A leading HIV researcher -- and self-described liberal -- defends what the pope has said recently about condoms and AIDS.
I won't hold my breath for the secular mainstream media to notice, but that's what Christianity Today magazine reported on March 20 with its publication of an e-mail interview between deputy managing editor Tim Morgan and the director of Harvard's AIDS Prevention Research Project, Edward C. Green:
[Morgan]: Is Pope Benedict being criticized unfairly for his comments about HIV and condoms?
[Dr. Green]: This is hard for a liberal like me to admit, but yes, it's unfair because in fact, the best evidence we have supports his comments — at least his major comments, the ones I have seen.
Green went on to say that, at least as far as African countries are concerned, Pope Benedict is correct that condom promotion doesn't lessen the AIDS problem (emphases mine):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓There's no evidence at all that condoms have worked as a public health intervention intended to reduce HIV infections at the "level of population." This is a bit difficult to understand. It may well make sense for an individual to use condoms every time, or as often as possible, and he may well decrease his chances of catching HIV. But we are talking about programs, large efforts that either work or fail at the level of countries, or, as we say in public health, the level of population.
Remember, Green is unconcerned with theology. He's looking simply at the empirical data (emphases mine):
We are seeing HIV decline in eight or nine African countries. In every case, there's been a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting multiple sexual partners. Ironically, in the first country where we saw this, Uganda, HIV prevalence decline stopped in about 2004, and infection rates appear to be rising again. This appears to be in part because emphasis on interventions that promote monogamy and fidelity has weakened significantly, and earlier behavior changes have eroded. There has been a steady increase in the very behavior that once accounted for rates declining — namely, having multiple and concurrent sex partners. There is a widespread belief that somehow Uganda had fewer condoms. In fact, foreign donors have persuaded Uganda to put even more emphasis on condoms.
In other words, there's some inverse relationship between HIV infection rates and promiscuity rates, which points to the benefits of preaching, literally, Christian sexual ethics -- sex only within monogamous marriage.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
→ Chinese balloons
March 23, 2009 - 17:52 ET by Cool ArrowSaw on Drudge today the government has rubber-stamped a decision to buy all its condoms from China.
Wonder how much lead-based latex they'll put into them?
BTW, this forces the closing of an Atlanta business.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I heard this as well
March 23, 2009 - 19:02 ET by general companyApparently there are companies that are not to big to fail, well as long as it's the feds closing them up anyway? What the hell are they thinking?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Chinese Balloons, funny :)
March 23, 2009 - 19:36 ET by JAJTChinese Balloons, funny :) yeah i saw that article on drudge too..
w/all the recalls on chinese products, how can anyone feel safe about buying chinese condoms, let alone using them...
Cool Arrow
March 23, 2009 - 21:10 ET by thebutlerdiditClose, but the business is in Eufala, Alabama, they are the condom capital of the South East. LOL. They were selling them for 5 cents per, and now the government, besides putting those people out of work, will be getting them for 2 cents per, from the Chinese. As you all know, I have a long history of importing from the Chinese, and their quality can be somewhat lacking. Doesn't seem to be a good idea where accuracy counts, does it? Just think of the toys, formula and pet food from last year! Luckily, we import buidling materials, steel coils, etc., so the only harm that comes is if they are poor production quality. Why do I get the feeling that we might soon have a big boon of new AIDS cases and bigger pregnancy numbers? All for 3 cents?
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
My cynical side saw this
March 23, 2009 - 22:03 ET by moderncommentaries83My cynical side saw this and said..."Gee, think of how many more abortions Planned Parenthood will get to do when these condoms fail!"
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
This is somewhat telling
March 23, 2009 - 18:38 ET by WingletDriver"This is hard for a liberal like me to admit . . . ."
Is this guy a scientist? Aren't scientists supposed to be dispassionate and let the evidence lead them to the conclusion? I'll give him kudos for telling the truth here, but goodness gracious, his little caveat is damning of the liberal/academic mindset he's so much a part of.
I don't know why a scientist
March 23, 2009 - 18:40 ET by MANstreammediaI don't know why a scientist would need to qualify a statement with that remark as well.
Raincoats
March 23, 2009 - 18:47 ET by JDW...there's some inverse relationship between HIV infection rates and promiscuity rates...
Whether it be pregnancy, STDs, HIV..., the only cure is no sex until marriage. At that point, partners are tested.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
The government works for me, not the other way around
Just to clarify, why do you
March 23, 2009 - 18:57 ET by StewMcKinJust to clarify, why do you think marriage is the cure all? Are you suggesting there should be a law in place requiring blood tests when couples marry? Also, HIV can be transmitted in ways other than sex, such as blood transfusions, drug users sharing needles, and even during/after child birth. You're also missing one important clause in your theory - people have to remain faithful in their marriages for this to work. The statistics say otherwise.
Marriage is not a cure all, sad to say some people
March 23, 2009 - 23:39 ET by thebutlerdiditpeople don't believe in being faithful or have any morals. As far as HIV and blood transfusions go, they are very careful in testing blood that is donated. The blood tests required for marriage have been done away with in most states, for some stupid reason, and should be reinstituted. It would help cut down on the spread of some blood born diseases, and seems only fair to me that you know the truth about the person you are marrying. I am not sure there is a way to keep drug addicts from sharing dirty needles, from what I understand, even when they have a supply, when they are really high, sometimes that just isn't an issue, or concern. Not really surprising though, is it?
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
'Just To Clarify'
March 24, 2009 - 09:52 ET by JDWwhy do you think marriage is the cure all?
Why do you believe I do?
Are you suggesting there should be a law in place requiring blood tests when couples marry?
Yes
HIV can be transmitted in ways other than sex, such as blood transfusions
Unlikely
people have to remain faithful in their marriages
Really? Query the percentages of teens v. adults who test positive for all of the sexual bads and learn something.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
The government works for me, not the other way around
Um...really?
March 24, 2009 - 11:47 ET by StewMcKinwhy do you think marriage is the cure all?
Why do you believe I do?
Perhaps because you wrote:
Whether it be pregnancy, STDs, HIV..., the only cure is no sex until marriage.
My favorite part is "THE ONLY CURE IS..." This line specifically makes me believe you think marriage is the only cure. Or did I misread your post? And yes, as unlikely as it may be in this country to contract HIV through a blood transfusion, it still happens (here and abroad)
Work a little more on facts and a little less on the condescension. You might learn something.
~What's with the attitude?
March 24, 2009 - 12:11 ET by choselife3xWork a little more on facts and a little less on the condescension.
You might learn something.
Pot, kettle, black. As a matter of fact, you come off as the condescending one here.
And his point was that the only cure is abstinence until marriage and faithfulness afterwards. The fact that you require an express stipulation of faithfulness in marriage says a lot about you.
The chance of becoming infected with AIDS through a blood transfusion is quite slim, and would not cause an outbreak if the conditions of abstinence/faithfulness are met.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Look, I'm not looking to get
March 24, 2009 - 12:19 ET by StewMcKinLook, I'm not looking to get into a pissing match with you or anyone else. I simply stated a point that abstinence until marriage is not the going to eliminate HIV. As I posted above, and as you should be already aware, HIV is transmitted in different ways, not just through unprotected sex.
Although I'm guessing you didn't post this to debate, but merely to pick a fight. Given that you don't know anything about me, I dare you to question my marriage and my beliefs.
~?
March 24, 2009 - 12:29 ET by choselife3xWow, defensive much?
Given that you don't know anything about me, I dare you to question my marriage and my beliefs.
How did I question your marriage or beliefs? I simply pointed out that your phrasing assumes unfaithfulness. And that you yourself had the condescending tone.
You are the one doing the 'guessing' here.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
In that case, which phrasing
March 24, 2009 - 12:48 ET by StewMcKinIn that case, which phrasing are you referring to?
~This one
March 24, 2009 - 12:59 ET by choselife3xYou're also missing one important clause in your theory - people have
to remain faithful in their marriages for this to work. The statistics
say otherwise.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
So THAT statement "assumes
March 24, 2009 - 13:07 ET by StewMcKinSo THAT statement "assumes unfaithfulness?"
Wow. Fine. I give up.
~Hmmm
March 24, 2009 - 13:26 ET by choselife3xYou're also missing one important clause in your theory-people have to remain faithful in their marriages for this to work.
Certainly doesn't sound like you're taking faithfulness for granted.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Taking faithfulness for
March 24, 2009 - 13:38 ET by StewMcKinTaking faithfulness for granted is like saying Santa Claus is real (sorry if any children are reading this). As much as we'd like to believe it, it simply isn't true. Again, going back to my original post, the statistics say otherwise:
http://www.infidelit...
http://www.signs-of-...
http://www.infidelit...
Do you take faithfulness for granted reading these statistics?
~You are missing the whole point
March 24, 2009 - 13:59 ET by choselife3xThis started when you challenged this premise:
Whether it be pregnancy, STDs, HIV..., the only cure is no sex until marriage. At that point, partners are tested.
You countered with:
You're also missing one important clause in your theory - people have to remain faithful in their marriages for this to work.
Anyone with the self-discipline and maturity to adhere to abstinence until marriage is quite unlikely to be unfaithful afterwards. Therefore faithfulness afterwards is implicit in JDW's post.
If you are going to cite statistics for fidelity, why aren't you also making an issue of and citing abstinence statistics?
Why are you focusing so aggressively on fidelity?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
You sound like a pretty
March 24, 2009 - 14:17 ET by StewMcKinYou sound like a pretty angry person, as I find each of your posts to be increasingly more aggressive. I may be new here, but I stand by my original post. My argument was to oppose the theory that Whether it be pregnancy, STDs, HIV..., the only cure is no sex until marriage.
My only reason in bringing up infidelity statistics is to prove that while fidelity sounds great to those who practice it, there is an alarming percentage of married couples who cheat. Do you disagree with that statement? And as long as couples cheat and have unprotected sex, HIV and STDs will continue to spread. If everyone practiced safe sex with their spouses and remained faithful, HIV will still spread. As I've stated earlier, there are other ways for these diseases to spread.
Lastly, while reading statistics such as 37% of men admit to having an affair, does that not then imply that 63% of men don't cheat, or at least don't admit to it? There's your fidelity statistic.
~Seriously?
March 24, 2009 - 14:27 ET by choselife3xYou sound like a pretty angry person, as I find each of your posts to be increasingly more aggressive.
Wow. If any of the regulars here agree that I have been angry sounding or aggressive with you than I will apologize. I have no desire to make any new poster feel unwelcome.
I found your tone to JDW to be hostile and I pointed it out. You became angrily defensive and now you are making personal statements as to my state of mind. I have said nothing to you that I have not backed up.
And as long as couples cheat and have unprotected sex, HIV and STDs will continue to spread.
Unless you can show statistics that demonstrate the rate of HIV cases spread by married cheaters your whole argument collapses.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
I can see you don't give up.
March 24, 2009 - 14:43 ET by StewMcKinI can see you don't give up.
I'm done. There's no reason to argue with someone who can't see beyond his/her own views.
~Give up?
March 24, 2009 - 14:51 ET by choselife3xI can see you don't give up. There's no reason to argue with someone who can't see beyond his/her own views.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that HIV will never stop spreading because married couples cheat. I asked you to show the frequency of HIV infection spread by married cheaters.
How does that mean I am not able to see beyond my own views?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Pssst... Chose...
March 24, 2009 - 14:55 ET by sherylsimsThis is the definition of not giving up I think...
Leave the poor new guy alone and pick on Pie some more. HE is more your match for stamina I think. How many entire threads has he filled up since he got here anyway? Whew!
~He's an attention hound
March 24, 2009 - 15:00 ET by choselife3xWatcha wanna bet he'll see this subject line, guess it's about him and drop in for a chat?
*sets table with coffee and snacks*
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Ch
March 24, 2009 - 15:02 ET by sherylsimsL
O
L
Look, I'm finding you to be
March 24, 2009 - 15:02 ET by StewMcKinLook, I'm finding you to be extremely frustrating. The only point I was trying to make is that it's a fallacy to predict that Whether it be pregnancy, STDs, HIV..., the only cure is no sex until marriage.
We know this is inaccurate, we know that these diseases are contracted in ways other than just sex. That's all. Now I'm really done. For what it's worth, I find this post of yours to be less hostile. Thanks.
Sheryl = Rude. Thanks for the warm reception.
WHAT?
March 24, 2009 - 15:05 ET by sherylsimsHow in the heck was what I said RUDE??? I told her to leave you alone ya jerk! You're welcome!
My apologies if I
March 24, 2009 - 15:11 ET by StewMcKinMy apologies if I interpreted your comments wrong.
-Jerk
Stew
March 24, 2009 - 15:15 ET by sherylsimsI think you may have. Allow me to take this very skinny space to explain my comments. There is another new guy named Pi who is currently battling several other members over a multitude of issues on other threads. I told her to leave you alone and go pick on HIM some more. (I was coming to your rescue. Really I was) See? There is my white horse right over there! >>>
Ohyeah
March 24, 2009 - 15:16 ET by sherylsimsAnd sorry about calling you a jerk. I'm having a bad day. I think I will go do some laundry and get away from the puter for a while.
No worries. And thanks for
March 24, 2009 - 15:19 ET by StewMcKinNo worries. And thanks for the clarification. Hope your day gets better. See ya 'round.
~Leave the new guy alone, sheryl
March 24, 2009 - 15:11 ET by choselife3x*laughing* *hard*
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
"abstinence until marriage
March 24, 2009 - 20:32 ET by lotr"abstinence until marriage is not the going to eliminate HIV"
You do have a point in that people would also need to "abstain" from other risky behaviors, such as intravenous illicit drug use. But only "abstinence" from these behaviors will contain and eliminate the virus within a generation, as it would have nowhere to proliferate. However, isolated incidents of infection via blood transfusion are extreme outliers that would never reach critical mass to result in a pandemic. And condoms, with their unreliable 10% failure rate, will never be the solution.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Stew...
March 25, 2009 - 00:39 ET by KimberlyFirst, take a breath.
Second, read a little closer.
Marriage isn't the cure-all, and that wasn't what was suggested. What was suggested was (1) monogamy and (2) no sex outside of a marital union are two things that have been clearly shown to reduce HIV, STD, unwanted pregnancies, etc.
This used to be the standard across the US, requiring both parties to be tested for STD (primarily syphilis, IIRC). I'd be all for a return to that standard.
Interestingly, you prove the prevous poster's point. HIV is extraordinarily hard to get outside of blood-to-blood exchange. You can't get it from saliva or sharing food utensils or anything like that--it's got to be blood-to-blood. I'm reminded of a House episode where the father was horrified that House suspected that his son (a budding televangelist preacher) had genital herpes. House listed all the possible non-sex ways one could get genital herpes, then ended his lecture with: "Your son got it from sex." If couples avoid blood-to-blood exchange, that reduces the chances of getting HIV (or STD, or even HIV-through-pregnancy) substantially.
Yes, it's true that alas, some people do not take their marital unions seriously. That has to change. And the only way that will change is by proper education. Not just handing out condoms, not just demonstrating on a banana (or maybe the bill includes money for false dildos as well?), but education that that advocates abstinence, which works wherever it's tried.
Article in NR Online
March 23, 2009 - 19:03 ET by lotrFrom Saint Peter's Square to Harvard Square
by Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online
Looks like the Pope ain't no dope (and God won't be made a fool).
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Well isn't that
March 23, 2009 - 19:14 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWell isn't that interesting? I remember reading how the BUSH administration funded programs in countries in Western Africa (like Uganda) that promoted the "ABC" approach: Abstain until marriage, Be faithful to your partner, use Condoms if abstinence and fidelity are not practiced. The result? The percentage of AIDS cases declined significantly. Opponents of the ABC programs claim the decline was because HIV positive people died off, while that may be part of the equation, the ABCs certainly had a positive impact in greatly reducing the spreading of AIDS. And any decline in the number of HIV positive cases is good right? The left wants a decline in HIV cases, but does not celebrate the decline the ABC programs have helped to bring about...for two reasons (and I'm not sure which one takes precedence) #1. Telling people not to have sex and to be faithful is morally wrong, and #2. Bush sponsored the programs.
See: Here, Here, and Here.
Condoms, condoms, condoms! It's their answer to everything. Condoms are freely available at every U.S. military base clinic/hospital/health center. STD rates are still very high among single military members especially at the more remote bases. I would be willing to bet it is because these soldiers are not abstaining (duh), and not monogamous. Using condoms because you have multiple partners is like driving the wrong way on the freeway...you can't guarantee that the other drivers are going to take the right precautions to avoid an accident.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
Chinese Condoms
March 23, 2009 - 19:38 ET by SemperrightThat'll put lead in your pencil.........literally
Semper Fi
Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share.
Ned Dolan
HIV in Washington DC equal to some African Countries
March 23, 2009 - 20:28 ET by Retired GeekWASHINGTON (AP) — "A new report by D.C. health officials says that at least 3 percent of residents in the nation's capital are living with HIV or AIDS and every mode of transmission is on the rise.
The findings in the 2008 epidemiology report by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration point to a severe epidemic that's impacting every race and sex across the population and neighborhoods.
Scheduled to be released Monday, the report says that the number of HIV and AIDS cases jumped 22 percent from the nearly 12,500 reported in 2006. Almost 1 in 10 residents between ages 40 and 49 are living with HIV, and black men had the highest infection rate at almost 7 percent.
The report says that the virus is most often transmitted by men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual transmission and injection drug use."
Homosexuality is a major Cause of HIV/AIDS
March 23, 2009 - 20:34 ET by Retired GeekThe modern Liberal conscience is capable of judgment - it has judged that Homosexuality is normal and natural and those who oppose 'Homosexual Marriage' are abnormal and unnatural.
Liberals have judged that 'Deviant Behavior' should have 'Rights' and that anyone exercising their right to vote against 'Behavioral Rights' should be castigated and stripped of their right to vote.
Homosexuality is nothing more than the pursuit of 'Lust' instead of love.
Homosexuals want 'Lust Rights' for their aberrant behavior.
Homosexual defenders and participants of sexual aberration are using 'Moral Equivalency' to justify their perverse desires and lust by saying: 'Those who oppose us aren't perfect, so they do not have the right to oppose our aberrant behavior'.
Homosexuals then say: 'It is natural to be unnatural', 'Normal to be Abnormal', those who oppose us have lost their moral compass.
Homosexuals are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their lustful behavior and attack them personally and viciously, all in the name of 'Tolerance' and 'Diversity'.
Ohmigosh!! A liberal
March 23, 2009 - 21:17 ET by motherbeltOhmigosh!!
A liberal admitted the Pope was right about something???
Stop the presses!!!
Oh wait! They did! ..there will no word of this leaking out, if they have their way!!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Malaria
March 23, 2009 - 23:40 ET by Lakewood BobThe major disease in Africa and many underdeveloped countries around the world is Malaria, not AIDS! Democrats and environmentalists will never admit that their banning of DDT was a world wide disaster. The millions dead would like an explanation from you, William Ruckelshaus!!
Woah, I'm surprised!
March 24, 2009 - 12:21 ET by wiwfWoah, I'm surprised! :)
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy