By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
See Part I at https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07110101.html
November 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dr. James Chin has recently published a book detailing his struggles with the UNAIDS establishment. Titled “The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness”, the book’s thesis is that “the story of HIV has been distorted by UNAIDS and AIDS activists in order to support the myth of the high potential risk of HIV epidemics spreading into the general population” according to the publisher.
Chin’s criticisms are echoed by two other eminent scientists at Harvard’s Center on Population and Development, Dr. Edward Green and Dr. Daniel Halperin, whose research continues to be ignored by the AIDS establishment. Dr. Green has served as team leader on numerous USAID project designs and evaluations. Dr. Halperin is a former Technical Adviser for Prevention/Behaviour Change, USAID Southern Africa Regional HIV/AIDS Program.
The two Harvard scientists have noted that, while abstinence programs in countries like Uganda have proven their effectiveness, AIDS policymakers continue to promote condom use, and ignore the differences in AIDS rates among African nations.
Halperin points out that the most serious cases of high-frequency infection are confined to only 10 Sub-Saharan African nations, less than 25% of the countries of the region. “There are about 10 nations, all of them in southern Africa, that have very bad epidemics,” Halperin told Cybercast News Service. “Outside of those countries, for the most part, the rest of the world is not nearly as affected, although there are certain risk groups within some countries which have extremely high rates of HIV.”
Green has written a book on Uganda’s “ABC” approach to HIV transmission: first Abstinence, then Be Faithful, then if the first two fail, use a Condom. Uganda’s immediate response to the AIDS threat in the early 1980s reduced the incidence of HIV infection from 15% to less than 4% in the space of a few years. Green’s book examines the strange disconnect between the demonstrated effectiveness of abstinence and marital fidelity campaigns and the prevention strategies of international aid agencies.
In an article for the journal The Responsive Community, Green points out the utter failure of the condom-pushing approach of UNAIDS. “How has the Western risk-reduction model fared in Africa? There is no evidence that mass promotion of condoms has paid off with a decline of HIV infection rates at the population level in Africa, according to a new UNAIDS assessment of condom effectiveness. In fact, countries with the highest levels of condom availability (Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa, Kenya) also have some of the highest HIV prevalence rates in the world,” he writes.
Green notes that the insistence on promoting failed policies can be explained in part by a cultural bias in favor of sexual promiscuity and permissiveness, but adds that an important factor may also be the economic interests of the global AIDS establishment. “Apart from Western values and biases, there are economic factors to consider. AIDS prevention has become a billion dollar industry” he writes. “Under President Bush’s global AIDS initiative, the US will spend $15 billion, partially on prevention. It would be politically naive to expect that those who profit from the lucrative AIDS-prevention industry would not be inclined to protect their interests.”
“Those who work in condom promotion and STD treatment, as well as the industries that supply these devices and drugs, do not want to lose market share, so to speak, to those few who have begun to talk about behavior. Put crudely, who makes a buck if Africans simply start being monogamous?”
Green’s statement about organizations “protecting their interests” has proven to be prophetic. Since the initiation of the US program, which promotes abstinence as part of its approach to prevention, it has suffered continuous attacks by the global AIDS establishment, which is rigidly opposed to any serious discussion of the benefits of abstinence and marital fidelity. And despite their impeccable establishment credentials as research scientists affiliated with major universities, scientists like Green are accused of “AIDS denialism”.
When Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, merely mentioned abstinence and marital fidelity as part of the solution to the problem at an AIDS conference in Toronto last year, he was roundly booed by the audience. However, when he played down such “politically incorrect” solutions and began to speak of condom distribution, he was met with enthusiastic cheering (see LifeSiteNews coverage at https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/aug/06081403.html).
Despite the increasingly well-known facts about HIV transmission and prevention, certain proposals simply remain socially unacceptable among the apparatchiks of the international AIDS bureaucracy. With billions of dollars of government aid money on the line, the status quo is likely to continue with saving lives kept to a low priority.
Related related articles:
Culture Clash and AIDS Prevention, by Edward Green, PhD.
https://www.aidsuganda.org/pdf/Comments_on_ABC1.pdf
California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is “Gay Disease”