Lord Fowler
The House of Lords Select Committee on HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom published its report yesterday. The Committee, chaired by former Social Services Secretary, Lord Fowler, spent eight months taking evidence and has produced the first major analysis for some years.
As the Committee notes in it summary:
“This report examines what is necessary to tackle the epidemic in this country. We believe above all that a new priority must be given to prevention. The advice of the 1980s—on using a condom, on reducing numbers of sexual partners and on not using contaminated needles—remains good today. We argue for a new national campaign to raise public awareness generally, but stress that this is only one part of a general prevention policy…
Our aim is to break down the barriers that stand in the way of people coming forward for testing. For that reason, we propose that testing should go beyond the traditional settings of genitourinary medicine and antenatal clinics. We need to further encourage testing by general practitioners, and ensure that they take a full part in the efforts to reduce HIV. We also propose the legalisation and regulation of home testing.”
You can see a short interview with Lord Fowler here.
I don’t know if it’s still the case, but one of the problems with volunteering to be tested was that even with a negative result, insurance companies seemed to think that you were a higher risk simply because you’d felt the need to be tested, and adjusted premiums accordingly. Hopefully this is no longer the case, given that pregnant women are routinely tested, meaning that admitting to having a negative test result should not imply having a high-risk lifestyle that makes testing advisable.
When talking about breaking down the “barriers” and “dirty needles” I do hope the noble lord considers the negative and devastating effect our drug laws have on blood-borne infections via the segregation of some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged of intravenous drug users/addicts. In many countries, drug users are the fastest growing source of new HIV infections outside sub-Saharan Africa. Along with the drop in crime with prescribed injectable drugs we could also see a drop in new HIV infections – if the government could get this proven logic past the tabloids of course…
Therein lies a big “violence” clarification issue:
rather like “aggression” being either active or passive
“breaking down the barriers” is connotively violent, thus can be constructive or destructive; and here it needs to be expressly limited to “constructively breaking down the barriers”;
and further needs to be more finely differentiated between the “fast” varieties of violence (including the pre-emptively rapid, such as “NATO-airstrike that fleeing foreign despot” and “Police! kettle those youthful demonstrators”)
and “slow” violence (including the insidiously-creeping sort such as legislating that the Poor and contractually-disadvantaged must pay a hugely bigger percentage of their meagre incomes, in Tax, than do the Rich and contractually-overadvantaged, and that the more expertly and covertly Environmentally destructive you become the more human-livings you will be given from the Common Purse).
Similarly with reading the Tabloids.
I don’t.
Because they are too “economic” with both the Factorama and Honest-argumentation, and too “open-handed” with Falsehood and Negative-cum-negativising exaggeration.
This is not “paranoia” on our part. for the very simple reason that there is a real element of Truth, among the facts of the matter, that the tabloid is lying, omitting facts, negativisingly-manipulating our perception, and thereby hostilely-clouding our mind-functioning.
0943F030911.jsdm.
Lord Norton,
It seems to me important to deal with the totality of this situation to the degree that is possible. A start requires one to recognize that the modern world has in many ways become ill-equipped to deal with many of these issues and yet in other ways a lack of modernity leaves us ill-equipped. My half-brother died of AIDS near my home after living here cut off from the family that had adopted him and the liberal modernist milieu he had lived in since before I was born when my mother gave him up for adoption. He was learned and clever and we had common interests but he hated passionately much of what I cared most about and our relationship was never perfect although at the end he was more accepting of my values. That is my closest brush with AIDS.
1. The less certain death is the more likely people are to engage in risky behavior. Therefor from a public health point of view all treatment short of cure should be balanced with behavioral constraints and supports of some kind or one simply fosters disease.
2. Where monasteries, ashrams, the Missionaries of Charity centers and others are able to attract people who are infected to convert freely to a life in which abstaining from sex is sought and monks or nuns know each other and the disease very well where sex may occur they should be supported not ridiculed.
3. Virology and real advances in attacking all kinds of viruses with total lethality ought to be an investment goal. AIDS will not be our last challenge. Humans should be learning to fight viruses at the molecular level. Destroying quickly a large healthy viral infestation should be the sole goal of some research money.
4.Records should be coordinated by someone and civil rights protected by some kind of omsbudman for that purpose. This will also be needed when the nest great viral infection kills millions — and that will happen.
AIDS I am afraid may yet hold another heavy wave in the future. Viruses mutate more easily than any other living thing (being barely alive they have few need based parameters).
One of the first requirements should be those with aids compelled to be open about the condition. This includes, doctors, dentists, nurses and others who have intimate contact with the public. Testing should be a requirement of their employment as is CBI checks. Facing up to the responsibility of their illness is paramount.
It either is, or, should be illegal to knowingly infect another person and there must be heavy penalties for not adhering to this practice.
Every immigrant should be tested for all diseases prior to entry into the UK. Illegals should be removed without recourse to our court system and re-apply from their place of origin for permission to enter, and take the health check before acceptance.
A massive advertisement campaign should begin in earnest. Explaining ‘factually’ how this disastrous illness is contracted and how it is passed on. As well as where to get tested and treated.
It’s always the immigrants fault isn’t it Maude..
As we’re prosecuting/deporting immigrants with diseases why don’t round up all those British citizens with other ‘nasty diseases’ and put them in a camp whilst we’re at it.. or at least make them wear a bio-hazard patch on their arm…
@Jake:
How is it you are so ready to accept your fellow citizens having to foot the bill for millions of immigrants but never call for the poverty stricken individuals of this country to receive such magnificent acceptance and caring for their plight, with the funds paid for by us for us?
Are you an illegal? And is that why this factual information gets up your nose so readily? It sounds like it.
What is it that makes it unacceptable to write the truth with you? What is it you have to lose, or, gain, on this matter of immigration that you should be so panicked by the thought that perhaps we do need to look at the cost, across the board, to our country? Millions of people being allowed to enter a state that has not made adequate, or even partial, arrangement for their condition, such as housing, education, health care, and so on, and expecting us all to support them when we cannot feed our own. This is betrayal of us all? How many is enough for you? Can you answer that with any sanity?
Are you unable to put two and two together at all on this subject, or, are you so completely brainwashed you are unable to address the matter with logic.
Mass immigration, and I emphasize mass, is creating havoc right across Europe and particularly here in the UK, because of our ludicrous policies on welfare benefit, for those who enter with or without right to do so. But you, poor soul, are willing to watch the process without making any effort to
look at the reality.
Additionally, you even find it offensive to discuss entry of sick individuals, who can spread horrendous diseases, into our borders without screening. You are afraid of us being aware of what we are dealing with. that is too practical for you to feel comfortable with.
You and people like you deserve to be forced to clean up the mess you promote. As well as forced to pay over your entire salary to maintain those you wish to sponsor.
And I want to address your obvious resentment that immigration and it’s fall out is the major concern of this country’s majority, as it is right across the European zone, but, you want it hushed up. To be unspoken and ignored. Why is that? Can you put it into words? Do you have a sane response you can offer for your obsession?
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/09/01/comment-the-secret-immigration-policy-they-tr
Perhaps this observatory will assist people like you to see reason.
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/commentary/migration-observatory-better-information-more-rational-debate
every time Maude.. every time – you say I’m brainwashed and then usually post to some oft looney and obscure link.
I agree that there can be both better restrictions/regulation on immigration policy AND consideration of those who have already moved here. I fear your ideal solution is to either completely stop immigration or ‘send them all back’.
Regarding “sick individuals, who can spread horrendous diseases” – please tell me what horrendous diseases ‘immigrants’ have that aren’t already within our borders. Why do you have to just attack the ‘immigrants’?! What do you propose about the ‘natives’ who have these diseases – the same level of segregation and discrimination? What about ‘natives’ who go on holiday and bring diseases? Your arguments and focus are so closed minded that you miss the bigger picture or are too willing to put your centre-of-right views ahead of Human rights (as you clearly didn’t get my reference in my original post). You’re ‘solutions’ are nearly always reactive and never willing to address the root causes as they go counter to your ‘beliefs’. You clearly don’t realise the role of immigration in a healthy society and instead seek to blame and segregate most of our problems on “the immigrants” and frankly I’m tired of it and find it offensive (and No, I’m not an “illegal”).
Just as that Oxford link says, we don’t have all the data and evidence – I’m willing to wait until we have more before concreting my ‘opinion’.. are you or has the Daily Mail already made up your mind?!
@Jake:
Every time, Jake, every time, you are given straight and well proven facts on issues relating to the welfare of the British people you go off to a tangent on the subject of ‘immigration’ and the lot of the foreigner within our tax payers realm. Now why is that?
You refuse to peruse any study that may prove your bias wrong or off beam.
It can only signify that your obsession with this phenomena is a form of mental deviation. Unless, of course, you are one of the people who will benefit from such a fixation. In whatever way that benefit is found.
Finally, what the hell are you saying. That because we have rabies in animals here now we should not block the borders and allow infected animals into this country at will? Without even a basic knowledge of how many there are and where they will be likely to settle and infect others?
Note, I use the animal, as you are so highly crazed about the use of humans and claim prejudice in the author should they do so. Of course, is a means of stultifying discussion with anything like an open framework. And it is designed to do just that, this method has been too successful in its objective so far and to the detriment of the nation. It also is a cover for people who are unable to think or produce a meaningful alternative in thought. They fail to overcome opposition with a clear study to prove those who they oppose, wrong in their data. So call on the old chestnut, prejudice. This trick you use is worn and needs a rethink.
Which, on its own, indicates you as an irresponsible ‘nut case’ who should not be trusted in discussion with facts.
@Maude: Honestly, you are hilarious!!
Every time I go off on a tangent?! Really?!! My original comment on this blog was to do with intravenous drug users and HIV/AIDS (a real, documented problem). YOUR post brought up the subject of immigration, as with other blogs you have posted on – you are always the FIRST to bring it up and then continually try defend your position and berate those who don’t agree with your right-wing view.
You contradict yourself, you have a distrust and dislike of ‘foreigners’ beyond that which the evidence can validate and would be quite happy to see immigrants as “animals”. You have the obsession.
My obsession is equal rights with respect for Human rights, but I suppose that is ‘nutty’ or ‘crazy’ to view your fellow man/woman as a person rather than an ‘immigrant’ or ‘foreigner’ whilst still implementing pragmatic and humane legislation that is evidence-based… I read that Oxford link you posted, it said we didn’t yet know enough – so according to your own links where is the evidence to base your claims?
I won’t debate this anymore on this post but I will continue to call out your thinly-veiled racism on other posts.
I did a quick estimate on the figures given by the programme discussion with Lord Fowler, and it would seem that there are 150 people in the UK who are suffering from the illness without knowing it.
BBC has a way with figures which generally makes150 seem like 150,000, especially with regard to medicine, and disease.
All efforts to eradicate disease are commendable. Both my best school pal and my
cousin have been the most eminent virologists
and haematologists this, and the other side of the pond (Tedder and Karpatkin), and their later careers have been dedicated to conquering and dealing with the dsiease.
Beating it by changing people’s habits is always a very good way of combating disease, but it had little effect on bating the plague for hundreds of years, except that isolation
in m/nonastic orders seemed to reduce its incidence dramatically. As a consequence arrivals from outside the n/monastery were put in isolation until they were certain that
there was no risk of contamination by the person who had arrived.
The apparatus of Medicine and surgery itself is the principal conveyor of contamination, in the case of HIV/AIDS.
The Hypodermic syringe.
Whilst in the early 50s the syringe provided anti-biotics penicillin, tetramycin and a long list of evolving drugs, when the man in the street realized the power of the
medical syringe, he soon started using it himself, with devastating effect on the drug user, at odds with the law, and wanting an instant fix of the same stuff: morphine/Heroin.
The development of Transcutanious plasters
made some head way as an alternative to injection or pill, but I would be interested to know whether it is in great use today;
probably not and certainly not by illegal drug users.
The Aids clinical surgeon avers that he some times wonders whether there is such a thing as HIV/AIDs at all, because his patients all arrive with a disease which was previously (from 1945, Alexander Fleming until 1984)rapidly cured, but which have once again become incurable as a result of their increased virulence due to the Human immune virus, and the full blown syndrome.
Let’s have some other facts to work with too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS
If you are a vegetarian and never used Medical syringes at all, whether illegally or
otherwise, and never used anybody else’s blood to maintain or support your own life in an emergency, you would be far less likely to have this disease.
The answer in private medicine is ALWAYS to have a supply of your own blood available for an emergency and never use anybody else’s.
then the charge of latter day cannibalism does not apply unless biting your fingernails
is an incipient form of it! Prviate blood bank facilities can be expensive.
@Gareth Howell:
This report tells it more or less as it factually is.
Needles are not the main cause.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:nHbBeH8sd1EJ:www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn297.pdf+what+is+the+true+greatest+cause+of+HIV+in+the+UK+population&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShAaVbk-lM_Gnm5zpq7X-fUgZ7v96PX3cxg1fd8wuUVDbHgYyxD3_NvW6jEuiU6uixFoIHthTmNKmgiFNlqj2ru0iVWYTrS2ZeougCMpsSsYcDzYWjgFWmV0J3_oVb5Yot3SL0r&sig=AHIEtbQqCURvrKRh1Z83xfi6lUJ4quLDCA
I did a quick estimate on the figures given by the programme discussion with Lord Fowler, and it would seem that there are 150 people in the UK who are suffering from the illness without knowing it.
BBC has a way with figures which generally makes150 seem like 150,000, especially with regard to medicine, and disease.
All efforts to eradicate disease are commendable. Both my best school pal and my
cousin have been the most eminent virologists
and haematologists this, and the other side of the pond (Tedder and Karpatkin), and their later careers have been dedicated to conquering and dealing with the dsiease.
Beating it by changing people’s habits is always a very good way of combating disease, but it had little effect on bating the plague for hundreds of years, except that isolation
in m/nonastic orders seemed to reduce its incidence dramatically. As a consequence arrivals from outside the n/monastery were put in isolation until they were certain that
there was no risk of contamination by the person who had arrived.
The apparatus of Medicine and surgery itself is the principal conveyor of contamination, in the case of HIV/AIDS.
The Hypodermic syringe.
Whilst in the early 50s the syringe provided anti-biotics penicillin, tetramycin and a long list of evolving drugs, when the man in the street realized the power of the
medical syringe, he soon started using it himself, with devastating effect on the drug user, at odds with the law, and wanting an instant fix of the same stuff: morphine/Heroin.
The development of Transcutanious plasters
made some head way as an alternative to injection or pill, but I would be interested to know whether it is in great use today;
probably not and certainly not by illegal drug users.
The Aids clinical surgeon avers that he some times wonders whether there is such a thing as HIV/AIDs at all, because his patients all arrive with a disease which was previously (from 1945, Alexander Fleming until 1984)rapidly cured, but which have once again become incurable as a result of their increased virulence due to the Human immune virus, and the full blown syndrome.
Let’s have some other facts to work with too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS
If you are a vegetarian and never used Medical syringes at all, whether illegally or
otherwise, and never used anybody else’s blood to maintain or support your own life in an emergency, you would be far less likely to have this disease.
The answer in private medicine is ALWAYS to have a supply of your own blood available for an emergency and never use anybody else’s.
then the charge of latter day cannibalism does not apply unless biting your fingernails
is an incipient form of it! Prviate blood bank facilities can be expensive.
Too many carts set before too many available but neglected horses:
(1) Prior to “prevention” should be “all-round lifeplace training and education” for people as persons not as patients (nor primarily even as “possibly potential patients”), as THE basic Natural & Civilising Need for all human beings, and possibly “lifespan”.
(2) “prevention” (including “prophylacticals” such as sheaths male and/or female)”is defacto jealously possessed (but groslly underfed and neglected) by The Politico-Medical Professions:
in turn that neglect is largely because the UN WHO Primary Health Care Declkaration of 1978 was not only mis-read but (probably) deliberately misinterpreted, and deliberately procrusteanly cut down and given fasle-naming for instance what was intended by the UN to be health-care (supporting existing healthy-habits whilst also building long-term further “wellbeing*”)in its own civil, social, and individual right quite distinctly from (medical) “illness-treatment, pharmacology, and hospitalisation”).
* wellbeing = not simply the absence of illness and disease, but the positively-supported presence of health and ‘holism’ (jsdm hopefully paraphrased within the true spirit of the UN Declaration).
2139Th02Sep11.JSDM.
@Jake:
You have no argument you can call on. If you did you would present the facts for us all to see.
It is you that is the thinly disguised racist and bigot. For it is you who cannot see the equality in the human race, not I. I believe all men are equal. Somehow you view nations outside this country as inept and unable to fend for and take care of themselves without the charity you want us, as a people, to extend to them regardless of our ability to do so.
Now why do you feel others are incompetent and without the ability to take equal care of themselves after we have just seen the amazing rise of the Arab people in their own right. What makes you believe our constant repetition of what you see as their lack of ability to provide for themselves is respect? Why do you believe that you are the humanist and not I? Who has given you that idea?