From: April
Judge takes on S.Africa's AIDS 'denialists'
Reuters NewMedia - May 2, 2005
Andrew Quinn
http://www.aegis.org/news/re/2005/RE050502.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - White, wealthy and proudly gay, Judge Edwin
Cameron is hardly a typical face of the AIDS pandemic ravaging
southern Africa.
But Cameron, a member of South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal and
the only senior public servant in the country to publicly disclose he
has HIV, shares one thing with millions of other Africans fighting the
virus: a strong desire to live and a deep anger over halting efforts
to fight the disease.
In a new book Cameron dissects Africa's AIDS crisis, a public health
emergency that the United Nations estimates could infect up to 89
million more Africans by 2025.
It is a disaster he blames in part on African "AIDS Denialism," the
prism that some leaders including South African President Thabo Mbeki
have used to downplay or dismiss scientific knowledge on AIDS.
His book, "Witness to AIDS," is an indictment of Western drug firms
which he says kept AIDS medicine out of reach of most Africans for far
too long and the failure of South Africa's leaders to face up to the
debacle.
"We have had leaders referring to AIDS in their families, but never in
themselves," Cameron said in an interview. "We still don't have the
heartfelt, unambiguous, insistent quality of leadership on AIDS that
one would want."
South Africa in 2003 bowed to domestic and international pressure and
launched a public program of anti-retroviral (ARV) drug treatment, a
sign of hope for millions.
But implementation has been slow, thousands are still dying, and AIDS
remains both politicized and stigmatized.
ONE VICTIM AMONG MILLIONS
Cameron's career - not just his HIV status - makes him uniquely
qualified to examine South Africa's response to AIDS, increasingly
depicted as a human rights issue for the estimated 5 million South
Africans infected with the disease.
A human rights lawyer, Rhodes scholar at Britain's Oxford University
and one of Nelson Mandela's first appointments to South Africa's High
Court following the end of apartheid in 1994, Cameron had for almost a
decade been publicly out as a gay man, a rarity in South Africa at the
time.
He was also operating with the private knowledge that in 1986 he was
diagnosed with HIV.
Cameron's personal struggle with HIV reflects the terror that
surrounded the disease before life-prolonging ARV drugs were
introduced in the early 1990s.
"AIDS put a short, sudden and shocking limit on my life," he wrote in
the book, which will be published in Britain, China and the United
States later this year.
"In December 1986 it was for me what for tens of millions of Africans
it still is today - an imminent term of death."
Cameron remains the only prominent South African public official to go
public with his HIV status, despite widespread speculation that other
senior figures including MPs may also be infected.
Mandela, who has become an outspoken AIDS campaigner since stepping
down as president in 1999, sought to combat the stigma this year when
he publicly announced that his own son Makgatho had died from
AIDS-related causes at the age of 54.
But the fear surrounding AIDS in southern Africa remains a huge
obstacle to fighting the disease, with a lack of clear government
leadership fueling the sense that HIV is a shameful private burden
rather than a public policy emergency.
DISASTER SPREADS
Cameron enjoyed more than a decade of good health despite being
HIV-positive, and when he did eventually fall seriously ill in 1997 he
was able to afford ARVs to keep himself alive.
Millions of other South Africans were not so lucky and the government
dragged its feet on introducing ARVs in the public sector - a delay
activists say cost countless lives.
South Africa's AIDS crisis has been exacerbated by the poverty of much
of the population, where the legacy of apartheid has limited the
spread of basic nutrition and health care.
But Cameron says the Mbeki government veered wildly off course in the
early 2000s under the influence of "denialists" who saw the basic
scientific building blocks of the epidemic as a racist conspiracy to
promote dangerous drugs.
Mbeki questioned the link between HIV and AIDS, and left the
impression his government regarded discussion of the AIDS crisis as an
attempt by white Westerners to denigrate black Africans by questioning
their sexual morality.
"African AIDS denialism demoralized the debate," Cameron said. "It
wrongly ascribes the medical model of HIV virology to some kind of
condemnation of Africans."
At the same time Cameron charges Western drug firms with unfairly
holding up ARV prices until forced to reduce them by lawsuits and
political pressure.
He is clearly angry the country has lost valuable time in fighting
AIDS and may still be moving too slowly. "I believe massive errors
have been made," Cameron said.
But despite the escalating AIDS death rate and the government's opaque
attitude toward the disease, Cameron remains guardedly optimistic the
tide can be turned.
ARVs, once derided by officials as unnecessary and dangerous, are
increasingly available and more and more South Africans are going
public as HIV-positive.
Cameron's message, to his fellow South Africans and to the world, is
that AIDS provides an opportunity for both individuals and societies
to unite in fighting an epidemic
"We cannot allow our grief and our bereavement to inflict a further
loss upon us: the loss of our own full humanity, our capacity to feel
and respond and support," he writes. "AIDS beckons us to the fullness
and power of our own humanity."
050502
RE050502
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2005 - Reuters, Ltd. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the
prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any
errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance
thereon. Reuters.
AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted grants from Boehringer
Ingelheim, Elton John AIDS Foundation, Bridgestone/Firestone
Charitable Trust, the National Library of Medicine, and donations from
users like you. Always watch for outdated information. This article
first appeared in 2005. This material is designed to support, not
replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and
neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained
on this website, including information relating to health conditions,
products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is
often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a
substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other
medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor
who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 2005. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are
protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S.
copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party
credited as the provider of the content.
To login:http://webboard.aegis.org/WB/?boardID=2
To (un)subscribe: mailto: HIVAIDSNews.list-request@webboard.aegis.org
Ingsoc - 04 May 2005 08:44 GMT
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote...
> His book, "Witness to AIDS," is an indictment of Western drug firms
> which he says kept AIDS medicine out of reach of most Africans for far
> too long and the failure of South Africa's leaders to face up to the
> debacle.
f.ck him. All I know is that the most incredible scientific progress
has been made in the field of virology since the beginning of the HIV
epidemic. Literally billions, perhaps tens or even hundred of billions
of dollars has been spent on HIV research, most of that money coming
from the evil private capitalist sector. If African countries don't
like the price of the miraculous anti-HIV drugs, they don't have to
purchase them, they can simply go and invent their own drugs. I say
let them steal the patents for existing HIV drugs and when the virus
become resistant to those drugs we shouldn't sell them any of the new
drugs (which cost even more billions of dollars to develop), let them
go invent their own new drugs and give them away for free like good
little commies.
Also, while expensive, AIDS drugs are not completely unaffordable for
civilized industrialized countries. The estimated $20,000/year it
costs to treat American AIDS patients roughly matches their average
potential income, but that same $20,000 is perhaps 100x the average
potential income for any African nation. And our infection rate is a
fraction of 1%, while Africa's is approaching 50%, so the cost for
them is literally astronomical. Still, it is not America's job to
save the world; if African countries can't afford our drug prices,
perhaps their leaders should embezzle less and use the money they
didn't steal to buy vital medicines for their people. But I do not
see why my tax money should be used to support the rest of the
planet.
GMCarter - 04 May 2005 09:59 GMT
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote...
>> His book, "Witness to AIDS," is an indictment of Western drug firms
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>has been made in the field of virology since the beginning of the HIV
>epidemic.
Yes. And in immunology. And in infectious diseases in general.
ALL of the discoveries for AIDS meds came from people. Many came from
people in university settings. Some from people stuck working with a
company--the COMPANY then decides how they screw people on prices and
BLOCK access to drugs. And that kills people.
The companies need not behave this way and could still make a great
profit. But greed blinds them as your bigotry blinds you.
George M. Carter
Death - 04 May 2005 18:05 GMT
"Ingsoc" <bb@party.org> wrote in message
> f.ck him.
and the down low nigger he rode in on.
Gary Stein - 04 May 2005 18:45 GMT
> "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote...
>> His book, "Witness to AIDS," is an indictment of Western drug firms
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> become resistant to those drugs we shouldn't sell them any of the new
> drugs (which cost even more billions of dollars to develop),
Well if you had any facts to back up your assertions they might make some
sense. However you seem to be unaware that the vast majority of the funding
for AIDS research including a significantly large part of the drug research
money came from the US government (the US Taxpayers). Why should the US
taxpayer be subsidizing the single most profitable industry in the US and
the world (the Pharmaceutical Industry). If the NIH or CDC or NAIAD had
negotiated responsible licensing agreements with the Drug companies for the
use of government funded research those revenues could easily have funded
any aid to Africa that the US choose to provide. But no the Pharmaceutical
Industry got that research basically for free and then is so greedy that
they charge simply unsupportable prices for the products that result from
that research.
Here's an example of the greed of the industry there is a new drug I'm sure
you've seen advertised on TV called Nexium that came out after the patent on
Prilosec (the single highest selling drug in world history) expired and it
became an over the counter drug at vastly lower prices then were charged for
it when it was on patent.
Well guess what Nexium the new drug is the exact same product as the over
the counter version of Prilosec. What the drug company did was look at what
happened to Prilosec when it reached the stomach and metabolized. They found
that the metabolized state of Prilosec was changed molecularly from the pill
form of the drug. So brilliant and greedy marketers that they are they
applied for a patent for the metabolized state of the molecule and when they
got it they named it Nexium and begin to advertise it as the new improved
wonder drug for the treatment of heartburn at a price 10 times that of the
over the counter version of the exact same drug. Of course they do
everything they can to make sure that doctors, insurance companies and
patients never find out what they have done. There cost of research was
minimal and there profits are right back to the levels they were when
Prilosec first appeared on the market.
Gary Stein
Ingsoc - 05 May 2005 08:48 GMT
"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote...
> Here's an example of the greed of the industry there is a new drug I'm sure
> you've seen advertised on TV called Nexium that came out after the patent on
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> minimal and there profits are right back to the levels they were when
> Prilosec first appeared on the market.
Yes, I know all that I and I wrote about it before. AFAIK, Prilosec is
still under patent, it was that the FDA approved it for OTC sale that
the company "invented" Nexium to replace it. Remember that insurance
doesn't cover the cost of OTC drugs, so patients whose doctors had them
on Prilosec now had to pay for it out of their own pockets. So the
company changed an atom or two, re-patented it, got a new FDA approval
for prescription sale, and all the doctors around the country now
prescribe Nexium (which is no better and may be worse as long-term
safety data doesn't exist yet) so their patients' insurance plans pay
for the pills.
Claritin is another example, though it did lose its patent and went
both generic and OTC at the same time. So an atom was changed and
became new prescription Clarinex which costs 20x as much as generic
loratidine and is covered by insurance and Medicare.
That doesn't change the fact that much money was spent developing
the drugs and the companies that paid for the research that
discovered them should be allowed to profit from it. Remember
that these companies are financed by investors and that they will
withdraw their investment if the company isn't sufficiently
profitable. No investors = no company to make the AIDS drugs.
You or anyone are free to start your own pharmaceutical company
and invent your own AIDS drugs and charge whatever price you wish
or give them away for free, but good luck coming up with the
billions of dollars it will take.