* Original content from our Mapping Pathways blog team
“An AIDS-free generation would be one of the greatest gifts we could give to the future.Let's make it happen.”
On November 9, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on HIV/AIDS at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland – a speech that has triggered mixed reactions from people in the HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention field. Take a look at some excerpts:
A number of HIV/AIDS activists have applauded Clinton’s “bold” speech, pointing out her emphasis on the prioritization of the fight against the epidemic, her focus on scientific evidence, and her call for immediate action to take advantage of the “historic opportunity” to create an “AIDS-free generation.” Many hope that this kind of public statement will help boost activism to preserve domestic and international funding.
On the other hand, while Clinton mentioned vaginal microbicides for women, she failed to talk about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and rectal microbicides. These two prevention strategies are meant to protect uninfected people from the HIV virus – they have been the subject of numerous recent trials, with substantial success being demonstrated in many of them. (Take a look at our blog post on some of these studies.) Some feel Clinton’s decision give these new prevention technologies a miss can be attributed to political, financial, and social reasons.
“The omissions were disappointing but not surprising,” says Jim Pickett, Director of Prevention Advocacy and Gay Men's Health at the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, chair of International Rectal Microbicide Advocates (IRMA), and a member of the Mapping Pathways team. “Her audience was international, which means predominately heterosexual, so I suppose it made strategic sense that she would steer clear of PrEP, which has been shown to be effective for gay/bisexual men but has produced conflicting results for heterosexuals. Nonetheless, with gay men and other men who have sex with men experiencing catastrophic rates of HIV the world over, it remains disturbing to me that this group was not even mentioned, whether in conjunction with PrEP or not.”
Another possible reason for the omission of PrEP is the fact that the global jury is still out on the feasibility of rolling out PrEP interventions while there are HIV-infected people who do not have access to treatment – a problem made all the more complex because of the crippling HIV/AIDS funding constraints over the last few years. However, Pickett firmly believes that the either/or stance taken by those nixing promising preventive technologies is dangerous and close-minded. “We’re continually working to get enough information and data to answer the big questions we’re grappling with – questions about efficacy, accessibility, funding, prioritization, and acceptability. These questions are extremely challenging, but it’s imperative that we work on solving them,” says Jim. “It’s not an option to stick our head in the sand. To turn the dream of an AIDS-free generation into a reality, it is absolutely clear that we must expand access to effective ARV drugs for all those who need them – whether they are HIV-positive or HIV-negative.”
To know more about Secretary Clinton’s speech and the responses to it, read the AIDS Foundation of Chicago’s story and Science Magazine’s article. You could also check out this letter to Secretary Clinton – a blog post written by an IRMA member.
You can read the entire speech here.
[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]
On November 9, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on HIV/AIDS at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland – a speech that has triggered mixed reactions from people in the HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention field. Take a look at some excerpts:
“Today we are making major investments in the search for a vaccine; for tools like microbicides, which give women the power to protect themselves; and other lifesaving innovations.”
“… our efforts have helped set the stage for the historic opportunity the world has today: to change the course of this pandemic and usher in an AIDS-free generation.”
“… creating an AIDS-free generation has never been a policy priority for the United States Government until today, because this goal would have been unimaginable just a few years ago … It requires all of us to put a variety of scientifically proven prevention tools to work in concert with each other.”
“America's combination-prevention strategy focuses on a set of interventions that have been proven most effective: ending mother-to-child transmission, expanding voluntary medical male circumcision, and scaling up treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS.”
“… we now know that if you treat a person living with HIV effectively, you reduce the risk of transmission to a partner by 96 percent.”
“Treating HIV-positive people before they become ill also has indirect economic benefits.It allows them to work, support their families, and contribute to their communities; and it averts social costs, such as caring for orphans whose parents die of AIDS-related illnesses … In other words, treating people will not only save lives – it will generate considerable economic returns too.”
“… we need to let science guide our efforts. Success depends on deploying our tools based on the best available evidence.”
“An AIDS-free generation would be one of the greatest gifts we could give to the future. Let's make it happen.”
A number of HIV/AIDS activists have applauded Clinton’s “bold” speech, pointing out her emphasis on the prioritization of the fight against the epidemic, her focus on scientific evidence, and her call for immediate action to take advantage of the “historic opportunity” to create an “AIDS-free generation.” Many hope that this kind of public statement will help boost activism to preserve domestic and international funding.
On the other hand, while Clinton mentioned vaginal microbicides for women, she failed to talk about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and rectal microbicides. These two prevention strategies are meant to protect uninfected people from the HIV virus – they have been the subject of numerous recent trials, with substantial success being demonstrated in many of them. (Take a look at our blog post on some of these studies.) Some feel Clinton’s decision give these new prevention technologies a miss can be attributed to political, financial, and social reasons.
“The omissions were disappointing but not surprising,” says Jim Pickett, Director of Prevention Advocacy and Gay Men's Health at the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, chair of International Rectal Microbicide Advocates (IRMA), and a member of the Mapping Pathways team. “Her audience was international, which means predominately heterosexual, so I suppose it made strategic sense that she would steer clear of PrEP, which has been shown to be effective for gay/bisexual men but has produced conflicting results for heterosexuals. Nonetheless, with gay men and other men who have sex with men experiencing catastrophic rates of HIV the world over, it remains disturbing to me that this group was not even mentioned, whether in conjunction with PrEP or not.”
Another possible reason for the omission of PrEP is the fact that the global jury is still out on the feasibility of rolling out PrEP interventions while there are HIV-infected people who do not have access to treatment – a problem made all the more complex because of the crippling HIV/AIDS funding constraints over the last few years. However, Pickett firmly believes that the either/or stance taken by those nixing promising preventive technologies is dangerous and close-minded. “We’re continually working to get enough information and data to answer the big questions we’re grappling with – questions about efficacy, accessibility, funding, prioritization, and acceptability. These questions are extremely challenging, but it’s imperative that we work on solving them,” says Jim. “It’s not an option to stick our head in the sand. To turn the dream of an AIDS-free generation into a reality, it is absolutely clear that we must expand access to effective ARV drugs for all those who need them – whether they are HIV-positive or HIV-negative.”
To know more about Secretary Clinton’s speech and the responses to it, read the AIDS Foundation of Chicago’s story and Science Magazine’s article. You could also check out this letter to Secretary Clinton – a blog post written by an IRMA member.
You can read the entire speech here.
[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]
No comments:
Post a Comment