Hormone shots, the most popularly used contraceptive in eastern and southern Africa, appear to double a women's risk for H.I.V. infection, according to a recent study. Now in a New York Times article, we read that these findings potentially present an alarming quandary for women in Africa. Why? The answer might give you a quandary.
Isobel Coleman, director of the women and foreign policy program at the Council on foreign Relations states, "If it is now proven that these contraceptions are helping spread the AIDS epidemic, we have a major health crisis on our hands." But, Mary Lyn Gaffield, an epidemiologist in the World Health Organization's (WHO's) department of reproductive health and research said, "We want to make sure that we warn when there is a "real need" to warn, but at the same time we don't want to come up with a "hasty judgment" that would have far-reaching severe consequences for the sexual and reproductive health of women." What? A real need to warn? A hasty judgment? Severe consequences? HIV AIDS is not severe enough for her.
First of all, let's take a look at these "severe consequences" of which Ms. Gaffield speaks. Do you consider HIV AIDS a severe consequence to the sexual and reproductive health of women? I do. But, if you think that's what Ms. Gaffield is talking about, you're slightly off base. The severe consequences to the sexual health of these women which Ms. Gaffield refers to, is of course, pregnancy. Did you guess that one?
A study, led by researchers at the University of Washington, found that women using injectable hormonal contraception became infected at a rate of 6.61, compared with 3.78 for those not using that method. Also, the transmission of H.I.V to men occurred at a rate of 2.61 compared with 1.51 for those who did not use the contraceptive. That's pretty severe in my humble opinion.
Pfizer, which manufacturers the Depo-Provera injectable contraception, declined to comment on the study ..... and you'll love this one .... because they said, "officials had not read it yet." Where have we heard that one before? Huh, the Obama health care bill ... right? Does anyone read anything anymore?
In the minds of all these experts, who don't read things, the main risk to women still remains pregnancy. A New York Times article reports on another "troubling finding", as they put it, which supposedly showed results from the same study, yet published separately, showing that pregnancy itself also doubled the risk of women contracting H.I.V. I wonder who read that part of the study? So, their feeling is, that any warnings against such a popular contraceptive method would only increase complications from pregnancy itself, which they claim includes a greater risk to H.I.V infection. How does that happen? I've had 5 children, and I don't have H.I.V.
Injectable hormones are quite popular. Approximately 12 million women between the ages of 15 and 49 in sub-Saharan Africa, use them. In the United States, that number is 1.2 million using that form of contraception. Ms. Gaffield's comments about making sure there is a "real need" to warn women, gives me "real concern". How many lung cancer cases, heart attacks & strokes were documented before we put warning labels on cigarettes? A kid riding a bike is required to wear a helmet or else his parents will get in deep trouble. So how many women need to be infected by H.I.V or infect their partners, before those like Ms. Gaffield consider it a "serious enough" reason, to warn women about the dangers of injectable contraceptives?
Does anyone consider the real causes of these sexually transmitted diseases? How does the WHO think that they can control people's moral behavior, with injections? I don't get it. Either I missed that memo, or I forgot to read it. But if not reading things these days, is the way to get them passed or passed over, oh well, what can I say?
Isobel Coleman, director of the women and foreign policy program at the Council on foreign Relations states, "If it is now proven that these contraceptions are helping spread the AIDS epidemic, we have a major health crisis on our hands." But, Mary Lyn Gaffield, an epidemiologist in the World Health Organization's (WHO's) department of reproductive health and research said, "We want to make sure that we warn when there is a "real need" to warn, but at the same time we don't want to come up with a "hasty judgment" that would have far-reaching severe consequences for the sexual and reproductive health of women." What? A real need to warn? A hasty judgment? Severe consequences? HIV AIDS is not severe enough for her.
First of all, let's take a look at these "severe consequences" of which Ms. Gaffield speaks. Do you consider HIV AIDS a severe consequence to the sexual and reproductive health of women? I do. But, if you think that's what Ms. Gaffield is talking about, you're slightly off base. The severe consequences to the sexual health of these women which Ms. Gaffield refers to, is of course, pregnancy. Did you guess that one?
A study, led by researchers at the University of Washington, found that women using injectable hormonal contraception became infected at a rate of 6.61, compared with 3.78 for those not using that method. Also, the transmission of H.I.V to men occurred at a rate of 2.61 compared with 1.51 for those who did not use the contraceptive. That's pretty severe in my humble opinion.
Pfizer, which manufacturers the Depo-Provera injectable contraception, declined to comment on the study ..... and you'll love this one .... because they said, "officials had not read it yet." Where have we heard that one before? Huh, the Obama health care bill ... right? Does anyone read anything anymore?
In the minds of all these experts, who don't read things, the main risk to women still remains pregnancy. A New York Times article reports on another "troubling finding", as they put it, which supposedly showed results from the same study, yet published separately, showing that pregnancy itself also doubled the risk of women contracting H.I.V. I wonder who read that part of the study? So, their feeling is, that any warnings against such a popular contraceptive method would only increase complications from pregnancy itself, which they claim includes a greater risk to H.I.V infection. How does that happen? I've had 5 children, and I don't have H.I.V.
Injectable hormones are quite popular. Approximately 12 million women between the ages of 15 and 49 in sub-Saharan Africa, use them. In the United States, that number is 1.2 million using that form of contraception. Ms. Gaffield's comments about making sure there is a "real need" to warn women, gives me "real concern". How many lung cancer cases, heart attacks & strokes were documented before we put warning labels on cigarettes? A kid riding a bike is required to wear a helmet or else his parents will get in deep trouble. So how many women need to be infected by H.I.V or infect their partners, before those like Ms. Gaffield consider it a "serious enough" reason, to warn women about the dangers of injectable contraceptives?
Does anyone consider the real causes of these sexually transmitted diseases? How does the WHO think that they can control people's moral behavior, with injections? I don't get it. Either I missed that memo, or I forgot to read it. But if not reading things these days, is the way to get them passed or passed over, oh well, what can I say?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment