Anger at US ban on Aids scientists

We have increased AIDS funding to exhorbitant levels.

We have given it a high priority, and are battling it in countries other than ours.

Abstinence teaching has turned the tide in Uganda. We add condoms in with the abstinence teaching, of course. There are some situations where abstinence doesn't apply. But, until now, no one would even act as though abstinence was a word to be said out loud with a straight face. I'm thrilled Bush had the balls to put it in our program---and MORE thrilled it has helped so many young girls, and peckerhead men.

Heckling the US representative, when he represents what the US has meant, and may continue to mean to global AIDS, should be seen clearly as a bad idea.

And, I agree with Fox about the Global Fund. Annan asks for 1 Billion... What, already spent the OFF billions...? NO. Let the investigaion run its course before fattening up crooks' pockets. Let's see who was in on the recent scandal, before bankrolling another one.

Substantiate that abstinence teaching did as oppose to the condoms.

I didn't say, nor do I think condoms and abstinence teaching should be separated.

But,...

Compare the programs with no abstinence teaching, to the one with it. Seems to be enough of a difference to have the world strongly approving Uganda's success as a world model? What do you think made the difference?
-----
The addition of abstinence teaching.

The highest prevalence of HIV infections is among young girls (surprise). They (and boys) are beginning sex approximately a year later, which probably nets a high number of people saved. Girls between 15-24 who are pregnant report a decline of HIV from 30 to 8%!!! I guess this would net mom and baby who are HIV free!! An unbelievable percentage, due to abstinence teaching added to a rubber...

The teaching is linked statistically to a higher use of condoms among girls and boys, and adults. Multiply it's usefulness.

I can't find any statistics to disavow the necessity of the abstinence addition---and net gains are reasonable credited to what is missing from failed programs--and what is present in successful ones.

Do you?

But you did say that abstinence teaching turned the tide.

Since no scientific evidence exists that abstinence teaching has ever achieved that (not just in Uganda but anywhere) that I am aware of I am asking you whether you can substantiate what you did say, which was that abstinence teaching turned the tide.



I would love to, but am ignorant of what you are speaking of. What are you talking about?



The world strongly approved Uganda's success, and not the "difference" you are alluding to (that, quite frankly I am not sure you assert knowledgeably).



Between?

If you mean the difference between no push against AIDS and the push against AIDS then I think the difference is the push.

If you mean the difference between no Bush abstinence politics and its presence I suspect you simply made that up.



Again the claim ascribing success to abstinence. Yes you add condoms but here is a question:

What data do you have that leads you to believe that abstinence is also responsible, as opposed to, say, the condoms making up the difference?

What data do you have to credit the abstinence for anything?



How is abstinence statistically linked to condom use? Or is this not about abstinence?



Likewise you do not know of any data to lend any credence to the "necessity" of abstinence teaching that you are inclined to simply assume.

Again, what scientific data do you know of that illustrates success from abstinence teaching?

I can't find any and all I can find are scientists claiming that there is absolutely no scientific evidence of this nature.



Then make this case.

See, I strongly suspect you just pulled that out of the air, but would love to learn that you did not.

So what is the net gain? What two figures are you differentiating?

What two programs are you differentiating?

I know one is the recent Uganda success, what is the other?

If you bring it, we can have a look. Maybe the difference is in dollars. Maybe it's in condoms. By all means let's peek under the hood you allude to.

You credit abstinence, and I do not think you have anything but predisposition to do so as a reason.

It is common sense--something that seems incredibly unpopular here. I don't think you would go as far as to say that until Uganda's effort there hasn't been a tidy little sum spent to combat AIDS...And, would you also disavow that none of the programs, despite their reams of condoms has never shown the success Uganda's ABC program has had?

Its surprising to find anyone who denies
1--The world has been consumed with fighting AIDS, and billions have gone into unsuccessful programs.
and
2--Uganda's ABC program only adds one component that the others did not have--abstinence.
and
3--That one component must be responsible for the difference in failure and success, in combination with the other components.

I'm not making headway with you using common sense, so maybe you'll give Harvard and Ugandans more credence...

They, and I, contrast with Botswana. I'm sure we could find others.

1 Some life-and-death statistics
Uganda Winning the Battle Against AIDS - Using Abstinence:
Harvard Study Finds HIV Rates Drop 50 Percent in 8 Years
by Sarah Trafford

Uganda may be on its way to wiping out AIDS by using the ancient though unfashionable values of chastity and fidelity, a new Harvard University study finds.

According to the study, abstinence education has shown significant effectiveness in reducing AIDS in Uganda, with the HIV infection rate dropping 50 percent between the years 1992 and 2000.

The east African nation is making a big impact with the revelation that the AIDS epidemic can be curbed. Riddled with HIV infections since the 1970s, Uganda has found miraculous success by using abstinence as its prevention strategy. Promotion of abstinence through billboards, radio programs and school sex education curricula has resulted in a slow and steady drop in HIV infection rates, as well as new attitudes about conquering AIDS in Uganda.

``Uganda is one of the countries that attach great importance on promoting abstinence among our youth," said Ahmed Ssenyomo, minister counselor at the Ugandan Embassy, in a speech to the African American Youth Conference on Abstinence.

When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number was 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported Ugandan adults are not having as much risky sex: of women 15 and older, those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 to 2.5 percent in 2000.

The emphasis on abstinence in Uganda's program is unique. In other nations with high HIV infections, such as Zimbabwe and Botswana, condoms have been promoted as the answer to ending the AIDS crisis. In Botswana, 38 percent of pregnant women were HIV positive in 2001, contrasted with 6.2 percent of Ugandan women.1

Much of the Ugandan program's success is due to the nation's willingness to look beyond the sexual revolution to the past.

```What we're seeing in parts of Africa is communities responding to the epidemic by saying, `Let's see what's in our culture - how can we deal with this with what we had in the past?' " Susan Leclerc-Madlalas, a medical anthropologist at the University of Natal in South Africa, told the Associated Press. ``What they had most of the time was a way of regulating sexuality."

Many AIDS officials reject abstinence as a potential prevention strategy despite evidence that promotion of abstinence and fidelity have significantly reduced AIDS cases in Uganda over the past decade.

``Millions and millions of young people are having sexual relations," said Paolo Teizeria, director of Brazil's AIDS program, at the 14th International AIDS Conference. ``We cannot talk about abstinence. It's not real."

Abstinence is often dismissed as a potential prevention method. Condom promotion and ``safe-sex" initiatives have long been thought to be the answer to stopping the spread of HIV: Instead of encouraging people to curb their libidos, these initiatives have tried to provide ``safer" ways of exercising them. However, in many African nations condoms aren't looked upon kindly: there are a variety of urban legends that circulate in some regions that condoms are either ethnic cleansing tools or actually spread HIV themselves. (During the Cold War, the Soviet KGB spread ``disinformation" that the United States created the AIDS virus to kill off Africans.)

``Ugandans really never took to condoms," Dr. Vinand Nantulya, an infectious disease advisor to Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni, told The New Republic.

The abstinence initiative in Uganda goes far beyond those who are already having sex - it starts with the education and promotion of an abstinence program for youth called ``True Love Waits." Thirty thousand Ugandan youth are currently involved with the program. Launched in Uganda in 1994, True Love Waits focuses on abstinence until marriage as a way to prevent all sorts of adverse consequences associated with extra-marital sexual activity.2

``Encouraging marriage, monogamy or abstinence, delaying the onset of sexual activity, discouraging promiscuity and casual sex, reducing the supply and demand of illegal drugs or providing treatment to drug addicts ... are the absolutely most effective approaches to reducing the risk of HIV," Rep. Mark Souder (R-Indiana) and six other members of the U.S. Committee on Government Reform said in a letter to the United Nations.

The United States and other countries have yet to embrace abstinence promotion as a mode of AIDS prevention. The United Nations recently predicted that AIDS will wipe out half the population in some African countries. In Uganda, the proverbial sun is starting to shine from the rain cloud of AIDS deaths - and it's looking brighter.

Very instructive information Sofia.

It seems rather arrogant to assume that the Ugandans would be unable to understand and adopt well advised policies with good results. I have believed all along that just passing out condoms with no emphasis to change behavior encourages high risk behavior and does little to reduce unwanted pregnancies and STD.

No it is not. It is a pretty bold claim that is not in any way substantiated by claiming it is common sense.



You tell me Sofia, you are the one claiming you know of a net difference. I am all ears.



This is simply really poor logic. It's not true Sofia, no, it is not true that abstinence simply "must be responsible".



Hold on just one second Sofia, don't go make bullshit claims that this is a Harvard study.

You find that "study" on sites like catholiceducation.org or OrthodoxyToday.org, you will not find it anywhere on Harvard.

Do you know why?

The author of that study is Sarah Trafford, an intern for the Culture & Family Institute of CWA and student at The College Of Wooster in Wooster, Ohio.

Don't bullshit me and try to pass it off as a Harvard study ok? Especially not when it's a college student interning at the Family Institute.

Nobody is assuming this, show who or have this statement unmasked for the straw man that it is.

The dispute is over whether the ugandan success can be attributed to the abstinence element as opposed to the others in their multi-pronged approach.



Have any information to substantiate your belief?

Didn't think so.

Do you have any information to substantiate that distributing condoms alone is significantly effective? Or that the information Sofia posted is inaccurate?

Didn't think so.

Yes, see Brazil's fight against AIDS, a success praised by the UN. It had nothing to do with abstinence at all, in fact Brazilian officials publically scoff at it and achieved their success exclusively through a condom push and the distribution of a cheap AIDS cocktail.

They pass out free condoms during carnaval and the porn industry helps by using condoms in their films to promote safe sex.

They do nothing whatsoever toward abstinence and their success was met with worldwide praise far greater that Uganda's.



Yes I do. The article Sofia posted is drek from Sarah Trafford, an intern at the Culture and Family Institute, a lobby group for fundamentalist issues and families.

The article is an outright lie in the incarnation that Sofia posted. Harvard's study simply documented that AIDS is being successfully combated in Uganda and did not ascribe it to abstinence.

Look at the title:



The first part is Sarah's editorializing, the second part is all that Harvard did.

Sarah simply takes a study of the success rate and using her own opinion acribes the success to abstinence and tries to pawn it off as Harvard as much as possible, instead of the Culture and Family Institute she was interning for.

She makes complete bullshit claims like this that the institute then circulates and gets published on catholiceducation.org or OrthodoxyToday.org.



Sarah Trafford is not involved with Harvard in any way not even as a student.

She is taking a Harvard study of the AIDS situation and tacking on her editorializing and attributing the success to abstinence so that the Culture and Family Institute can syndicate it to groups like catholiceducation.org or OrthodoxyToday.org.

This is a prime example of bullshit "science" that is nothing but a PR job by fundamentalist lobby groups and Sofia was duped into trying to continue Sarah's lie and pass it off as Harvard.



Looks like you set aside today to embarass yourself on the internet then.

I am aware that someone can take facts and editorialize around them--happens all the time, but they cannot publish false statistics without facing prosecution.

I was pretty sure you'd malign the source. What source would you accept? Rhetorical question, I guess.

Do you dispute the statistics?

I found other reports, but no doubt you'd refuse to acknowledge them, as well.

Actually, Australia (and I am sure many other western countries) also has had a very successful ant-AIDS program.

Our first infections were not long after those in the US - but we benefitted from your experience, and our public health authorities - assisted by a strong activism in the gay community - launched education programs very fast.

These programs discussed ALL methods of limiting infection - including looking very starkly at the extra risks associated with promiscuity - and promoted condoms like crazy.

This is so not an either or.

The ONLY problems that people have with abstinence as a strategy is if its ideologues promote it AT THE EXPENSE OF proven programs.

This has been happening.

I would accept a source that can scientifically illustrate that the success was due to the abstinence, that is all. That source did nothing of the sort.

It referenced a Harvard study showing success in Uganda and added on it's own opinion that it is due to abstinence.

Don't try to make this an issue of not accepting a source, I did not object to the bullshit because of the source but because it's lying.

Harvard simply did not release a study crediting abstinence as the reason for Uganda's success, it released a study showing the success and Sarah spun that into something that claims Harvard reached a conclusion that it did not.

It's the falsehood I reject, not the source Sofia.



I'll have to check each one to accurately answer that, but I know Uganda has had great success and statistics that show this do not make the case that their success is due to the abstinence element.

They simply show that it was successfull and this could be entirely due to the safe sex education that other countries have achieved or it could owe to abstinence education like you claimed.

So to backup your claim all you did was bring a study that illustrates success (which we already agreed on) and that adds editorializing to it.

I'd asked for scientific information, not religious fundamentalist quackery.

If the fundies can provide scientifically sound information then I'm all ears but you know damn well that what you brought was an intellectual deceit.



That's probably because you recognized that they were even more blatant bullshit science than the one you tried to slip through.

From Harvard Center for Population and Development.

The Role of Behavioral Change in HIV/AIDS Epidemics in Developing Countries

Uganda has recently experienced dramatic declines in HIV prevalence. Analysis of HIV prevalence and behavioral data from Uganda suggest that reductions in casual sex as well as delay of sexual debut among youth (and periodic abstinence among older Ugandans) may have been the significant determinants of decline in HIV prevalence. Similar evidence can be found in Zambia and Senegal. USAID has awarded a research grant to the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, with separate components for the MEASURE/Evaluation project and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Population Services International will assist Harvard's research. The research conducted under this grant will examine the impact of three behavioral changes (partner reduction, delay/abstinence, and condom use) on HIV prevalence rates in six countries. The Center's work on this grant involves a review of all relevant published and unpublished studies in six countries: Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, Zambia, Zimbabwe (with Botswana as alternate), and Thailand. Part of the effort is to identify areas of needed research (gap analysis). The study's results should have a significant impact on USAID's funding priorities in AIDS prevention, which in turn could influence the activities of UNAIDS and other donors in global HIV/AIDS research and prevention.

Scholars involved in this work include Edward Green and Vinand Nantulya.
--------
One size doesn't fit all. What works in one country doesn't in another, as the anthropological studies have proven. Africa is responding well to the abstinence component. I can't understand why anyone would argue the point.

Condoms + cash= failure in Africa
Condoms + cash + abstinence = success in Africa.

Sofia, want to know what Harvard actually said about abstinence themselves? Not what religious fundamentalists try to pass off as Harvard to invoke their credibility?

It is true that Brazil has cut AIDS deaths through aggressive treatment programs and has no doubt prevented new infections through wide distribution of condoms. I am aware they are pointed to as an example of what aggressively addressing the issue can accomplish. But there still have been increased cases year by year and the experts are concerned that the people are still participating in such high risk behavior that a massive epidemic may just be waiting in the wings.

Sofia,

That is not a study, that is an intent to study.

Furthermore, "behavioral change" that many of these studies reference is not restricted to abstinence but also includes behavioral change from unsafe sex to safe sex.

Are you trying to assert that Brazil has not successfully fought AIDS without an abstinence program simply by saying that in the future there may be a problem?

I don't think I said that at all Craven. What I did say is that the experts are saying that Brazilians may need to also change their high risk behavior to stave off the very real possibility of a new epidemic. In other words, they are recommending a new layer of emphasis in addition to passing out condoms and aggressively treating the infected.

The behavioral change was brought about by the addition of abstinence to previously failed programs.

I brought the article that included 'zero grazing', which is no casual sex. This is a part of abstinence teaching. It's over on nimh's thread--and it's the same thing I've been saying and citing here.

You just like it better when you say it...

And the abstinence teaching includes less or no casual sex---reducing partners; statistics of this, and later debut in sexual activity--also a part of the study--is cited by that "fundy writer". Sad that Christians can't write articles. She did spin it, but the facts are there in black and white.

It doesn't matter. I know it, and anyone who sees it and isn't determined to reject it will see it.

More importantly, it's a fact, and more people are surviving because of it. I guess that'll be good enough for me.