Greetings,
A recent TV special on the work of the Gates foundation in
Africa on for example, malaria and AIDS, was unapologetic about the West's
ulterior motives in trying to prevent diseases from spreading. People
were quoted as saying that if "we" don't do something soon, these diseases
"which know no boundaries" will soon affect Westerners as well. The
question is, should one turn down the assistance because it is given for
selfish reasons? Or take it and work with it? Ylva Hernlund
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, A. P. Dampha wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I very much share Ginnys view.
> On one hand they are at present thinking of debt relief for Africa and on
> the other they are offering new credits.
> What kind of policy is this?
>
> Anyway as far as I am informed there is currently no drug available that
> could cure or protect from AIDS. But isn’t it that the pharmaceutical
> industry wants to sell their products?
> Haven’t we hared such tunes before? (I think of the baby food).
>
> It seems to be a well established practice to grant loans to developing
> countries in order to boost sales for national industries/companies. I hope
> Africa will take care and not take the bite this time.
>
> Why are the US currently forcing this AIDS campaign?
> I was wondering.
>
> For quite some time I see the US campaign on AIDS in Africa in way that it
> is
> used as an advertising campaign against Africa.
>
> Aids is in all countries of this world. And in some it is even more rampant
> (Asia).
> So why do they point their fingers on Africa?
>
> Let’s go back in history. Why did they fight Malaria? Humanity?
> I don’t think so. It seems they had interest only in solving their own
> problems in it in the US and in Europe and they feared, that US soldiers in
> Asia might have been effected.
> Since the problems in Europe and US are solved or under control now and war
> in Asia is no longer maintained,
> the fight against Malaria is no longer important to them. Besides, according
> to my information Florida still spends a $300 Mio per year to spray the
> country in order to keep it free from Malaria. But there is big tourism,
> Disney World, rich peoples residency, money.... Who cares for Africa?
>
> But still Malaria is in Africa the disease causing the majority of death
> (not AIDS as far as I am informed).Maybe, nobody is interested any more
> because it is safe for US and Europe. Malaria cannot be transferred by a
> tourist. AIDS can!
>
> And the pharmaceutical industry?
> They are spending a lot of money developing medication and injections,
> knowing that the formula they develop are designed to evolve resistancy from
> the parasite soon, if treating at all. Such research programs are easily
> sponsored. But I have not yet heard from research in the field of
> eradicating Malaria in Africa. I recently hared about a drug, that is to
> cure Malaria safely. It is a traditional Chinese treatment extracted from a
> plant called "Artemisia". First this was kept secret from the Chinese for
> political reasons. Now it is currently tested by WHO. But as it can not be
> produced technically but must be extracted directly from the plant (as far
> as I know) I have not seen any company being prepared to make this drug
> accessible to people. It is not an interesting market.
>
>
> By for now
> Angelika
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
