1
   

Anger at US ban on Aids scientists

 
 
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 01:34 am
Anger at US ban on Aids scientists

Bangkok conference forced to cancel meetings and retract papers after authors stopped from attending

Sarah Boseley in Bangkok
Monday July 12, 2004
The Guardian

The US government came under scathing attack from senior members of the medical establishment yesterday for blocking scientists from attending the International Aids conference which opened in Bangkok.
The biennial conference, with 17,000 delegates, is more political rally than scientific meeting and bears huge significance for those involved in the fight against HIV/Aids.

The US government has sent only a fraction of its usual contingent of scientists, pleading cost - 50 instead of the 236 who attended the last event in Barcelona in 2002.

The Department of Health and Human Services, headed by the health secretary, Tommy Thompson, was yesterday accused of actively preventing certain US scientists and doctors who had a contribution to make from travelling to Bangkok.

Many suspect that behind the action lies a rift between the US and Aids activists who oppose America's approach to the global pandemic.

Joep Lange, president of the Sweden-based International Aids Society, which organises the conference, said it had been forced to retract papers that had been accepted for conference sessions after the US scientist authors had been refused permission to come. Many meetings, some to train developing world researchers, have had to be cancelled.

"I really think it is shameful that they restricted the US government participation, particularly when you think they are putting so much money into the fight and people in the field who have to do the job are directly prevented from coming here," said Dr Lange.

Earlier, the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama) had also unexpectedly spoken out. Catherine DeAngelis said that Marc Bulterys, the co-author of a Jama paper who worked for the government's Atlanta-based Centres for Disease Control (CDC), had not been allowed to accept an invitation to fly to Bangkok to talk about it.

"It stymies the ability of scientists to discuss and learn from each other," said Dr DeAngelis. "It is wrong."

She pointed out that the trip would have been paid for by the American Medical Association, not the US government. "It is an incredible example of political pettiness. It is anti-intellectual and it is interfering with scientists and the scientific process and means American government-employed scientists are not allowed to be here to share their knowledge," she said.

Behind the fracas lies the gulf between the US policies on tackling HIV/Aids in the developing world and those of Aids activists who tend to dominate the big international event. Two years ago, Mr Thompson tried to give a speech at the conference in Barcelona but was rendered inaudible by noisy protests. This year the organisers have asked activists to be more civil and allow those with whom they disagree to be heard.

Although the US has put more money into the fight against HIV/Aids than the rest of the world put together, including $15bn (£8.5bn) pledged by President Bush in January last year, activists are unhappy with the way the money is to be spent. Most of it will go to American-instigated programmes in 15 selected countries which stress the so-called ABC philosophy - abstinence, be faithful and condoms "where appropriate".

Peter Piot, executive director of UNAids, said last week that abstinence, particularly for women in southern Africa, was often not an option.

Randall Tobias, the former head of the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly, who runs the president's plan for Aids relief, heads the US team in Bangkok. Yesterday he said he had "a very large delegation" with him.

The CDC had offered another scientist instead of Dr Bulterys, he said. "It is true that the person who was the author was not part of the delegation but we offered another scientist and they declined," he said.

The significance of the conference was emphasised at the opening ceremony by Joep Lange, president of the International Aids Society. The Bangkok event is the first in the Aids-hit developing world since the conference in Durban, South Africa, in 2000.

"Durban was a watershed event that catalysed many developments," he said. Prices of Aids drugs came down, fundraising was stepped up and there are now plans to put millions on treatment.

"Like Durban, Bangkok could be a watershed event," he said. "The conference is strategically located in Asia, the most populous continent in the world and home to a quarter of all new HIV infections. Asia still has the opportunity to prevent the epidemic from getting completely out of hand."

Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, called for leadership from all parts of governments, all the way to the top, which has not been seen in all Asian countries, just as African leaders took years to recognise the crisis and speak out against stigma. "Aids is far more than a health crisis. It is a threat to development itself," he said.

Leadership was one of three priorities he defined. He also called for infrastructure to be scaled up in Aids-hit countries to allow more people to be treated and he called for a better deal for women who are unable to defend themselves against unsafe sex because of poverty, abuse, violence and coercion by older men. "What is needed is the education of girls," he said.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,733 • Replies: 44
No top replies

 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 10:40 am
If they want to really stir up the fires, they should comment on how much research money is WASTED in US research labs, supposedly funded to do AIDS etc. research.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 02:50 pm
If we send 'enough' scientists we are faulted for not sending enough money. If we send more money, (which we have done at dramatic levels under the current administration), we are faulted for not sending more scientists. We didn't 'block' anybody from going to Bangkok. We just opted to pay for so many to go. There's a huge difference there.

I personaly think some of these nattering bobs of negativity should consider that we don't HAVE to do anything at all, should say thank you for the considerable good that we do, and then shut up about it until they can do better.
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 03:07 pm
I wonder why they have to retract the authors papers? They mean research on Aids papers or Visa type papers?
And if it's authors research papers then who did that? US controls whose papers get submitted?
Fishy situation.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 04:10 pm
Fox, Fox - that'll be NAbobs, you know.

Are you SURE you wish to quote Agnew?

he is not really the BEST poster boy for the right:


"On October 10, 1973, Agnew became the second Vice President to resign the office. Unlike John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate, Agnew resigned after pleading nolo contendere (no contest) to a criminal charge of tax evasion, part of a scheme where he allegedly accepted $29,500 in bribes during his tenure as governor of Maryland. Agnew was fined $10,000 and put on three years' probation. He was later disbarred by the State of Maryland. His resignation triggered the first use of the 25th amendment, as the vacancy prompted the appointment and confirmation of Gerald R. Ford as his successor. Ford hadn't been Nixon's first choice, however. Nixon's top three choices were Texas Governor John Connally, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and California Governor Ronald Reagan. Nixon thought Connally was too unpopular, and Rockefeller and Reagan probably would not be confirmed by either the House of Representatives or the Senate or both, and Ford probably would. That's why Nixon chose Ford as his vice president."

I will address some of the meat of your comment after work.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 04:27 pm
He didn't invent the phrase wabbit. And no matter who said it, it's a vewy vewy good phrase.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 04:49 pm
No - his speech writer - William safire - did. Just for him.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 04:55 pm
The Economist com.'s take:

Full article here: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2921038

Requires free registration

"This year, though, the main political gesture came from the Americans. For, apparently in revenge for the barracking he got from activists at the 14th AIDS conference held in Barcelona two years ago, Tommy Thompson, America?s secretary of health and human services (and thus the political master of that country?s National Institutes of Health and its Centres for Disease Control and Prevention), decreed that only 50 scientists funded by his department might attend?less than a quarter of the number that went to Barcelona. The Americans appear to be disengaging from what has hitherto been a united international front against AIDS, in order to pursue their own agenda."

Reasons for AIDS activist's criticism of American strictures re disbursal of its generous aid:

"The first reason for this is that Congress requires at least one-third of the prevention money to be spent on programmes that focus on sexual abstinence. Practice has shown that such an approach does not work?at least it does not work without an equal or greater emphasis on the use of condoms. Condoms are included in the ?ABC? (Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom) acronym that has been coined to describe this part of PEPFAR. But activists fear that the importance of condom use is being played down for religious reasons."

And:

" Those groups that have so far been awarded contracts under the plan have no choice but to deploy medicines approved by America?s Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That might sound reasonable, but most such drugs are branded American products. Cheaper (foreign-made) generics are not permitted without FDA say-so, despite the fact that many have been approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO)."

And:

" local officials?in Uganda and Rwanda, for example?complain privately that they have not been adequately consulted in the plan?s projects for their countries, and are worried these may not fit in with national strategies to fight the disease."

but "This may be teething trouble"

And:

"All these problems should go away in time?though that time will cost lives."

Hmmmmm....
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 05:03 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
He didn't invent the phrase wabbit. And no matter who said it, it's a vewy vewy good phrase.


Fox - in all seriousness, I have a very real objection (from either side) to these meaningless insults - like "nattering nabobs."

They are - to my mind - "dormitive" utterances - ie designed to put the mind to sleep.

The alliteration is used to implant the phrase - it is funny, catchy - one can so easily replace any real critique with one of these stupid phrases, hence restricting any real consideration of the arguments of an opposing viewpoint. The idiocies are trotted out again and again instead of thought.

Even Agnew toned this crap down later in his Vice-Presidential career, since the nonsense was viewed so negatively by most people.

Perhaps similar idiocies like "the Un-President" - "shrub", "fascist administration" etc, you will admit more readily to be stupid?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 05:33 pm
Okay Rabbit, I won't use the phrase around you if it bothers you. It seems so mild compared to the really hateful rhetoric dished out by others to complain about the insensitivity of America and I do take offense at that rhetoric when I know how much we are doing and how thin we are already spread.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 03:15 am
well, that´s the U.S sometimes ,unfair to the world:

U.S. rejects U.N. AIDS plea

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2004-07/13416723.jpg

Quote:
BANGKOK, Thailand -- The United States on Wednesday rejected a call at the International AIDS Conference for a $1 billion contribution next year to the global fund that has become the centerpiece of U.N. efforts against the disease.

"It's not going to happen," U.S. AIDS coordinator Randall Tobias said in an interview, noting that Washington already is by far the world's largest donor to the cause.

Tobias' comments were in response to a request Tuesday by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said he hoped the United States would give $1 billion for 2005 alone to the Global Fund, which is far short of its $3.6 billion budget.

The United States is carrying out a $15 billion, five-year Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, mainly directed toward 14 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, plus Vietnam. Critics say the United States should instead give much of that money to the Global Fund, which reaches 128 countries.

They also say the U.S. money comes with strings attached that can set back efforts to curb the spread of the HIV -- which infected 5 million people last year alone -- and that the U.N.-sponsored fund best suits the needs of sufferers.

The U.S. money goes to countries that support Bush's abstinence-first policy, and it currently can only buy brand-name drugs, usually American, shutting out cheaper generic versions made by developing countries.

Tobias urged detractors to stop arguing with Washington over condoms and drug patents and join its war on the pandemic, which has claimed 20 million lives and left another 38 million infected worldwide since 1986, most of them in Africa.

There has been furious criticism at the AIDS conference of U.S. policies such as its insistence on abstinence -- rather than condoms -- as a primary way of battling HIV; its trade policies; and its funding methods. The conference is the biggest gathering ever of AIDS scientists, activists, policy-makers and HIV-infected people.

Critics say a vow of abstinence is difficult to maintain and, when broken, can lead to unprotected sex, raising the risk of HIV infection that could effectively be blocked by a condom.

Tobias was jeered by protesters chanting, "He's lying! People dying!" when he was about to defend U.S. policies in a speech Wednesday.

One activist, Mark Milano, 48, of New York, said that when it comes to fighting AIDS, "every step of the way, the U.S. government is not doing what it should be doing."


source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:39 am
Quote:
The United States is carrying out a $15 billion, five-year Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, mainly directed toward 14 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, plus Vietnam. Critics say the United States should instead give much of that money to the Global Fund, which reaches 128 countries.


I wonder if the same people administer the funds for the Global Fund as the ones who administered the Oil for Food funds re Iraq? Apparently very little, if any, of the Oil for Food money got to hungry Iraqis or bought any medicine or was used to keep schools open etc.?

Do you really think the U.S. should hand over 15 billion to the U.N. and trust the accounting on it? Is it immoral to 'attach strings' to foreign aid?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:45 am
Debt Relief Increases Impact of US Efforts to Fight HIV/AIDS

President Bush has done more than any recent president to dramatically increase US foreign aid. The $5 billion increase in US foreign aid over the next 5 years for countries who qualify for the Millennium Challenge Account and $10 billion increase announced as part of the President's AIDS initiative a welcome improvement over years of declining US foreign aid.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are also considering legislative initiatives to increase US foreign aid and address the global HIV/AIDS crisis. But without more debt relief, the new US foreign aid increases and the fight against AIDS will not be as effective.

More Debt Relief Will Increase Impact of AIDS Efforts

Although the 27 HIPC countries' annual debt servicing payments have been successfully reduced by about $1 billion, together these countries are continuing to pay $2 billion a year on debt servicing payments to their creditors. These payments use scarce revenues that could otherwise be used for additional spending on health and education. US foreign aid goals and the fight against HIV/AIDS could be achieved more effectively if more debt relief was made available than in the current HIPC program.

Why should new increases in US foreign aid be used to simply help poor countries repay old loans to France, Germany and the World Bank?

In January 2003, President Bush proposed the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and pledged $15 billion over 5 years to fight AIDS ($10 billion in new money.) The President's vision of a more effective fight against HIV/AIDS will be undermined by the continued loss of valuable revenue due to debt servicing payments. The US announced that 14 countries will be the targeted beneficiaries of an additional $8.5 billion to fight HIV/AIDS. However, according to the World Bank, in 2001 alone these same 14 countries paid $9.1 billion in foreign debt payments.

14 Priority
AIDS Countries

total external
debt servicing in 2001


1. Botswana
2. Ivory Coast*
3. Ethiopia*
4. Guyana*
5. Haiti
6. Kenya
7. Mozambique *
8. Namibia
9. Nigeria
10. Rwanda*
11. South Africa
12. Tanzania*
13. Uganda*
14. Zambia*
Total
$ 52 million
$ 618 million
$ 184 million
$ 57 million
$ 26 million
$ 464 million
$ 120 million
n / a
$ 2,562 million
$ 43 million
$ 4,355 million
$ 217 million
$ 105 million
$ 337 million
$ 9.1 billion


( * HIPC countries)
Therefore, although the President's AIDS Initiatives offers $8.5 billion over five years in new aid to these 14 countries, the positive impact of this increase will be dwarfed by the much larger flows of revenues spent on debt service each year.
Examples of How Debt Relief Helps Fight AIDS

In dozens of countries, debt relief savings have helped to fund the fight against HIV/AIDS. Here are only a few examples:

Uganda, the first country to receive debt relief used $1.3 million of its debt savings specifically for their national HIV/AIDS plan. This investment played a key role in the government's success in reducing HIV infection rates by 40%
Cameroon received a $114 million cut in debt service. With help from debt savings, a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategic plan was launched. The plan included promoting behavior change among young people, making voluntary testing and counseling widely available and preventing HIV transmission from pregnant women to their babies.
Malawi received a cut in debt service of 30%, or $28 million. These funds financed the purchase of critical drugs for hospitals and health centers, hiring extra staff and support in primary health centers, and training new nurses.
Support Legislation to Provide Deeper Debt Relief

There is currently a legislative initiative in Congress (H.R. 1376) to increase the amount of debt relief offered in the HIPC program by canceling an additional billion dollars of debt. H.R. 1376 would provide enough additional debt relief so that no qualified HIPC country pays more than 5% of its budget on annual external debt servicing (10% if the country faces no health crisis). Currently, the 27 HIPCs that have reached Decision Point still pay an average of 15% of their budgets on debt.

If countries' debt payments can be reduced to these levels, the President's newly proposed increases in US foreign aid and Congressional initiatives to fight HIV/AIDS will go a lot further towards reaching their goals.


For more information, please contact Marie Clarke, Jubilee USA Network
202-783-0215, [email protected]

April 2003
http://www.jubileeusa.org/background/impact.html
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 07:41 am
Foxfyre wrote:

Do you really think the U.S. should hand over 15 billion to the U.N. and trust the accounting on it? Is it immoral to 'attach strings' to foreign aid?


No absolute, because sometimes also the U.N has no competencies....

But I mean the U.S should be spend the 15 billions self to the developing countries for fight against AIDS and other diseases.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 10:00 am
Cancer kills about seven times as many people as aids does, but we spend eleven times more money on aids research.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 10:08 am
or turberculosis , apropos:

Mandela links fight against AIDS to TB
Quote:

He cites growing threat to third world

BANGKOK Nelson Mandela came to the 15th International AIDS Conference here Thursday to lend his prestige to the battles against tuberculosis and AIDS, two deadly diseases that are intricately linked.
.
The former president of South Africa was diagnosed with tuberculosis while in prison, where he spent 27 years for opposing the former apartheid regime before his release in 1994.
.
"We cannot win the battle against AIDS if we do not also fight TB," Mandela said at a press conference on Thursday. "TB is too often a death sentence for people with AIDS."
.
Mandela has acknowledged that, as president, he did not recognize the severity of the AIDS epidemic in South Africa, which now leads the world with 5.3 million people infected with HIV, the virus that causes the disease. Since Mandela left office, he has embraced the fight and has pushed his successor, Thabo Mbeki, to confront HIV and tuberculosis.
.
Tuberculosis causes from 15 percent to 50 percent of deaths among HIV-infected people, making it the leading cause of death among people with AIDS, according to the World Health Organization.


IHT
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 10:06 am
Among the specious arguments out there are 1) we cut funding (when we actually increased it); 2) why are we doing 'THIS' when "THAT' also needs to be done?, 3) We aren't holding up our end when Imbetterthanya Province gives a higher percentage of their GNP, 4) We are arrogant and have ulterior motives because we doin't turn all our available funds over to the global community to administer.

All I can say is ARRRRRGHHHH!!!!!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 04:40 pm
Very persuasive.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 04:45 pm
Portal Star wrote:
Cancer kills about seven times as many people as aids does, but we spend eleven times more money on aids research.


Hmmm - life is hard and cancer sucks.

But, then, AIDS is a fairly easily PREVENTABLE infectious epidemic - which is killing millions of young adults and children worldwide, destroying (or with the potential to destroy) the educational and economic and social structure of many countries. There is effective treatment for it, which is kept unavailable to most in many poorer countries.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 04:49 pm
Portal Star wrote:
Cancer kills about seven times as many people as aids does, but we spend eleven times more money on aids research.


AIDS is transmittable. You get carped on this argument each time you use it but that never stops you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Anger at US ban on Aids scientists
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 05:11:16