The Washington Post is carrying a story about the Ugandan decline in AIDS (WARNING! Evil registration requirement!).
Excerpts:
Abstinence and sexual fidelity have played virtually no role in the much-heralded decline of AIDS rates in the most closely studied region of Uganda, two researchers told a gathering of AIDS scientists here.
The findings, not yet published, contradict earlier evidence that attributed Uganda’s success in AIDS prevention largely to campaigns promoting abstinence and faithfulness to sex partners. Much of the prevention work in the Bush administration’s $15 billion global AIDS plan is built around those two themes, and Uganda is frequently cited as evidence that the strategy works.
If the report here stands up to scrutiny — and, more important, is borne out by surveys elsewhere in Uganda — it will deflate one of the few supposed triumphs to come out of AIDS-battered Africa in the last decade [Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent this].
Okay, so WaPo is willing to report on a dramatic claim regarding scientific results that haven’t been published in an academic journal and thus presumably haven’t been peer-reviewed yet. They aren’t willing to sign off on the results ("If the report here stands up to scrutiny") but they are willing to report them based on a speech given by to opportunistic individuals who can’t be troubled to run their "results" through the peer-review process before announcing them to the world.
I’m sorry, but this is not the way real science is done.
Neither is it the way real journalism is done.
WaPo has been in the business long enough to know that the story that gets out there first tends to dominate the discussion. By covering an unscientific report, WaPo is using its influence to get an anti-abstinence story out there seeking to undermine Uganda’s (and the Bush administration’s) abstinence-based approach to fighting AIDS.
The fact that WaPo admits that the report may not stand up to scrutiny shows that they know enough to know that they shouldn’t be reporting on this.
Suppose the report doesn’t stand up to scrutiny (as is likely). What then?
Well, how ’bout this:
- A myth becomes entrenched that abstinence-based programs don’t work.
- It becomes harder for the U.S. to fund such programs.
- Less funding is available for them.
- More people get HIV.
- More people die from AIDS.
- The Washington Post and reporter David Brown have blood on their hands.
That’s what they’re risking by reporting on the opportunistic spoutings of a couple of individuals who can’t be "bothered" to run their findings through the peer-review process before announcing them to the world.
By taking that risk, the Washington Post and reporter David Brown already share in bloodguilt.
Jimmy, you wrote:
<<(WARNING! Evil registration requirement!).>>
A while ago you informed readers of “Bug Me Not” which is a free service where readers register their user id’s and passwords so that others don’t have to.
Just a step further towards the elimination of this annoyance.
Mozilla Firefox, an open-source webbrowser more stable than windows and recommended by the Department of Homeland Security has an extension for “Bug Me Not” which allows you to merely right click on the page, and select the “bug me no” option that pops up. It automatically populates the fields…very handy…
Just a free web tip from your friendly neighborhood non-spiderman.
Jimmy,
I enjoy your blog. I was confused on this last post whether the parts in bold red are things you were emphasizing from the quote or had added yourself (as you sometimes do for fun). Maybe you could use different colors or something…?
pax!
scott
Good point! I might ought to use blue for emphasis or something.
Excellent takedown of the Washington Post, Jimmy.
Much of the prevention work in the Bush administration’s $15 billion global AIDS plan
Can’t you just feel the Social Justice love so in conformity with Catholic Social Teaching? Gives me goosebumps.
God Bless America.
🙂
Of course they also fail to explain how condom programs elsewhere in Africa fail to work while the one in Uganda with less emphasis on condoms works.
If this theory was true, then every country in Africa except Uganda would have a reduced incidence of HIV/AIDS since Uganda downplays condom use. The truth being the exact opposite just shows the length people will go to continue to justify condom use. Which in turn is used to justify sexual promiscuity. The dogma of safe-sex must not be questioned.
A recent Citizen Magazine report points out that something more is afoot, affecting USAID and funding for programs similar to Uganda’s. Now I have no idea how credible Citizen Magazine is, but it’s worth a look, I think. For one thing, it claims that USAID has shelved the original study from Harvard University whose conclusions favor the ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful and Condoms only in risky situations where HIV infection has already taken place). This is bad because “USAID studies affect which type of AIDS prevention efforts receive American funding.” This gets worse because USAID is on stage 2 of their study on Africa and AIDS and has hired someone else to take over, someone who is already pro-condom and anti-abstinence. This someone, Dr. Douglas Kirby, a senior researcher (with quite a few interesting publications) for ETR Associates, which is apparently in the business for safe-sex education programs. USAID has also allegedly hired “Population Services International (PSI)—one of the world’s leading condom distributors—to execute contracts and disburse payments to Harvard researchers involved in the ABC study.” PSI appears to have been selling condoms to Uganda since 1991, as well as other contraceptives more recently.
USAID hiring Dr. Kirby and PSI appears to be a matter of ignoring the Harvard studies and advancing a specific agenda: promoting condoms (and other contraceptives?) instead.
Population Services International (PSI)
Well, doesn’t that sound positively hideously evil. Shiver.