Letter to God by a mother for her gay son

I've enjoyed listening to Becket Cook's podcasts. He's a celibate man who gave up the gay lifestyle 12 or 13 years ago after becoming a Christian (and that story alone is amazing). He has since attended seminary and has a popular podcast where he interviews many of the people from his former Hollywood life. But yesterday he told about a letter his mother wrote to God before his conversion, that he never knew about. His mother knew about his homosexuality, but she never condemned or nagged him and they remained very close speaking on the phone every night. His sister-in-law found the letter recently (mother died in 2016) and he reads it on his program. In the letter she claims many Bible verses for him and her, and lists about 12 specific requests including protection from HIV. If you have a child you're praying for who has left or never found the Christian life, perhaps you can be Becket's mom or St. Augustine's mother Monica. It's a beautiful prayer.

A Mother's Prayer for Her Gay Son - The Becket Cook Show - Omny.fm

From the web page: The Becket Cook Show

"The Becket Cook Show was created by Becket Cook to discuss relevant topics and to crush the lies of culture with truth. Becket Cook was born and raised in Dallas, Texas. After graduating from college, he moved to Los Angeles to pursue his dream of writing and acting, finding success in both. He eventually became a production designer working on fashion shoots for brands such as Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, Gap, L'Oréal Paris, and Nike. Becket lived as a gay man until 2009, when he reluctantly agreed to attend a church service at which he was transformed by the gospel and gave his life to Christ. He also knew that homosexuality was a sin and that he could no longer live that life. Becket spends much of his time in ministry speaking at churches, universities, and conferences helping people understand this issue biblically, theologically, culturally, and personally. Becket graduated from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in 2017 with a Master of Arts in Theology."

Health equity?

Demands for "health equity" for racial and ethnic groups is a push for more government control. The CDC reported in 2014 that the 5 top causes of death were diseases primarily of personal behavior, 1) diseases of the heart, 2) cancer, 3) chronic lower respiratory diseases, 4) cerebrovascular diseases (stroke), and 5) unintentional injuries. These are most often a result of obesity, smoking, drinking, drugs, lack of exercise and other risky behavior. HIV rates are still very high among young black men who have sex with men, and CDC says risk factors are poverty, high rates of unemployment, and cultural stigmas. Doesn't mention risky sex. I'm no doctor or researcher, but any poor, unemployed man who doesn't have sex with men will not be at risk for HIV.  The costs of unintentional injuries are huge--motor vehicle, drugs, suicide,  work, falls. The burden on employers and society in general runs in the billions of dollars annually. . . $1,097.9 billion 

Potentially Preventable Deaths from the Five Leading Causes of Death — United States, 2008–2010 (cdc.gov)

How Many People Die From HIV/AIDS Each Year? (verywellhealth.com)

Health Risks of Overweight & Obesity | NIDDK (nih.gov)

Societal Costs - Injury Facts (nsc.org)

The obvious answer is the right one

This really isn't funny, but it may be the funny answer. The question was, on a “health” website, Why is the HIV rate so high among young male Latinos (it's 21% when they are 16% of the population, which actually is a lot better than young black men whose HIV rate is 42% with 13% of the population). There were ten responses from Latinos (with photos): they ranged from immigration policies to no health information in Spanish to homophobia in the Latino community. Only one response mentioned having sex with other men as the reason, and he said, "Latinos are hot and we love sex."

Philomena the movie, HIV and Reagan

This week at Lakeside we have a foreign film series, but these are all in English and two are about international adoptions, Philomena (British) and Lion (Australian).  I’d seen Philomena starring Judi Dench years ago and had forgotten most of it, particularly the sub-plot about the journalist who had lost his career and was more or less forced into writing a “human interest” non-fiction story which later became the book and then the movie. That it’s anti-Catholic is probably no surprise—the Roman Catholic church may be the largest and oldest target for both religious issues and social issues. Atheists, agnostics, and Protestants can all find something to criticize.    It is not just a Christian church—it is the largest social service agency in the world, and has about 26 different branches under its name all over the world each with unique language and culture. In the end, it is Philomena (the woman) who understands forgiveness, not the nuns and certainly not the journalist/author.

But Philomena the movie is also anti-Republican and anti-President Reagan, and that’s par for the course for the Brits who think we should have been happy to remain under the Union Jack.   Philomena’s birth son was adopted by an affluent American couple and grows up to become a valuable member of both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. He dies of AIDS in 1995.  However, he was gay during a time when there was almost no hope for remission from HIV (and 30 years later—it was identified in 1981—there is still no vaccine or cure), so Reagan is blamed for not pushing the federal funding more vigorously in 1986.  That’s absurd.

The U.S. was emerging from the boomer, free-sex and legalized abortion movements of the 1960s and 1970s,  people were demanding privacy in all things sexual and personal, the gay lifestyle was increasingly being recognized for “loving and caring” relationships particularly in literature and the arts, healthy lifestyles and personal responsibility for health advocacy groups were growing.  On top of all that, in the medical field researchers and university faculty were practically assuring us that the era and threat of infectious diseases was over.  STDs were going to be held at bay not by responsible monogamous life styles, but with penicillin. I remember that from the medical journals I was handling in the library.  Infectious disease journals were gathering dust.

President Reagan was blamed for the “gay disease” charge about HIV-AIDS in this movie.  And yet if you read any CDC fact sheet today, virtually all new cases (83%) of HIV are among “men who have sex with men” and that includes bi-sexual men who then infect women.
The recommendations by the USPSTF on screening are in order of importance:

1) Male-to-male sex (every 3 to 6 months screened)
And any risky life style comes next.
2) injection drug use
3) anal intercourse without a condom
4) more than one partner whose HIV status is unknown
5) transactional sex (exchanging sex for drugs)
6) commercial sex trade (prostitution)

So you see, in many cases it is still behavior and personal responsibility, not the federal government, which is your best protection from any sexual disease from syphilis to gonorrhea to AIDS. Don’t get advice on serious health matters from a movie with a political agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG3QP8foCvg  Trailer

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690288/
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/philomena_and_the_magical_sodomite_archetype.html
https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-2663193
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

Marriage won't fix these problems of disease and disorder

The CDC has reported that men who have sex with men contract HIV at 44x the rate of men who don’t.  New syphilis cases are 81.7%  MSM. During 2011–2015, the chlamydia rate in men increased 20.0%, compared with a 0.3% increase in women. Gonorrhea is increasing 3x faster among men than women.  Oral and anal sex, multiple sex partners including bisexual behavior with girlfriends or wives, and IV drug use will do that.  Men who have sex with men also have much higher rates of suicide, eating disorders, depression and addiction.  As any heterosexual couple can tell you, a marriage certificate issued by the state doesn’t fix you if you’re a mess.  Marriage doesn’t solve deep seated unhappiness, self esteem, career losses, unemployment, rejection by loved ones or distorted body image. Unfortunately, that’s the direction the LGBTQ torchbearers went--legal marriage intended for establishing families the foundation of society.  Rather than work for legal recognition for a lifestyle that fit their needs--perhaps a 5 year contract or unique financial regulations for support--they demanded complete acceptance from churches, government, society and family--a “just as if” marriage.  That became the goal; not the betterment of their followers.  And they got it. 

What about gay men and women who don’t have someone to love, or don’t have a toned and buff body to show off at the gym, or who don’t want to be political, or who don’t want to come out to mom and dad?  Too bad.  LGBTQ “leaders”  turned their vast war chest and efforts to the tiny fraction of vulnerable people, less than one percent, who are confused about their biology and birth certificates, victims of a fraud turning into a billion dollar industry.

Suggested reading: Alex P. Serritella, “Transgenda; abuse and regret in the sex-change industry,” Bookstand publishing, 2016, ISBN 978-1-63498-355-6.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fact-sheet-on-hiv-estimates.pdf

 http://www.ncsddc.org/blog/not-moment-lose-extragenital-stds-and-gay-men%E2%80%99s-sexual-health

Experimental antiretroviral treated vaginal ring

I've been reading JAMA for about 30 years, and reports of using African women and children as lab animals never cease to surprise me, because the benefits are usually accrued to western women. All the early contraceptive testing of 50+ years ago by the major drug companies, some really harmful; many nutrition tests on babies some getting supplements, some not, which could never be done in Europe or the USA; bed nets for malaria prevention when the disease was all but conquered by DDT before Rachel Carson.

" Antiretroviral medications that are used as prophylaxis can prevent acquisition of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. However, in clinical trials among African women, the incidence of HIV-1 infection was not reduced, probably because of low adherence. Longer-acting methods of drug delivery, such as vaginal rings, may simplify use of antiretroviral medications and provide HIV-1 protection. Abstract

The latest I saw is an experimental antiretroviral treated vaginal ring, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Malawi, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe.  168 acquired HIV, 71 from the treated ring group and 97 from the placebo group. And when data from 2 sites were excluded, there was higher rates of protection. I wonder how the researchers obtained consent? I wonder if the women were told that the only way to avoid HIV is no sex at all, since being sexually active was one of the requirements to participate. And I looked through the instructions.  Compliance must have been rough. And for 18-21 year olds there was low adherence--no surprise there. In most cases, an investigational drug must be proven effective and must show continued safety in a Phase III clinical trial to be considered for approval by FDA for sale in the United States.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1506110#t=article

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/Pages/ASPIRE-ring-study-qa.aspx

http://www.ipmglobal.org/the-ring-study

http://www.ipmglobal.org/our-work/our-products

HIV Infection Among Young Black Gay and Bisexual Men

“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection in the United States.1 In fact, HIV is on the rise among all MSM, regardless of race or age, with the incidence of new infections increasing 12% annually between 2008 and 2010.2 Among MSM, however, youth and race converge to define a public health disaster of staggering proportions, with the greatest number of new HIV infections occurring among young black gay and bisexual men ages 13 to 24.2 In 2010, young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among all black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall.

The disproportionate impact of HIV on African Americans has been evident from the early days of the AIDS epidemic, with 261,000 deaths reported among blacks through 2010—a staggering 41% of total AIDS deaths—despite the fact that blacks account for only 12% of the U.S. population.3-5 Currently, the rate of new HIV infections among blacks in the U.S. is 8 times that of whites, with MSM accounting for most new infections among African Americans.”

Wait for it. . . It’s not just their risky behavior. . . Not just the higher rate of STDs among black men. . . Not just ignorance about the disease . . . Ready?  Stigma (aka other people’s fault) and lack of insurance.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/resource-center/HIV/Highest-risk/a/44567

http://www.medpagetoday.com/clinical-context/HIVAIDS/27887

http://www.hptn.org/web%20documents/HPTN061/Results/Pubs/KoblinCorrelatesHIVPLoS1.pdf

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Pages/HPTN061.aspx

Medical shortcuts and acronyms are fascinating.  Black Men Who Have Sex with Men Only (BMSMO) and  Black Men Who Have Sex with Men and Women (BMSMW). Explains how some women become infected with HIV. They seem to be victims of some bad choices.

“BMSMW, in comparison to BMSMO, were significantly older, less educated, had lower incomes, were more likely to be unemployed, less stably housed, and more likely to have been incarcerated prior to enrollment. BMSMW were also more likely to use some drugs and had higher internalized homophobia scores, lower social support and higher frequencies of depression symptoms.”  Journal of Urban Health, 2013. DOI:10.1007/s11524‐013‐9811‐1

Why blame Reagan?

In 1984, the HIV virus was identified by the U.S. Public Health Service and French scientists. In 1985, a blood test to detect HIV was licensed. Yet gay advocates criticize President Reagan for not speaking out about it until 1987 even though he had instructed his Surgeon General to issue a report in February 1986. (I even saw that on the cover of Entertainment magazine recently.) Gay bars, bathhouses and rampant promiscuity continued, but somehow it's Reagan's fault men were dying from their own sexual behavior?

What other president is blamed for deaths from disease before treatment/cure was found? There were at least 9 deadly diseases known to kill citizens in Washington's 2 terms. Inoculation for small pox was being tried in the mid 18th century and Jefferson didn't advocate for it until 1806. Even Lincoln got small pox after Gettysburg. FDR didn't start the March of Dimes until almost 20 years after he'd had polio. The Fords and Carters advocated for childhood vaccines 30+ years after I'd been vaccinated in 1945 and 1953. 45 years after the Surgeon General's report on smoking, President Obama was still smoking.

In the U.S. 443,000 people die prematurely from tobacco related illnesses each year according to the CDC--more people than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined and WWII deaths!. Not a peep from the White House (except to raise the cigarette tax which disproportionately hurts the poor).

So why the anger at Reagan for not jumping on the HIV band wagon?

HIV/AIDS increasing among black gay men

"Published research does not provide definitive answers about why new HIV infections among young, black/African American gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) have increased. However, black/African American MSM of all ages experience racial disparities in health and are more likely than other gay and bisexual men of other races/ethnicities to encounter broader social and economic barriers. These and other factors place black/African American MSM at higher risk for HIV."  “In fiscal year (FY) 2011, approximately 41percent of the CDC’s budget was targeted to HIV prevention activities for MSM.” CDC fact sheet.

I am stunned that “research” is blaming racial disparities and homophobia for the increase in HIV at a time when gay sex is practically being pushed into the forefront of every news story, and everyone should be covered with Obamacare.

Here’s the score.  Anal sex is transmitting HIV, not poverty, not stigma, not society. And the more that is encouraged and normalized (by “safer” sex methods), the higher the transmission rate. Also, young people know there is treatment available if they develop HIV, so there is little reason to be cautious as men were becoming in the 80s.

New statistics from the New York Department of Health and Hygiene and the Centers for Disease Control show that, in New York City, the majority of 647 women who tested HIV-positive in 2012 acquired the virus through unprotected sex with bisexual men.

There is so much money being funneled into community based prevention and behavioral programs that recipients would be crazy to ever find a way to stop young men from having sex with each other an end the government gravy train. For example:

$111 million Expanded Testing Initiative (ETI)

$55 million to 34 states and cities  to support HIV testing services  for  minority at-risk populations.

$240,000 over two years to two organizations—AIDS Unitedand theCenter for Black Equity (formerly the International Federation of Black Prides) to increase awareness

NYC article

Black men not telling their ladies the truth

By race, age and risk group, young, black gay and bisexual men (ages 13-29) are the only population in the United States in which new HIV infections increased between 2006 and 2009.

Take a look at this chart of subpopulations.  Notice anything strange?

Although only 2%  of the population, black gay and bisexual men have 61% of the new infections; but black heterosexual women  have more infections (5400) than white heterosexual women (1700)—and although I’m sure there is plenty of cross-racial sex, the majority is within same race relationships. Black men are not telling black women the truth.  If they can’t be honest about their sexuality, why should they expect everyone else to change their views?

The HIV infection rate among African Americans was almost eight times as high as that of whites in 2009, and among African American women it was 15 times higher than among white women.

Also, transgender individuals are heavily affected by HIV. A 2008 review of studies of HIV among male-to-female women found that, on average, 28 percent (from 11% to 78%)  tested positive for HIV. So do these women push up the stats of heterosexual women with HIV?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/hip.html

Who is homophobic? Society or the gay men.

Men who have sex with men is the primary way HIV/AIDS is spread.  Although less than 14% of the population, blacks (men and women) have 44% of the new infections.  New HIV infections among 13-24 year olds increased 22% from 2008 to 2010, and half of those were African American.  If the gay black or bi-sexual man is afraid to go to the doctor/clinic and continues to risk his life and the lives of the men and women he is having sex with, then who is being homophobic?  The black man with the disease, that’s who.  That excuse might have been good 20-30 years ago, but not in 2013.   Stop blaming others in society for their unwillingness to be healthy, chaste and faithful to their partners.  If they don’t think enough of themselves and their boyfriends or casual sex partners, why is the CDC (the government) expecting others to? The increase from 2008 to 2010 shows young men are being careless with the hard earned truths of the 70s and 80s.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/HIVFactSheets/TodaysEpidemic-508.pdf

HIV and HBV

Worldwide, hepatitis B virus (HBV) is the leading cause of chronic liver disease and death, accounting for up to half of all cases of cirrhosis and liver cancer.  Four hundred million people are infected with HBV in Asia and Africa with the infection occurring through perinatal transmission (before and after birth).  In more developed countries HBV is most often acquired during adolescence or adulthood through sex and drugs. Statistics from NEJM May 10, 1012.

Human immunodeficiency virus  (HIV) infects about 33 million people worldwide, the majority in Asia and Africa. According to the CDC, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)¹ represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s.  Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.

“HBV is 100 times easier to transmit sexually than HIV ( the virus that causes AIDS). HBV has been found in vaginal secretions, saliva, and semen. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if a person’s sexual partner is of the same or the opposite gender. If one partner has hepatitis B, the other one can get it. Oral sex and especially anal sex regardless (whether it occurs in a heterosexual or homosexual context), are possible ways of transmitting the virus.” http://www.liverdisease.com/hbvtransmission.html

Medical advancements can help, but humans obeying God’s laws of chastity and marriage will do miracles for global health.

AIDS memorial--Why?

"A design that calls for a grove of trees reflected infinitely by 12-foot-long mirrors was selected today for New York’s first large-scale AIDS memorial."

The AIDS Memorial Park organization, Architectural Record, and Architizer have announced the winner of a competition to design a memorial for victims of AIDS and an education center in Manhattan’s West Village. Studio a+i of Brooklyn, N.Y. won the blind competition with a plan to surround an existing triangular park with mirrored walls and a grove of white birch trees. Architectural Digest, Jan. 30, 2012

Why do we memorialize this particular disease's victims, a disease which is mostly self-inflicted through promiscuous, indiscriminate sex and multiple partners? We don't memorialize death by smoking, drinking or over-eating, or driving too fast, or not exercising. Where is the memorial to those who have died from malaria because environmentalists pulled DDT from the market? Where is the memorial for 50 million dead American babies?

Men who have sex with men--MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an estimated 580,000 total persons).

MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300 infections).

While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men). CDC Fact Sheet

Decisions about disclosure

The opening paragraph of an essay titled, "Disclosure" by Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky of Boston in the May 5, 2010 issue of JAMA was stunning in the author's lack of understanding her role in protecting the general public and specific individuals from serious disease. Others I'd give a break, but she had an MD and MPH after her name! The paragraph really wasn't essential to the thrust of her topic, which was about being a woman (pregnancy, motherhood) in academic medicine. Here's what she wrote:

"Early in my career, one of my patients with HIV infection, Robin, a recovering heroin addict, had re-enrolled in school and was newly engaged. Her fiance was unaware that she was HIV infected and she would not discuss using condoms, let alone her HIV infection, with him. I encouraged her to confide her infection to her fiance--for the integrity of their relationship and for the value of his health--at each of our clinical encounters. Finally, she did so. He left her. She stopped taking her antiretroviral medications and restarted using heroin. Although the fiance may have reduced his risk of infection, the consequences of my intervention were tragic for my patient. Robin's case reinforced that disclosure is a risky business because the truth can trigger an unexpected, sometimes devastating chain of reactions."

No, it wasn't unfortunate that the fiance left her; it probably saved his life, assuming he wasn't already infected. No, Rochelle Walensky's intervention as a doctor and public health official wasn't tragic--it was probably a requirement of her job! No, Robin didn't start using heroin again because her fiance left her--she was an addict and no one, not even the love of a good man could change her if she wasn't up to the tough behavior needed to kick it. No, stopping the antiretroviral meds wasn't a tragedy because she would just become reinfected as the heroin addiction took over her mind. Part of getting well is a behavior change, chastity and monogamy, something she can't do on drugs. And finally, it's just entirely possible that the fiance left her because he realized she valued his life so little, that he would never again be able to trust her.

Just don't call it "health" care

No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, let’s not call this current Washington battle “health“ care. ObamaCare is technically about insurance, but more accurately it‘s about a government take over of the economy. We Americans already have health insurance for the poor, and health care for everyone, in case you’re reading this in Europe. In fact, one of the programs for the poor, SCHIP, will cover children up to the age of 28 whose parents have incomes up to $70,000 depending on the state (350% of poverty level). I should be so poor (our income is about $34,000)--but I digress.

If you want to know what government health insurance and government health care look or feel like, please read, “HIV Clinic” an essay by Eric P. Walker, in the March 3, 2010 issue of JAMA. The patient described therein has both health insurance (provided by the government for the poor) and health care (a clinic for the poor in her neighborhood).

According to Walker who is a physician’s assistant, the patient comes to the clinic for a prescription for pain but has to walk to the pharmacy to fill it, because her bus pass voucher has expired. There is no one to provide her private transportation (later in the essay you learn she is married to a creep who stole her pain medication). On the way to the clinic she bought a package of crackers at a gas station because she hadn’t eaten since yesterday. She can’t have surgery for her pain because she doesn’t have a stable address which the hospital, following government insurance regulations, requires for a patient to be discharged.

So let’s just stop right there Mr. Walker. First, you say you work in an HIV clinic, so I’m assuming she has been diagnosed and is receiving the drug cocktail that will extend her life. There are two primary ways for women to get HIV--1) having sex with a man who had sex with an infected man, or 2) through IV drug use. In my opinion, men who have sex with men and bring home STDs and AIDS and/or abuse their wives and girlfriends are a much bigger health problem for poor women than private insurance company CEOs who serve the middle class or Cadillac insurance for the wealthy and union members. When will those men be called before Congress and shamed?

Second, let’s think about all the unintended consequences of good intentions that have been building up dating back before you were born. Since that great leap forward known as the War on Poverty--programs that have contributed to her secondary conditions not related to HIV or her health. There is no pharmacy in her neighborhood to fill her prescription and probably no supermarkets or grocery stores where she can buy nutritious food. Democrats and Progressives control all major cities in the United States--Detroit, Chicago, LA, NOLA, Cleveland, etc. They first drove out all the small businesses through regulation, taxes, or pushing legislation for their inner-belts and highways taking land and homes through eminent domain. They railed against mom and pop stores and Asian shopkeepers that were charging “too much” for goods and service, compared to larger stores. Then they marched against any superstores moving in insisting they be unionized, after which they moved on to friendlier suburbs offering tax breaks. Currently in the name of saving the planet they are working through a variety of programs called cap and trade and sustainable agriculture to take away the stop and shop gas stations (remember Mr. Walker, gasoline is bad; processed food is bad) in poor neighborhoods, so soon that HIV patient probably won’t even be able to buy crackers in her neighborhood as she walks to the clinic to pick up her prescription which can‘t be filled locally.

Third, her central city community is fortunately served by public transportation which is tax subsidized by the suburbanite voters who moved away 30 years ago. Because she’s poor, she has a voucher for a bus pass. That’s got to be a Catch-22 nightmare only a bureaucrat with a social work degree could come up with. Does she have to go to a government agency in another neighborhood or city building and sit and wait to pay for the pass with her voucher issued by a different bureaucracy? It is dated, and it has expired. It’s not unreasonable to imagine that she would need to take the bus to the same office to apply for the voucher, but with no mail box, she might be turned down. It would be a good guess that the government didn’t give her a taxi voucher, or a handicapped van voucher, either because, 1) the bureaucrats decided she wasn’t that sick (years ago when she signed on for the alphabet soup of programs), or 2) because no thinking taxi or van driver would go into her crime ridden neighborhood which went down hill when all the businesses and home owners were driven out by do-gooders, or 3) they need to support the city transit system rather than a private company or small business like a one-man cab company.

Dear naive ObamaCare supporter: nothing in this so-called "health care bill" being pushed by Pelosi, Obama and Reid will help this woman. She already has government health insurance, and she’s still infected, still in pain, still denied necessary surgery, still homeless, still married to a creep, and still a victim of all the progressive politicians who destroyed her neighborhood 40 years ago.

And you want this for the rest of us?

HIV alarmism has fiscal and behavorial consequences

Sometimes, I don’t understand alarmists. On September 16, David R. Holtgrave, PhD Professor and Chair, Department of Health, Behavior & Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health testified before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Waxman, chair) on prevention funding for HIV/AIDS.

He began by reporting that the HIV incidence is higher than previously thought (55,000 or 56,000 instead of 40,000 infections per year) and is rising particularly among gay men. Shocking right? Probably that statement made the evening news, but not what followed. He then went on to report that “the HIV transmission rate dropped from 92.3 in 1980, to 31.2 in 1985, to 6.6 in 1991. It stayed at roughly this level until 1997 when, after the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the transmission rate went up temporarily to almost 7.5. Thereafter, it continued once again on a downward trend. In 2006, we estimate the transmission rate to be approximately just under 5.0 (4.98). This means that for every 100 persons living with HIV in the US, there are just under five new infections on average in a year. That also means that over 95% of persons living with HIV in the US are not transmitting the virus to someone else is a given year. Because the transmission rate is rather low in the US, it will be very challenging for the nation to push that transmission rate number down even further.”

I thought that sounded pretty good. Not only are infections down among gay men, but they have almost disappeared from the blood supply, from infants getting it from their mothers, and the IV drug users. So what’s the alarm? No one comes to a committee to say their funding needs are down. No, they need more funding to get that rate down to zero, as near as I can tell. Current funding for prevention is $18.6 billion, or $52,000 per infection NOT transmitted. And that saves on treatment money. Holtgrave was concerned that in real dollars, prevention funding was slipping since 2002 (Hmm, seems to coincide with Bush years even though transmission rates are down since the Clinton years.)

HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy) works, abstinence works, keeping bi-sexual men away from women works, and reducing intravenous drug use works. However, after the advent of HAART transmission rates went back up--before that, the accomplishments were in behavior, not drug therapy. After HAART, it would seem gay and bi-sexual men thought they could go back to the fun, games and wild times of the 80s.

Here’s my idea for prevention. Let’s ask for a more responsibility and volunteerism from the gay community--the way it used to be when people were afraid of this disease. They are the best educated and wealthiest demographic in the country. They worked very hard 25 years ago to combat this disease, now it’s time for the younger generation of gays who never saw friends die or lifted a spoonful of soup to a wasted skeleton to step up and do the prevention thing, and not wait for the government to funnel even more money into their bad behavior and life style.

Abstinence--The Scarlet Letter of the Left

There are few things as political as AIDS and poverty. And sexual abstinence pretty much wipes out both, but since you can't tax it, and it has a religious and moral connotation, it is maligned as impractical at best and unconscionable at worst. Take PEPFAR reauthorization. That's the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and the original 2003 act was reauthorized on July 30, 2008. In just 5 years, the treatment with life saving medicine went from 50,000 to 1.73 million, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. This was applauded even by its critics. However, the most successful focus country in prevention was Uganda, which waged a strong abstinence (Africa style) program. And yes, now the "don't condemn the condom" troops are on full attack against the "zero grazing campaign" of Uganda, which is probably why the 2008 reauthorization caved on the abstinence funding. The powerful pro-abortion groups need more ways to reduce the populations of blacks, whether in the U.S. or Africa, and our new president will certainly be going along with this. According to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute

"Uganda’s rejection of the condom-emphasizing approach, also known as the ABC model (Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condoms as a last resort), has earned it the enmity of the orthodox AIDS lobby. AIDS 2008 featured a symposium session chaired by Frances Kissling – the former president of “Catholics for Choice,” who stepped down last year – aimed at discrediting the ABC approach as “ideological.”

Still, the Ugandan model is attracting notice. India’s National Council of Educational Research and Training recently announced that it would embrace the Ugandan emphasis on abstinence and fidelity in its sex education curricula. Significantly, a study authored by a research team headed by Harvard’s Daniel Halperin that appeared in the May 2008 issue of Science magazine, “Reassessing HIV Prevention,” found empirical evidence supporting aspects of the Ugandan approach."

The 2003 requirement that 33% of prevention funds be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs was removed in the 2008 renewal, reduced to "meaningful support of monogamy and fidelity." Critics consider abstinence and faithfulness programs a distortion of priorities (i.e., Christian moralizing), preferring instead the unreliableness of the occasionally used and leaky condom. Also, groups counseling abortion services may now get funding for HIV services. You will read hundreds of studies and documents saying women and children are at risk from abstinence based programs--but it's rare to see anything that says abstinence is really the only solution.

While western based liberals in both the government and the increasingly politicized medical field have wrung their hands over the "moralizing and constraining spending mandates" of PEPFAR (JAMA, Nov. 5, 2008 p. 2047), Uganda excelled in controlling AIDS by using the common sense approach--the African way. Helen Epstein’s new book, “The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West and the Fight Against Aids" is reviewed and linked at Abstinence Africa which may show just one more way Westerners have misjudged the African culture, particularly polygamy.

"In Africa, HIV spread among ordinary people who were nowhere near as promiscuous as high-risk Western groups such as prostitutes or gay men. By contrast, about 40 percent of Ugandan men and 30 percent of women have ongoing relationships with a small number of people -- perhaps two or three -- at a time. These ‘concurrent’ relationships might overlap for months or years, or even, in the case of polygamous marriages, a lifetime.

As Epstein explains, these concurrent relationships are at higher risk for spreading HIV for two reasons. First, a person recently infected with HIV may be a hundred times more likely to transmit the virus than someone who has been infected for a few months or years. Most Westerners tend to practice “serial monogamy,” having only one partner at a time, and will usually only infect a current partner. By contrast, a polygamous man who becomes infected with HIV is likely to infect all his concurrent partners.

Concurrent relationships are also at higher risk for spreading HIV because the degree of intimacy and trust in these relationships means that people don’t think they need to use condoms. Many faithful African women became infected with HIV because of their husbands’ behavior. Few health officials from international aid organizations were aware of any of this.

Many western AIDS researchers believe that promoting condoms among high risk groups, such as prostitutes and their clients is the best way to slow the spread of HIV. But HIV continued to spread throughout eastern and southern Africa, even when condom use soared. Epstein argues that some of the condom campaigns backfired. “By associating AIDS with beer drinking, premarital sex, prostitution … womanizing and rape, the lusty condom ads ... clashed disastrously with local sensibility concerning decency and self-respect,” Epstein writes. One of her African sources stated bluntly: “The campaigns were totally wrong. The message was you had to be a prostitute or truck driver to get AIDS.”

A Ugandan prevention campaign focused specifically on issues of concurrent relationships. They developed the slogans “Love Carefully” and “Zero Grazing” – meaning, in the words of the head of Uganda’s AIDS Control Program, “avoid indiscriminate and free-ranging sexual relations.” These slogans were posted on public buildings, broadcast on radio, and bellowed in speeches by government officials. The Ugandan Association of Co-Wives and Concubines -- hardly something any Western aid organization would have instituted -- contributed as well. These women policed the behavior of polygamous men, encouraging them to avoid the casual affairs that could endanger all their wives and future children. One of their messages was: “If your husband is unfaithful and is going to kill you with AIDS, you divorce him.”

The result of all this was a steep decline in the number of sexual partners, a basic step in controlling any sexually transmitted disease."

Of course, AIDS gets the focus and money, but that's not what kills most vulnerable African children--it's diarrheal diseases and malaria. In their concern over bird eggs launched by the non-scientist Rachel Carson over 30 years ago, western governments and companies were quickly pressured into removing DDT from the arsenal of weapons in the war against disease before anything else was available (this method continues today in most environmental issues). This killed millions of Africans and disabled millions more. Instead, the missionaries for malaria when viewing the havoc they created, moved to the mosquito condom--the bed net, which probably requires even more care with application than the other type on an eager body part. And of course, installing wells to pump clean water means someone has to take of them. Where's the money in that?

Yes, there's just not much money in clean water, dead mosquitoes and women taking control to guard their own and their children's health through chastity and faithfulness.

And on money, both the left and the right can agree.

Taken any tests lately?

Like HIV? Me either. At least, not that I know of. But apparently, according to CDC Guidelines health-care providers (i.e. doctors) should routinely screen all patients aged 13-64 years for HIV. I'm not sure about those of Medicare age--maybe we're too old to count and they like to bump us off the rolls, or we're staying out of bath houses and not shooting up. Here are the risk factors for HIV:

A man having sex with another man even just one time.

Taking street drugs by needle even one time.

Trading sex for money or drugs even one time.

Sex, even one time, with someone who would answer yes to any of the above.

You have hemophilia and have received clotting factor concentrations.

According to a report in JAMA (CDC/MMWR) Nov 5, 77% of persons with HIV risk factors were not tested in the preceding 12 months, and the recommendation for them is an annual test. However, 40% of the general population has been tested. 60.7% of pregnant women were tested for HIV in 2006 (lower than other infectious disease). In 2006, non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 49% of all reported cases of HIV/AIDS, and the HIV prevalence among non-Hispanic blacks was 2.1% compared with 0.4% in the over all U.S. population. (I'd cite the sources, but they aren't printed with the article which is really dumb.) Depending on how often you go to the doctor for allergies or the flu, you might be tested multiple times, and someone else scoring BINGO on all the risk factors, is never screened. Something's very wrong here. They can't keep track of the MSM who are doing all sorts of disgusting things with body parts, so they decide to test everyone? And they still can't get the gay and bisexual guys to come in for screening by changing the rules? These tests must be awfully cheap.

They don't need to have you sign anything or give you anything in writing either. Here's the rules.

Here's the take from the ACLU.

If you've gotten a 3 page list of "services provided" for the last time you were in the hospital, here's the coding guidelines.

These guidelines from 2006 were part of Bush's Domestic HIV Initiative. (Approximately $18.9 billion (83%) of the FY 2007 HIV/AIDS request was for domestic programs; $3.9 billion (17%) for global programs. Only 4% was for prevention, however. Here) The CDC allocated funds to: 23 jurisdictions in clinical settings; 67 grantees in 25 states through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 41 family planning clinics grantees in 34 states through the Office of Population Affairs. And the funds were allocated primarily to test blacks. Of course, testing isn't research or treatment or behavior change--it's just to figure out if they have successful strategies in place to overcome barriers to--testing.

Test product

This is the only article I found on the cost effectiveness of testing the entire population. And obviously, if it's your life, or that of someone you love, you think the cost is worth it.

How the liberal media treated a Bush daughter

About a year ago, I blogged about first daughter's new book on AIDS. Here's what liberals thought of her effort.

Jenna Bush's book for young people

Jenna Bush has authored a book "Ana's Story; a Journey of Hope" (HarperCollins, 2007, 209 pp. $18.99). It is non-fiction, for teenagers and about AIDS, is based on 6 months of conversations with women and children with HIV or AIDS when the president's daughter was working with UNICEF. It was reviewed, probably reluctantly, by Bob Minzesheimer in USAToday. In general, he was positive, pointing out it was easy to read with 35 pages of sources addressing common myths about AIDS and HIV. The paper edition differed from the online version. In paper he wrote that it doesn't address how much U.S. support should go to organizations that distribute condoms as opposed to religious groups that promote only abstinence. How picky is that? Reviewers and talking heads always want the book they themselves didn't make the effort to write and publish. I wonder if Minzesheimer would board an airplane that had the same failure rate as condoms?

In another column this reviewer points out that when Oprah even mentions a title (Eat, pray, love; Middlesex) it leap frogs to the top of the best seller list. That won't happen to a book by a conservative, even if the topic is one of her favorites.

The commenters at the revised online article are the usual collection of Bush-haters and author-wannabees complaining about favoritism. They are well worth reading for their ignorance, pomposity and narrowmindedness, just in case you'd forgotten how green the left is. If even five young people read this book and decide that HIV is probably something in their future if they don't change their lifestyle, she will have achieved her goal.

Speaking of AIDS and abstinence, The invisible cure: Africa, the West and the fight against AIDS by Helen Epstein (Farrar Straus & Girous, 2007) reports on the Uganda campaign of "zero grazing," "love faithfully," and "sticking to one partner," later known as ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms). Uganda's decrease in HIV began in the late 1980s, and its approach became standard policy for the USAID and President Bush's PEPFAR. Uganda experienced an unprecedented decrease in HIV during the 1990s. The US policy experienced howls of protest and outrage because of its religious implications. However, "an increasing number of scientists have concluded that an ABC approach is supported by scientific evidence . . . 1) condom use hasn't been effective in epidemic areas (they are used inconsistantly and create more risk taking) and 2) number of partners and overlapping relationships is the key to increase or decrease in spreading sexual diseases. Epstein says multiple concurrent relationships create the "super highways of hyperepidemics," and casual sex constitutes the "on-ramps." The reviewer (JAMA, August 6, 2008, pp. 587-589) reports that Epstein challenges many sterotypes and myths about Africans.

The low down on the uptick in AIDS

The newest JAMA isn’t available to me yet, but for the typical New York Times hysterical editorializing of health information news, see yesterday’s paper. I read about the "big government cover up" (subtext: it’s all Bush’s fault) story at the coffee shop this morning.

Opening paragraph: “The AIDs epidemic in the U.S. is about 40% worse than the government has reported.”

First of all, there is no epidemic in the U.S. AIDs or HIV affect a tiny percentage of the population--mostly promiscuous, young, risk-taking gay men and IV drug users. Studies as early as 15 years ago in public health journals showed that after all the valiant efforts of the gay community to clean up their behavior or die (and many of them did both), the younger gay men rushed right back to the bath houses and sex without condoms once the drug cocktails became effective in extending their lives, but they also spread the disease and picked up other STDs which lowered their resistance. You don’t find out the role of gay men in this story until about paragraph 15 (53% of new infections are in young gay men, an extremely small demographic).

Second, you find out if you read far enough, more accurate measures account for the increase changing the results and numbers. There’s no government plot folks, move along. The CDC, which did the most recent study and all the previous studies, IS THE GOVERNMENT (think FEMA with a little black bag and clip boards) .

Third, the author of the NYT article attempts to hint at a conspiracy to keep this quiet because 2 peer review journals returned it when it came out in October 2007. That’s not the least bit unusual--I used to be a peer reviewer. Often they are sent back because the statistics or procedures are not clearly explained, they exceed the word limit, the citations are incorrect, or the data false or misleading. The redo improves the piece. That JAMA will report it is also not unusual--its editorial policies are about as liberal as the NYT. It was embargoed so it could be presented at a conference, but someone violated that--all in the public’s best interest, of course (sarcasm alert).

Fourth, in true NYT fashion, President Bush is faulted for the billions spent on AIDS in foreign countries, rather than attacking the epidemic at home. The guy just can't win.

Fifth, here’s the best line in the article. Someone in CDC is quoted as saying “We’re not effectively reaching men who have sex with men and African Americans to lower their risk.” Yeah, like no gay man knows that gay bars and bath houses and downlow (closeted homosexual) with the ladies is risky behavior. And I just know that gay teens and 20-somethings would most certainly stop having sex if CDC just put out enough posters, TV ads and brochures. Just the way the government has successfully controlled smoking and obesity.