More on the way political correctness has corrupted the world's fight against AIDS. Here's a review of Elizabeth Pisani's new book "The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of AIDS," which is about how the worldwide AIDS bureaucracy throws money at populations who really aren't at risk. From the review:
How then to explain the "massive in-your-face failure of the HIV industry", as Elizabeth Pisani describes it, with 30 million people infected worldwide, two million deaths and a similar number of new infections (7,000 a day) last year alone? "It might have been even worse without our efforts," she writes, "though it is hard to see how it could be."Ms Pisani should know better than most, having spent the best part of ten years within "the industry". As such her analysis inevitably extends beyond the practicalities of HIV prevention to touch on matters of more universal significance, confirming, regrettably, the common prejudice that the corruption and incompetence of international aid agencies are a major impediment to solving the problems that are ostensibly their raison d'être.
Her account begins in the mid-1990s when, recently recruited to UNAIDS, she finds her task is to "talk up" the threat posed by HIV into a potential pandemic, the better to galvanise the rich donor countries to increase their funding for its programmes. This has the desired effect, but her own reality check comes when, seconded to Jakarta, she encounters (and vividly relates) the bizarre subculture of the transsexual waria epitomised by Fuad, "a self-proclaimed heterosexual guy who has unpaid sex with a woman who sells sex to other men, while himself also selling sex to men and buying it from transgendered sex workers". Fuad may have pushed most "high-risk" buttons for HIV infection, yet "he didn't fit into a single one of our boxes". And therein lies the key to it all - recognising who in any particular society is having sex with whom, and how, and doing something about it.
That should not be too difficult. Indeed, the two countries that have pursued this approach, Thailand and Uganda, have been spectacularly successful in containing the spread of the virus. In the early 1990s, the Thai government, recognising the threat posed to its flourishing sex industry, imposed a mandatory 100 per cent condom-use edict on brothel owners, with the threat that any transgression would result in immediate closure. By contrast, in Uganda HIV was spread by (a lot) of unpaid sex where "plenty of women are having sex with people other than their husbands". Here, the universal distribution of condoms alone could never be effective without a major shift of sexual mores in favour of exclusively monogamous relationships.
But where Thailand and Uganda have led, international aid agencies have refused to follow. Fearful of being labelled judgemental or racist, Pisani claims, they would rather blame the epidemic on "poverty and underdevelopment" and devise ineffectual education programmes directed at the general population.
According to Theodore Dalrymple's favorable review of the book:
She thinks that two great forces have distorted international attempts to control the AIDS epidemic in Africa and Asia: political correctness and religious fundamentalism. Political correctness has inhibited unequivocal official recognition that AIDS is spread by certain sexual practices and the injection of drugs, which means that efforts at prevention are often directed at people who are not at risk in the first place, while neglecting those who are. Religious fundamentalism has prevented or obstructed practical solutions, such as the distribution of condoms, in favour of utopian goals such as sexual abstinence.
Turns out Pisani has a website and a blog for the book. It's well worth checking out. She is not, I hasten to say, any sort of conservative (she wishes Bishop Gene Robinson congrats for civilly marrying his male partner, for example). But she's hard on the politically correct minions of the AIDS establishment. Here, for example...
...a link to Pisani's generator for a Global AIDS Fund grant. She says you can justify a grant on just about any grounds. It's hilarious. But it's not funny.
Which is her point.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Your Barragan quote is from back in 2006, I think, when there was a brief flurry of excitement about a possible change in the Vatican's position, along the lines you suggest. But nothing has come of it, in fact. From an article in Time from that same period:
Not so fast. Vatican sources say the church's position has not changed--and will not change soon. Officials flatly dismiss reports that the Vatican is about to publish a document that will condone any condom use--even when one spouse has HIV. And Barragán backtracked, saying his office was producing only an internal "study" of the issue.
End of story. The Vatican does not permit use of condoms even to prevent infection within marriage. You were kind of spinning off into la-la land anyway, because it's obvious that if a woman is about to be raped, she's in no position most of the time to find a condom and urge the rapist to put it on. Especially since, as in the Philippines, Ireland, and many other countries, the Church has lobbied with all its might to prevent condoms from being available anywhere in the country, even to non-Catholics.
You have confused two issues. The Vatican refused to approve the use of condoms in consensual sex, when it is feared that one of the spouses has hiv. In such cases Church teaching requires abstinence--for reasons of basic prudence, if nothing else. The use of a condom by a victim of rape is permissible, in accordance with the principle of double effect. Of course, this is highly theoretical since in most rape cases the rapist is not particularly concerned about the wishes of the victim. As the Amnesty International story above suggests, in Africa it is usually the man who refuses to use a condom; women are intimidated by men into not using them.
Aww, don't you know, TRP, that AIDS isn't spread through heterosexual sex?
So how could this woman have gotten AIDS from her trucker husband? Only men get AIDS, and they only get it from homosexual contact.
She probably had 'malnutrition'.
Secondly, if the man was claiming that sperm could pass through an intact latex condom, then he was either ignorant, or he was lying.
A single spermatazoon is 5 microns at the head. Virii are, on average, 80 nm.
Basically, if latex can't stop sperm, it can't stop ANY virus, or most bacteria, for that matter. And, since there is no difference in permeability between latex used in a condom and latex used.. anywhere, else, including surgical gloves, then such a claim means that standard medical protocols are useless, because virii and bacteria will easily move through the 'latex mesh' of that surgical glove just the same as it will penetrate through a condom.
And the repercussions of that would extend FAR beyond AIDS in the Africa.
Karen Brown, 5 microns is equivalent to 5000 nanometers. A spermatazoon is typically 2.5 to 3.5 microns broad, but that's still 2500 to 3500 nanometers. A spermatazoon is 216,000 times more massive than a copy of HIV.
It takes more than one virus to cause the disease. The "pores" in the condom as typically large enough for a virus to pass through; about 1,000,000 copies of the virus would be transmitted in 30 minutes' use (no snickering). That's not enough, however, for infection to occur. The virus can "free float" in body fluids, but it typically "hops" off a receptor site on one human cell and "lands" on another human cell.
The same principle applies to other infectious agents, but, I repeat, it takes far more than one copy of the virus to get an infection, and a "free floating" virus is far less likely to infect than a virus attached to a human cell--which is stopped by the barrier.
That being said, there is about an 8% failure rate in male condoms and a 2% failure ate in female condoms, and that's a problem. But the problem is not with an intact condom worn snugly throughout intercourse, at least as far as physical transmission is concerned. Moral issues are quite another matter.
The point I was making is..
He said that sperm could make it through the intact mesh of latex.
The same latex is used for surgical gloves.
If condoms can't protect you from something 216,000 times more massive than a virus, then surgical gloves can't protect from viruses either, and our medical safety protocols are worthless.
I'm pointing out that what he's saying is inaccurate, or that he'd better be talking to doctors in surgical units before worrying about condoms.
If they object to condoms on a moral level, that's fine. Make the argument there. There's not only no reason to lie about the science, but it makes the moral argument less compelling when used.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.