Nigerian doctor finds HIV 'cure'

Nigerian doctor finds HIV 'cure'

Postby Richard Akindele » Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:59 am

Nigeria is in the grip of controversy over the unproven claims of a doctor who says he has found a cure for the HIV virus.

It is not the kind of place you would expect to stumble across one of history's great scientific breakthroughs - but the Nigerian public are queuing up in droves outside Dr Jeremiah Abalaka's private clinic in a dusty township outside Abuja.

He denies they are desperate people who have fallen for a con-trick. Rather, they are the lucky ones - amongst the first people in the world to discover that HIV can be cured.

"They are coming because the drug is working, the drug is working," says Dr Abalaka.

"The person who comes to me who is losing weight, who has recurrent fever, by the time he takes a shot or two, he discovers he's feeling better, he's putting on weight, he's sleeping, his fever has disappeared."

Patient trust

Dr Abalaka says he does not only have a cure for HIV - he even has a vaccine to prevent you contracting the virus.

He says he has already cured 29 people - not enough to write a scientific paper on his findings, but with 800 patients now signed up, that will soon come.

In the meantime, he is becoming a rich man - his medication costs hundreds of dollars. His patients will do anything to get the money - and they have faith in him

"I believe, and I'm getting better," one told me. "I feel much better. I trust the doctor, he's doing the job."

But the treatment comes at a price.

"I've sold all my properties, everything I have, I've even sold my house, to come here and pay for the course, and to save my life."

Soldiers 'cured'

Dr Abalaka is the man of the moment in Nigeria. Newspaper editorials extol his virtues almost every day.

A senior general recently announced that 30 soldiers who had the HIV virus have been cured by him. Soldiers guard his clinic, and he says he is now supplying the military with more vaccines.

Government officials are wary of criticising Doctor Abalaka in public.

More than a year after this controversy started, a definitive statement on his alleged findings has not been made.

Paul Okwulehie is an official of the government's aids control programme.

"In order not to rush into rash, erroneous conclusions, government has to act slowly but steadily and surely and logically, in order for government to make a definitive pronouncement," he said.

Wonder vaccine

Dr Abalaka says it would be unreasonable and unpatriotic for him to reveal the scientific details of his cure right now - but he will do so when he has the Nigerian president's support.

In the mean-time, he has laid down a dramatic challenge to his detractors.

"I will publicly take HIV-infected blood - fresh blood - and I'll inject myself publicly.

"If I fail to develop HIV, having done that, that is scientific proof that something is preventing me from catching it - the vaccine."

In fact, Dr Abalaka says he has already injected himself with HIV-infected blood six times, but his vaccine has always protected him.

Some other Nigerian doctors have started using his cure, and have reported encouraging results. A major international drugs company has become curious about his activities.

In private, Nigerian Government officials are appalled by the confused and hesitant response to the Abalaka phenomenon.

With more than 5% of Nigeria's huge population believed to be HIV positive, the country is on the verge of a terrible epidemic - answers are urgently needed.
Richard Akindele
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: USA

Postby drrionelli » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:45 pm

My only question here is this:

If Dr. Abalaka feels that he has found the "cure" for HIV, then why doesn't he seek other places which could more ably afford him the means to exploit his discovery?
Doing so would be scientifically for the world and financially for him far more propitious than keeping this knowledge confined to his clinic. How about America? China? France?

Something seems suspicious, here, with all due respect.
drrionelli
Newbie@Nairaland
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:49 pm

Postby Richard Akindele » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 am

Many diseases are cured in Nigeria the traditional way. For example, Malaria is a disease spread by Anopheles mosquitoes. It's a disease with severe effects on humans, which would kill if left untreated.

There are highly effective herbal remedies against Malaria. Such remedies have never been explored for mass production either in Nigeria, or in the Western world. Yet, Malaria affects millions of people each year. Ask yourself why.

My point here is that things you see are not always what they seem. There's always politics and controversies surrounding important issues such as this.

Nobody can say for sure if the Nigerian doctor has approached America, China, France, as you said. Perhaps the Pharmaceutical industry doesn't want a cure, since HIV drugs are currently bringing in huge profits.

My theory may seem far-fetched, but to doubt it is to be naive about geo-politics.

There is validity to the story of Cure for AIDS, since BBC featured the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/740523.stm I don't think BBC would write a report on a mere rumor.
Richard Akindele
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: USA

Postby drrionelli » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:42 pm

So, you're suggesting that the "Pharmaceutical industry" wouldn't want to find a cure for this simply because of their putative profits on the drugs they currently treat with? Could not the same have been said of polio? As long as there are people, there will be sickness, so there will always be a need for development of new drug therapies.
drrionelli
Newbie@Nairaland
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:49 pm

Postby Richard Akindele » Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:19 pm

I'm not saying anything as fact. It's all conjecture from both you and I.

But the fact is that business profits trump human life. And my theory that the pharmaceutical industry may not want a cure has merits.

If you disagree, then explain to me why America has thousands of ads on TV for peddling obesity drugs, rather than pushing for better eating habits, and the adoption of healthy lifestyles in general.

Isn't this the same thing we're talking about here regarding a cure for AIDS? The pharmaceutical industry knows the cure for obesity, which is simply a healthy lifestyle. But it's not pursuing it. Why? I'll tell you why, it's because it's raking in billions in obesity drug sales.

Agree or disagree?
Richard Akindele
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: USA

Postby drrionelli » Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:58 pm

Well, actually, with all due respect, America does have vast campaigns--public and private--supporting the adoption of healthier lifestyles. Even the pharmaceutical companies that purport that their products are useful in the endeavor make clear that it is necessary to eat in a wholesome manner and exercise.

As to the pharmaceutical companies raking in billions of dollars, it is not because they are forcing their products on us, but rather because there continues to be a demand for their products. If you or I choose to live in a manner of poor nutrition and sedentary sensibility, then no company can force us to do otherwise. Likewise, if we choose to eat well, exercise sensibly and keep apprised of our health with regular check-ups, then we likely find that we have no need of anti-obesity drugs.

In other words, in this instance, it's the choice of the individual.
drrionelli
Newbie@Nairaland
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:49 pm

Postby Richard Akindele » Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:22 pm

Well, actually, with all due respect, America does have vast campaigns--public and private--supporting the adoption of healthier lifestyles.


I don't see it. Every other ad seems to be selling weight loss products, or some kind of drug. Now and then you may see an ad talking about five servings of fruits and veges a day. The next time you sit in front of your TV, get the ratio of ads for drugs to ads for healthy lifestyles. The latter doesn't make money.

I listen to, watch, and read foreign media, so I know the difference between campaings in the USA compared to campaigns elsewhere. Life in the US is geared primary toward profits. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just don't understand why anybody would deny a fact like that.

If you or I choose to live in a manner of poor nutrition and sedentary sensibility, then no company can force us to do otherwise.


No company can force you, but it can appeal to your sensibility to go out and make a purchase.

Why has the US banned soda in schools? Because people cannot be trusted to stay away from it.

The individual cannot be trusted to do the right thing always. The things he sees on TV affect his buying decisions. That is why cigarette ads are banned on TV. That is why Democrats want to ban talk radio from mentioning political candidates 30 days (I think)before election date.

TV ads are not inconsequencial, and that is why businesses gladly pay billions for them.
Richard Akindele
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: USA

Postby drrionelli » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:15 pm

Life in the US is geared primary toward profits. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just don't understand why anybody would deny a fact like that.


With all due respect, it's not that it's being denied, but rather I ask that you consider: Can the same not be said of any developed place in the world? Certainly, it is not exclusive to the US.

No company can force you, but it can appeal to your sensibility to go out and make a purchase.


Is not appealing to one's putative sensibilities to make a purchase what the free market is all about? Again, no one is forced to make purchases of any product that they don't want.

Why has the US banned soda in schools? Because people cannot be trusted to stay away from it.


Far from it. Rather, it is to reinforce selections of beverages other than soft drinks. Many students who wish to partake simply take their own.

The individual cannot be trusted to do the right thing always.


This is a given, with respect to any of a number of endeavors.

That is why Democrats want to ban talk radio from mentioning political candidates 30 days (I think)before election date.


Please note that the Campaign Finance Refort Act (to which you refer) was co-sponsored by John McCain, a Republican.

TV ads are not inconsequencial, and that is why businesses gladly pay billions for them.


Again, any advertising is, at best, only able to make a potential consumer aware of a good or service. That they are so expensive is a factor of the marketplace itself. There are only so many minutes available in a given allocation of time. Those advertising minutes must be best used (i.e., persuasive) to recoup their costs.
Laws are in place to protect the consumer from fraudulent business practices. It is also held that the consumer is, him/herself, responsible for self-education/awareness.

Please don't think, admin, that I'm simply spewing forth jingoistic, flag-waving, the-US-is-right-at-all-costs. By no means. There is much to be done to make the US...or any other country, for that matter...a better place to live. However, the fact that the US has so much to offer its people--whether or not said people can be trusted to make the most prudent decisions on behalf of themselves--is a fundamental tenet of a free society. Many products have been introduced to and taken from the market because all those ads failed to encourage people to buy them.
drrionelli
Newbie@Nairaland
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:49 pm

Postby Richard Akindele » Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:03 pm

I consider you a smart person. Quit grasping at straws.
Richard Akindele
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: USA

Postby drrionelli » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:58 pm

Rest assured, I would not do so. Nor do I need to.
drrionelli
Newbie@Nairaland
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:49 pm

Postby Richard Akindele » Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:43 pm

You're giving knee-jerk responses to my posts. What I expect is a response that clearly supports your point of view in the context of the discussion.

With all due respect, it's not that it's being denied, but rather I ask that you consider: Can the same not be said of any developed place in the world? Certainly, it is not exclusive to the US.


Good. So you do agree that profit making trumps human life. In that sense, why would you doubt that a cure for a disease can be rejected in favor of the sale of expensive drugs?

Is not appealing to one's putative sensibilities to make a purchase what the free market is all about? Again, no one is forced to make purchases of any product that they don't want.


I already disproved that statement two posts back by asking you why then is the advertising of certain things are banned.

Please note that the Campaign Finance Refort Act (to which you refer) was co-sponsored by John McCain, a Republican.


Again, a knee-jerk reaction.
What does it matter who sponsored the Campaign Finance Refort Act ?
The important fact is that advertising affects what decisions people make. Period.

As an aside, of all people in the Republican party, McCain is the one you hold as an example? C'mon, McCain is [R] in name only. The guy is in bed with the Liberals through and through. Why do you think his presidential aspirations died?

Please don't think, admin, that I'm simply spewing forth jingoistic, flag-waving, the-US-is-right-at-all-costs.


Your sensitivity to statements about the US is phenomenal.
The discussion is not about the US. It's about money vs human life.

Back to brass tacks, the cure for AIDS may have been rejected by the pharmaceutical industry (we don't know) because the expensive HIV/AIDS are currently raking in huge sums of money. That comment was a response to your scepticism about the alleged cure for AIDS found by a Nigerian.

We can continue the merry-go-round discussion, or we can agree that there's more to things sometimes than meets the eyes.

The bottomline is, what is best for the people is not always what is best for business. And since business has all the power, it rules the world in terms of policy decisions.

If Dr. Abalaka feels that he has found the "cure" for HIV, then why doesn't he seek other places which could more ably afford him the means to exploit his discovery?
Doing so would be scientifically for the world and financially for him far more propitious than keeping this knowledge confined to his clinic. How about America? China? France?

Something seems suspicious, here, with all due respect.


We don't know that Dr. Abalaka hasn't contacted the countries you mentioned.
Richard Akindele
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: USA

Postby fairykarma » Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:01 am

It's a mixed issue, but it's definitely no secret that major pharmaceutical companies have done a lot of lobbying to prevent the circulation of cheap AIDS treatment
fairykarma
Newbie@Nairaland
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:28 pm
Location: KL


Return to Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron