Thursday, June 15, 2017

Lisbon Declaration: Scare Stories about Sex Cost Lives

Why would women in an African country fear being diagnosed HIV positive, refuse to take part in a treatment program that would keep them alive, and probably prevent them from infecting others? After all, the virus has been around for over 30 years and treatment has been available, free of charge, for more than a decade. We know how it can be spread, we just haven't agreed on which are the most dangerous modes of transmission. But a study has found that women believe their husbands and families will reject them, perhaps divorce, disinherit, physically attack or even kill them because of their status.

Well, it's not quite clear why Measure Evaluation felt the need to ask women why they were afraid, given the role of the HIV industry in stirring up that fear. Do the researchers think anyone would like to be diagnosed HIV positive and have to go home to their partner and explain how they were infected with a virus? The HIV industry insists HIV is almost always transmitted through sexual intercourse in African countries. It's different in European countries, where people are not assumed to be 'promiscuous' just because they test positive.

HIV has long been presented as being primarily sexually transmitted among heterosexuals, in African countries. People who are infected tend to be told that they were almost certainly infected by having sexual intercourse with a HIV positive person. However, many people who have tested positive have objected that they have not had sexual intercourse at all; or they know that the person (or people) they have had sex with are negative; or they took adequate precautions, etc.

In non-African countries, such as the US, the largest group of people infected with HIV are men who have sex with men. The next largest group is injecting drug users. Therefore, many would ask why heterosexual sex appears to be so much more risky in some African countries than it does in non-African countries. Prevalence among certain groups, such as young women in parts of South Africa, has approached 50%, even higher sometimes. Prevalence is over 20% in some southern African countries (although not in any non-African country).

UNAIDS, WHO, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other parties have tied themselves in knots trying to explain away the glaring racism implied in the claim that up to 85% of infections in African countries are a result of unsafe sex. When non-African people say that they could not have been infected through sexual intercourse, the matter can be investigated. Otherwise, their own statement of their risks is accepted, and they are not branded as some kind of sexual deviant.

I'll quote Catherine Hankins, formerly a senior officer at UNAIDS, expressing her views on 'African men': "Take a middle-class African businessman. He has had five women - nothing excessive. But the pattern we find is that he has a wife. He also has an on-off affair with an office colleague. He also has what the French call a 'deuxième bureau' - a mistress who might have a child. And once a year he goes back to his home village and has sex with his original village sweetheart. Then he gets HIV from a bar girl on a business trip."

Hankins and her fellow scientists may see this as a reasonable explanation for extraordinarily high rates of transmission, usually in relatively clearly delineated pockets, in high prevalence African countries. But if that's what 'African' men tend to be like, you might expect HIV prevalence to be relatively high in almost every 'African' country, in all cities, and in all densely populated areas. You could also be forgiven for wondering whether Hankins believes that all women are similarly 'promiscuous', or if they are mostly victims.

The reality is quite different: HIV prevalence is highest in a handful of southern African countries; next highest are parts of East African countries, such as the area around Lake Victoria and one of the southern districts in Tanzania; Nairobi, Kampala and a few others places were also hard hit by the pandemic (with low prevalence elsewhere); but in central African countries, even West Africa, prevalence is much lower, and in North Africa rates are lower than in many western countries.

In fact, prevalence is often high among wealthier people, employed people, people with access to better road infrastructure and better access to healthcare. 'Promiscuity' (perhaps not as rich as Hankins' scenario) occurs everywhere, not just in a handful of southern African countries, in cities or in diamond and gold mines. You could say it is fairly widely distributed, in Africa and elsewhere. Some people are 'promiscuous', but most are not. So unless you accept redneckery like Hankins' (which is something of an industry standard), HIV should also be much more evenly distributed, at least in African countries around where the virus seems to have emerged.

The patterns of HIV transmission suggest that there are additional modes of transmission aside from heterosexual sex. These may include unsafe healthcare, where skin piercing equipment is reused without sterilization, unsafe traditional practices that involve skin piercing, even unsafe cosmetic practices, such as ear and body piercing, tattooing, etc. But the patterns of transmission do not suggest levels of unsafe sexual behavior that would be beyond most people, in inclination, energy, even time.

So instead of asking why women are afraid to be diagnosed as HIV positive, or why 'African' men are angry (especially HIV negative ones), the international HIV community should ask how they have allowed themselves to be fooled by such tired old myths, such as those about 'African' sexuality or typical behavior of 'African' men. The HIV industry is still happy to test people and send them home, so they can tell their HIV negative husbands and partners that they have a sexually transmitted virus. They then have to persuade their family and community that they are not 'promiscuous'. If the HIV industry didn't believe them, why would their family or community?

The World Medical Association's Declaration of Lisbon on the rights of the Patient states that: "Every person has the right to health education that will assist him/her in making informed choices about personal health and about the available health services. The education should include information about healthy lifestyles and about methods of prevention and early detection of illnesses. The personal responsibility of everybody for his/her own health should be stressed. Physicians have an obligation to participate actively in educational efforts." Failing to inform people adequately means they take risks they needn't take, are stigmatized because of their HIV status and are much less likely to accept treatment that keeps them alive, and reduces the risk of infecting others.

Of course people are afraid and angry, they are being told lies about HIV, about the people closest to them, and about 'Africans' and their superhuman 'promiscuity'. UNAIDS, WHO and the rest know that heterosexual sex cannot account for levels of HIV in certain areas in Africa. So no more lies about concurrency, 'traditional' sexual practices, predominant 'mores', migratory patterns and the like. HIV can be transmitted through heterosexual sex, but it is much more easily spread through unsafe healthcare and other bloodborne modes of transmission. If people are not informed, they will continue to avoid diagnoses, life saving drug programs and anything else to do with HIV.


allvoices

Sunday, June 4, 2017

From Barefoot Doctors to Barefaced Bankers

The Oakland Institute researches and publishes about access to some of the most basic of human needs that continue to be denied to the majority of people in developing countries. These issues include land, food security and sovereignty, trade and aid. An exceptionally powerful barrier to access to these and other human needs is the World Bank and its associated institutions.
A recent report details how the WB's 'private sector arm' (or is the WB merely a public sector tool of the private sector?), the International Finance Corporation, is deeply involved in extensive land grabbing projects, particularly in some of the most impoverished countries in Africa. There's a brief article about the report, and other WB related reports, on Oakland's site.
These landgrabs are carried out purely for profit, although descriptions of them are often padded out with talk of 'sustainable development' and other honeyed words. Far from benefiting anyone in poor countries, these programs squeeze massive profits from the poor through exploitation of the land for palm oil and other damaging commodities.
The few ecologies that have survived decades of colonialism and neocolonialism continue to be destroyed by institutions that claim to be 'helping' the poor. Populations in the countries affected become more dependent, less food secure and less healthy, communities and government, local and national, become less stable.
The current president of the World Bank, Dr Jim Yong Kim, used to be a 'global health leader', co-founder of Partners in Health, holding senior positions in some of the biggest names in US educational institutions (albeit some of the most neoliberal and elitist ones).
He held a senior position in the World Health Organization, contradictory as that sounds for someone who used to champion the work of Barefoot Doctors, 'accompaniment' and other types of community health volunteer. Indeed, it was his associations with work with the very poor that were used as arguments for his appointment to the WHO and, eventually, the World Bank.
It's decades since the World Bank has even pretended to have anything to do with the world's poor. It has long prioritized the ambitions of rich countries to grab land, control food production, kill off any grassroots movements, destabilize governments that their rich country management don't like and generally promote the status quo: more for those who are already rich and powerful, never mind the exploited.
But organizations like Partners in Health have been elevated to almost cult status by the press, in papers and books and in the popular imagination. Their talk of 'liberation theology' (to those who have will be given more?) and frequent mentions of touchy-feely philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Paulo Freire attracts those who like a veneer of 'ideology' with their neoimperialism. Another founder of Partners in Health, Paul Farmer, has even been referred to as 'a saint' by Kim.
Perhaps this association with (currently fashionable) cultist tendencies and cult figures have been factors in Kim's rise to president of one of the most destructive institutions in the history of rich countries' savage profiteering in poor countries? It is very hard to find criticizm of people like Kim and Farmer, which is part of the reason for suggesting an element of cultism, of cult status.
However, there is some criticizm of Kim, given his prominence in fields beyond medicine and development. One critic even argues that Kim twisted the philosophies of several philosophers to put forward what is just a barefaced, market driven, neoliberal agenda, that he manages to sell to his adoring followers. The World Bank seem to have recognized Kim as a fellow traveler a long time ago.
There is also a powerful critique of Farmer, which adds to the impression that these guys have done very well under the status quo (thank you very much), have done everything in their power to 'fight' for the status quo and have become leading figures in promoting a kind of chocolate box version of activism, that you can buy and distribute among your friends on your way to the latest popular protest.
Apparently Kim was fond of urging students to study for MBAs rather than the medicine (and anthropology, don't forget, that's where the ideology gets a toe in the door) that he and Farmer studied. One critical account of Farmer suggests that "Farmer and Kim are...embodiments of the dark side of the spirit of 1968". Others question the wisdom of Kim urging for action without theory, especially those who have studied Marx and Freire.
Using polite terminology such as 'structural violence', rather than condemning anti-poor policies wielded by the World Bank, neither will question the actions of international development institutions, or the rich country governments who profit from poverty and inequality. So neither of them are likely to have the stomach to criticize an institution that played such a shameful role in destroying any opportunity African countries had to develop themselves in the decades following independence.
Depending on how you view him, Kim appears to have come a long way from his early work in bringing healthcare to the poor. But he also showed great foresight and diplomacy in his treatment of what has become one of the principal causes of poverty, the World Bank. So who knows, perhaps he always had a penchant for banking? He and Farmer like to warn against what they term 'immodest claims of causality'. But Freire reminds us that impeding those who would question the likes of the World Bank are themselves committing structural violence.

allvoices

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Drugs for All Deemed More Profitable than Circumcision

Demands to roll out mass male circumcision programs, claimed to reduce HIV transmission, date back at least 20 years. Other claims about the 'benefits' of circumcision go back centuries. But by the time the programs had started several other interventions had been identified that have a far better claim to reduce HIV transmission.
For example, 'test and treat', the practice of putting everyone who tests positive for HIV on ARVs immediately, is claimed to reduce transmission to a HIV negative sexual partner by 96% or higher. (Note, 90 is something of a magic number in UNAIDSland at the moment, with their 90-90-90 strategy replacing various other magic numbers conjured up in the past.)
If the number of HIV positive people in the world is something around 30 million, depending on which estimates you use, and about half of them are claimed to be on ARVs already, there are still around 15 million who can benefit from ARVs. That's worth, say, a few billion dollars.
Although a lot of those opposed to mass male circumcision don't seem to realize this, many of those promoting circumcision are the same people who promoted behavior based programs, particularly those with an emphasis on 'abstinence'. Those programs, although they never completely died out, were a disaster. Even the people formerly pushing them now admit that they probably had no impact on HIV transmission. But they wanted to find another source of funding to replace the vast amounts that used to go into 'prevention', a lot of which was spent on behavior based rubbish.
Circumcision seemed like the answer because the number of people who could be targeted for circumcision could run into hundreds of millions. Every year millions more male children would be available to keep the programs profitable.
At first the promoters claimed they were only targeting sexually active adults, but they quickly found that most of them didn't want to be circumcised. It was much easier to recruit children and now they can turn their attention to infants.
But with test and treat, coupled with PrEP, how can the circumcision enthusiasts still claim that there is any benefit to the operation? They need to target almost the entire male population in countries where circumcision is not widely practiced. They must carry out the operation on about 75 men for every one claimed reduction in HIV transmission.
The other interventions, test and treat and PrEP, are claimed to be targeted at those most at risk. Let's take a look at who is thought to be most at risk, and see just how many hundreds of millions of people that involves, who would need to be taking these drugs for the rest of their lives in the case of test and treat, and for as long as they are thought to be at risk for PrEP.
In western countries there are few groups who are thought to be at risk. The biggest group is men who have sex with men. The second biggest group is injecting drug users. But aside from commercial sex workers, who are given some choice in prevention options in many rich countries, there are not many others.
The picture is completely different in southern and eastern African countries, with high prevalence and/or large numbers of people infected with HIV. This article about a PrEP program in Kenya says the groups of people claimed to face the highest risk of being infected include:
  1. Discordant couples (where one partner is HIV positive and one is HIV negative)
  2. People who frequently contract sexually transmitted infections
  3. People who are said to be unable to 'negotiate' condom use
  4. People who frequently use post-exposure prophylaxis (a short course of ARVs for people who suspect they may have been infected, taken within 72 hours of contact)
  5. People who share injecting equipment
Out of the estimated 77,600 new infections in Kenya it is not clear how many arose among any of the listed 'risk' groups. High prevalence countries tend not to trace contacts, assuming that the bulk of transmissions (about 90% if you exclude infants said to have been infected by their mothers) were a result of heterosexual intercourse.
You could easily add other risks to the above list, for example (most of the following are a risk in developing countries although 7, 10 and 12 are likely to be more common in rich countries):
  1. People who have given birth in a health center/clinic
  2. People who have given birth at home, or anywhere other than in a health center/clinic
  3. People who have received birth control injections
  4. People who have had injections, blood tests, transfusions, dental care, infusions, etc
  5. People who have had operations that involved piercing the skin, major or minor (including circumcision)
  6. People who have received some forms of traditional healthcare that involved skin piercing
  7. People who use injected appearance or performance enhancers (eg botox, steroids, etc)
  8. People who get their head shaved or where skin is pierced and/or weakened by processes
  9. People who receive manicures, pedicures, etc
  10. People who have body piercings
  11. People who practice scarification and other practices
  12. People who get tattoos
Of course, with the second list, you could warn people about the risks and clean up health centers, cosmetic establishments and anywhere skin piercing occurs (the list is surprisingly long). This would seem preferable to putting almost everyone in a population on expensive drugs for many years.
But UNAIDS, CDC, WHO and other establishments object to calls to warn people about the risks they face in health and cosmetic facilities in developing countries. They warn some people from rich countries about the risks in poor countries but they refuse to warn people in poor countries.
Even concentrating on the risks listed in the Kenya article it is easy to identify many millions of people who could be said to need the $775 per annum PrEP, which is the estimated cost of the drugs alone (I don't know what other costs there may be).
So you can see the attraction for the HIV industry. If there were only 5 million people requiring years of ARVs, for some, a lifetime of ARVs, that's several billion dollars for Kenya alone. There are countries with higher prevalence and others with higher numbers of people infected than Kenya.
With only a few billion dollars for mass male circumcision, with its 1.3% absolute risk reduction, or even the claimed 60% relative risk reduction, drugs for the sick and the well seems like a far more lucrative strategy. Even if the benefits realized for mass male circumcision far exceed those unlikely claims, they can't come close to the claimed benefits of test and treat and those of PrEP.
One problem is that you can't roll out PrEP for many of the groups claimed to benefit. For example, in discordant couples the positive partner should already be receiving ARVs. People who share injecting equipment could be better served by a clean syringe and needle program. There may be other examples, where overlapping PrEP and test and treat might raise eyebrows among the more scrupulous in the industry.
And it would be perverse to give PrEP to people while they still attend clinics and other places where skin piercing procedures take place without warning them about the risks and also ensuring that those places start to abide by strict infection control regulations that people in rich countries (and rich people in poor countries) enjoy.
If PrEP and test and treat strategies work as well as we are told, let's hope they do as well in the field as they did in trials. But let's also get rid of these silly mass male circumcision programs. We no longer have to pretend that they will reduce HIV transmission, or even pretend that that's why they were rolled out in the first place. Worse still, the profits are orders of magnitude lower than the drug based strategies.

allvoices

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

HIV: Cuba's Success and Uganda's Failure

Uganda is frequently mentioned in glowing terms in articles about HIV, especially in relation to the late 80s, 90s and early on in the 2000s. In contrast, Cuba is rarely mentioned in glowing terms, although the percentage of 15-49 year olds infected with HIV (prevalence), at 0.3%, is 23 times smaller than the same figure for Uganda, which stood at 7.1% in 2015 (all HIV figures from UNAIDS).
In fact, one could suggest that Uganda never got to grips with the epidemic. They still can't explain why so many people, said to face a low risk of being infected with HIV, have seroconverted over the past several decades. Despite huge amounts of research, money and other resources being thrown at the country, the bulk of published research on HIV in Uganda seems to be focused on assumed sexual behavior and assumed sexually transmitted HIV.
Little or no international funding went into the HIV epidemic in Cuba. The country worked hard to research the epidemic, even before the first HIV positive person was identified there, several years before. Luckily, the country had a well developed health service, with more doctors per patient than any other high prevalence country (including the US). Indeed, the US (where an estimated 1.2 million were living with HIV in 2013) seemed intent on ridiculing Cuba's approach to the virus.
Some of the criticisms were directed at claimed human rights aspects of Cuba's achievements. It was often stated or implied that men who have sex with men were especially targeted by, for example, Cuba's imposed 'quarantine'. The quarantining started when little was known about the course of the illness, but it was relaxed once more was known. A number of personal accounts, some from men who have sex with men, now make it clear that many of the people quarantined are grateful to have received the care they got at the 'sanitaria' (there are links to other similar articles from this article).
An article by Tim Anderson finds that the quarantine did not target men who have sex with men; it also finds that other procedures were carried out in accordance with international guidelines. Anderson notes that Cuba was 'more thorough' in their testing and tracing procedures. Cuba has continued to make improvements in how they deal with the epidemic, which is a low level one, with men who have sex with men being the most affected group.
Sarah Z Hoffman refers to Cuba's HIV program as 'the most successful in the world'. Cuba approached HIV with the aim of reducing the likelihood of those infected going on to infect other people. That may sound like an obvious aim, but the greater thoroughness of Cuba identified by Anderson can be contrasted with a reduction in contact tracing in many countries, where it was claimed that certain groups were being unfairly targeted by such measures.
Cuba also started providing all HIV positive people with antiretrovirals in 2001, which they produced themselves as generic versions. Other countries had to wait a long time before they could provide more than a small fraction of HIV positive people with ARVs, and they had to pay astronomical amounts of money for them for years (although the costs are far lower now).
Hoffman writes "HIV infected people must provide the names of all sexual partners in the past six months, and those individuals must be tested for HIV. People found to have any sexually transmitted disease must undergo an HIV test as well. Voluntary HIV screening is encouraged."
This is one of the places where practices in Cuba differ from practices in most other countries. This is called 'contact tracing' and it's a vital tool of infection control. But in most countries people can claim anything they wish to about their sexual partners, that they have never had sex, that they have only engaged in heterosexual sex, that they have never injected drugs, etc. If people can withhold such information then contact tracing is impossible.
(My previous post is about a rare and valuable contribution to the history of HIV in Africa from John Potterat’s book ‘Seeking the Positives’, much of which concentrates on his work on HIV and STI epidemiology in the US. There’s a link to the chapter here. The approach the US adopted towards HIV could hardly have been more different from that of Cuba. Unfortunately, most other countries, certainly most poor countries, wedded themselves to the US, till death…etc.)
As a result of not tracing contacts, or of not doing so very assiduously, countries like the US, with extremely high transmission rates in certain groups, have never got their epidemic under control. In common with Cuba, the largest proportion of new HIV infections now is among men who have sex with men. Unlike Cuba, there is also a large injecting drug population in the US. But where contacts are not traced, they can not be offered the same opportunity to avoid infection if they are negative, or avoid infecting others if they are positive. Nor can they be 'connected to care' as quickly as possible.
In fact, many of the things western countries write copiously about, such as early testing and treatment, universal testing, elimination of mother to child transmission, universal access to treatment, were achieved in Cuba years ago, but have never been fully achieved even in some western countries. Where HIV prevalence is highest, in southern and eastern African countries, some of those achievements may not be realized in our lifetime.
Unfortunately for the worst affected countries, the rights of individuals are claimed to be foremost. Their contacts, past and future, are not treated as individuals. If the individual has multiple partners and chooses not to reveal that they engage in high risk practices, that’s considered to be the individual’s business. If the individual has had no sexual partners, or no HIV positive sexual partners, then the source of their infection needs to be identified. But in high prevalence African countries tracing of non-sexual contacts is rare. What you do find a lot of in research is findings referred to as ‘biased’, because the researcher expected every HIV transmission to be a case of sexual transmission.
(Despite the apparent desire of most countries to protect people's individual rights in relation to HIV, this approach seemed to go out the window when the virus involved was ebola. Some 'infection control' measures seemed to involve groups breaking into people's houses, forcing them into shabby health facilities, burning their property in public, spraying their houses, breaking up families and communities, etc. Who knows what approach will be taken to the next headline grabbing epidemic.)
So why all the attention and resources for a country that appears to have lost control of HIV a long time ago, and why all the rhetorical questions about Uganda, how their 'success' can be replicated, etc? More importantly, why so little attention for Cuba, and why is it so belated? We can learn a lot from both countries. Instead, we should be asking what Cuba did right, and continues to do right, but what Uganda did wrong, and continues to do wrong.
Cuba's approach to HIV may have been the most successful anywhere. Some would go further and claim that Cuba may be the only country that was seriously threatened by the virus, but gained complete control over the epidemic early on, and retained that control. In the sphere of human rights, also, Cuba has made a lot of progress. Uganda, on the other hand, continues to move in the opposite direction in the fields of public health, human rights, HIV, political stability, economy, etc.

allvoices

Monday, January 16, 2017

Dear Researcher, What Kind of Whore am I?

My last blog post was about a researcher who seems to have found what she was looking for (young girls who claim to have had sex for money to buy sanitary towels) and now uses the finding to get publicity and, presumably, funding, or justification for funding if she has already received some.

Ten percent of the 15 year olds, allegedly, made this claim, which amounts to fewer than 20 people from a survey of 3000. But the researcher took what they said at face value because they were saying the right thing. The researcher is selling menstrual cups (specifically, mooncups) in a high HIV prevalence area.

Another piece of research looked at serodiscordance, where each partner in a couple has a different HIV status, one positive and one negative (or they are each infected with a recognizably distinct viral type). It was found that more women than men are in discordant relationships, which is taken to indicate that women are more 'promiscuous' than men, or more 'promiscuous' than previously assumed.

The researchers concluded that "due to social desirability bias, women in stable relationships practice concurrent partnerships more than reported". In other words, the women whose partner was HIV negative but who were themselves HIV positive 'lied' about their sexual behavior.

The researchers, following the received view of HIV, believe that the virus is almost always transmitted through heterosexual sexual intercourse in high prevalence countries in 'Africa', but not in most countries outside of 'Africa'. Therefore, HIV positive women in a discordant relationship must have been lying.

In the mooncup research, the researcher believed what was heard, and reported it as she heard it. But in the serodiscordance research the researcher did not believe what was heard, so it was classed as a 'bias', no different from saying that those women were lying.

Although there are all kinds of names for various different biases that plague certain kinds of research, it's a bit harder to find names for the biases of researchers, who go into the field armed with their prejudices and the findings that they (and probably their funders and institutions, etc) seek, and proceed to grab what fits their preconceptions, discard what doesn't, and put a spin on anything else that can be salvaged.

A very disturbing paper claims to identify three paradigms of 'transactional sex', for those who thought it only referred to sex for money. They identify:

Sex for basic needs
Sex for improved social status
Sex and material expressions of love

So there you have it! Since the study is not about people who are seen as straightforward sex workers and people who are married, it's difficult to imagine what proportion of females could not be associated with any of these categories. Some authors on the subject conclude that females who don't receive anything for sex (and, I guess, some who do), are coerced into having sex.

This is about sex in 'African' countries, by the way, so you don't need to start thinking about any time you may have had sex that some zealous researcher could fit into one of their little boxes, unless you are 'African'. Of course, if you are male (and 'African') then you are likely to be a John or a sexual abuser.

So how can you tell if you have had sex for reasons that the researcher can not classify as transactional or forced, how to tell if you are a prostitute, a victim, a John or a sexual abuser? Or, looking at it another way, if you are not from an 'African' country, neither are you married, nor a sex worker, have all your sexual experiences been of a kind that these researchers might approve?

Those writing on the subject often talk of females lacking power, and of the intervention they are researching, such as marketing mooncups and the like, as 'empowering'. Indeed, the subject of power often arises in discussions of HIV in 'Africa'. As if we (the reseachers, NGOs, etc) have power and we are looking for downtrodden victims upon whom we may bestow it, if they just give the right answers to our questions (we can also tread down those awful men, too).

Shockingly, these well funded researchers really do wield great power in developing countries. They define what kind of person you are, a victim, an abuser, a prostitute, a john, and they tell others how to use these definitions, giving them a small share of their funding if they allocate people to the correct boxes.

The same researchers decide what they will accept as a valid response, on the one hand, and what they will put down to bias on the other, effectively calling the respondent a liar, unable or unwilling to accurately describe how they see themselves and their place in their own environment.

There are some who seem to go to the field with a blinkered view of HIV in high prevalence African countries, where they refuse to accept evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions of 'African' sexuality, where sex is generally paid for (somehow) or forced, always 'unsafe', rarely (if ever) for pleasure and certainly not for love. If you are a HIV positive 'African', heck, even if you just have sex, you are (probably) a whore or a john.

allvoices

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Questionable Research: Are Menstrual Cups A Hard Sell?

In May of 2016, the English Guardian gushed:


The 2015 study that they carried out is more careful in some ways. "Caution is suggested in interpreting the data provided, and particularly for analyses on low prevalence behaviors such as sex for money for sanitary products." The study also reveals that the number of 15 year olds who claimed to have had sex to get money, specifically to get sanitary pads, was fewer than 20.

Another Guardian article appeared in the last few days on the same subject. The articles are both promoting a menstrual cup as an alternative to expensive, disposable sanitary pads, or similar ware.

Access to sanitary ware is vital for the health and welfare of girls and women, and making devices like the menstrual cup available is an excellent alternative to the ridiculously expensive disposable sanitary ware available in most places.

But if it's a right, and vital for health, why dress this up as an attempt to 'rescue' 15 year olds who are said to be resorting to ‘transactional sex’ just to purchase sanitary pads? One of the researchers also claims the girls are often coerced into having sex.

Back in sensationalist mode, the recent Guardian article cites the same author and study:

Note, 3000 women, but fewer than 200 15 year olds. Both Guardian articles are about having sex for money to buy pads, rather than having sex in return for pads. But the abstract of the 2015 article seems to blur this distinction, which I would argue is an important one if we are to judge whether this research is useful, however abused, or highly questionable.

There is also an article from a 2013 study, for which Phillips-Howard is a contributor, which clearly talks about both, having sex for money to buy sanitary ware and having sex for sanitary ware.

However, the 2013 article is quite different because it states that "Girls reported [my emphasis] 'other girls' but not themselves participated in transactional sex to buy pads, and received pads from boyfriends." Claiming that other people do this may indicate that the respondent has simply heard such things, perhaps from peers, teachers, various sources of information about sanitary matters, or even presentations about HIV.

Going back to the two possible phenomena, sex to get pads (from sexual partners) and sex to get money to buy pads, do either of these stand up to scrutiny? The first seems unlikely on the basis of other claims and findings made in the literature cited, such as that few people want to talk about menstruation; males don't at all, even many females generally don't.
Do men buy sanitary pads as gifts for their sexual partners? I imagine this is rare. I have bought sanitary pads in East African shops and people don’t hide their reactions. Perhaps it happens.

Claims about girls engaging in 'transactional' sex can be found throughout the HIV, health, development and anthropological literature, all over the place. Sex in Africa is a common obsession among academics, journalists, policy makers, civil servants, Guardian readers, etc. There are claims that some girls have sex for status, food, mobile phones, phone credit, just about anything that a girl may want (or that they may be said to want).

Is it credible that lots of girls have 'transactional' sex for money, which they then use to buy sanitary pads? Well, again the articles state several reasons to think that they don't, or don't do so very much. After all, they have families with small incomes, they need to buy food, to pay bills, including school fees. Would they prioritize sanitary pads, having gone as far as to engage in 'transactional' sex?

The literature goes from claiming that girls say other girls have sex for sanitary pads or sex for money to buy sanitary pads, to claiming that 10% of 15 year old girls claim that they have had sex for money to buy sanitary pads.

By my reading, the causal link between engaging in 'transactional' sex and purchasing sanitary pads is lost if the girls don't have sex in return for the pads. But if the claim is that they have sex for the pads then the literature itself undermines the claim that some men are happy to purchase them as gifts in return for sex.

We can’t rule out the possibility that someone has engaged in ‘transactional’ sex for money to buy sanitary pads, nor the possibility that someone has done so in return for sanitary pads. But Phillips-Howard's claim that girls are literally selling their bodies to get sanitary pads looks more like a desperate attempt to shore up poor quality research than a genuine argument for the benefits of providing girls in developing countries with the most appropriate means to ensure menstrual hygiene.

allvoices

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Gag at the Stench of Bullshit: Durban HIV Conference

After decades of insisting that HIV in sub-Saharan African countries is almost always a result of 'unsafe' sex, and that infections can be averted by 'abstaining' from sex, being 'faithful' to one partner and using condoms, the massive HIV industry may now be admitting that these 'behavioral' approaches don't work, and never have:

"Dube believes that early access to ART (antiretroviral therapy) is the way forward after a decade of trying to change behaviour barely dented the transmission rate."

But the industry still insists that HIV is mostly transmitted via heterosexual (penile-vaginal) sex, in sub-Saharan African countries. Curiously outside of sub-Saharan Africa, the bulk of HIV transmissions are due to receptive anal sex and intravenous drug use.

The reasoning for this is not so complex: the vast majority of people engage in sexual intercourse at some time in their life. Just as the HIV industry really (really, REALLY) wanted behavioral programs to work, because few viable alternatives were acknowledged, now they really want antiretroviral drugs to work.

Instead of identifying people infected with HIV as early as possible, monitoring their health, and putting them on ARVs when they clearly need them, the HIV industry has come up with 'treatment as prevention', which means anyone testing positive for HIV will be put on ARVs, for the rest of their life.

Not content with getting as many HIV positive people on ARVs as possible, the industry has also come up with PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis). This means that people can go on ARVs before they are infected. The industry can then 'target' the people they say are in need of PrEP. After all, who wants to prevent infection with such a lucrative virus?

Hey presto! If almost everyone engages in sexual intercourse at some time, then almost everyone is at risk! The number of people infected with HIV globally is between 30 and 40 million (depending on whose figures you use), which might seem like a very large market for the bloodsucking HIV industry.

But in a few strategic moves, the market rockets to hundreds of millions, perhaps even a billion or so, as rubbish behavioral problems are dropped all over the developing world, to be replaced by the imposition of enormous drug programs. Sure, individuals don't have to pay, but someone does; who, by the way, is going to pay?

Sex workers are an easy target, always have been. Even deciding who is a sex worker is a matter of debate among the HIV 'experts' (but certainly not among sex workers themselves). But how about the biggest HIV positive demographic in South Africa, which has the largest HIV positive population in the world? Teenage girls, many of whom are just becoming sexually active. What about giving PrEP to all of them, says the HIV industry?

Never mind prevention they say, treatment IS prevention they say, as they bank their billions and brand yet more sectors of the population as 'at risk'. Meanwhile, young people are demanding things that they feel are important, such as sanitary pads and condoms (how much was spent on condoms over the last 20 years?)

Some people are even demanding cancer drugs. Why are some people not able to access these? Is it because cancer is old news? Not 'sexy' enough any more? Or is it because many of the patents on cancer drugs have long expired, and the number of people involved is only a fraction of the number of people who can have ARVs for life; cancer drug regimens are not life-long.

If HIV negative people are to be given ARVs to 'protect them from infection', what about people who are already HIV positive but still don't have access to treatment? There are an estimated 20 million HIV positive people thought to be unable to access treatment (again, depending on who is counting, according to which methodology).

Poor Charlize Theron, who says it's not an honor to host the Durban HIV conference because 'we should have eliminated HIV by now'. So they didn't tell her that this is the biggest opportunity in history that Big Pharma has had to put hundreds of millions of people on overpriced drugs that they will need for the rest of their lives?


allvoices