Tag Archives: Government

Science won’t stop until it beats AIDS, says HIV pioneer

Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, French virologist and director of the Regulation of Retroviral Infections Division (Unite de Regulation des Infections Retrovirales) at the Institut Pasteur, poses during an interview with Reuters, in Paris, France, October 1, 2015. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer

Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, French virologist and director of the Regulation of Retroviral Infections Division (Unite de Regulation des Infections Retrovirales) at the Institut Pasteur, poses during an interview with Reuters, in Paris, France, October 1, 2015. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer

Oct 9 More than 30 years after she identified one of the most pernicious viruses to infect humankind, Francoise Barre Sinoussi, who shared a Nobel prize for discovering HIV, is hanging up her lab coat and retiring.

Story via Reuters
logo-reuters

 

She’s disappointed not to have been able to claim ultimate victory in the battle against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes the killer disease AIDS, but also proud that in three decades, the virus has been beaten into check.

While a cure for AIDS may or may not be found in her lifetime, the 68-year-old says, achieving “remission” – where infected patients control HIV in their bodies and, crucially, can come off treatment for years – is definitely within reach.

“I am personally convinced that remission…is achievable. When? I don’t know. But it is feasible,” she told Reuters at her laboratory at Paris’s Pasteur Institute, where she and her mentor Luc Montagnier discovered HIV in 1983.

“We have ‘proof of concept’. We have…the famous Visconti patients, treated very early on. Now it is more than 10 years since they stopped their treatment and they are still doing very well, most of them.”

Sinoussi is referring to a study group of 14 French patients known as the Visconti cohort, who started on antiretroviral treatment within 10 weeks of being infected and stayed on it for an average of three years. A decade after stopping the drugs, the majority have levels of HIV so low they are undetectable.

These and other isolated cases of remission, or so-called “functional cure”, give hope to the 37 million people worldwide who, due to scientific progress, should now be able to live with, not have their lives cut short by, HIV.

In developed countries at least – and in many poorer ones too – an HIV positive diagnosis is no longer an immediate death sentence, since patients can enjoy long, productive lives in decent health by taking antiretroviral drugs to control the virus.

It’s a long way from the early 1980s, when Sinoussi remembers sick, dying HIV-positive patients coming to the doors of the Pasteur and pleading with scientists there for answers.

“They asked us: ‘What we are going to do to cure us’,” she says. At that time, she says, she knew relatively little about HIV, but what she was sure of was that these patients would never live long enough to see a treatment developed, let alone a cure. “It was very, very hard.”

Yet this interaction with real patients, and with their doctors and later their advocates, gave Sinoussi an important insight into what was needed to make her life in science one with meaning and impact — collaboration.

Working across barriers – be they scientific disciplines, cultural, religious and political divides, international borders or gender distinctions, has been and remains Sinoussi’s driving force.

In her earliest days, feeling disengaged while working on her PhD and itching for action in a real-life laboratory, she hustled her way in to working at the male-dominated Pasteur Institute for free with a virologist researching links between cancers and retroviruses in mice.

While viruses are her thing, she has throughout her career worked with, cajoled and learned from immunologists, cancer specialists, experts in diseases of aging, pharmaceutical companies, AIDS patients, campaigners, and even the pope.

“When you work in HIV, it’s not only working in HIV, it’s working far, far beyond,” she said.

Freshly armed with her Nobel award and fired up about a lack of support for proven methods of preventing HIV’s spread, Sinoussi wrote an open letter to then-Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 criticising him for saying that condoms can promote the spread of AIDS.

In what was widely seen as a modification of his stance in response to such criticism, Benedict said in a book a year later that use of condoms could sometimes be justified in certain limited cases as a way to fight AIDS.

Sinoussi says: “HIV has shown the way to go in the field of science. You can’t be isolated in your laboratory. You need to work with others.”

And this, she adds, is the “all together” spirit with which she advises her successors to continue after she’s gone.

Many will be sad to see her leave, but she has faith that her chosen field will deliver for the people who need it.

“Of course, I would love to have stopped and to see we had a vaccine against HIV and another treatment that could induce remission – but that’s life. I encourage the new generation of scientists today to continue our work.

“Science never stops,” she says. “Just because a scientist stops, the science should not stop.”

STAY UPDATED
Follow LASS on Twitter
or subscribe by email
Visit Well For Living
for well-being news and info or follow_THEM-a copy

Lord Fowler: Fight against HIV going backwards because of anti-gay laws

Lord-Fowler

Former Health Secretary Lord Fowler says the fight against HIV is “going backwards” because of anti-gay laws in many parts of the world.

Lord Fowler, who served as Margaret Thatcher’s Health Secretary until 1987, told BBC Radio 5 Live: “The real problem is that you have got 35 million people living with HIV in the world today, but half of those don’t know they have the infection.

“And one of the reasons why they won’t come forward for testing is because of the prejudice and the laws against homosexuality, against gay people, against lesbians and the stigma connected with HIV.”
The Conservative peer added: “Unless we tackle that; my fear is we are going backwards.”

AIDS: Don’t Die of Prejudice, a book written by Lord Fowler, charting the worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic, is due to be released on Monday, 9th June.

Uganda’s Ethics Minister Simon Lokodo last month accused the country’s HIV support groups of “promoting homosexuality” and warned that he will take action against them.

The Ugandan Parliament has passed a bill that will criminalise intentional transmission of HIV as well as attempted transmission of the virus.  Human Rights Watch (HRW) described Uganda’s HIV law as “deeply flawed” in part because it is based on what the group called “stigma and discrimination.”

Article via Pink News

Want to know more about Lord Fowler? – Check out these articles and get in the know!

 

STAY UPDATED
Follow LASS on Twitter
or subscribe by email
Visit Well For Living
for well-being news and info or follow_THEM-a copy

Tory warns sex health cash cuts could lead to rise in HIV cases

Tory councillor Roy Webb is concerned about the impact of spending cuts on sexual health services.

Tory councillor Roy Webb is concerned about the impact of spending cuts on sexual health services.

FEARS of an increase in HIV infection rates in Derby if cuts proposed by the city council go ahead have been voiced.

Tory opposition councillor Roy Webb’s comments came after a letter opposing one of the cuts was sent to the authority by us, Leicestershire Aids Support Services.

The authority is proposing to cut £430,000 from the sexual health budget in the 2014-15 financial year.  The mooted cut was included in its recent consultation on how it will find £9 million of savings on top of £20 million already found.

It says the move would involve “ending service contracts for specialist sexual health promotion services,” and renegotiating contracts for “sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy testing”.

The document adds that the council wants to “refocus free oral emergency contraception to under-18s available to pharmacy outlets only”.  The city council was, on Friday, asked for more details but said it was unable to provide them.

But Mark Tittley, cabinet member for adults and health, said that, if the cuts went ahead, the council “would still continue to fulfil our statutory and moral duty to provide open access sexual health services to all within our community who need them, including people affected by HIV/Aids”.

Mr Webb, who is shadow cabinet member for health and adult care, said part of the cuts would hit Derbyshire Positive Support which gives confidential, stigma-free, support to people with HIV, and their families.

He said: “The withdrawal of contract funding for Derbyshire Positive Support may well, if it follows the national trend, increase infection rates as it has in areas where similar services have been decommissioned.”

A letter to the council from Leicestershire AIDS Support Services carries another warning.

It says: “Cuts will increase the likelihood of early death, and ill-health resulting in high levels of need for costly social care support and can be avoided by maintaining effective local services.”

Mr Webb added that, having met with a “public health official”, it was clear that any savings made in the budget were not going to be used to improve services elsewhere but “just used to support the council’s budget position”.

He said: “I think this a dangerous position to take as the on-going health and social care cost of failing to support these services could be much more expensive than keeping them.”

Mr Tittley said: “It is important to note that if these proposals are accepted by the council, we will still continue to fulfil our statutory and moral duty to provide open access sexual health services to all within our community who need them, including people affected by HIV/Aids.”

STAY UPDATED
Follow LASS on Twitter
or subscribe by email
Visit Well For Living
for well-being news and info or follow_THEM-a copy

Sex Education & Government / Internet Censorship

wordle

The #CensoredUK hashtag, spearheaded by the Sex and Censorship group, has been drawing attention to some of the unexpected sites that end up being blocked when internet providers buckle to government demands to censor “adult content”.

Nine out of 10 homes will have porn filters on their computers by the end of January, after a Government deal with four big internet providers. Web giants TalkTalk, Virgin, Sky and BT, have all agreed to introduce network filters which can block inappropriate content from all the online devices within the home.

Across several mobile internet providers, however, harmless sex and relationships education sites are being blocked by their web filters.  For example, the sexual health charity Brook, has turned up on website checkers as being default blocked. But this is plainly not adult content, so why?

Another site that is blocked in some cases is the NHS page about sex and young people, which contains questions and answers about the changes teens can expect during puberty, advice around not abusing alcohol, and support for people who want to remain abstinent.

Most mobile providers offer a service where you can report incorrectly categorised sites. It’s unclear what happens when sex ed sites are reported, however.

And a separate study shows over-zealous Wi-Fi filters are blocking many harmless and helpful sites. One in three public Wi-Fi hotspots are preventing access to harmless sex education and religious sites, the research by AdaptiveMobile carried out during September across 179 locations in Birmingham, Manchester and London found.

Sexual health is not “adult content”. Lumping important (and for many young people, the only) sexual health advice they will have access to in with porn is a mistake.  More to the point, politicians need to understand that making internet providers do so is not the Government’s job.

There is also a concern for LGBT teens, some of whom will not have the support of their families and may have little access to safe, reliable information about sex and sexuality. What about them?

Maybe internet providers mistakenly believe that good, thorough sex and relationships education is available in schools, but as the Wonder Women Better Sex Education campaign has demonstrated this year, it isn’t. Sex ed in schools as it currently exists is not fit for purpose. The teaching guidelines haven’t been updated in over a decade and make no mention of the internet.

There are of course a myriad of other problems with the filters system. Sites that are critical of the way sex and sexuality is reported in the media are at risk of being blocked; the problematic news stories that make the rounds about gay people, trans people, and others won’t necessarily be.

Once a Government gets a taste for censorship, they rarely stop at “adult content”, as well. Think that the blocks accidentally keeping young people away from educational resources is a one off? Just wait until a political blog or forum you read gets blocked under the excuse of “banning extremist speech”. It’s not a question of whether this will happen, it’s when.

The bottom line is understanding the deep irony that by presenting internet censorship in the wrapper of protecting kids, we may actually be keeping them from information that has been shown to actually protect them. The question now is: does the Government care?

STAY UPDATED
Follow LASS on Twitter
or subscribe by email
Visit Well For Living
for well-being news and info or follow_THEM-a copy

Doctors Criticise London HIV Drugs Cost-Cutting Deal

Medical professionals and patient support groups have raised concerns after people with HIV in London have been asked to switch to taking different antiretroviral drugs, as part of cost-cutting measures.

In April, London HIV Consortium, which is responsible for the capital’s HIV services, was tasked with saving £8m over two years, having to manage growing patient numbers on a budget that has not increased in line with inflation.

London Specialised Commissioning Group (LSCG), which commissions the capital’s HIV treatment, negotiated terms with atazanavir manufacturer Bristol Myers Squibb to receive discounts for larger orders of the drug.

As a result, clinics have been given new “prescription messages” – recommending doctors ask certain HIV patients who take a life-saving protease inhibitor other than atazanavir to switch to atazanavir – with saving money given as the overriding justification.

But now HIV doctors and support groups have raised concerns that switching prescriptions creates “medical risks” and raises “ethical issues”.

LSCG HIV drugs commissioner Claire Foreman said: “It is not in anyone’s interest – not our patients nor the taxpayer – to treat fewer people with more expensive drugs.

“There are no financial incentives for clinics to switch patients.”

No HIV patient will be prescribed an incorrect medicine as a result of this process” – Claire Foreman, Lead commissioner, LSCG

However, an HIV specialist at a London clinic, who wanted to remain anonymous, told the BBC: “Clinics are under financial pressure to contribute to the £8m savings.

“A confidential statement went out to doctors saying ‘there is a carrot and sticks approach to this. If you reach your targets each individual service will be set, there will be benefits for you this year, and clearly be benefits for you in next year’s budget’,” he added.

“Claire Foreman has back-pedalled on this.”

Ms Foreman denied this allegation, adding: “Doctors are taking a leading role to ensure patients can be treated despite the pressure on budgets.”  The clinician added it was “clearly evident” if doctors did not meet targets for patients switching to atazanavir.

“Doctors are under pressure from the LSCG to get patients to swap to cheaper prescriptions.  I’m not sure if it was taken into account the pressure that would put clinicians under,” he added.  “Not only does that discomfort the patient, it’s costing us in terms of clinic visits.”

Ms Foreman said this was not the case, adding: “No HIV patient will be prescribed an incorrect medicine as a result of this process.”

The anonymous specialist went on to say: “It’s difficult to prescribe certain pills in London, that people outside London can get, due to financial pressure from doctors’ managers.”

Patient Choice

LSCG said its prescription messages were in line with British HIV Association guidelines, but these were last updated in 2008 so did not consider drugs licensed since then.

More recent guidelines, including those of the European AIDS Clinical Society, recommend a range of drugs which are available through the NHS but are not suggested for prescription in LSCG’s messages.

However the specialist cited raltegravir as an example of an antiretroviral drug “that everyone wants access to, because it has few side-effects.

AHPN chief Francis Kaikumba fears African communities will be adversely affected

“But commissioners have stated it will only be used under certain circumstances.

“That’s entirely down to cost pressures. It would be easier to get outside London,” he said.  The specialist added: “The prescription messages stop putting patient choice at the centre of care in London.”

“This could potentially damage doctor-patient relationships.”

LSCG said: “All standard of care drugs licensed in the UK are available for use by HIV doctors.”

Dr Mike Youle, an HIV consultant at north London’s Royal Free Hospital, told the BBC about potential ethical and medical implications of switching patients’ prescription.

“When you’re talking about someone who has been stable on a drug for five years, I see no medical reason to change their prescription,” he said.

“There’s an ethical issue about switching people.”

But Prof Brian Gazzard, chairman of the drug purchasing group which advised the consortium, said: “All the doctor needs to do is note the reason the patient doesn’t want to switch.”

Meanwhile, African Health Policy Network chief Francis Kaikumba said: “Vulnerable African communities will be adversely affected as studies have shown African people are far less likely to question their health advisors.”

Ms Foreman said: “Clinicians and commissioners have been clear that any targeting would be unacceptable.”

Side Effects

Addressing the medical implications, Dr Youle said: “Every time you change medication with HIV, you run two risks.  One is having a side-effect. Something might go wrong.  The second is you might fail on the next drug. The virus might be resistant and you may put your health at risk.”

Prof Gazzard said: “Switching can involve side effects. If it does the patient will be told ‘we’ll switch you back’.”

Switching HIV drugs can involve side effects

Dr Yusef Azad, from the National Aids Trust, highlighted emotional pressures patients might come under saying: “With HIV, daily adherence is vital. Concerns about their medication might undermine a patient’s willingness to adhere to treatment.”

Prof Gazzard said: “If stress is being introduced into that system it’s a problem between the doctor and patient, not the London Consortium.”

Meanwhile, Dr Youle asked: “What happens when the next tender goes out and a different drug becomes the cheapest?”  You then have to say the drug you were originally on is cheaper and we’re going to move you back.”

Prof Gazzard said: “There will be a balance between the saving and the difficulties of switching people every two years.”

Some HIV support groups have said the deals between the LSCG and pharmaceutical companies were rushed through.

Robert Fieldhouse, editor of Baseline, a magazine for people living with HIV, said: “The consultation took place behind closed doors with the wider HIV community in the dark.”

But Ms Foreman said: “Commercially confidential processes mean specific prices of companies cannot be shared.”

Dr Asad said a wider debate should have been had before procurement.  “It would have been better to have a more open discussion earlier – asking ‘is it ok to switch stable patients simply on the basis of cost?’,” he said.

Meanwhile, with the government’s Health and Social Care Bill proposing to shake-up the way the NHS in England works, London’s HIV drugs procurement will be closely scrutinised to see how money savings could be implemented on a wider scale.

Original Article By Andy Dangerfield via BBC News

STAY UPDATED
or subscribe via email

Consultation To Start On Managing Urgent Care In Loughborough

Members of the public are being invited to have their say on the Walk-In Centre and the future of urgent care in Loughborough and surrounding areas.

West Leicestershire Clinical Commissioning Group (WLCCG), which will be responsible for commissioning or ‘buying’ local healthcare from April 2013, has been looking at urgent care services locally and how they are provided.

The CCG wants to ensure that when people need urgent care they can receive it as effectively as possible, whilst looking to work with other parts of the NHS to ensure that local services such as the community hospital are as effective as possible in bringing care closer to home.

As part of this a 12-week public consultation started last Wednesday (19 October) [Ed: We only received this news today, sorry for the delay], which offers two options:

· Option one is urgent care at the current Walk-In Centre at Pinfold Gate

· Option two is urgent care provided at Loughborough Hospital in Epinal Way

Option two is the preferred option as the hospital, which is 1.6 miles from Pinfold Gate, can provide more access to diagnostic tests, including more extended access to x-rays, potential access to ultrasound scans and blood tests. There are also beds where there is potential for patients to be kept in for observation and further potential for access to clinicians already working in the hospital.

Dr Nick Willmott, a GP and chairman of the group planning the development of urgent care in West Leicestershire, said: “This consultation is about enhancing services and making sure that patients receive the best care in the most appropriate setting for their health needs.

“We believe that our plans will provide an enhanced service for those who need urgent care, whilst we continue to encourage people to see their GPs when possible for less urgent needs.  Moving the Walk-In Centre could bring care closer to home for many patients accessing the urgent care service and could mean they wouldn’t have to travel into Leicester. It would also avoid duplication of services locally.”

Dr Edward Clode-Baker, of Parkview Surgery, added:

“GPs want, wherever possible, to be the first port of call if you’re in doubt about what care you need. We are doing all we can to improve access both to telephone advice and seeing patients appropriately. This will free up services at the Walk-In Centre to treat those with urgent need.”

The project group developing the proposals included GPs, a representative of Leicestershire Local Involvement Network (LINk), a patient representative, and officers of the West Leicestershire CCG. Feedback has also been received from staff at the Walk-In Centre, local government colleagues and the local MP. Leicestershire LINk has been involved in the consultation process and the engagement event held in August, and will be monitoring developments closely on behalf of patients and the public.

NHS West Midlands Clinical Commissioning Group have produced a document: “Loughborough Walk-In Centre, Managing Urgent Care In Loughborough – A Public Consultation” (pdf).  This document gives you the background to their public consultation about the Walk-In Centre and urgent care in Loughborough.

The Walk-In Centre provides urgent care services in Pinfold Gate for people living in or near Loughborough. they have proposals about how people can receive these services in future, and we need to understand what local people think about these proposals. They propose to create an urgent care centre
at Loughborough Hospital which will be supported by all the services available at
that centre. We believe this will produce an enhanced service for the local population with the coming together of the professional expertise and diagnostic services that can be provided by Loughborough Hospital. This can only be achieved by the movement of the Walk-In Centre and the resources that
support it.

Please take a few moments to read through the document, and then to answer the questions at the end.  The information and questionnaire are also
available online, at http://www.lcr.nhs.uk

During the consultation people will be able to have their say in a questionnaire which will be available from the Walk-In Centre, local libraries, GP surgeries and council buildings, as well as online by visiting http://www.lcr.nhs.uk before 11 January 2012. It will also be available to fill in at a series of public meetings, which take place on:

For more information, or to request a questionnaire via post, please call Jo Lilley on 0116 295 7626 or email jo.lilley@lcr.nhs.uk

STAY UPDATED
or subscribe via email

Gaddafi’s HIV Shakedown

Zakia Saltani has been warned not to talk to the press. She doesn’t care. She has waited 13 years to tell her story, and the Libyan government’s threats can’t stop her now. “After what happened to my family, what more can they do?” she asks. “I am beyond fear.”

At her friend’s house in Benghazi, with the red-black-and-green flag of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion spread proudly across her shoulders, she shows a framed photograph of her son, Ashur. He died of AIDS-related complications in May 2005, when he was 8. He had been one of more than 400 Libyan children who were admitted to the Al Fateh pediatric hospital in Benghazi 13 years ago with routine complaints like colds and earaches. They left with HIV. Like Ashur, roughly 60 have since died. Others are hanging on.

Until the Feb. 20 liberation of Benghazi by anti-Gaddafi protesters, the regime was able to bully people like Saltani into silence. Meanwhile, the government blamed the outbreak on five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor at the hospital, falsely accusing them of deliberately infecting their young patients, and sentencing them to death. The medics were finally released in 2007, but not before the regime had extorted an Eastern European debt-forgiveness package and roughly three quarters of a billion dollars in supposed compensation and health-care assistance, together with a civilian nuclear-development deal and a “very good military accord” (in the words of Gaddafi’s British-educated son Saif al-Islam) with the French government “and other confidential stuff we shouldn’t discuss on the record,” the smiling Saif told NEWSWEEK at the time.

Now Saltani and other ordinary Libyans are starting to speak out at last. She says this is the first interview she has ever given—and her anger against Muammar Gaddafi and his 41-year dictatorship begins to spill out. “On Feb. 2, 1998, we went to the hospital because Ashur had a fever and a cough,” she says. “He was 4 months old, and we stayed two days. We went back two weeks later for the same problems.” Shortly afterward she took her 5-year-old daughter, Mouna, to the same hospital with a high fever. Mouna also went home with HIV, although at the time Saltani had no way of knowing that either child had become infected.

The truth began to emerge a few months later. “In October we learned that the doctors were hiding something,” Saltani recalls. “They said there was something in his blood that they couldn’t identify. The head of the hospital told us not to say anything. When we found out it was HIV, the government told us the infection originated from outside Libya, and that it only affected 10 kids. Another doctor even tried to convince us that it wasn’t HIV, but tuberculosis.” When the families finally discovered just how many children had been infected, the regime sent many of the patients to Italy for analysis and treatment.

Foreign medics made useful scapegoats—and lucrative hostages.

Even then the regime still did its best to cover up the outbreak. Mohammed El Agili, 20, says he was 8 when his parents took him to Al Fateh for an eye operation in March 1998. Three days later he returned, still dizzy from the procedure. When rumors of AIDS swept through the city, he underwent HIV testing, along with all the other children who had been admitted to the hospital in early 1998. The result came back positive. “When I found out, I ran shouting through the streets like a lunatic,” says his father, Mahmoud. “And we made sure the government heard our cries. Gaddafi invited all the families to a tent in the desert outside Sert, saying he would give us whatever we wanted, but we had to keep quiet. ‘We don’t want foreigners to become involved in this,’ Gaddafi told us. ‘We don’t want this to get out of Libya.’ He warned us that our relatives outside Libya would be in danger if we talked. We were afraid. We had to keep quiet.”

The news blackout may have suited Gaddafi’s purposes, but it didn’t help young Mohammed deal with insensitive classmates. They bullied him until he finally gave up school at 12. A rabid fan of the Real Madrid football team, he now helps his brother run a mobile-phone shop near their house. Asked about his future, the HIV patient smiles at the question’s naivete. “My generation doesn’t think about the future,” he says. “Even without this disease, Gaddafi has destroyed all our futures.”

Although the cause of the outbreak remains a mystery, outside studies implicate poor hygiene at the hospital rather than any of the conspiracy theories that abound in Libya. According to a 2002 report by Italian medical investigators, all the infected children had received intravenous fluids, antibiotics, steroids, or bronchodilators, but no blood or blood products. Saltani says she found it hard to accept the regime’s allegations against the hospital’s foreign medical workers. “At first I didn’t believe it was them,” she says. “The Palestinian doctor and the Bulgarians had always taken good care of the children, but everyone was blaming them, so we believed it. We wanted to confront them face to face, but the government wouldn’t let us.”

Still, the foreign medics made useful scapegoats—and lucrative hostages. The ransom Gaddafi received for freeing them enabled him to pay the victims’ families roughly $1 million each, helping him to buy a little more silence. For 41 years he has controlled the country through a combination of violence, intimidation, and strategic payoffs. To test the regime’s limits on free speech was to risk imprisonment, torture, and death. And old habits persist, even in liberated Benghazi, where anti-Gaddafi rallies occur daily. The current director of Al Fateh Hospital, who was working there as a doctor when the infections took place, refuses to speak as long as Gaddafi holds sway in Tripoli.

Just before Saltani’s interview, her phone rings. The caller is Ibrahim El Oraibi, the representative who deals with the regime on behalf of the HIV families. She puts it on speakerphone so a reporter can hear. He screams at Saltani for violating the government’s gag order. “If Tripoli finds out, they will get angry and will stop sending AIDS medication to Benghazi!” Oraibi shouts. That could be a death sentence for Saltani: she herself contracted HIV from breast-feeding Ashur. Doctors say it’s a thing that happens only rarely, but it can happen. She has been taking antiretroviral drugs for a year, and has only two months’ supply left.

But she refuses to back down. “I don’t believe anything Gaddafi says anymore,” Saltani tells Oraibi. “I have been quiet for 13 years and I’m tired of it. I want to fight.” The intermediary pleads: “Don’t talk until we receive the medicine.” Saltani is unmoved. “Gaddafi needs to go—and you can go with him,” she says. “I’ve been waiting 13 years and I’m not going to wait any longer. He’s a liar, and I’m going to talk with whomever I wish.”

She hangs up on the caller and begins her interview.

Original Article by Mike Elkiin at The Daily Beast (March 2011)

Further reading: HIV Trial in Libya (Wikipedia)

STAY UPDATED
Follow LASS on Twitter
or subscribe via email

The following video is a Documentary by Mickey Grant about the Bulgarian Nurses in Libya.  It’s titled “INJECTION – AIDS, How Gaddafi and Son murdered over 400 Libyan children”.  Gaddafi used the possibility that he was executing these nurses partly because he was angry at having to pay the several billion dollar settlement to the families of the Pan Am Lockerbie Terrorist act he was responsible for.  In effect, he told behind the scenes negotiators that he wanted that same amount of money and was even willing to sale the oil exploration rights for 1 billion.

He also wanted the prisoner released in Scotland who was convicted of planting the bomb that blew up the Pan Am plane.  He stated that if this was done, he’d release the nurses and Palestinian doctor.  BP gave him the billon and hired lawyers and “others” to engineer the release of this terrorist.

The only newspaper that covered this was the Financial Times.

STAY UPDATED
Follow LASS on Twitter
or subscribe via email
Information about the effort and influence surrounding HIV/AIDS prominent people is available here.