« Random Notes On Iraq | Main | Just Call Me Captain Courageous »

December 02, 2006

Comments

"further study showed that most of Uganda's success was due not to abstinence and fidelity, but to condom use and, unfortunately, high death rates among people with AIDS"

I'm not seeing the condom part of the above in the article - it seems like "early death is the main factor (maybe condom use in area x is helping)".

Top google link has a different interpretation.

Next says intervention didn't help.

Ok, anyway, understanding this will probably take some thought and cross-checking - googling "fluoride" isn't a good way to get at the truth.

I don't have time right now, rilkefan, but if you check through the Obsidian Wings archives, the last time this subject came up I posted a link to the actual study which confirmed that condom use was essentially irrelevant in halting the spread of AIDS in Uganda. It was in response to Tacitus invoking the ABC program, IIRC.

Confused - here I see you saying no A, no B, yes C (via "anarch condoms site:obsidianwings.blogs.com", which I feared might have ... random results).

Maybe the original.


I have little doubt that condoms are essential in fighting AIDS and abstinence programs are at best of secondary utility but I'll look on any study with skepticism because of the associated taboos.

Wrong way 'round, sorry: must've flipped my bits in haste. And yes, that's the original post.

rilkefan: I was thinking of passages like this (in the Chronicle article): "Research from the heavily studied Rakai district in southern Uganda suggests that increased condom use, coupled with premature death among those infected more than a decade ago with the AIDS virus, are primarily responsible for the steady decline in HIV infections in that area." And that interpretation seemed to be supported by the other reports of the study I found (my ability to get into the Hopkins library was on the fritz at that point, so I couldn't get the study itself. Grrr.)

Anarch: I read through the thread looking for your comment -- why did it have to be at the bottom? -- and was reminded of how little I miss that particular period, when I had basically resolved never to engage with Tac, since (as best I could tell) the posting rules didn't apply to him, and I didn't know what to do about that.

My point was that the assertion seemed unsupported by references to the paper or the paper's authors - the quotes there seemed to have a different import, as did my links above. If you say the scientific literature/discussion shows what you say, then never mind.

Incidentally, why isn't the study just publicly available?


"Anarch: I read through the thread looking for your comment"

Ctrl-f is your friend.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad