So, what was that about promiscuity, again?

You know how the whole CW about the AIDS epidemic in Africa revolves around how very, very promiscuous the Africans are, if not stupid and irresponsible?

Well.

Looks like there may be another explanation for the explosive growth in HIV in sub-Saharan Africa:

Malaria.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

9 comments for “So, what was that about promiscuity, again?

  1. December 9, 2006 at 1:05 am

    but, but…we can’t get judgmental and huffy about malaria…

    can we?

  2. C. Diane
    December 9, 2006 at 9:52 am

    Sure we can, sly. Those folks just don’t know to use bug repellant and mosquito nets. They’re either too poor to buy them (which makes them lazy) or too stupid to know about them.

    See? That’s not so hard. (But I feel really dirty inside.)

  3. the15th
    December 9, 2006 at 10:53 am

    This is certainly an interesting theory, but competing explanations that have to do with behavior are not all about “those stupid promiscuous Africans.” There is also a real concern about AIDS being exacerbated by the oppression of women in many African societies (Violet Socks has a great post about this.)

  4. December 9, 2006 at 11:18 am

    And did you know that Rachel Carson’s jihad on DDT led to the current resurgence of malaria in Africa?

  5. zuzu
    December 9, 2006 at 11:54 am

    DDT is not necessary to prevent malaria. Malaria is highly preventable, but treated mosquito nets are a much safer way to do it than spraying DDT all over the place. The problem with mosquito nets is that they’re not in use very much, partly because of expense.

    There are also new treatments available, and vaccines are showing some promise but won’t be available for a few years.

    And not every country wants to use DDT, regardless of what Phylis Schlafly wants to see happen.

  6. December 9, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    And did you know that Rachel Carson’s jihad on DDT led to the current resurgence of malaria in Africa?

    Did you know that DDT had only banned for pesticidal use, but never for anti-malarial use? Also, did you know that the pesticidal use created massive resistance to DDT, so that in fact the ban on pesticidal use has only helped anti-malarial use?

  7. A Pang
    December 9, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    Coincidentally, I found this via Rick Mercer’s blog the other day: the charity Spread the Net. It only costs $10 to buy someone a mosquito net.

  8. QrazyQat
    December 9, 2006 at 3:52 pm

    I was going to say that this info will bring out the zombie malaria BS “facts”, and then I see SissyWillis brought it up already. Luckily others have already posted corrections to this BS. May I suggest Deltoid as a place where you can find all sorts of actual info about the supposed DDT “ban” and malaria.

    Deltoid

  9. DAS
    December 10, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    [1] Did you know that DDT had only banned for pesticidal use, but never for anti-malarial use? [2] Also, did you know that the pesticidal use created massive resistance to DDT, so that in fact the ban on pesticidal use has only helped anti-malarial use? – Alon Levy

    (1) Indeed. Except, someone has to make that DDT. When DDT was used for pesticide use, it was profitable, and it was killing mosquitos which also spread malaria, hence it malaria rates did indeed go down. OTOH, how is someone gonna make money making DDT for malaria use? I wouldn’t be surprised if all this talk about needing to allow DDT for malaria use (which is allowed anyway) wasn’t really about people wanting to make money off of DDT again — which they are not really making now, are they?

    (2) Of course, this is an example of evolution (or is that evil-ution ;) ). I always did wonder about the “use DDT everywhere and we’ll stop malaria” crowd: don’t they know about evolution of pesticide resistance? In my more paranoid moods (should I be taking something for these? ;) ), I wonder if some of the motivation for trying to teach kids evolution doesn’t happen is based on people trying not to have certain troublesome questions raised about, e.g., the ability of DDT to have continued effectiveness when it’s being slathered around in a money making manner. So who’s funding all the Intelligent Design crowd? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it were people making DDT and such …

Comments are closed.