World Vision has a moving presentation about the lives of children in Africa that have been affected by Aids. Of course I left the presentation deeply concerned about the kids, but I also left it concerned about the value of antiretrovirals. My central question is, “are antiretrovirals fanning the flames of this disease?”
It seems there are only two things that can end a pandemic like HIV: a cure and containment. Containment seems to happen in many ways: vaccinations make people resistant to its spread (polio), cultural practices halt the spread (e.g. mosquitoes and malaria), the disease run out of hosts (typhoid fever during the Peloponnesian war). The last two seem the most common.
Antiretrovirals seem to have the opposite affectation. They keep the host alive to further spread the disease, and worse, they can make people less afraid and more comfortable with lifestyles that are prone to continue spreading the disease. The latter could be why HIV is on the rise among young gay men in DC, New York, and around the world.
This quote from an article in the Washington Post seemingly says it all:
"I can remember going to a funeral every four or five days. Now, if you talk to some of these young men, they say, 'If I do get infected, I will simply take the blue pill or the pink pill, like my friend,' "
Perhaps the more central question is a policy one, "Should public financing be focused on cures and prevention instead of sustenance?" Drug companies will invest in life sustaining methods because that is where the money is. Public funds should be spent on longer term solutions like prevention, awareness, and cures.
Comments