Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 9, 2009
Health / Politics / Homo "I miss George W. Bush."
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:42 AM
NYT:
As the Obama administration slowly unveils its global AIDS plan, the drive to put more people on drugs is being scaled back as emphasis is shifted to prevention and to diseases that cost less to fight, including pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria and fatal birth complications. AIDS advocates complained bitterly that they had been betrayed and that the Bush administration’s best legacy was being gutted—and they blame a doctor and budget adviser who is also the brother of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.“I’m holding my nose as I say this, but I miss George W. Bush,” said Gregg Gonsalves a long-time AIDS campaigner. “On AIDS, he really stepped up. He did a tremendous thing. Now, to have this happen under Obama is really depressing.”
1
Obama's far from perfect, but I'm not even close to missing Bush.
And, I know AIDS is terrible and worth spending money to research, but doesn't it already get a ridiculously large proportion of funding?
And, I know AIDS is terrible and worth spending money to research, but doesn't it already get a ridiculously large proportion of funding?
2
"emphasis is shifted to prevention and to diseases that cost less to fight, including pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria and fatal birth complications"
what's wrong with saving more lives again?
what's wrong with saving more lives again?
3
I agree with @2. Just because AIDS is a sad disease doesn't mean that fighting it is the most effective way to improve global health. We can save far more lives by doing things like reducing diarrhea-related deaths.
4
@2, what's wrong with it is that highly-paid AIDS activists won't be getting a cut of the dollars. Hence the protest.
A million lives a year, almost all of them children, could be saved just by buying a ton of malaria nets for a buck apiece.
A million lives a year, almost all of them children, could be saved just by buying a ton of malaria nets for a buck apiece.
6
@4, not to mention low-tech water filtration materials and electrolyte mixes for rehydration of diahrrea victims.
8
People should educate themselves about disease approach vs public health approach to AIDS, before they make up their mind. It is good that we are shifting the emphasis back to public health approach.
9
This is rediculous. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that American liberals are scared of AIDS more than dying due to diarrhea. This leads them to care more for AIDS patients overseas but I have to say we need to make a hard decision.
We can spend the money where our dollars go the furthest to save lives or we can spend our money where it makes us feel the warm and squishiest inside.
We can spend the money where our dollars go the furthest to save lives or we can spend our money where it makes us feel the warm and squishiest inside.
11
but dan only sees the world through gay eyes, no other issue matters, let a thousand babies die for lack of clean water, doesn't matter because it's not somehow related to the gay cause. It's nice to go to bat for your kind and all but really, a little perspective here would be nice.
p.s. I'm gay
p.s. I'm gay
13
Every day that goes by I don't miss Bush.
For even a second.
I'd like to be able to start missing Dick Cheney, but he won't go home to Hades yet.
For even a second.
I'd like to be able to start missing Dick Cheney, but he won't go home to Hades yet.
14
I'd just like to say that I clicked through to comments expecting a pile of responses decrying the change in the plan, just as Dan did.
So nice to see so many people so thoughtful, and well informed!
So nice to see so many people so thoughtful, and well informed!
15
But don't you understand it's vitally important to save money on AIDs assistance so we can throw it in the ground in Afghanistan?
That's the choice here--not between preventing Diarrhea vs AIDS assistance.
That's the choice here--not between preventing Diarrhea vs AIDS assistance.
16
@11 Dan hasn't actually commented on this. Maybe he posted this because of the provocative/ridiculous quote "I miss George Bush". Oh, and those of us who are gay actually have gay eyes.
p.s. i'm gay
p.s. i'm gay
17
Sorry, Dan, but @8 and @11 have hit a certain nail on the head. Despite this paper's championing of Obama and its reveling in his election, you and your staff (mostly you) have been incessant critics of the administration's policies ever since. Granted, some of the change we all expected hasn't been delivered, especially in arenas like gay rights. Still, the possible eight years of this administration have barely begun. Your brand of criticism is driving us closer to a President Palin or a President Huckabee, and that does none of us any good. Did Murdoch put you up to this? Readers of the thread deserve a response.
18
Do people with Aids have to die to save kids from malaria? I'm disappointed that the Obama administration isn't smart enough to figure out a way to fund both of these programs....
19
@16: Are gay eyes anything like beer goggles? Lip syncing mullet wearing 80s Brit popsters dig chicks with ragin' eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEYIvE-YI…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEYIvE-YI…
20
Hey lets spend every last dime to save every last soul living in a disadvantaged country because the world certainly needs more people!
22
Yeah, Bush did so much to help people already living with the disease, while pushing bullshit like abstinence in Africa -- leading to more people getting infected. In the face of an incurable disease, prevention is far more important than treatment.
23
@17. I understand well that straight Democrats would love it if gay progressives would just shut the hell up and keep pouring money into the Democratic Party no matter how disrespectful it becomes, but here's a newsflash for Dexter: Gay progressives don't exist to serve your needs. Coalition is a two-way street, buddy. This gay man has no intention whatsoever of providing any more money, work, or votes for a thoroughly de-gayed, increasingly gay-hostile straights-first Democratic agenda. Especially after the complete Democratic betrayal in the New York state senate on marriage equality, I'm rapidly reaching the point where I will CELEBRATE Democratic losses, because marginalized and disempowered straight Democrats will suddenly get a taste of what they've been doing to gay Democrats literally since the inauguration of this president. The gay-rights movement survived the Bush years quite well. We can survive a Palin Administration. But what we won't do is continue supporting the political homophobes in this allegedly progressive administration.
24
I know where you are coming from, @23, believe me, I do. I don't mean that we shouldn't call politicians to account, but we cannot be myopic in our approach. And that's what this blog is, day after day.
26
@24. Your comment wasn't about the blog; your comment was a condescending lecture to all gay voters. If you like, feel free to slap us with names like myopic when we don't agree to ignore all gay issues and just grin, clap, and chant "yes we can" while giving money, support, and votes to a Party that has systemically de-gayed its agenda and aggressively defended antigay discrimination in the courts. How self-loathing do you think we are? What you still don't get is that we don't exist to serve heterosexual Democrats. We don't owe them anything. If they want our money, work, and votes, they have to earn it. And since the first day of this administration, their only message has been "f--- you." Well, that's our message back as the money-grubbers start shaking us down for funds. I've already been repeatedly solicited for 2010 and have repeatedly said "hell no."
27
@26, Your hyperbolic characterization of, and reaction to, what I said reveals your individual self-loathing more than I could hope to. All I meant (and I think it was obvious) is that we are better off with this administration than with any likely alternative. Did Murdoch put you up to this?
28
@7
EXACTLY.
@11
Awesome. You're totally right.
@18
You're a dumbass and know jack shit about the issue.
@20
You're a dickwad. The world could definitely use one less of *you*.
p.s. I'm not gay
EXACTLY.
@11
Awesome. You're totally right.
@18
You're a dumbass and know jack shit about the issue.
@20
You're a dickwad. The world could definitely use one less of *you*.
p.s. I'm not gay
30
@27. Ahhhh, now we've gotten past the b.s. to hear what you really think. Now, we're getting the honest political homophobia out of you. If we're gay, we're supposed to shut up and keep giving money, work, and votes. If not, we're no different from Rupert Murdock. Well, Dexter, my partner and I raised about $50K for Obama in '08, but we're on target to raise $0 in '10 or '12. If you're so worried about party unity, lecturing me about what you think I ought to think my interests are and calling me names if I don't express the opinions that you want me to express is not the way to get party unity. You've now tried basically every rhetoric tool of political homophobes in the Democratic Party. "You're not a real progressive." "You're going to hurt other people." "You're being myopic." "You must not be a real progressive." "You don't have anywhere else to go." Well, if that makes you feel good, Dexter, keep on. But you aren't doing a damn thing to bring me back into the Democratic fold by continuing to lecture and attack me. If you want party unity, start by getting the party to keep some promises and stop saying "f--- you" to gay Dems. I did my part in '08. I gave, worked, and voted. I waited in the lines to get into rallies. I waved the signs. I chanted the slogans. And what did I get in return? Rick Warren at the inauguration, legal briefs defending discrimination, and endless excuses for deliberate inaction. I'm not the problem, and I won't be lectured about who is and isn't a good progressive by a say-anything defender of the administration. And I sure as hell won't be bullied into just shutting up and giving more money. If straight Democrats suffer, that's too damn bad.
31
Anybody who misses Bush is either a fucking idiot or a mentally defective right-winger (is there any other kind?).
32
@27. Oh, I almost forgot, Dexter. Re your smart-a$$ allegation that my anger reveals self-hatred...F--- YOU.
33
@30, You used lots of quotation marks to indicate things I didn't say. You are having a conversation with yourself, not with me. Please realize that. Also, you have made many assumptions about me up there. I don't care about party unity, but please calm down and think about the immediate and long term effects of your POV, ok? Ok? And @31 is damn right.
34
@28 I'm a 'dickwad' ?
Seriously where does it end? That's always the problem with foreign aid - there isn't enough money in the world to solve the problems of the developing world. I'm not a right wing troll and my comment was not meant to be mean spirited. I consider myself a Liberal but I'm also a pragmatist when it comes to government policy. To bring us bag to the whole AIDS vs everything else debate - there is a finite amount of resources available - I applaud what appears to be sensible decision.
Seriously where does it end? That's always the problem with foreign aid - there isn't enough money in the world to solve the problems of the developing world. I'm not a right wing troll and my comment was not meant to be mean spirited. I consider myself a Liberal but I'm also a pragmatist when it comes to government policy. To bring us bag to the whole AIDS vs everything else debate - there is a finite amount of resources available - I applaud what appears to be sensible decision.
35
My decision is not personally pleasant for me, but is also isn't flippantly made. I didn't ask to be thrown under the bus and would have preferred not to have been. But it is in my community's long-term interest to make sure that the next Democratic administration or Congress thinks twice before snatching money out of our hands and then promptly throwing us under the bus. My time horizon spans well beyond who wins the next election. Do you know how long we've been waiting for for Congress to pass a simple employment nondiscrimination law? The first bill was introduced in 1974--35 years ago. At age 40, that's basically my entire lifetime. I've been hearing "oh, just help us win one more election and then maybe we'll address your little issues" for two decades. Sorry. I'm not buying it anymore. No more support until I see results. Having survive the Bush years and even significantly advanced our movement at the state and local level then, I don't fear a Palin Administration. The fear tactics of the straight political homophobes who run the party don't work anymore. They can burn some political capital on a real gay issue, or they can look elsewhere for support. I'm done.
36
#27.
Stop asking this stupid question!
#31, yes, I agree.
p.s. I'm gay.
Did Murdoch put you up to this?
Stop asking this stupid question!
#31, yes, I agree.
p.s. I'm gay.
37
Why would anyone miss Bush? He wasn't really that great for AIDS issues, what with his "abstinence solves everything" ideas. And quite frankly, how much more money does AIDS research need, and why should it get more than research for heart disease, cancer, and diabetes?
The average American is far, far more likely to die of the above 3 diseases, murder, and accidents than AIDS. While I'm all for AIDS awareness, the media has hyped it up in America so much, that many people think its one of the US's top killers. It's not. It's not even in the top 10 list of things that will kill in the US. In other nations, yes AIDS is a big deal, but so is malaria and outright malnutrition. There is so much more we die from than AIDS, why should AIDS get the lion's share of funding? Let AIDS research have funding by all means, but let's keep things in perspective, and allot money to diseases that actually kill more people.
It's an ugly reality, but we can't afford to fund all research for every single disease out there. You have to hit the most common diseases (or other fatality-related issues), then work on the less common problems.
The average American is far, far more likely to die of the above 3 diseases, murder, and accidents than AIDS. While I'm all for AIDS awareness, the media has hyped it up in America so much, that many people think its one of the US's top killers. It's not. It's not even in the top 10 list of things that will kill in the US. In other nations, yes AIDS is a big deal, but so is malaria and outright malnutrition. There is so much more we die from than AIDS, why should AIDS get the lion's share of funding? Let AIDS research have funding by all means, but let's keep things in perspective, and allot money to diseases that actually kill more people.
It's an ugly reality, but we can't afford to fund all research for every single disease out there. You have to hit the most common diseases (or other fatality-related issues), then work on the less common problems.
38
Do people with Aids have to die to save kids from malaria?
If this means Andrew Sullivan will die from shitting himself to death, then YES!
39
37ftw and voice of reason.
60% of all new AIDS cases in America occur in 1.5% of the population...
60% of all new AIDS cases in America occur in 1.5% of the population...
41
There are 35 million people living with HIV/AIDS, of whom over 2 million are children under 15. Only 4 million of those currently infected have access to treatment. 25 million people have died from HIV-related causes since the beginning of the epidemic.
The number of people living with HIV increased by 20% between 2000 and 2008, and has tripled since 1990. 500,000 children under 15 were newly infected with HIV in 2008. AIDS-related illnesses remain one of the leading causes of death globally and are projected to continue as a significant global cause of premature mortality in the coming decades. In 2008, more than 14.1 million children in sub-Saharan Africa lost one or both parents to AIDS. The risk of becoming infected is especially disproportionate for girls and young women.
People aged 15-24 account for 45% of new infections, but less than 40% of them have access to accurate information about prevention; only 55% of young women know that condoms help prevent transmission of HIV. One third of countries lack laws preventing discrimination based on HIV status...
....None of this suggests that it's time to focus our energies elsewhere.
The number of people living with HIV increased by 20% between 2000 and 2008, and has tripled since 1990. 500,000 children under 15 were newly infected with HIV in 2008. AIDS-related illnesses remain one of the leading causes of death globally and are projected to continue as a significant global cause of premature mortality in the coming decades. In 2008, more than 14.1 million children in sub-Saharan Africa lost one or both parents to AIDS. The risk of becoming infected is especially disproportionate for girls and young women.
People aged 15-24 account for 45% of new infections, but less than 40% of them have access to accurate information about prevention; only 55% of young women know that condoms help prevent transmission of HIV. One third of countries lack laws preventing discrimination based on HIV status...
....None of this suggests that it's time to focus our energies elsewhere.
42
I am so glad that #41 finally put forth an opposing viewpoint, just as I was getting angry and getting ready to bang out a rather angry comment.
AIDS is devastating because it hits people at their prime, the people who should be contributing to their country's growth and development. Prevention, is, of course, excellent and necessary. But that completely ignores the millions (35 million) of people who are currently living with AIDS, whose lives could be extended by decades (and more importantly, exponentially increased in quality), who would otherwise die.
18 was completely right that it can and should be a holistic process. There are plenty of successful models for effectively treating AIDS as well as diseases like malaria, diarrhea, etc. But it seems that people don't realize that AIDS is often the underlying cause (directly or indirectly) of these diseases.
And honestly, the price, quality and ease-of-use of AIDS drugs have gone up so dramatically recently that it's not a huge burden to implement a successful AIDS treatment program.
AIDS is devastating because it hits people at their prime, the people who should be contributing to their country's growth and development. Prevention, is, of course, excellent and necessary. But that completely ignores the millions (35 million) of people who are currently living with AIDS, whose lives could be extended by decades (and more importantly, exponentially increased in quality), who would otherwise die.
18 was completely right that it can and should be a holistic process. There are plenty of successful models for effectively treating AIDS as well as diseases like malaria, diarrhea, etc. But it seems that people don't realize that AIDS is often the underlying cause (directly or indirectly) of these diseases.
And honestly, the price, quality and ease-of-use of AIDS drugs have gone up so dramatically recently that it's not a huge burden to implement a successful AIDS treatment program.
43
While I agree that in some countries, such as South Africa, it is most important to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, in other African or other developing countries, it can be very different.
In countries like Yemen one in seven women dies in child birth due to malnutrition and lack of hygiene. It would be very cheap to prevent those deaths. And think about the millions of children who die of preventable diseases, malnutrition and lack of hygiene.
What I want to say is: Stop looking at Africa or the developing world as one big country with the same problem everywhere. While HIV is a major problem in some sub-Saharan countries, it is certainly not the only problem, and it isn't even the biggest health problem in all African countries.
In countries like Yemen one in seven women dies in child birth due to malnutrition and lack of hygiene. It would be very cheap to prevent those deaths. And think about the millions of children who die of preventable diseases, malnutrition and lack of hygiene.
What I want to say is: Stop looking at Africa or the developing world as one big country with the same problem everywhere. While HIV is a major problem in some sub-Saharan countries, it is certainly not the only problem, and it isn't even the biggest health problem in all African countries.
44
@42
"There are plenty of success models for treating AIDS"
Really? Ones that effectively work well on the ground in sub-Saharan Africa?? Bullshit. Problem with AIDS in Africa is that it is an enormously difficult disease to fight because it's so tied to culture, poverty, lack of development, etc. We continously try to impose the Western model of how to fight this disease (cos it worked for us) in places where it consistently *doesn't work*, hence the stats that 41 has cited. Put our money in places where it really *works* and easily *saves lives* and this is what Obama is proposing.
Oh, and by the way, I lived in a village Africa where 30% of everyone I knew was likely infected w/AIDS. I watched the local international NGOs piss all that aid money down the drain. Despite all their pointless banners and workshops, and promises of treatment for everyone, AIDS was on *the increase* there even though everybody knew all about the disease and people did *not* have consistent access to testing/treatment.
So many other diseases are *easy* problems to solve - like malaria, etc, and money put toward them will easily save *millions* of lives.
"There are plenty of success models for treating AIDS"
Really? Ones that effectively work well on the ground in sub-Saharan Africa?? Bullshit. Problem with AIDS in Africa is that it is an enormously difficult disease to fight because it's so tied to culture, poverty, lack of development, etc. We continously try to impose the Western model of how to fight this disease (cos it worked for us) in places where it consistently *doesn't work*, hence the stats that 41 has cited. Put our money in places where it really *works* and easily *saves lives* and this is what Obama is proposing.
Oh, and by the way, I lived in a village Africa where 30% of everyone I knew was likely infected w/AIDS. I watched the local international NGOs piss all that aid money down the drain. Despite all their pointless banners and workshops, and promises of treatment for everyone, AIDS was on *the increase* there even though everybody knew all about the disease and people did *not* have consistent access to testing/treatment.
So many other diseases are *easy* problems to solve - like malaria, etc, and money put toward them will easily save *millions* of lives.
45
And the reason why there has been a shit ton of money in Africa to fight fucking AIDS is because the diesease scares US in the developed world. Death by diarreha? Malaria? We're not scared of dying from these diseases but they kill a shit ton of people every day in Africa. The West is so fucking self-centered in their "help" of places that need it the most.
47
@ jsc #23 & 26 etc.
YOU RULE DUDE. Finally gays are getting the message that the Democrats are playing all carrot no stick. Dexter St. Clair accuses you of being self-loathing but it is far more self-loathing to kneel at the boots of a party that betrays your trust & hardwork (and takes you for granted) because he is scared of Sarah Palin.
YOU RULE DUDE. Finally gays are getting the message that the Democrats are playing all carrot no stick. Dexter St. Clair accuses you of being self-loathing but it is far more self-loathing to kneel at the boots of a party that betrays your trust & hardwork (and takes you for granted) because he is scared of Sarah Palin.
48
@44
An example of a model that works:
http://www.pih.org/where/Rwanda/Rwanda.h…
There are a lot of them- most of them are small in scale, and most of them aren't well publicized. The most successful ones (like Partners in Health) treat HIV/AIDS as only part of "culture, poverty, lack of development, etc." There is absolutely a lack of communication among NGOs, and absolutely tons of aid money wasted, but it doesn't have to be that way. And be careful of saying "we consistently try to impose the Western model of how to fight the disease"- it can sound like you're saying that anti-retroviral therapy somehow doesn't work in Africa (it does, and extremely well), when what I hope you're trying to say is that the delivery system has to be adapted, which is quite true. But far from impossible.
And I am so NOT saying that AIDS should be treated to the exclusion of other diseases. In fact, the delivery systems that are put in place to fight AIDS (community health workers, hospitals/clinics, etc.) can and should be used to deliver treatment for malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition, etc.
Also, from a purely medical standpoint, if cutting AIDS funding jeopardizes the supply of drugs for people who are already on treatment, we risk much higher incidences and spread of drug-resistant HIV, which is clearly bad for everyone.
An example of a model that works:
http://www.pih.org/where/Rwanda/Rwanda.h…
There are a lot of them- most of them are small in scale, and most of them aren't well publicized. The most successful ones (like Partners in Health) treat HIV/AIDS as only part of "culture, poverty, lack of development, etc." There is absolutely a lack of communication among NGOs, and absolutely tons of aid money wasted, but it doesn't have to be that way. And be careful of saying "we consistently try to impose the Western model of how to fight the disease"- it can sound like you're saying that anti-retroviral therapy somehow doesn't work in Africa (it does, and extremely well), when what I hope you're trying to say is that the delivery system has to be adapted, which is quite true. But far from impossible.
And I am so NOT saying that AIDS should be treated to the exclusion of other diseases. In fact, the delivery systems that are put in place to fight AIDS (community health workers, hospitals/clinics, etc.) can and should be used to deliver treatment for malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition, etc.
Also, from a purely medical standpoint, if cutting AIDS funding jeopardizes the supply of drugs for people who are already on treatment, we risk much higher incidences and spread of drug-resistant HIV, which is clearly bad for everyone.
49
Thanks #48.
Taking the examples given in this thread, malaria is not spread by human-to-human contact, is preventable by using nets, and is completely curable. It causes fewer annual deaths than HIV.
Diarrhea is (usually) not spread by human-to-human contact and is completely curable. Globally, it causes half the number of deaths annually that are caused by HIV.
HIV can be prevented, yet barely half of people at risk are aware of how to do so. There is currently no cure. The more people who are living with HIV, and the more people who aren't aware of how to prevent it, the higher the risk for the entire population. Additionally, only about 11% of people with HIV are receiving any treatment, yet people who are on antiretroviral medication are much, much less likely to infect others.
I'm not saying efforts to eradicate diseases like malaria should be redirected to HIV, but it's clearly folly to redirect efforts to eradicate HIV to diseases which are easily preventable, not spread by human contact, totally curable, and have far lower rates of mortality.
Taking the examples given in this thread, malaria is not spread by human-to-human contact, is preventable by using nets, and is completely curable. It causes fewer annual deaths than HIV.
Diarrhea is (usually) not spread by human-to-human contact and is completely curable. Globally, it causes half the number of deaths annually that are caused by HIV.
HIV can be prevented, yet barely half of people at risk are aware of how to do so. There is currently no cure. The more people who are living with HIV, and the more people who aren't aware of how to prevent it, the higher the risk for the entire population. Additionally, only about 11% of people with HIV are receiving any treatment, yet people who are on antiretroviral medication are much, much less likely to infect others.
I'm not saying efforts to eradicate diseases like malaria should be redirected to HIV, but it's clearly folly to redirect efforts to eradicate HIV to diseases which are easily preventable, not spread by human contact, totally curable, and have far lower rates of mortality.
50
I wish I knew more about the legislation and policies set forth by George Bush concerning AIDS. I was quite... shall we say... politically oblivious at that period of my life. Could anyone perhaps provide some (brief) information about his policies for me? Maybe a few links? I find it is better to speak on a topic after researching it. It helps me make informed decisions and opinions.
If anybody would be so kind as to do that for me, I would be most grateful. No pressure though.
This is the internet, after all (thus we are all in a bit of a "cannot be asked" state, yes?)
If anybody would be so kind as to do that for me, I would be most grateful. No pressure though.
This is the internet, after all (thus we are all in a bit of a "cannot be asked" state, yes?)
52
@50- In terms of prevention, I think it was way too far on the side of abstinence/faithfulness to spouse. To be fair though, PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) did do a great job of pumping money into treatment, which until recently was seen as a waste of money (@44- which is largely the reason for the stats that 41 cited- no one was trying to treat Africans). This money, combined with the drastically lowered drug prices that the Clinton Foundation was able to negotiate, has completely changed the prevailing opinion about treatment. And as 49 wisely stated, treatment itself is a highly effective form of prevention.
53
@52
Thank you so much! I appreciate the time you took to educate me; often I feel like I drown in discussions that are over my head so this helps a bit.
Now... I've done some research (albeit brief research) about PEPFAR, and here's what I've gathered...
It seems to have worked fairly well in terms of spreading around the antivirals. However, the ABC approach, which was briefly hinted at by commentor # 50 (is that really your username? that'd be sweet) is, as he/she said, a bit unbalanced toward the side of abstinence and faithfulness.
Now, please do not misunderstand me - I do not oppose the advocacy of such tenets. They most certainly DO reduce the spread of HIV. That being said, I also believe that, for the pragmatic prevention of HIV, the most effective tool is the advocacy of condoms, which, although is still part of the acronym, seems considered only secondarily when, in my opinion, should be primary... (however, it could simply be that they put it at the end so it would spell "ABC")
Now, as for Obama's decreased emphasis on AIDS, I have to wait until I ascertain one very important fact about the change before I form an opinion on it. The question I have is: what areas of the AIDS prevention and treatment program did he reduce? Clearly, some areas - such as money for antivirals - were more effective than others - such as abstinence advocacy - so the change in emphasis may simply be a change in the advocacy itself rather than a monetary one. Does anybody know specifically how much funding was taken away, as a percentage of the previous amount? That would help a lot to understand this.
Thank you so much! I appreciate the time you took to educate me; often I feel like I drown in discussions that are over my head so this helps a bit.
Now... I've done some research (albeit brief research) about PEPFAR, and here's what I've gathered...
It seems to have worked fairly well in terms of spreading around the antivirals. However, the ABC approach, which was briefly hinted at by commentor # 50 (is that really your username? that'd be sweet) is, as he/she said, a bit unbalanced toward the side of abstinence and faithfulness.
Now, please do not misunderstand me - I do not oppose the advocacy of such tenets. They most certainly DO reduce the spread of HIV. That being said, I also believe that, for the pragmatic prevention of HIV, the most effective tool is the advocacy of condoms, which, although is still part of the acronym, seems considered only secondarily when, in my opinion, should be primary... (however, it could simply be that they put it at the end so it would spell "ABC")
Now, as for Obama's decreased emphasis on AIDS, I have to wait until I ascertain one very important fact about the change before I form an opinion on it. The question I have is: what areas of the AIDS prevention and treatment program did he reduce? Clearly, some areas - such as money for antivirals - were more effective than others - such as abstinence advocacy - so the change in emphasis may simply be a change in the advocacy itself rather than a monetary one. Does anybody know specifically how much funding was taken away, as a percentage of the previous amount? That would help a lot to understand this.
54
@48/52
Africa doesn't have the freaking infrastructure for successful treatment programs which is why all of your examples are "small scale." The international NGOs are desperately trying to convince the world that their treatments programs are working (because they *want* them to work so badly), but the fact of the matter is, they're *not*. All you have to do is look at the numbers of infections/deaths.
We can save *millions* more lives if we focus the funding on other diseases that are *easy* to cure and prevent. So glad the Obama administration gets this.
Africa doesn't have the freaking infrastructure for successful treatment programs which is why all of your examples are "small scale." The international NGOs are desperately trying to convince the world that their treatments programs are working (because they *want* them to work so badly), but the fact of the matter is, they're *not*. All you have to do is look at the numbers of infections/deaths.
We can save *millions* more lives if we focus the funding on other diseases that are *easy* to cure and prevent. So glad the Obama administration gets this.
55
@54- If Africa doesn't have the infrastructure for successful treatment programs for AIDS, it doesn't have the infrastructure to treat the underlying causes of the "easy" to cure and prevent diseases. Infrastructure is infrastructure, and building infrastructure to treat AIDS simultaneously helps treat/reduce the prevalence of all these other diseases. Yes, most treatment programs are currently small-scale (as well as often VERY successful- I can't stress that enough). But hence we should abandon them altogether, rather than scaling them up?
Again, the number of infections/deaths is a direct result of the absolutely shocking reality that for decades NO ONE was treating African AIDS patients (the Clinton Foundation negotiated drug prices down in 2002). Now they are, and it's working, but obviously in the mean time there have been millions of new infections and deaths. Because no one was treating them. So stopping treatment now seems like a ridiculous suggestion.
Again, the number of infections/deaths is a direct result of the absolutely shocking reality that for decades NO ONE was treating African AIDS patients (the Clinton Foundation negotiated drug prices down in 2002). Now they are, and it's working, but obviously in the mean time there have been millions of new infections and deaths. Because no one was treating them. So stopping treatment now seems like a ridiculous suggestion.
56
Lifelong treatment of a disease like AIDS - which requires ongoing, lifelong meds, strict diet, ability to have transport to and enough free time/willingness for weekly visits to the medical clinic for these things (you'd be surprised how many ppl bail on this)---is A LOT more difficult to pull off on a continent with NO infrastructure, than is a one-time administration of malaria pills at a health clinic or free mosquito nets dropped off at houses.
Hey - I want Africans' lives saved just as much as you -- but the AIDS treatment thing on most of the continent is a Sisyphean struggle without decent infrastructure or economic development over there.
Fine, don't axe the current treatment programs for those very few who are able/willing to consistently access ongoing treatment but, my god, let's save as many lives *where we can* and we know *for sure* we can do so super-effectively and easily. We don't have to skew the numbers or set our goals super low with malaria, diarrhea treatment programs etc, (as we do with AIDS) in order to make it look like the program is a "success." These other disease programs are a guaranteed, easy *large scale* success at saving lives (as opposed to the *small scale* ones you mentioned with AIDS).
Hey - I want Africans' lives saved just as much as you -- but the AIDS treatment thing on most of the continent is a Sisyphean struggle without decent infrastructure or economic development over there.
Fine, don't axe the current treatment programs for those very few who are able/willing to consistently access ongoing treatment but, my god, let's save as many lives *where we can* and we know *for sure* we can do so super-effectively and easily. We don't have to skew the numbers or set our goals super low with malaria, diarrhea treatment programs etc, (as we do with AIDS) in order to make it look like the program is a "success." These other disease programs are a guaranteed, easy *large scale* success at saving lives (as opposed to the *small scale* ones you mentioned with AIDS).
57
Many people aren't aware of this- and this is why people in Africa weren't treated for SO long- but treatment adherence in Africa is pretty comparable to that in developed countries. You can look it up. It shocked a lot of people, and there have been a lot of studies commissioned to try to figure out why this is the case. But the argument that there are "very few" willing/able to consistently adhere to treatment doesn't fly. Obviously it's harder than taking a one-time pill. But it's been proven to work time and time again, even with extremely limited infrastructure.
58
56, treatment of HIV/AIDS does require lifelong medication. But weekly medical visits? No. Regular visits, yes, but not on a weekly basis. Most people get along fine if they're able to stick to their medication -- not always the case, to be sure, but certainly people who are motivated to stay alive can usually manage it.
I find your suggestion that we let things slide because it's too hard a bit incredible.
I find your suggestion that we let things slide because it's too hard a bit incredible.
59
Do me a favor, all of you - go to Africa and live in a village for a few years, mkay? Watch how much actual "help" the AIDS NGOs do for your friends and neighbors, and then get back to me. I went to Africa deeply believing in those AIDS NGOs and left disgusted once I saw how little actual "help" they provided. And, no, my experience is *not* an isolated one, which is why the current administration has clued in. Put the money in places where it actually saves the lives. Good for Obama.
60
I AGREE WITH GONSALVES ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN OBAMA BECAUSE AT LEAST WITH THE OTHERS THEIR HATRED OF GAYS IS OUT THERE AND WE CAN RECOGNIZE IT FOR WHAT IT IS BUT TOO MANY OF MY FELLOW QUEERS TRANS AND LESBIANS WERE FOOLED BY THIS CONSERVATIVE IN LIBERAL CLOTHING NO THANKS TO THE STRANGER AND DAN SAVAGE I CALL FOR FREE MEDICAL CARE FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE FQTBLG COMMUNITY AND A SEX-POSITIVE PLATFORM FOR ANY POLITICAL PARTY THAT DESERVES OUR DOLLARS OUR SUPPORT AND OUR MANY VOTES WE HAVE THE POWER TO THROW ELECTIONS WE NEED TO USE IT
61
@59- When did you go to Africa and where in Africa were you? Much of the dramatic improvement in AIDS treatment has been very very recent, and there are (obviously) a lot of places where it still hasn't reached. And different countries in Africa have very different policies when it comes to AIDS, with the leaders of some countries (South Africa until recently, Gambia) making patently false claims about causes and cures, which obviously doesn't help anybody. And I'm not denying that there are a lot of terrible, inefficient, unhelpful NGOs. But don't deny that there are some models that do work, and that have saved a lot of lives.
63
@62 Are you saying that equal rights for gays is loony? Fuck you twice with a cactus, asshole. Yes, gays & lesbians made the "useful" mistake of supporting the democrats but now they know better don't they? Using people only gets your opposition re-elected next time you smug prick. You would do well to recognize the support that the loony left gave you.
A wise man once said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, gak, choke, splutter, hack, cough, eyeroll, ya caint git foold agin."
Eat shit.
A wise man once said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, gak, choke, splutter, hack, cough, eyeroll, ya caint git foold agin."
Eat shit.
65
Hey, just because Dan reprinted a link and excerpt of the NYT's coverage of the issue, doesn't mean that's the position he's taking. He might be of course, but he could just be stimulating conversation, or personally boggling at the quote of Gonsalves.
With the Christianist trolls ("The Family", Saddleback Church, and others) running around Africa, getting people to burn condoms in places like Uganda, many more people will die of AIDS unless the U.S. steps up to the plate and starts putting some serious back into getting practical prevention back on forefront of the agenda. Did Bush save more people than he killed in Africa with his Evangelically-driven anti-sex-education, anti-abortion, anti-birth-control, anti-condom agenda? You can believe what you want. The public health network in many of those countries is so weak we might never be able to put quantitative numbers on the mayhem wreaked upon the populace as a direct result of these policies.
I mean, think about this for a second. The Bush administration opposed birth control in Africa, preaching abstinence instead. Where the fuck do you come off preaching abstinence to married couples??
Antivirals are great, I agree. But the rest of the Bush agenda was the lowest type of horrid shit. Time to stick a fork in it.
With the Christianist trolls ("The Family", Saddleback Church, and others) running around Africa, getting people to burn condoms in places like Uganda, many more people will die of AIDS unless the U.S. steps up to the plate and starts putting some serious back into getting practical prevention back on forefront of the agenda. Did Bush save more people than he killed in Africa with his Evangelically-driven anti-sex-education, anti-abortion, anti-birth-control, anti-condom agenda? You can believe what you want. The public health network in many of those countries is so weak we might never be able to put quantitative numbers on the mayhem wreaked upon the populace as a direct result of these policies.
I mean, think about this for a second. The Bush administration opposed birth control in Africa, preaching abstinence instead. Where the fuck do you come off preaching abstinence to married couples??
Antivirals are great, I agree. But the rest of the Bush agenda was the lowest type of horrid shit. Time to stick a fork in it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (65) RSS