Wednesday, April 9, 2014

South African National HIV Survey Betrays Those Facing Non-Sexual Risks

The latest South African National HIV Prevalence, Incidence and Behaviour Survey, 2012 was released recently. Much of the media coverage concentrated on things like the worrying increase in HIV prevalence compared to the last survey, which was carried out in 2008, said to be the combined result of new infections and a big increase in the number of people living longer with HIV as a result of being on antiretroviral therapy.

The report is a useful document, as far as it goes. But there isn't even a hint that several non-sexual modes of HIV transmission could be contributing to the worst HIV epidemic in the world (in terms of number of people living with HIV, 6.4 million). This is a lot more worrying than the increase in prevalence, because failing to address non-sexual modes of transmission will result in people continuing to be infected through unsafe healthcare, unsafe cosmetic practices and unsafe traditional practices.

Underlining the clear assumption that almost all HIV transmission is a result of unsafe sexual behavior, there is a lot of attention paid to mass male circumcision programs. These are not going so well in South Africa because the majority of circumcised people chose this as a tribal rite, not because they had been hoodwinked into believing that it would save them from various diseases, HIV just being one of them. But the report fails to stress that this means most circumcised males in South Africa faced a far higher risk of being infected with a number of diseases by being circumcised in unsterile conditions.

The report also agonizes over the usual 'behavioral determinants of HIV', such as early sexual debut (a minority of males and females become sexually active at a young age, the vast majority don't), 'intergenerational' sex (a minority, about a fifth of females do, most males don't and this issue has been questioned recently), multiple sexual partners (also a minority do this, more males than females, although HIV prevalence is far higher among females) and condom use (increasing, but probably too low to have much impact on transmission).

However, simply ignoring the possible significance of how people respond to questions is the most arrogant, and probably the most dangerous aspect of the report. There is a list of reasons people gave for believing they would not contract HIV and a few from this list were cited in the media, triumphantly, because some people who thought they would not contract the virus were already infected. Here's the list, with the number of people giving the response and the percentage:

Reasons for belief one would not contract HIV - number and % of cases

I have never had sex before 21,150, 11.0
I abstain from sex 21,147, 21.3
I am faithful to my partner 21,144, 32.0
I trust my partner 21,149, 22.5
I use condoms 21,146, 19.2
I know my HIV status 21,136, 9.8
I know the status of my partner 21,134, 4.4
I do not have sex with sex workers/prostitutes 21,112, 1.7
My ancestors protect me 21,070, 1.1
God protects me 21,142, 2.5
I am not at risk for HIV 21,151, 8.9
Other 21,142, 10.4

Do those carrying out the survey never, for one moment, suspect that some people might be telling the truth? Some people who have never had sex before are being told for the first time that they are HIV positive, and that it's almost certain they were infected through some kind of unsafe sex. What efforts are made to find out how they were infected? What about those who are faithful to their partner? Is their partner tested?

The authors of the report seem to relish the term 'evidence-based' when referring to various different 'interventions' that are expected to reduce HIV transmission; when these interventions appear to fail, those who become infected, or who give inconvenient answers to survey questions, are blamed for their 'sexual behavior'. If the researchers don't even check how people become infected, in what way are the interventions evidence-based? If people are not believed when the answers don't suit the researchers, why should we accept other parts of the report where the answers are in line with what the researchers expect to hear?

Assuming that HIV is almost always transmitted through 'unsafe' sexual behavior, regardless of all the indications that it is also transmitted through unsafe healthcare, cosmetic or traditional practices, is a betrayal of HIV positive people; it is also a betrayal of those who still risk becoming infected through such routes. These non-sexual routes urgently need to be addressed by investigating and cleaning up health centers, salons and other potential locations, and by warning patients about the dangers of being exposed to the blood and bodily fluids of other people.

allvoices

Saturday, March 29, 2014

UNAIDS' 3 Ones: One Disease, One Theory, One Solution

[Cross posted from the Don't Get Stuck With HIV site.]

According to Avert.com "more than $400 million [of donor funding] was committed to HIV and AIDS in 2007/2008". However, less than a quarter of that funding, probably around 20%, was spent on 'prevention', with the usual assumption that almost all HIV is transmitted through heterosexual behavior. Around 60% is estimated to have been spent on treatment and care, say around $240 million.

It's tremendous that a lot of money is being spent on treating and caring for people who have been infected with HIV. Not all HIV positive people are currently eligible for treatment. Perhaps UNAIDS' claim that 60% of those who are eligible were on treatment at some time, although the figure, however many hundreds of thousands it may be, does not discount those who have died or who have been otherwise lost to follow up.

Around 95% of Tanzanian people are HIV negative. Out of the 1,470,000 people who are living with HIV, between one and two thirds may be on treatment. That's 1-2% of Tanzanian people, at the most. So how do those who control the money decide how to spend the approximately $80 million in order to reduce transmission of HIV; what kind of prevention activities should be prioritized among those 46,300,000 Tanzanians who are still uninfected?

UNAIDS has a slogan (aside from their 'three ones' slogan alluded to in the title above) that goes 'know your epidemic - know your response'. This makes it sound like UNAIDS believes that there are different epidemics in each country, and perhaps even different subepidemics within each country. But their response is always to treat HIV epidemics in Africa as if they are all virtually the same, although they may vary in intensity: but they are all assumed to be 'driven' by heterosexual behavior.

It's not very clear how far $1.70 per head can go towards 'changing people's sexual behavior', but that hasn't stopped UNAIDS and other big players in the HIV industry (and some of them are very big players indeed) from trying. Billions have been spent on wagging fingers at rooms full of adults and children over the almost 20 years of UNAIDS' existence.

Luckily there are a few things that can be done to help establish that HIV is probably not entirely heterosexually transmitted and that most finger-wagging exercises are a complete waste of money (their inherent paternalism is probably not considered to be a disadvantage; perhaps neither is their clearly demonstrated ineffectiveness).

For example, in Tanzania (and most other countries) there are only a few places where HIV prevalence is really high. Here's a list of prevalence by region (the five with the lowest prevalence are the Zanzibar archipelago):

Njombe 14.8
Iringa 9.1
Mbeya 9
Shinyanga 7.4
Ruvuma 7
Dar es Salaam 6.9
Rukwa 6.2
Katavi 5.9
Pwani 5.9
Tabora 5.1
Kagera 4.8
Geita 4.7
Mara 4.5
Mwanza 4.2
Mtwara 4.1
Kilimanjaro 3.8
Morogoro 3.8
Simiyu 3.6
Kigoma 3.4
Singida 3.3
Arusha 3.2
Dodoma 2.9
Lindi 2.9
Tanga 2.4
Manyara 1.5
Mjini Magharibi 1.4
Kusini Unguja 0.5
Kusini Pemba 0.4
Kaskazini Pemba 0.3
Kaskazini Unguja 0.1

And there are further generalizations that can be made about HIV in Tanzania. Prevalence tends to be higher among females, urban dwellers, wealthier people, people with higher levels of education and employed people. It tends to be lower among men, rural dwellers, poorer people, people with lower levels of education and unemployed people.

UNAIDS tends to 'analyze' these features, which are shared by all high HIV prevalence countries, and conclude that wealthier, urban dwellers with jobs have bigger 'sexual networks' (etc) as if every person with HIV must have a 'sexual network' (etc). But there are other figures they could avail of when they are in an analytical frame of mind.

For example, while women are said to be more susceptible to HIV infection for various biological reasons, wealthier, urban dwelling, better edcated women with a job are also much more likely to attend ante natal clinics (ANC) and seek the assistance of some kind of trained health professional when they are giving birth.

Now, you might expect women who attend ANCs and have assisted deliveries to be less likely to be infected with HIV, but you'd be wrong. In many instances they are more likely to be infected, sometimes a lot more likely. Indeed, some countries with the highest HIV prevalence figures also have the highest ANC and attended birth figures, Swaziland, Lesotho, Namibia and Zimbabwe, for example. The contrary tends to be true of low prevalence countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is not to say that HIV is never transmitted through heterosexual sex, or that it is always transmitted through unsafe healthcare (even among women). It's just a clear indication that we need to know exactly what contribution heterosexual behavior makes to epidemics, and what contribution may be made by non-sexual routes, such as unsafe healthcare, cosmetic care and perhaps other practices.

The whole concept of a UN agency set up to 'fight' one disease is bad enough. But it's a whole lot worse if they and the rest of the industry continue to squander precious resources on poorly targeted and ineffective interventions. Resources need to be spent on health, defined as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" (there's no irony intended in citing WHO here).

Apparently one third of all aid in Tanzania is being spent on HIV, which leaves the other two thirds to be spent on other development areas. So perhaps some of that will eventually be used to address the many poorer, less well educated, jobless people living in rural areas with virtually no infrastructure or social services, but who are HIV negative. They will likely remain negative if even a fraction of available donor funding is spent on working out the relative contribution of unsafe healthcare to the worst HIV epidemics in the world and addressing this issue, however belatedly.

allvoices

Thursday, March 6, 2014

HIV Strategy: Blaming the Victim and their Individual Behavior

[Cross posted from the Don't Get Stuck With HIV website.]

Since the early days of HIV/AIDS, finger pointing has been the main publicity angle. In Western countries the collective finger was pointed at men who have sex with men. Their reaction was to object to the finger being pointed at them and to insist that everyone is equally at risk. Though some still believe that everyone is equally at risk, it is not true. In Western countries the majority of HIV transmissions have always been among men who have sex with men, with a smaller proportion of transmissions through intravenous drug use.
But things are quite different in developing countries, particularly high HIV prevalence African countries. In high HIV prevalence countries men who have sex with men, intravenous drug users and even sex workers contribute a relatively small proportion of HIV transmissions. In fact, the largest contribution still appears to come from those with little or no risk; mainly monogamous heterosexuals. So the process of finger pointing often turns into one of victim blaming. After all, you can't point the finger at everyone around you, nor at someone who is HIV negative; so the clearest 'evidence' of unsafe sexual behavior becomes HIV positive status.
This gives rise to the task of explaining how a virus that is difficult to transmit through heterosexual sex outside of Africa is so frequently transmitted through that route in Africa. The HIV industry needed to show that 'Africans' must be promiscuous, ignorant and unhygienic. This wasn't too difficult because population control advocates (the word 'eugenics' is no longer fashionable), a significant proportion of wealthy NGOs operating in Africa, had had been playing the over-sexed, under-educated slum-dweller cards for decades.
The processes of pointing the finger at a particular group whose behavior was disapproved of, blaming those infected with HIV for their status, and concluding that HIV is all a matter of individual behavior, threw off course any efforts to reduce HIV transmission in developing countries. Although 'prevention' activities only receive a small proportion of HIV funding, that is still a massive amount of money. But prevention activities have rarely gone beyond exhortations to 'behave' in a particular way. The finger-wagging programs perfected by population control NGOs decades before HIV was identified became, and often remain, the state of the art of HIV prevention.
There has been plenty of research showing that these finger-wagging programs are of little or no benefit (except to the NGOs). An example of such research shows that "peer education programs in developing countries are moderately effective at improving behavioral outcomes, but show no significant impact on biological outcomes". There is a voluminous body of literature showing that you can't simply wag your finger at people and expect them to change their behavior, whether the aim is to address substance abuse, dangerous driving, over-eating or anything else.
Sometimes the association of HIV transmission with individual behavior is further connected with conditions that are beyond the control of the victim, for example, poverty. But this has also given rise to confusion: there is plenty of evidence that HIV in African countries is transmitted among wealthier people. This challenges the idea that HIV epidemics are driven by sexual behavior because, even if wealthy people 'can afford to have a lot of sex and a lot of partners', as the HIV industry would have it, there would need to be some poor people involved in this theory. Rich people don't pay other rich people for sex.
Instead of looking beyond sex, or sex and poverty, it seems some researchers are convinced they will eventually find out how sex and economic inequalities 'drive' HIV epidemics. One paper concludes that "Further work is needed to understand the mechanisms explaining the concentration of HIV/AIDS among wealthier individuals and urban residents in [sub-Saharan Africa]". But they don't seem to consider the possibility that their protohypothesis about sex is simply wrong. They don't seem to think that non-sexual transmission may be a very significant factor in the spread of HIV among wealthier people.
HIV can be transmitted through unsafe healthcare and other skin-piercing processes, such as various cosmetic processes. Wealthy people tend to have better access to healthcare. In fact, urban dwellers also tend to have better access to healthcare. Perhaps this is why the above paper found that HIV is "generally concentrated among wealthier men and women". This may also explain why HIV "was concentrated among the poor in urban areas but among wealthier adults in rural areas" in a number of countries.
Instead of trying so hard (and failing, over and over again) to find out what it is about the sexual behavior of wealthy people and urban dwellers, perhaps researchers should look at non-sexual risks, as well as sexual risks. Could the risks that people face be determined by their wealth and environment, precisely because they are not sexual risks, but healthcare and other risks? These risks are clearly not *individual* risks. They relate to health-seeking behavior, but it is not the behavior of wealthy and/or urban-dwelling people that gives rise to infection with HIV in a hospital or salon; the risk of infection depends on whether the facility is safe or not (which might vary considerably over time).
Some historians of HIV, such as Jacques Pepin (The Origins of Aids), admit that HIV was mainly transmitted through unsafe healthcare for many decades, and hardly ever through sexual behavior. But they don't explain how healthcare transmission magically disappeared in the 1980s even though conditions in many African countries remain very unsafe (although how unsafe they are is still a dangerously under-researched field).
Coupled with the magical disappearance of the risk of HIV transmission in under-equipped, under-staffed and badly run health facilities is the magical re-appearance of the promiscuous, ignorant and dirty African, though for many, this had never really gone away. Pepin vaguely mentions things like 'urbanization' as the main explanation for levels of promiscuity for which there has never been any evidence and which do not explain very high rates of heterosexual transmission of HIV anyway.
Ugandans have recently responded to having the finger pointed at them by allowing an 'anti-homosexuality' bill to be passed, effectively saying 'it's not us, it's them'. Various human rights groups, and even some donors, may belatedly object to such disgusting measures, which are being copied by other African countries. But the objection needs to be directed at the approach to HIV that began a long time ago, and began in Western countries, not in African countries. Men who have sex with men are by no means the only group who have been blamed for HIV epidemics. Other groups include long distance drivers, sex workers, house girls, fishermen, miners, and many others. It's this finger-pointing approach that gives rise to the stigma that those pointing the finger claim to abhor.
Thirty years into the HIV epidemic (I'm adopting the view that HIV is not a pandemic because most people don't face any risk of being infected and prevalence is, and will remain, low in most countries) research institutions, NGOs, international bodies and, perhaps most importantly, donors are still obsessing about sexual behavior and pretending that HIV status is up to the individual when it is clear that a large, but as yet unestimated, proportion of infections is a result of unsafe healthcare and other skin-piercing processes.

allvoices

Monday, March 3, 2014

UNAIDS' Dubious Claims about HIV/AIDS 2013

[Cross-posted from the Don't Get Stuck With HIV site.]
UNAIDS risk missing their target of reducing "sexual transmission of HIV by 50% by 2015". But there is a way of meeting that target, and they could meet it by tomorrow. If they belatedly admit that HIV is far more easily transmitted through unsafe healthcare, they could begin to estimate the contribution of things like reuse of needles, syringes and other equipment that comes into contact with blood and other bodily fluids.
This would also greatly assist their progress towards their 'ZeroDiscrimination' target too, because even though they can't reverse the damage they have done by insisting that Africans are irremediably promiscuous, the status of this claim as institutionalized racism will eventually become clear, at least to those who are prepared to think the issue through a little (a surprisingly small number of people so far).
After all, reducing 'sexual transmission' is one of their stated goals, whereas UNAIDS has barely breathed a word about transmission through unsafe healthcare in their 20 year, multibillion dollar, celebrity studded reign. They could just quietly (imperceptibly, even) reveal some changes in the way figures are collected and next December 1, a re-estimation of non-sexual transmission of HIV could be the subject most deserving of their customary (spontaneous) standing ovation module.
UNAIDS are uncharacteristically frank about mass male circumcision, which is something of an embarrassing fiasco: "As of December 2012, 3.2 million African men had been circumcised [...]. The cumulative number of men circumcised almost doubled in 2012, rising from 1.5 million as of December 2011. Still, it is clear that reaching the estimated target number of 20 million in 2015 will require a dramatic acceleration." (They don't say how many of the 3.2 million circumcised over quite a few years would have been circumcised anyway but took advantage of the free (anesthetized) operation.) Might this spell an unobtrusive retreat from this dangerous imperialist program?
But one of the heftiest pieces of bullshit in the 'report' (and there is stiff competition) is about "the goal of providing antiretroviral therapy to 15 million people by 2015". They say that "As of December 2012, an estimated 9.7 million people in low- and middle-income countries were receiving antiretroviral therapy, an increase of 1.6 million over 2011. That brings the world nearly two-thirds of the way towards the 2015 target of 15 million people accessing antiretroviral treatment."
The difference between UNAIDS' claim and the truth is expressed in a few words, such as 'were receiving' therapy. If they said that 9.7 million people had been recruited on to a therapy program, that might have been true (or somewhat closer to the truth). But 9.7 million is, at best, the number of people who have at one time been put on a program. Neither UNAIDS, WHO, PEPFAR, CDC nor anyone else knows how many of those 9.7 million ever took the drugs, or for how long, how many dropped out of the program, how many were recruited on to two or more programs or simply died, etc.
No one knows, and no one really cares because 9.7 million is an impressive figure, and it sounds like a good attempt at the 15 million target. There is not much incentive to estimate how many people are alive and on antiretroviral treatment, indeed, such an estimate could prove fatal to several substantial institutions (not just UNAIDS, which seems to thrive on failure to achieve anything at all, aside from spending money and institutionalizing bigotry). Is the true figure 8 million people, 7 million, or some far lower number? Billions of dollars say that no one is going to ask this impertinent question (unless they are not in receipt of any of those billions, and never will be).
Unsafe healthcare does exist in extremely poor, high HIV prevalence countries, surprising as that may seem to those who are used to the mainstream view that HIV is hardly ever transmitted through heterosexual sex in every country in the world, but almost always transmitted through heterosexual sex in a handful of African countries. What contribution does unsafe healthcare make to the worst HIV epidemics in the world, all in sub-Saharan Africa? Would it be the one or two percent UNAIDS grudgingly suggests, or something far higher? We don't know yet. No billions have been offered for the answer to this question.
Using cumulative figures is great, because you get that great 'step' effect when you produce bar graphs, and there is nothing like comforting, progressive steps to convince people that everything is good in UNAIDSland, and in the HIV industry in general. A very achievable 2015 target would be the abolition of UNAIDS and the promotion of safe healthcare. Because unsafe healthcare risks the spread of HIV, something UNAIDS has never got around to accepting. But I suspect that instead, there will be a continuation of the finger-pointing and victim-blaming that has characterized the mainstream approach to HIV in high prevalence countries so far.

allvoices

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Justine Sacco: Dangerous Truths and Dangerous Falsehoods about HIV

[Reposted from the Don't Get Stuck With HIV website.]
Even in South Africa HIV prevalence among white people is very low. But national prevalence is amongst the highest in the world and there are more HIV positive people in South Africa than in any other country. While America has the worst HIV epidemic in the developed world, with over 1.1 million HIV positive people, the majority of infections arise among men who have sex with men and (to a lesser extent) intravenous drug users. HIV infection among white heterosexuals who have no serious risks, such as receptive anal sex or intravenous drug use, is very low.
The American who tweeted the first stupid, but sadly true, remark offended so many people that she arrived in South Africa to find that a storm had erupted on Twitter and she had lost her job. So, to make matters worse, she made a statement to a South African newspaper which contained a dangerous but often heard falsehood:
"For being insensitive to this crisis -- which does not discriminate by race, gender or sexual orientation, but which terrifies us all uniformly -- and to the millions of people living with the virus, I am ashamed."
HIV most definitely does discriminate by race, gender and sexual orientation. This is not a new discovery, either. It may be an acceptable thing to say in certain circles, but we should never forget the differences between HIV in Africa, where the majority of HIV positive people live, and HIV in developed countries, where HIV is less prevalent overall, and is rare among heterosexuals who have no serious risk behaviors.
Justine Sacco, who tweeted the remark, is so right to think that she is very unlikely to be infected with HIV; a lot less likely than a black African, and also less likely than a black or Latino/Latina American. It is disturbing to think that so many people continue to believe or say otherwise. Why is HIV prevalence so high among black Africans and black/African Americans, yet comparatively low among white people, especially white men who engage in no serious risk behaviors?

allvoices

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Could PrEP be in Competition with Mass Male Circumcision Programs?

[Reposted from the Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Blog]
After years of trying to create a market for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) pills, such as Truvada, Big Pharma has turned to their favorite mass marketing ploy: dumping their products in African countries that are starved of health funding. Of course, why wouldn't they dump them in Africa, won't they be paid for with donor funding?
An article in Kenya's The Star entitled "Kenya: 'Wonder Pill' for Risky Sex On the Way" takes the unusual step of raising some difficult questions about PrEP, rather than repeating the Big Pharma press release, despite a shaky introduction. The article continues "Kenyans involved in risky sex behaviours will soon get a 'wonder pill' that can prevent HIV infections. Experts say Truvada, which some call the 'new condom', can reduce chances of catching HIV but there are fears the drug may be misused by the youth".
What, exactly, would constitute misuse of the drug? If it can cut the risk of infection by "up to 75 per cent if one faithfully swallows it daily", what could go wrong? Well, as the article eventually reveals, most people don't swallow drugs daily and most people can not expect 'up to 75%' reduction in risk. That figure is not even from a randomized controlled trial, but from a 'sub-group' study, where the best results are used to exaggerate the level of protection people, in (comparatively) strict trial conditions, may expect. Outside of that sub-group, and outside of drug trial conditions, risk reduction is far lower.
It's odd that such reports talk about studies and proofs for something that they then refer to as a 'wonder pill', a 'new condom' and talk of 'up to 75% protection' (although that's a bit weak compared to the term 'invisible condom' used by those marketing mass male circumcision), and the like. These are PR buzzwords, not scientific findings.
It is said that PrEP programs intend identifying those most at risk of being infected, such as sex workers, intravenous drug users and men who have sex with men. This will be a departure from vilifying these already stigmatized and criminalized groups; it remains to be seen how much donor funding will actually be spent on these groups to provide them with PrEP, given that it has been so difficult in the past to provide them with condoms, injecting equipment and even basic sex and sexuality education.
As the article says, Truvada is expensive, and it has made billions of dollars for Gilead. So it's worth their while pushing as much of the stuff as possible in countries with high HIV prevalence while the patent guarantees that their product will face little competition. By the time the patent expires the likes of Bills Clinton and Gates will surely have set up some program whereby the drugs can continue to be purchased at inflated prices.
The article makes the important point that nearly 1 million HIV positive Kenyans currently need antiroviral drugs just to keep them alive. So why would donors want to provide these same drugs to people who are not yet infected with HIV (aside from an obvious desire to enrich big pharma)?
Oddly enough, a cost effectiveness study makes its estimates using existing levels of male circumcision and antiretroviral therapy. This means that the three multi-billion dollar programs will be in direct competition with each other for funding, and each one will be trying to claim that any drop in HIV incidence is a result of their work. The study also seems to assume far higher levels of success than have been achieved so far. But that's big pharma for you.
While Gilead and other pharmaceuticals can gain a lot from any increase in antiretroviral therapy and PrEP programs, they may not stand to gain from mass male circumcision programs. Their assumption that their PrEP programs will be cost effective only in countries where circumcision levels are low suggests that by the time their product may be approved, the circumcision programs will already need to have failed, some time around 2015.
Worries that people may use PrEP as a kind of recreational drug, so they can dispense with the use of condoms when they are engaging in sex with people who may face a high risk of being HIV positive are not very convincingly addressed; nor are worries that overuse and misuse of antiretrovirals, either for HIV positive people or as PrEP, are brushed aside, with remarks about "government policy" and making the drug available "in form of a package that probably includes HIV testing and other prevention methods".
I seem to remember condoms, circumcision, ABC and various other programs being made available in the form of a package, without that leading to extraordinary results. But it will be interesting to see if PrEP will erode some of the funding currently being made available to, or earmarked for, mass male circumcision programs.
Circumcision programs stand to rake in billions for the big providers, but widespread use of PrEP would be worth far more. It's unlikely that a full scale version of both programs could co-exist; they are not mutually exclusive, but their cost effectiveness is predicated on their being the only or the main program in high HIV prevalence countries.
Whether one program displaces another, or whether they all get funded, the losers will be people in high HIV prevalence African countries, which will continue to suffer from under-funded health and education sectors. They will continue to be a mere 'territory' for sales reps, who will continue to carve things up in ways that should be very familiar to us by now.

allvoices

Sunday, November 10, 2013

What do Media Censorship and Manipulation, Gates, the BBC and Circumcision Have in Common?

Internews describes itself as an "international non-profit organization whose mission is to empower local media worldwide to give people the news and information they need, the ability to connect and the means to make their voices heard". But one of their much trumpeted programs claims to train journalists about the 'science' behind mass male circumcision programs in Kenya and creating demand for the procedure. There's quite a difference between training journalists on the 'science' of circumcision and creating demand, and the latter generally has little to do with empowerment.
So where is the impartiality in creating demand for mass male circumcision? If people have reservations about circumcision perhaps they have good reasons to. But if the procedure is as wonderful as proponents claim it is, why should such aggressive demand creation be necessary? It is claimed that Internews training "does not prescribe to journalists what to cover" but that their main concern is accuracy. Yet their country director Ida Jooste, perhaps inadvertently, flatly contradicts this claim.
She says that a "critical article was published in Uganda about VMMC quoting a poor-quality study which attacked the credibility" of the often cited Randomised Controlled Trials that took place in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Without citing that 'poor-quality' study, she goes on: "Rather than wait for the Kenyan media to pick up and run the story, Internews proactively convened a round-table with journalists and VMMC experts from the National AIDS and STI Control Program, and other organizations to analyze the story and examine its scientific arguments. As a result, not a single media outlet in Kenya chose to pick up or run the sensational story."
I don't think I'd use the word 'impartial' there. Ensuring that only positive coverage is aired and that negative coverage is quashed is media censorship and control, pure and simple. This is all paid for by the US taxpayer, though it seems the UK may now have something to do with it too.
Internews also 'worked with' (should that be 'worked on'?) civil society and health agencies working in the field of mass male circumcision. When they ran a conference focusing on women's 'involvement' in mass male circumcision, "to their delight" this resulted in 25 news and feature stories. This is pure manipulation, but those involved seem to express no shame, apology or even justification for it. Joost is even cited as saying "We believe that the impact of positive media coverage, or at the very least, the absence of negative coverage, complements and reinforces traditional public campaigns aimed at creating demand and behaviour change".
The above illustrates a concerted effort by a donor (Gates), an international media outlet (the BBC, via its corporate social responsibility wing) and a well-funded US non-profit, to control the Kenyan media. These parties then openly report their successful manipulation and censorship of the media, which has resulted in completely biased coverage of a public health program that is opposed by many of those who have taken the time to inform themselves about it.
What kind of foreign donor funded public health program, only carried out on certain African populations, is so important that it is necessary to manipulate the press so that they only report positive stories and that they don't report negative stories about it? If Kenyan people had any objections to this kind of neo-imperialism, would their press even report it? If the US wanted to impose a mass male circumcision program in the UK, would the BBC also collude with Gates, PEPFAR, CDC, UNAIDS and other parties to make sure objections were not heard? This must be what is meant by 'informed consent'.

allvoices