An Epidemic Failure - Whatever happened to Bush's pledge to combat AIDS in Africa?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Could have, would have, should have, is irrelevant at this point. We are already at war, something has to go. I'll await your answers to the 2 questions I posed above.

If fighting AIDS in Africa is such a worthy cause why aren't other countries jumping on board? Why aren't liberals who believe in such a cause donating further to private charities?

And fiscal conservatism is just about dead in this country today. If you're a liberal on social issues, you're a liberal.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Could have, would have, should have, is irrelevant at this point. We are already at war, something has to go. I'll await your answers to the 2 questions I posed above.

If fighting AIDS in Africa is such a worthy cause why aren't other countries jumping on board? Why aren't liberals who believe in such a cause donating further to private charities?

And fiscal conservatism is just about dead in this country today. If you're a liberal on social issues, you're a liberal.

Do you mind if I ask your age Zendari?
 

jonjonsanfru

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2001
1,933
2
81
America needs to keep their nose out of other countries affairs, we have problems at home that need more focus... unless America is helping people in the specific manner my moral code allows... le sigh. /sarcasm
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Just to clarify a point for those who still mis-believe that AIDS is a "homosexual disease" or that we can just ignore AIDS because we're at "war" (we're actually at unprovoked aggression), and those dark people in Africa aren't all that important to our "war" effort.

I read the news today. Oh boy.

HIV/AIDS pandemic spreading in women

By Warren King

Seattle Times medical reporter

Over the past 20 years, HIV and AIDS have sickened more women worldwide than any other life-threatening infection, and it's now affecting American women like never before, researchers in Seattle and Baltimore report in a major new overview of the disease in women.

While cases in men increased only 1 percent from 1999 to 2003, estimated AIDS cases in U.S. women increased 15 percent, with younger women and women of color especially hard hit, the scientists wrote in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

Newly diagnosed men still far outnumber women each year in the U.S. About 31,600 men were diagnosed in 2003, compared with about 11,500 women. But the researchers emphasize that the disease is expanding in women worldwide.

"There is no sign that it's going anywhere but up," said Dr. Julie Overbaugh, a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center expert in HIV transmission and co-author of the report.

"I think young women are at high risk because of predisposing [physical] factors and because in some situations they have limited abilities to negotiate the terms of sex with their partners."

In King County, the number of newly diagnosed HIV cases in women has remained fairly constant through the years. But women now make up a higher percentage of the total number of new cases ? 12 percent today compared with 4 percent in the 1980s ? because male cases have decreased.

"The bad news is that we haven't gotten the number of [female] cases down," said Dr. Gary Goldbaum, senior medical epidemiologist for Public Health ? Seattle & King County.

HIV infections nationwide are difficult to calculate because not all states require them to be reported. Thus, the Science article focuses on cases of full-blown AIDS while King County can measure HIV diagnoses.

Nationally, African-American women have been especially affected in recent years. The rate of AIDS diagnoses in African-American women was 25 times the rate for white women, and four times the rate for Hispanic women in 2003, reported Overbaugh and Dr. Thomas Quinn, of Johns Hopkins University.

What began mainly as a disease among gay men in the United States is becoming more like it has always been in Africa ? one that is transmitted heterosexually. More than a third of the people living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. acquired the virus heterosexually, and about one-fourth are women. In sub-Saharan Africa, about 60 percent of the infections are in women.

The so-called "bridge" to women in the U.S. initially was mainly injection-drug use, Quinn said. Bisexual men shared needles with other men or women, and the virus spread through both semen and blood.

"In the U.S., the spread [to women] was a function of time," said Quinn, a specialist in international health.

Women also are more physically vulnerable to HIV infection than men, the scientists said.

During the teen years, the cervix is still developing, and exposes more mucosal cells that are vulnerable to infection. Young women also have higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, such as gonorrhea and genital herpes, that make them more susceptible to HIV because those diseases cause lesions that make for easy HIV entry. And the diseases cause increases in the body's immune cells that are targets for the virus.

Hormonal contraceptives, such as the pill, also may play a role in the infections, because the hormones may increase the number of immune cells targeted by the virus, and accelerate progression of the disease once infection occurs, studies show.

In the developing world, where heterosexual transmission is responsible for nearly all infections in women, societal factors are especially important, the researchers said.

Many women have little power in sexual relationships, are impoverished, have little education and live where violence against them is tolerated, the report said.

In the U.S., the increased infections in African-American women were from both heterosexual transmission [80 percent] and injection-drug use [about 20 percent], the researchers reported.

In King County, the proportion of recent infections in African-American women has increased to about 6 percent of the total of all people infected since 1999. Madeline Brooks of Renton knows all too well how HIV infection can turn life in a different direction.

Brooks, now 47, was infected by her husband 14 years ago after he began injecting drugs. She said she was overwhelmed when she learned of her diagnosis.

"I can't say I didn't think about killing myself, but I wanted to stay alive for my kids," said Brooks, an African American and mother of six.

Brooks left her husband and supported her family working part time as an auto mechanic and as a patient advocate for the People of Color Against AIDS Network, an advocacy and HIV-prevention program. With the help of medication, she has remained relatively healthy.

"My kids stay on me 24/7 about taking my meds," she laughed. "They'll stand there until I take them."

Brooks also speaks widely to groups that want to learn about HIV and how to protect against it.

"Too many young women get infected because they are afraid of being alone," she said. "I tell them to learn to be independent and not dependent on a man."

Christina DeNully, 26, of Lynnwood, also was infected by a former partner and has struggled with the disease since she was 15. She tried working for a law firm, but had to quit because of her illness. She now lives on Social Security. Like Brooks, she also speaks to groups about AIDS, especially youth organizations.

"I tell them that anyone can get [HIV], that it's a difficult journey when you do, and that they need to protect themselves or don't have sex," said DeNully.

"I tell young women that if their partner won't use condoms, to tell him 'bye.' "

In their report, scientists Overbaugh and Quinn call for a variety of ways to curb the increasing rate of infections in women.

Researchers must design trials of HIV vaccines to consider gender differences, they said. One recent major trial recently indicated that women produced more antibodies than men, showing that men and women may have reacted differently to the vaccine.

More effort also must be made to make condoms accessible, Overbaugh and Quinn said. And research should be stepped up to develop effective microbicides, anti-HIV creams and gels for women to insert before intercourse.

"These are all rather grand ideas about what needs to be done," Overbaugh said. "And we're not saying they're going to be easy to do."

AIDS is a heterosexual pandemic that needs to be addressed. Not lip service and faith based programs that hope to accomplish the impossible. To keep people from having sex.

Sex is good.

AIDS is bad.

AIDS is an STD.

That is the core of the dilemma. Sermonizing won't solve it. Taking cynical political advantage of the crisis won't solve it.
 

13rian

Senior member
Feb 26, 2004
254
0
0
Again, Bush is smearing his faith in somebody else?s face. The point is to control HIV/AIDS in Africa and making such excuses as condoms are "a license to go out and have sex" is just narrow minded. Gordon, who is quoted and evidently defending Bush's ideals, apparently can't see past his religion that other people may not see with him eye-to-eye on it.

(this paragraph assumes Bush doesn?t condone the condom-teaching programs, similar to Gordon?s perspective, which seems evident in his determined passiveness in not funding those who teach it)
Although it may be okay for Bush to believe that his faith should be practiced diligently, what gives him the right to allow people to die to promote his religion? He'd rather let them die, than help non-believers? It's like he won't even acknowledge their existence if this doesn't happen...basically "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist," which is a 4-yr old mentality. If this is about --believing and practicing the faith will get these people into heaven--, isn't this taking it a bit extreme? Either way, if condom use is so ~evil (in keeping a monogamous relationship), why not start in the U.S. and just ban it here?

Is it me or is it like when the first explorers from Europe began preaching their religion to the Native Americans? If they do what they want (teach abstinence only), they'll be rewarded with treats ($$$ funds), like a dog and the master training it.

----------------
msparish
Congress has limited the contributions of the United States for the Fund to 33% in an effort to encourage participation by other nations[...]For example, the US gave a time extension for other countries to contribute. Once proved unsuccessful, the money was still donated, it was just redirected to bilateral AIDS programs
Shouldn't Congress allow the U.S. give ALL their contributions as an example of what other countries should do, like having an older sibling set an example for his/her younger one? The only reasoning I can think of for donating less funds is that other countries would think, "damn, that's all the U.S. has? We better help out those non-profit organizations meet their annual target in funds."

It's the proverbial case of teaching a man to fish. I don't think there is any choice about what we need to do.
Bush sounds like he'd love to teach them how to "fish," they just have to sign a contract that their soul belongs to *his God first. Religion 1st, saving lives 2nd (unless, it?s his idea about guiding people to Heaven, which goes back to top of my post).
----------------
zendari
Like I said, our obligation is to our country first, if we have more money then, perhaps Africa can come into the picture. But we don't. Kapish?
So why is Bush making such outlandish promises right in Africa?s face? It?s like God saying, ?I think I?ll give Earth world peace now, they?ve earned it? psyche!? American citizens should safely assume that the President won?t be able to fulfill all the promises he makes, but doing this to another country, much less 15 of them, especially when their in such a fragile state, is just plain cruel (like "kicking a person when he/she's already down").

are you suggesting taking $15 billion away from the troops for some Africans?
?:shocked:
----------------
BBond
Enjoy your comfortable lifestyle. It's being paid for in blood.
Fighting deadly epidemics isn't a tool for regime change. IMO.
*nods in utter agreement*
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Shouldn't Congress allow the U.S. give ALL their contributions as an example of what other countries should do, like having an older sibling set an example for his/her younger one? The only reasoning I can think of for donating less funds is that other countries would think, "damn, that's all the U.S. has? We better help out those non-profit organizations meet their annual target in funds."

bleh. we have the excuse of having to fund our military, which frankly helps stabilize much of the world and is what is called upon in times of emergency. it is the most mobile ready fighting force. the euros don't have that burden. maybe they should set the example. they have more total people and power as the eu people always say.

anyways its throwing good money after bad...africas on what? its 5th marshal plan?
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
So Brian, BBond, mparish, and DealMonkey, I take it AIDS is a very important issue to you all? Well then, you choice of President in 2008 should be easy!

link

Dr. Frist is particularly passionate about confronting the global AIDS pandemic. He frequently takes medical mission trips to Africa to perform surgery and care for those in need. As Senate Majority Leader, he continues to raise awareness about the HIV/AIDS crisis throughout the world.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: zendari
So Brian, BBond, mparish, and DealMonkey, I take it AIDS is a very important issue to you all? Well then, you choice of President in 2008 should be easy!

link

Dr. Frist is particularly passionate about confronting the global AIDS pandemic. He frequently takes medical mission trips to Africa to perform surgery and care for those in need. As Senate Majority Leader, he continues to raise awareness about the HIV/AIDS crisis throughout the world.

Obviously you must be joking.

Dealing with the global AIDS issue is a very important issue, however it's not the only issue. Nor is it necessarily the most important issue. I mainly take Bush to task because he promised something he didn't deliver, fought Congress when they wanted to INCREASE the funds to fight AIDS in Africa, and finally feels it necessary to shove abstinence-only education (as inspired by his personal religion) down the throat of any nation who is using these funds to deal with the spread of AIDS.

The last item is particularly dangerous, given Uganda's long-term success with more comprehensive programs. Bush could end up reversing a decade of solid progress there.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
What's their to joke about? Frist's record speaks for itself and is a clear solution to the problem of AIDS in Africa.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Without reading all the blather in this thread, can someone tell me why Africa isn't funding AIDs treatment in the world? They did, after all, start it. Another question, why aren't liberals funding AIDs treatment all over the world. They are the ones who wouldn't let the disease be isolated like every other contagious disease since and are thus responsible for millions of deaths and the wildfire like spread of HIV around the world. How about some responsibility instead of just whining that we American taxpayers aren't trying to fund all AIDs related work worldwide?
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Oh, another question: Why is a disease that propagated because of sloppy handling of it during Democratic administrations suddenly a Bush problem? AIDs crossed the Pacific something like 23 years ago and the wonderfully elite Democratic leaders haven't done anything but mismanage it, so now it is a Bush problem.