Comprehensive coverage

Juice infected a baby with HIV? Incarnation of news on a broken phone

זAnd it is not a record about circumcision, it is not a record about how to make a covenant, why one makes a covenant, or whether one should make a covenant or not. This is a record about the nonsense of journalists, and it starts with my friend Yael.

 Children playing broken phone. Drawing from 1920 from Wikipedia

This is not a record of circumcision. This is not a record about how to make a covenant, why one makes a covenant, or whether one should make a covenant or not. This is a record about the nonsense of journalists, and it starts with my friend Yael.

Yael is an excellent speculative writer and a good friend of mine. One of my favorite qualities about her is her common sense. This morning she posted a simple question on Facebook: How can a baby get HIV from juice? She connected For the article in Wynette The title was "New York: The baby who contracted herpes from the juice was also infected with HIV". The article on Vinet cited an article from Fox News, which specifically stated that a baby contracted herpes and HIV from the juice he had sucked on. (Yes, a peep, if you do not understand the laws of circumcision, blessed are you).

But it's not just Wynette. This mistake appeared in every online newspaper that reported on the sick babies in Israel. She appeared inKnitted", she appeared in "Shabbat Square” (where, for reasons of modesty, they did not say HIV but “dangerous virus”), she appeared in debates for and against circumcision (as on the website “horseman")

My friend Yael knew what we all know, that - HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, passes through body fluids. It can be transmitted through semen and blood, and is usually transmitted through unprotected sexual contact or the use of shared syringes. In the case of sucking it can still pass, but it will pass from the receiver to the giver (in this case from the baby to the sap). Yael, as mentioned, is a girl with common sense. She assumed there was no reason for Wint to lie to her, and so she wondered how a transfer from the giver to the recipient was possible. She brought up some interesting possibilities, including a joint wound, bleeding on the covenant wound, and other possibilities.

What Yael didn't realize was that it was a typographical error.

What is the difference? Only one letter!

The Fox article itself quoted from medical daily, which quotes ABC, which contains the original message from the health authorities in New York. Of all these, the only one that was right in terms of scientific truth is the ABC website, with the original message.

The original report said that two babies contracted herpes from the sap, and one of them tested positive for HSV. This report was faithfully passed from one media outlet to another, until it reached Medical Daily, apparently (it's hard to find the first one to distort the information). Someone there looked at the letters and they didn't make sense to him (probably). “HSV?” He asked himself, “There is no such virus. It makes more sense that we meant HIV!" Immediately our efficient-active editor jumped to his keyboard and happily and happily published the very shocking article - about juice that spreads herpes and AIDS to eight-day-old babies!

HSV, or herpes simplex virus, is a virus that kills babies. have been in recent years several deaths As a result of the transmission of herpes simplex in the alliance. The virus causes an unpleasant sore on the lip in adults, but in babies it causes a systemic disease that can end in organ collapse and death. When herpes is suspected in a baby, it is attacked with all the wonders of modern medicine, because it is a virus that affects every system. From the abdominal organs to the brain.

HIV, or human immunodeficiency virus, is a virus that does not kill babies. Babies born to HIV carriers and infected at birth (from the mother! not from the juice) must receive as soon as possible Antiviral treatment to delay the progress of the virus, but they don't die from it. In the western world, babies born with HIV are expected to live a (relatively) long life.


So Yael, my friend, without a medical education came up with the problem herself that didn't set off alarm bells for a health reporter - everyone is smart, everyone is wise and everyone knows the theory of medicine - from the United States to the Holy Land.

Getting infected with AIDS is no small matter. To get infected with AIDS, you need a significant amount of the virus, you need the transfer of body fluids, and the direction of the transfer needs to be logical. You don't need to be an expert in infectious diseases to understand that AIDS simply could not have passed from the baby to the sap, enough to live on Earth for the last thirty years. AIDS is transmitted in body fluids from the sick person to the healthy person.

Getting herpes, on the other hand, is child's play (even if they're only eight days old). To become infected with herpes, exposure of a mucous membrane (eg eyes, lips or genitals) to a herpes sore is enough. In fact, this virus is so malicious that it can be transmitted even if there is no wound. There have been documented cases where the virus was secreted by the carrier, even when there was no wound around to cause infection. In the act of sucking (during the covenant) there is contact between the mucous membrane of a sick person and the exposed genital organ of a healthy baby, and whoa - infection!


News on Fox where they confused HIV and HSV (herpes) and decided that the baby was infected with both
News on Fox where they confused HIV and HSV (herpes) and decided that the baby was infected with both

Meanwhile all the sites have corrected their mistake, but remnants still remain. For example, pay attention to the URL of the Fox News article, or to the talkbacks on the Medical News website that refer to content that no longer appears in the article about HIV. There are also screenshots that show the original error:

And what do we learn?

Does it make sense to you that from Fox to Wyatt, no one stopped to think for a moment? No one bothered to use simple logic and ask how the hell can anyone think it makes sense that HIV is transmitted by sucking from the sap to a baby? No health reporter, people who are supposed to know about medicine, read the news before he translated it?

Because if everyone just copies from one to the other, and no one thinks in the middle, I vote in favor of appointing Yael as the scientific reporter of all the popular press in the world.
• From a website The Jerusalem Post who scolds Fox for misleading the public.
• Post of Yuval Dror The excellent one is reprimanded by enthusiastic health writers.


5 תגובות

  1. Asaf
    You are 100% right. The Jewish ritual of circumcision is cruel and stupid. The surgical procedure called Mila is indeed widespread all over the world, even in the Western world. There is much evidence that it is overall healthy and prevents a number of problems - such as cancer, papilloma and AIDS.

    There is, of course, an ethical problem in performing such a procedure on a baby, but that is another issue...

  2. So it turns out that the real danger is not herpes (I don't understand why mohels don't get tested for herpes), but that the journalists are stupid and the stupid public thirstily drinks their words.

  3. The situation of copying technical information without control and distributing it in dozens of reputable places is a very common situation. Usually the reporters can't or don't want to check their words and are content with verbal control only.

  4. Asaf,
    It is possible to update, "a simple and unnecessary surgical procedure", because these days there is no need to make alliances with demons and spirits. We got through it.

  5. It is good that whoever writes about the subject should know the difference between:
    Because it is a simple surgical procedure that many people all over the world go through
    at different ages and for different reasons,
    and an agreement which is an approved and signed "agreement" between and by the parties,
    The Jews have a custom in which they "seal" the covenant with God with a word,
    Therefore: a covenant is not a word and a word is not a covenant,
    worth internalizing.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.