know where you get your South African figures, but they are wrong. Recently published figures are far higher than those you qoute. Off hand I can't give you the exact figures but it is close to 20%
My response to this post is here
Hetrosexual Aids epidemic?
40% of deaths of children under the age of five in South Africa is from AIDS. Two thirds of infections in children is by direct mother to child spread.
http://iafrica.com/news/sa/745653.htm
Anonymous don't you get it?
The third world is ravaged by diseases that used to be part of the developed world too. Things like Malaria, Tuberculosis as well as diseases way off the radar of Western Liberals like Bilharzia.
These things are just not sexy to the western intelligencia however the is a desperate need for Hetrosexual AIDS epidemic so if it doesn't at home just place it in the third world where it is conviently difficult to actually measure in a robust scientific sense and where the people are sick anyway.
It benefits the third world too. Can you imagine the American Taxpayer fronting up $6 billion dollars to fight Bilharzia in Africa?
The only problem is much of the money spent of AIDS is wasted on things which are near to useless in terms of public health (condoms, "antivirals") instead of things that really could help - clean water, antibiotics etc.
The President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki caught on to this and tried to change direction but a concerted shouting campaign has which has lasted 6 years now has ground the SA government down, so now expensive western designer drugs are being given to an impoverished population who might well be better off if they had access to clean water.
South African government ends Aids denial
anon: The AIDS charity mentioned in the stuff article reported the incidence for AIDs in SA as being 6% for 2005. That figure is in the stats summary of their website, is that real world enough for you?
Many of the figures for Africian aids are not based on real reports but computer simulations. The models that the WHO's for example have been rebuilt several times due to them not matching hard data as it becomes available.
One of the anomalies about african AIDS is the number of babies that are HIV+ without the mother being HIV+. There is no clear understanding of why this is happening as it never happens in the west. Various reports put it down to
shared medical equipment and the fact the the blood transfusion banks are still not screening 100% of donations and hence are still contaminated.
You want to help people in Africa?
Provide free treatment for TB and Malaria, and provide clean water to drink.
SB
Post a Comment