AIDS/HIV on the rise... (blame the Shrub?) (spam-free)

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:33 am

I read an article this morning in the paper. Here in the US, the CDC (our national Center for Disease Control, an excellent and highly respected government organization) just released a study on the recent rise of AIDS/HIV rates in the US.

Here's the article: CNN

The article reports that this is the first time since the AIDS crisis of the 1980s that AIDS infection rates have risen above 1 million people. I find this really discouraging, probably because I am a child of the 1980's and I grew up learning about AIDS.

I wonder about the causes of all this. The article names two distinct causes:
(1) The ability of modern medicine to allow patients to live longer with AIDS/HIV. This is a good thing- we are in the age of generic drugs and all.
(2) Recent outbreaks in the disease. This is really bad, and I have to wonder if it has anything to do with GW Bush's "abstinence only" approach to sexual education. For those who do not know, GWB has been a staunch proponent of allowing only abstinence to be taught in schools, as opposed to teaching abstinence along with other safe sex practices (ie: condoms, birth control, etc).

I just want to know what people think about all this. It is a subject that I have been concerned with for a long time.

Here are a couple of articles I found when I did a google search:

wikipedia

obviously biased site

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:39 am

I wouldn't blame Shrub on this, unless the rise in infections can be directly linked by survey to specific cultural messages about AIDS. But I would say that Shrub isn't helping in the US.

On the other hand, the whole abstinence-is-the-answer campaign is badly hobbled by the fact that it simply doesn't work: it's money being thrown away on nothing of value. Numerous studies have shown that when youthful hormones collide with abstinence rhetoric, the hormones win nearly every time.

And in impoverished third world nations, Shrub's policy is definitely doing harm. Where under Clinton condom use was actively promoted, Bush has made it a cornerstone of his foreign "social support" that the nations receiving it not use the money to promote safe sex. As in many cases this is the only money available to mount campaigns, the nations in question are left with refusing the aid, or spending the cash on abstinence messages.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:42 am

I view it as horrible, and idiotic, As I mentioned in my post in the other thread. This isn't a topic like discussing methods of climbing the jungle gym, or how to ride a bike. While those things can be dangerous, we are talking about spreading a fatal disease with no cure as of yet. Any and all methods of prevention should be taught and made available to prevent it from spreading.

Regardless of whether someone has a belief system that will make them reject using the information or not, catering to just one belief system because of that denies everyone else the ability to access that information. If Group A only wants to use abstinence, and Group B wants to use condoms, and Group C wants to use condoms and birth control, fine. You don't just cut out everything but abstinence and hope for the best, leaving Groups B and C lost on what to do and ignorant. That's insane.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:25 am

I think it is amazing that anyone, no matter what their faith, could fail to acknowledge the effectiveness of proper sexual education. This is especially bad from our commander in cheif, whom I would hope would try to be objective.

@fable

I don't know of any direct connection, but the correlation between the advent of Bush's abstinence campaign and the stark rise in AIDS rates is striking, don't you think? I'm worried that this is may be the first time we detect a still-spiking rise in AIDS/HIV infection, and that our President won't do anything sensible about it.

Like you said Mag, just saying "Don't have sex" won't work. Sex feels good, and unless people are informed, they won't be careful while having sex.

Edit- Bush's abstinence only message is especially ineffective in Africa, where there is a stronger tradition of men having control over women's sexual rights. If a man wants a woman, he can (in many circumstances) take her, and he won't have to use a condom if he doesn't want to.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:03 am

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I don't know of any direct connection, but the correlation between the advent of Bush's abstinence campaign and the stark rise in AIDS rates is striking, don't you think?[/quote]

Honestly, no, I don't. Two facts of minimal or no relationship can be placed next to one another, but that doesn't to me suggest any correlation. And you know from many past threads in this forum over the last six years (or you can, if you want to check) that I'm probably Shrub's worst critic. Because I know what he's been doing behind the scenes, in less publicized ways, to undermine effective, responsive government, and to implement a neo-con agenda.

But I'm not going to arbitrarily believe he is guilty of this or anything else without facts establishing a clear link. And frankly, I don't think any US AIDS federally-funded information campaign is going to be very effective, because the government funds these things poorly comparable to the variety and depth of competing media messages. Where the effectiveness of such a campaign can be judged is in nations that have very low media use and advertising; many African nations come to mind. And that is where I think the ineffectiveness of the abstinence campaign and its chronic denial of reality is clearly shown.

I suspect AIDS is increasing in the US because target at-risk groups are simply deciding to give up caring, much as was the case in the South Miami gay sub-culture study I mentioned in the other thread.

I'm worried that this is may be the first time we detect a still-spiking rise in AIDS/HIV infection, and that our President won't do anything sensible about it.

You...sincerely believe Bush is going to do something sensible about an issue that has religious or political overtones?

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:27 am

[QUOTE=fable]You...sincerely believe Bush is going to do something sensible about an issue that has religious or political overtones?

[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not that naive/optomistic. I do think that he should however, because he is the president. IMO, this is not a value judgement; it is about dealing with a global pandemic. (I'm pretty sure you agree fable).

I guess I don't think that there is a direct relationship at this point either. What you said about comparing dissimilar sets of data is very true. However, I do think that there has been a shift in the way that people view sex and sexual interaction. I know that when I was growing up, sex was a serious matter, a decision, that had pros and cons.

Now I see a more polarized view of sex, with two extremes: either you are completely against sexual activity (Bush, christian conservatives) or you talk about it all the time (much of pop culture). In my neighborhood, 8 year old girls walk around wearing shorts that have "Juicy" written across the behind- this is turning into a rant, but I guess I am worried that sexualization is occuring in too radical a manner.

Now, let it be known that I am unabashedly pro-sex

. However, with sex should come sexual education. My real concern is that our current president is encouraging this polarization, and I am suspicious about the rise in AIDS infections.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:47 am

*nods* Your right Cuch. You've got 13 year old girls doing their best to pass for 18 nowadays. You've got fashion designer's deliberately adjusting how girls clothes look to be more "sexy", indeed, you can notice a large difference in clothes from toddler's on up now from when I was 5 or so 17 years ago. Most are simply smaller version's of teen clothes.

This, right there, makes people think in a more sexual manner at a younger age, you don't need anything else.

I'm all for sex, yet sex no longer becomes fun once you catch a disease, or have an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy. Safe sex takes more work, denies you some of the spontaneous fun of how a lot of younger people want things, yet it is far, far better for you. Not to mention allows you to keep having that fun in the future. Educating people about safe sex gives them options. If you happen to be religious, and hear about a condom and birth control and decide not to have sex before your married based on your religion it won't set you on fire and send you to hell. It will simply let you make a choice on your actions. You are now educated, and have options. Handing out just one option and saying "do this" makes kids feel insulted and offended, not to mention oppositional. They think "screw this" and do the opposite.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:51 am

I have done a lot of research on HIV/AIDS in Africa. I fully recognise that the US and Africa are very different places, but in Africa leadership has had a critical impact on the rise and prevalance of HIV/AIDS.

In South Africa, one of the worst hit, President Thabo Mbeki long denied that the HIV virus directly caused AIDS. Moreover he advocated more traditional medicines and abstinence to combat the disease. This approach directly contributed to escalating rates of infection in South Africa.

Meanwhile, nations such as Uganda have been able to significantly decrease the spread of the disease. According to the WHO:

Success in reducing the prevalence of HIV in Uganda is the result of a broad-based national effort backed up by firm political commitment, including the personal involvement of the head of state, President Yoweri Museveni. From the outset, the government involved religious and traditional leaders, community groups, NGOs, and all sectors of society, forging a consensus around the need to contain the escalating spread of HIV and provide care and support for those affected.

Now admittedly, African society differs greatly from that in the US. And, in the case of Uganda, success is also the result of all sectors of society working in unison. But, I wanted to point out that in Africa, at least, there is a direct correlation between succesfully impacting HIV/AIDS prevalence and the committment of a nation's leadership.

Thus, I don't necessarily think it would be a stretch to suggest that the Bush administration has indeed influenced the rise in HIV infection rates.

Galuf the Dwarf · Post by **Galuf the Dwarf** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:43 am

I was thinking... has there been any noted rise in abuse of substances that may cause exchange of bodily fluids (such as injecting heroin)?

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:13 am

[QUOTE=fable]the hormones win nearly every time.[/QUOTE]

You're joking right?

Best way to not get a cold is to stop breathing.

Need I mention that most HIV/Aids inhibitors are under patents, and cannot be generically manufactured (read: cheap) until the medical industry has earned it's money? Bush isn't helping, but we shouldn't forget that the pharmaceutical companies are doing their best to support him.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:35 am

[QUOTE=silur]Need I mention that most HIV/Aids inhibitors are under patents, and cannot be generically manufactured (read: cheap) until the medical industry has earned it's money? Bush isn't helping, but we shouldn't forget that the pharmaceutical companies are doing their best to support him.[/QUOTE]
While AIDS drugs are intellectual property, many other nations generically manufacture AIDS drugs anyway (ie: Brazil). I am, actually, in favor of intellectual property rights, especially in terms of the medical industry; without it, there is no way to feasibly fund R&D, and therefore no way to develop new drugs. What I am not in favor of is recklessly high pricing of necessary drugs.

(As a side note, this varies widely from company to company. Merck, on one hand, developed and gave away Mectizan, a drug that cures river blindness- that's right, they gave it away, for free. Merck also gave medicines away to Japan to fight Tuburculosis after WWII, when Japan was being ravaged by TB. Pfizer, on the other hand, has been much less visionary, and much more concerned with market share, profitability, etc.)

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:58 am

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I am, actually, in favor of intellectual property rights, especially in terms of the medical industry; without it, there is no way to feasibly fund R&D, and therefore no way to develop new drugs.[/QUOTE]

I completely disagree, but that is an issue for a different thread.

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]As a side note, this varies widely from company to company. Merck, on one hand, developed and gave away Mectizan, a drug that cures river blindness- that's right, they gave it away, for free.[/QUOTE]

This is the same Merck that produced Vioxx? I guess suppressing information, threatening scientists and keep selling dangerous drugs is all in a days work for a pharmaceutical company, while the instances where they do good for a change should be emphasised.

Oskatat · Post by **Oskatat** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:05 am

On the subject of other authorities that worsen the aids situation in the world, do not fail to mention the late pope. His attacks on condoms, forbidding their use, proclaiming the are completely unsafe, caused many african and south american populations to throw condoms away (sidenote: in some parts of asia, condoms are highly prized as water carriers).

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:16 am

[QUOTE=Oskatat]On the subject of other authorities that worsen the aids situation in the world, do not fail to mention the late pope. His attacks on condoms, forbidding their use, proclaiming the are completely unsafe, caused many african and south american populations to throw condoms away (sidenote: in some parts of asia, condoms are highly prized as water carriers).[/QUOTE]

I would actually put the late pope one peg higher than shrub on the list of perpetrators against humanity in this issue. I doubt the new pope will better that situation...

I have already been flayed twice for not paying enough respects to dead people, but my view of the late pope is that he brought back far too many of the horrors from the middle ages.

Denethorn · Post by **Denethorn** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:31 am

[QUOTE=Silur]he brought back far too many of the horrors from the middle ages.[/QUOTE]

Which made him a hero for certain aspects of Catholicism. He may have (wrongly?) influenced a generation on their use of contraceptives, but he also played a huge and iconic role in politics, many of which were benficial to the world.

My view on AIDs and other STDs is that they will naturally peak and trough to some degree, no matter how much campaigning and education is pumped into the populace.

As for GWB's abstinence only policy - well it's easy for an aging, married man to tell hormonal teenagers to stay away from sex. Abstinence is one of the more stupid concepts in modern society in my opinion - it is denying such a pivotal function of existence (not to mention something immensely enjoyable and truly a unique experiance

). I think it both cruel and stupid to try and get teenagers to abstain.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:31 am

Just as an aside regarding Merck and HIV.
They were the target of a very successful shareholder campaign on AIDS/HIV, and this is at least partly why their policies are more enlightened .

And Pfizer, yes indeed...As far as large pharmaceuticals go they are amongst the worst in terms of of social responsibility. The socially responsible investment firm I worked for actually had them on their banned list.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 1:57 pm

[QUOTE=Silur]I completely disagree, but that is an issue for a different thread.[/quote]
I'm happy to talk about it.

[QUOTE=Silur]This is the same Merck that produced Vioxx? I guess suppressing information, threatening scientists and keep selling dangerous drugs is all in a days work for a pharmaceutical company, while the instances where they do good for a change should be emphasised.[/QUOTE]
The very same company. If you're looking for dastardly and evil companies, there are much better targets than Merck. In 1935 (decades before "values statements" were popular) George Merck II said:

[quote="George Merck II] "]
More than 50 years later (in 1991) Merck gave away Mectizan. At the time Merck's cheif executive said this:

[quote="P. Roy Vagelos]"]
Merck has a very well documented history of conduct- books are written talking about how visionary and outstanding Merck is as a company (that's why I have all these quotes). They truly stick to their ideology, with the idea that if they do great things and develop medicines that stop disease, fair profits will follow.

Now, as far as Vioxx goes, I don't know the specifics of the case. I do know that many people suffered side effects, some of which were fatal. However, I don't know if Vioxx was a direct cause, and I also don't know how often the success of Vioxx saved lives.

I don't think Merck is perfect, but I do think that Merck is a good example for companies (unlike Pfizer, as I mentioned before).

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:54 pm

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I'm happy to talk about it.[/QUOTE]

Some other time perhaps... I'm pretty much in "hit and run" mode on GB at the moment.

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Now, as far as Vioxx goes, I don't know the specifics of the case. I do know that many people suffered side effects, some of which were fatal. However, I don't know if Vioxx was a direct cause, and I also don't know how often the success of Vioxx saved lives.

I don't think Merck is perfect, but I do think that Merck is a good example for companies (unlike Pfizer, as I mentioned before).[/QUOTE]

Vioxx doubles your chance of having a heart attack. This was known and suppressed in 2000 (see Lancet). When scientists spoke up last year they first tried to threaten them into silence and later claimed that the find was a "complete surprise".

Im not targetting Merck, I think all pharmaceutical companies of more than average size are highly suspect; Eli Lily, Pfizer, Glaxo, you name them. The statements and actions you mention are all well and good, but they didn't pass the final test - to stand up for their own mistakes.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:49 pm

[QUOTE=Silur]Im not targetting Merck, I think all pharmaceutical companies of more than average size are highly suspect; Eli Lily, Pfizer, Glaxo, you name them. The statements and actions you mention are all well and good, but they didn't pass the final test - to stand up for their own mistakes.[/QUOTE]
Merck actually has a great recall record, including recalling an entire batch of aspirin nationally because of one faulty bottle. Pfizer, in a similar case, only recalled the batch in a relatively small area and downplayed the incident. Rather than go into this more deeply (since I am no expert about Merck and you seem to know alot but spefically about Vioxx), I am happy to say that most medical companies have put profits over people in the past 10 years. I think that AIDS makes for a wonderful debate in this regard.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:34 pm

[QUOTE=Silur]You're joking right?

Best way to not get a cold is to stop breathing.[/QUOTE]

Er, did you read the context of my remarks, and that I thought the abstinence campaign was utterly ludicrous?