Without Addressing Determinants of Health, Technical Fixes May be Useless

There is an interesting conflict between the findings of two different pieces of malaria research. One piece from Tanzania claims that mosquito numbers have decreased over a number of years to such an extent that fewer and fewer people are being infected.

Whereas scientists in Kenya agree, but claim that malaria infections are lower because of public health measures, such as "well-managed control programmes which involved distribution of nets, effective medicines and vector suppression".

It looks as if there will have to be a meta-study to resolve the issue: has malaria declined because of successful public health measures, because malaria spreading mosquitos are in decline (for one or more reasons), or is malaria prevalence merely cyclical, as has been found with some other diseases?

The Tanzanian-Danish study is adamant that the decline in malaria is not attributable to human interventions, apparently. This conclusion is unlikely to be popular among public health donors, who tend to attribute success to their efforts and failures to something that can remain quite mysterious.

Rumors about the possible influence of climate change have arisen, predictably, but that's a pretty amorphous determinant, at best. But, as scientists, they have to say something.

Despite the claims about distribution of nets in countries such as Kenya and Tanzania, I have talked to many who do not have nets, do not have enough nets, can't afford insecticide treated nets, or don't live in conditions that make nets useful, for example, they don't sleep in a bed or share the bed with so many people the net is useless.

Other articles have mentioned the fact that nets are often used for things far removed from their intended purposes. And so called 'free' nets are often sold, sometimes at too high a cost for the most needy.

And when it comes to drugs, there have been many articles lately, bemoaning the fact that 'fake' drugs (a term that fails to distinguish between generic versions of drugs, counterfeits and placebos) are responsible for sickness, death and resistant strains of malaria. Clearly, the drug industry wants public money to be used to ensure that they extract as much as they can from those living in the greatest poverty.

So all these scientists and experts really do have themselves in a tangle. Declines in numbers of mosquitoes have been equally sharp in villages without mosquito nets, though some articles would make you think there was no such thing as a village that didn't have nets.

Interestingly, a long way from East Africa, insecticide resistance has been linked to an increase in malaria in Senegal. Apparently, mosquitoes have become resistant to the insecticide used on bednets and malaria incidence is now higher than it was before the reduction campaign.

In addition to resistance in the mosquitoes, older children and adults are becoming more susceptible to the disease, which is an entirely separate matter. People's immune response is increased by frequent exposure to malaria, but it then drops once exposure is reduced. This research also acknowledges that the increase in the disease had been forseen for some time.

Sometimes these 'vertical' public health programs, ones that aim to address only one disease, seem a bit futile. For example, attempts to eradicate polio by using an improved vaccination without improving people's living conditions, especially their access to clean water and good sanitation, seem like a bit of a loser.

Similarly with malaria, many people who are most at risk from malaria live in areas with a lot of stagnant water and little control over waste disposal. The same people risk numerous water borne, hygiene related and other diseases, not just the economically viable ones. Perhaps the obsession with technical fixes, yet again, is getting in the way of providing people with what is vital for their survival and their health: decent living conditions.

Don't Blame the Poor for Diseases of Poverty

Diabetes is often referred to as a disease of the relatively affluent because it can be caused by some of the habits that are common in better off, urbanized areas. It can be associated with foods that have high levels of sugar, often highly processed foods, along with a sedentary lifestyle.

However, it can also be a disease of the very poor, those who have little choice over which staple food they rely on for almost all of their nutritional needs. In Tanzania and Kenya, for example, many people rely on staples that are high in starch, and little else. Maize, white rice, white bread and a small number of other foods can make up the bulk of the daily diet of most people.

An article in the New York Times may give the impression that there are lots of Africans suffering from diseases of affluence. I'm not sure why this article is about such a small sector of the East African population, though it may well be true that there are more wealthy people now than before. But diabetes is far more common than affluence.

I accept that the article is quite clearly about the African middle class, but the association of diabetes with increasing wealth is disingenuous. There are people suffering from diabetes who are neither affluent, urbanized nor sedentary. Are we supposed to see people in such circumstances as being responsible for their suffering from the disease?

The same article mentions lung cancer. One of the biggest killers in developing countries is acute respiratory conditions. This is not because most people smoke cigarettes, live close to a polluting but highly lucrative (for them) industry, live in a city or do anything else that relates to affluence. It is because they are exposed to living conditions that render them susceptible to serious lung problems. It is also because health facilities are poor and inaccessible.

In fact, if any generalization can be made about diarrhea, water-borne diseases in general, nutritional deficiencies and acute respiratory conditions, it is that they affect more babies and infants than adults. In adults, respiratory conditions affect women more than men. Also women and children are far more likely to be living in poverty than men.

The majority of people do not have access to private transport, some don't even have access to public transport. Most do not work in offices, most don't even have formal jobs of any kind. Most still have to walk to health facilities and social services, or even do without them. There are, presumably, risk factors for cancer, heart disease and strokes that relate to poverty as well as to affluence.

Urbanization has been a trend for a long time but it is unlikely to contribute that much to diseases of affluence in East Africa. Urban dwelling poor people are probably even more deprived than rural dwelling poor people and they face additional health hazards that those in rural areas don't face. These hazards include air quality, pollution, road traffic accidents, occupational hazards, violence and others.

I don't wish to belittle common health conditions, regardless of who suffers from them. But it is poor people who need better and more accessible health services, whether urban or rural dwelling. And many people are suffering from preventable and curable conditions that relate to their diet, their environment, their economic circumstances and adverse social conditions, not just from their 'lifestyle'.

An article about health in Zimbabwe illustrates the point: "70% of diseases and deaths in the country, caused by malnutrition, diarrhea, malaria and pregnancy-related complications, are preventable." Similar figures can be found for Kenya and Tanzania. It's a popular game in the press, in development and in politics to deflect attention from the problems people face that are beyond their control and to concentrate on issues that are, ostensibly, a matter of individual responsibility. There is a lot of public health work that needs to be done. Poor countries are not 'like' rich countries when it comes to health.

Religion and Health: Interference or Complementarity

Following my speculations about why some people seem to imagine that they can be made very rich by a miracle, a friend sent me an article entitled Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine. This article is a "comprehensive, though not systematic, review of the empirical evidence and ethical issues" and concludes that "the evidence of an association between religion, spirituality, and health is weak and inconsistent".

Perhaps more importantly, the authors question the ethics of mixing religion and medicine, a question that would still arise even if there was stronger evidence of an association between religion and health. One could ask, which religion would a doctor recommend or agree to discuss? What would they do with someone who didn't believe in any religion? Would each medical professional require special training and what kind of special training? (The authors of the paper did not raise all these questions, but they arise from considering the problems of combining medicine with religion).

Even if people go to a doctor without any expectation that the doctor is, to a large extent, a scientist, that doctor is obliged to do things that are supported by scientific evidence and avoid things that are not so supported. The fields of science and religion are completely different and the practitioners of each field work in different ways. Is it even feasible for doctors to also become experts in religion (as if religion were just one thing!)?

If I was renting a damp room that affected my health badly, should my doctor write a letter to my landlord and ask for my conditions to be improved? Medical advice could be brought to bear on an employer who was exposing me to health risks, but this is a matter for employment laws. The doctor doesn't intervene directly. Yet we know that environmental conditions are closely connected with people's health. We know that economic circumstances are closely connected with people's health but we don't expect our doctor to recommend a pay rise. Even government health advice about healthy eating is considered to be taking things too far by some.

I accept that certain beliefs can be comforting and I certainly wouldn't suggest that people should be told what to believe and what not to believe or how to express their beliefs. If they see praying as part of their recovery from illness or as helpful in bearing an illness from which they will not recover, no one has the right to interfere. But when it comes to prescribing medication, the doctor is the expert, not the religious leader. And when it comes to praying and giving religious advice, the religious leader is the expert.

In fact, I find it exasperating that there are many churches in developing countries who don't seem to be able to make that distinction. They feel they are experts in marriage, reproduction, sexual behaviour and protecting against sexually transmitted infections (STI). They are not experts, generally they know even less than lay people and should certainly have less experience. If you can't persuade someone to give up having sex or sex outside marriage, the least you can do is tell them how to avoid becoming infected with an STI, infecting someone else with one or giving rise to an unplanned pregnancy. Otherwise, these leaders are failing to do what they can to prevent serious consequences.

If religious leaders wish to give medical advice, they had better know what they are talking about. As for advice about sexual behaviour, contraception and reducing the spread of STIs and unwanted pregnancies, many don't seem to have had a lot of success and should leave the job to someone who has the appropriate knowledge and training. In the same token, doctors should discuss religious matters with patients if they feel able to do so and if they are requested to do so but it should never be seen as a type of medical care or treatment.

If someone has a particular set of religious beliefs, presumably they hold those beliefs regardless of their health or lack of health. It seems unlikely that they just 'adopt' those beliefs in the hope that they will get well. Whether someone is religious or not, some will suffer illnesses and injuries and all will die eventually. If the 'belief' is purely conditional on their health, the person's piety would be quite questionable. So I don't see why a religious person would be interested in whether religion is in any way connected with health outcomes in the first place.

Don't Have Sex and Don't Go to the Hospital

Over the past twenty years or so, there have been a few papers pointing out that HIV transmission through unsafe medical practices, especially in Sub Saharan African countries, may be higher than previously thought. These papers don't seem to have had much impact and when modes of HIV transmission surveys have analyzed the part that such practices might have played in the current HIV pandemic, they have usually reported that heterosexual transmission is the most common, followed by things like male to male sex, intravenous drug use, commercial sex work, etc.

The possibility of unsafe medical practices playing a large part in HIV transmission is being raised again, though it is hotly disputed by some. But given the amount of guesswork involved in estimating HIV prevalence in high prevalence countries, it would not be surprising if the figures were open to question. If it were established that HIV was regularly transmitted through medical practices, it would certainly dent the widely held belief that HIV can be fought purely by trying to control people's sexual behaviour.

I and some others have long opposed the view that sexual behaviour alone can adequately explain the massive rates of HIV transmission in certain countries, compared to the relatively small rates in other countries. This is not to deny that sexual behaviour is an important factor in HIV transmission, just to question the idea that certain people in certain African countries have more sex or have more partners or whatever, than people in other countries around the world.

But unsafe medical practices would be unsurprising in a country that spends so little on health, a country that has so few properly trained medical personnel, so few hospitals, a country where the vast majority of people can't afford to go to a health professional when they are ill and who may often be better advised not to go at all.

The cries of those who claim that massive funding for HIV treatment and care is justified may be well founded, I don't know. But one thing is for sure: in the time that HIV treatment has been well funded, hospitals and clinics have not improved noticeably, rather, they have disimproved. Staff numbers have fallen. Disease rates have risen. All the indicators suggest that the disimprovements in health that started in the 1980s, before Aids had had much impact, have continued right up to the present, high Aids funding levels notwithstanding.

So, as the anti circumcision lobby might say, this is not a good time to start mass male circumcision programmes. There may never be a good time, the case for mass male circumcision is still unconvincing, but no one in their right mind would opt for an operation on their penis or the penis of their child or relative until health services have been improved. People need to be confident that they will get better in hospital, not worse. Children in Swaziland whose mothers are HIV negative and who had attended hospitals and clinics a lot were found to be most likely to be HIV positive. Similar studies have been carried out in other African countries.

Whether you are going to a clinic or hospital for HIV related services or anything else, you are in danger of suffering from unsafe medical practices. The health service in Kenya is on its knees. Expensive HIV treatment or circumcision programmes either need to have their own infrastructure built from the ground up, which seems highly inefficient, or they have to wait until health services are built up in their entirety.

Kenyan's are still waiting for their health service to be rebuilt. The circumcision programmes have stalled, thankfully, some would say. And the HIV treatment campaigns are seriously hampered by the condition of the country's health services. Indeed, antiretroviral treatment is probably also hampered by the low levels of health in the population, but who is going to notice that? There just aren't enough health professionals to bear witness to the chaos that exists.

The whole issue is a reminder of how little is known about the true nature of different HIV epidemics in different countries. Many of the figures that are used to shape the various approaches to the disease are pure guesswork and interpretations are often strongly shaped by influences that have little to do with science or even reason, for example politics, religions and 'morality'.

A sensible conclusion to draw from warnings about the safety of medical procedures would be to spend more money on health infrastructure and especially on training more health personnel. More money is probably need for HIV specifically, but it will be money thrown down the drain until health infrastructure has been improved.

Celebrate World Aids Day By Dismantling UNAIDS

UNAIDS has never been shy about producing long and colourful documents about HIV/Aids and in the last couple of days they have released two; the Outlook Report 2010 takes a look back and compares the HIV pandemic of today with that of the mid 1990s; the second document is the yearly AIDS Epidemic Update, which I haven't had the strength to read yet.

The Outlook Report, like many of the various articles commenting on one or other of the reports, sometimes takes a rosy view of how the international community and the AIDS community have dealt with the pandemic. In the sense that things have moved on, and finding that you are HIV positive no longer has the significance it once had, they are right. We have come a long way in treating what was once an untreatable illness that would lead to a certain and very unpleasant death.

But the worrying thing is how the Outlook Report, like many UNAIDS and other reports in the past, talk about the importance of HIV prevention. It has been obvious that HIV prevention is so important that the amount of HIV money spent on it needs to be increased considerably. But the amount has gone down and the prevention programmes that get most of the money have little or no effect and have never had much effect.

Defenders of the disproportionate amount spent on treatment and care of HIV positive people are fond of pointing out that this shouldn't be an either/or debate. True, it shouldn't, both treatment and care on the one hand and prevention on the other should receive more funding than they presently receive and the funding should be more equitably divided. Treatment and care contribute a certain amount to HIV prevention but they are not the same as prevention and they will never contribute more than a certain amount. That's why there are five new infections for every two people put on antiretroviral treatment.

The report goes on to allude to the work that has been done to show that prevention programmes, such as they are, fail to target those most at risk in populations. Most of the money is spent on populations as a whole and very little on, for example, men who have sex with men, commercial sex workers, intravenous drug users, prison populations, fishing communities around Lake Victoria, mining communities and various others, who are very often at risk because of their occupation or lifestyle.

The report seems aware that HIV transmission is not primarily about individual behaviour and that there are different kinds of HIV epidemic in different countries and that some people are more at risk than others. It even seems cognizant of the fact that it is the circumstances in which people live that makes them more or less likely to become infected with HIV. But it hasn't made the leap to realizing that in some countries, especially developing countries, most people live in such circumstances. Not everyone is at equal risk of becoming infected but most people live in conditions that mean they are already at high risk of becoming infected or that they will one day be at high risk of becoming infected.

That makes it sound like HIV prevention is unlikely to ever have much success, but the opposite is true. Treatment and care have been to a large extent dominated by commercial interests. Products, processes and services have been developed, many by those who are in a position to profit from them. But prevention has been dominated by the party-political and pseudo-moral debates of political and religious leaders. Their aim is to further their own agenda, which are far from being concerned about millions of people becoming sick and dying.

Raising awareness about HIV, sexually transmitted infections, sexual health, reproductive health and anything else is good and will go a long way towards protecting people from a number of dangers. But good overall health, healthcare, nutrition, food security, education, infrastructure and many other benefits would give people the maximum protection, not just from HIV, but from other illnesses and ills.

And this brings us to another often repeated pronouncement made by various senior HIV/Aids experts. They like to deny that HIV funding has distorted health and development funding and disrupted more general programmes that aimed to benefit societies as a whole. HIV/Aids funding is not too high, it needs to be higher. But there needs to be a similar move to spend the money more equitably. HIV will not be eradicated without health services, education and other social services, no matter how much money is thrown at it.

So, spending money on all other areas of development will also contribute to the fight against HIV/Aids. But continuing to spend disproportionate amounts on HIV/Aids will not benefit the many other development issues that have been hijacked by numerous commercial and political interests. HIV treatment and care is just one of many health issues that the world faces but HIV prevention is about health, not disease. Therefore it has far broader significance and affects far more people than one single disease. In fact, it affects everyone.

Ultimately a self-serving and very expensive organisation, UNAIDS needs to be reabsorbed back into the overall agenda of public health, or some agenda that encompasses the health of everyone, not the sickness of a few. This is not to say that HIV positive people should not be entitled to treatment or care. Rather, they and all other sick people should be entitled to treatment and care. But people who are not sick should be enabled to stay that way. UNAIDS is good at diverting a lot of money for people once they are HIV positive but this is denying the right of HIV negative people to stay that way.