Weasels, Liars and Schoolyard Politics

Author image

This week, Michael Gerson called me and my colleagues in the prevention and reproductive and sexual health advocacy community liars in the New York Times, and "weasels" in the Washington Post.  (And note that the author of the Times article slipped in the word "abortion," which had basically nothing to do with this discussion to date, but just for good measure and because Gerson can't maintain an argument on these issues without waving that red flag for the base....).

Whew!  Quite a week.  I think I remember watching a similar argument unfold  on the playground in elementary school.

Why all the vitriol?  Because we ("we" being the weasels) present evidence revealing that while PEPFAR provides life-saving anti-retroviral treatment for an estimated 1.5 to 2 million people (exactly how many additional people PEPFAR *added* to treatment remains unclear), PEPFAR fails on prevention.

Let me be clear: PEPFAR has indeed strengthened treatment access and saved lives.  

I repeat: There are many good things about PEPFAR.

But the program is and has been unsustainable in the long run unless the United States is willing to foot the bill for treating untold numbers of people well into the future even while our own health care system crumbles and an estimated 46 million US citizens lack health care coverage

I realize that for many AIDS advocates--myself among them, though of course from the "weasel" genus--these politics are personal in that we know and have friends among the millions who are infected with or affected by HIV and AIDS.  And to forestall comments suggesting otherwise, I think it is important to address the AIDS epidemic head-on. 

The question is how and in what context.

Because the realities of the bigger picture also are personal.  This morning, for example, I opened my email to learn of a mother in our own school district who herself is on dialysis and with chronic health problems, whose middle-school son has just died of a congenital heart problem for which she had trouble affording and accessing ongoing basic care for his condition and whose daughter has the same health problem and is now in failing health.  There is no father in the home.  They cannot afford health care in their own country.   She was unable to afford funeral expenses for her son.  These stories abound and will increase as people continue to lose jobs and health insurance in the United States.

And therein lies the dilemma.  

We have huge problems in both prevention and treatment across the board, here and abroad.  We need serious overhauling of our basic health strategies here, and of our international health policy and funding for things like HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, reproductive and sexual health, and in other areas.  We need to spend our money better and more sustainably.  And we need someone, anyone, in some legislative exercise to stand up for what is right even when being lobbied by powerful interests like the Catholic Church to spend money in ways that are more about religious ideology than about health and saving lives. 

This is no secret and no great revelation.

But prevention is critical to the success of any public health strategy.

And PEPFAR under current law and policy fails on prevention.

And by failing on prevention, it fails overall.  When you have an epidemic in which:

* new infections far outpace the rate at which you can put more people on treatment;
* becoming infected is most likely still a death sentence because there is no foreseeable way through which everyone suffering from AIDS-related illness can gain access to treatment in a timely manner;
* the costs of preventing a new infection are far lower than treating the next new AIDS case and when the same prevention strategies for HIV bring you multiple other positive outcomes;
* BUT you have loaded your prevention programs with restrictions authored by or at the behest of the Catholic Church and the evangelical right.....

...then you have set yourself up for failure.

And since the myth of PEPFAR's unmitigated success represents the "grand distraction" from the mess made of the US and the world by eight years of Republican rule under Bush, it is hard for the now out-of-power Republican right PEPFAR cheering squad to take it when the evidence is presented and their myths are exposed.

It became even harder when Mark Dybul was dismissed as Global AIDS Coordinator, because he remained the lifeline for the far right into global AIDS funding.  Dybul had been trying to push through more restrictive guidance interpreting the so-called conscience clause under PEPFAR to accommodate the US Conference of Catholic Bishops before it was "too late."

Moreover, had he stayed even "for a while," he was poised to facilitate funding for the Church and many evangelical groups in the next round of grants now coming due for renewal.  We would then be stuck with "non-prevention" prevention strategies for another 12 to 18 months, continuing to leave people unnecessarily at risk of HIV infection.  I suspect the loss of that possibility is at least in part behind the post-Dybul hysteria, along with the fears incited in the AIDS community by the conversations now going on about less-siloed approaches to health and disease and more integration in our international approaches, which they fear might lead to PEFPAR losing its unique status.

In his screeds, Gerson presents no evidence to refute the problems cited with prevention.  He just calls names.  This is schoolyard politics and my first thought was that I would have expected more of the Post than to hire columnists who throw tantrums based solely on ideology.  But I remind myself that I also would have expected a lot more investigative research by the Post, the New York Times and many others on PEPFAR the past 5 years, and well, let's just say I stopped holding my breath a long time ago.

Remember....this was the same media that just went along with WMDs.

So, rather than engaging Gerson, we will simply present the evidence, here, again in full view.

See RH Reality Check this week on the myths and facts about PEPFAR prevention strategies.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on Twitter, @jljacobson

. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
6 comments
Please login or register to post and rate comments...
Comments are rated by readers on a scale from 1 to 5. Comments with a rating of 2 or less are hidden. Click on hidden comments to view them.
0
Joe Sonka i love how Gerson puts February 1, 2009 - 11:22am

i love how Gerson puts "reproductive rights" dismissively in quotes, kind of reminded me of how McCain put "health of the mother" in air quotes during the debate.

yet another out of touch attack against the dirty rabble of "blogging extremists"...

0
MG But you still have not answered questions about your libel! February 1, 2009 - 3:48pm

Jodi, you have been eerily silent on the hard questions asked of you previously, in response to your last blog posting. Let's revisit, shall we?

Re:
"Dybul was found on the Hill lobbying for a more restrictive interpretation of the PEPFAR conscience clause than currently exists, with the intention of placating the Catholic Church."

Jodi -- found by whom? any sources? anything on the record except your say-so?

RE:
"To help his friends, not only did Dybul begin drafting more restrictive guidance, underscoring that groups would no longer need to refer to nor partner with other programs to ensure individuals got everything they needed to protect themselves, but he went to Congress several times this month to make a case for this!

Jodi -- whoa....again, any sources, evidence, anything in/on on the record.....or just your say-so? This does not ring true to me.

RE:"..He was, as I have reported and apart from other things, caught doing things he should not have been doing."

Caught? By whom? Any evidence or shall we just take your word for it?

0
Jodi Jacobson Thanks, MG, February 3, 2009 - 8:43am

for your comment.

My sources are quite solid, thanks for asking, and I have complete confidence in them at every level. 

Moreover, it has been well known in the community that these guidelines were being fast-tracked by OGAC for a reason....to placate the USCCB and other groups who do not want to provide comprehensive prevention strategies, whether to those at risk of HIV infection, to sero-discordant couples or to HIV positive women.

If this were not the case, for example, then Dybul would not have gone beyond the law to write guidance prohibiting the purchase of contraception with PEPFAR funds for PMTCT clinics, among other things.

Thanks for your interest.

Jodi

 

 

0
Christopher F. Vota Libel? February 5, 2009 - 10:44am

Can Jacobson's post take credit for Dybul losing his job? The post could be proven to be published (obviously) and the actions described might be found to be damaging if the jury is correctly stacked, but where's the damage? You mean to tell me Jodi's got the ear of Obama's team and just on her post, this guy got dumped? Like Barack was going to rehire all the Bush appointees because they all did such a good job! There is more than adequate corroboration the Bush II administration routinely flaunted the law to the point where such behavior could be classified as systemic. Before I forget, did Dybul "classify" anything in his position, as so many other Bushies did, even before 9/11? That would be enough for me to give anyone the boot!

0
SFEric SF Chronicle: A bad start on AIDS February 1, 2009 - 3:51pm

A bad start on AIDS

Friday, January 30, 2009

President Obama is all about sound science and a fresh global image. On these points he has no better opportunity than building on the prior White House's $15 billion worldwide AIDS program, one of former President George W. Bush's notable successes.

But he fumbled the first step with summary firing of Dr. Mark Dybul, who was dismissed as global AIDS czar the day after Obama's swearing-in. It was unexpected, unceremonious and undeserved.

It's a president's prerogative to name his own team, and the Obama insiders and Dybul had agreed on a waiting period before a successor was lined up. But that orderly timetable was shredded after politics entered the picture.

Dybul, a gay physician who once worked in San Francisco, was scapegoated for the marginal portions of the Bush AIDS initiative such as an emphasis on sexual abstinence and a ban on aiding prostitutes. These stances, while objectionable, never stood at the heart of far-larger goals of prevention, research and medical treatment that has enrolled two million worldwide. But to critics, Dybul didn't object loudly enough and had to go, pronto, this instant, right now.

These are intemperate charges that miss the big picture: a conservative White House that woke up to a global scourge and actually did something. In noting Dybul's departure, the British public health journal Lancet described the effort as "the largest and most successful bilateral HIV/AIDS programme worldwide."

If the president isn't careful, the AIDS fight may return to the bad old days with factions fighting over the latest trend or more perfect answer. It's a special worry as Congress is asked to follow through on its vote last year to increase spending to $48 billion in future years, a pledge that looks iffy as economic conditions tighten.

Obama should mend his mistake by finding a replacement who matches Dybul's experience and competence. That task could be a challenge given shabby handling of this praiseworthy public official.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/30/EDV215JKSG.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle

0
Christopher F. Vota Thank you, SFEric February 5, 2009 - 9:41am

I didn't know Dybul was gay, but I wonder if his firing was more deserved because of his preference. Did he not learn from those days when older men would transmit HIV to young homeless male prostitutes in America, or did he think the rules of latex were different beyond our shores? And sexual abstinence? A former San Fransisco physician, of all people, should know by 1999 the knowledge of deadly sexually-transmitted diseases only lessens risky behavior, never entirely stopping it. Just because there are no(?) gay bath-houses in Africa/Asia/Latin America doesn't mean people are not having unprotected sex - how did he think all those people got there, to begin with? And all it takes is one unprotected encounter with any one person, and not only do you pick up the virus, but you now have the ability to pass it on to someone else. For all the exhortations the Old Testament has against casual sex, the health care protocols to stop medical transmission of disease and all the modern laws criminalizing IV drug use, we are a promiscuous species who lack discipline and feel a need to occassionally shoot-up: the HIV cases prove it. The ban on aiding prostitutes was not "marginal" it was the essence of failed policy, fueled by the Right and ultimately wronging the world. We should be taken to the World Court for it.