loupgarou (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} loupgarou26) wrote in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small} sg_ljers,@ 2005-06-28 22:23:00 |
|
the religious right LIE again.
Nikki ad does a great disservice to women
I REFER to the letter, 'Aids ad not meant to insult women' (ST, June 20), by Associate Professor Roy Chan, on behalf of Action for Aids (AFA).
In the letter, AFA stated that 'the consistent and correct use of condoms has been proven to effectively stop the transmission of HIV'. This is inconsistent with another letter by AFA (also submitted by Dr Chan) in December 2002.
When faced with a comprehensive 2001 report by the National Institute for Health (based in the United States) that stated the shortcomings of condom use, AFA admitted that the condom was not proven to be protective against 'genital herpes, syphilis, chancroid and the human papilloma virus, the virus that causes genital warts'.
It also admitted that the condom was able to reduce the risk of HIV transmission by only 85 per cent (not 100 per cent), despite correct and consistent use.
AFA mentioned that 'the active promotion of condom use is recommended - for Aids prevention and control programmes'. However, the fact remains that such programmes have failed miserably.
Just witness the epidemic spread of the disease in African countries, such as South Africa and Botswana, where this is actively pursued.
Only one country in Africa seems to have bucked the spiralling trend of HIV transmission - Uganda, which relied on a programme focused strongly on abstinence before marriage, and faithfulness to one's uninfected spouse thereafter. This resulted in a halving of the HIV infection rates between 1991 and 2001.
AFA's Nikki ad (in both pictorial and verbal forms) obviously enticed and encouraged men to look at women in a less-than-dignified light. The implicit message of the ad was that 'if you want to make use of this woman for your self-gratification, you can do so, but make sure you put on a condom'.
Women are wonderful members of the human race, indeed men's esteemed partners, with a dignity we should respect absolutely. They should not be seen as objects for men to indulge their baser desires.
In the light of Dr Andy Ho's article, 'HIV in women: Shift focus to arrest spread' (ST, June 18), where he showed that women were more at risk from encounters with HIV-infected men rather than the other way round, we men should educate ourselves on our responsibilities towards our womenfolk, our families and society.
Women are our equals. They should be loved, not lusted after. They should be protected from HIV, not subjected to any risk of contracting it. Women deserve no less.
AFA, in promoting the Nikki ad, has done a great disservice to the dignity, status and health of women.
Dr John Hui Keem Peng
-------------
Can someone tell me (you doctors) how to lodge a complaint against these assholes with the relevant medical professional group?
---------------
TO the forum editor (not for publication)
Dear Forum editor,
I refer to the article by Dr John Hui Keem Peng, "Nikki ad does a great disservice to women" , 28/06/2005
In reference to the claim of the uganda experience as well as the efficiacy of condoms, this has been debated in the public arena last year.
this exchange can be found here.
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2004/y
Basically, on 4 December 2004 in the Today Paper, Dr John Hui Peng Kee in his article "Condom 'myth' is no tall tale" basically reiterated the same misleading statistics as in "Nikki ad does a great disservice to women".
This has been thoroughly debunked in my own article.
-------------
8 December 2004
Published in 'Today'
85% figure refers to risk reduction
Dr Hui Keem Peng ("Condom 'myth' is no tall tale", Dec 4) says condoms, used correctly and consistently, are only 85 per cent effective in preventing HIV infection.
That figure refers more accurately to risk reduction. The 2001 report by the United States' National Institute for Health that Dr Hui quotes, states: "Among participants who reported always using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/Aids incidence was 0.9 seroconversion (HIV-positive testing) per 100 person years. Among those who reported never using condoms, (it) was 6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years."
Overall, it was estimated that "condoms provided an 85 per cent reduction in HIV/Aids transmission risk" when comparing "always" with "never" users of condoms.
What this means is, for every 100 couples (where one partner is HIV-positive) who have repeated sex over a year and who use condoms every time, only 0.9 persons will test positive. Or, if you consistently have sex using condoms with an HIV-positive person over a 100-year period, your chance of becoming HIV-positive after 100 years would be 0.9 per cent.
The 85-per-cent figure arrived at is because the risk of infection in having sex with an HIV-positive person without using a condom is not 100 per cent.
If it were, the figure would be 99.1 per cent.
Christopher Low
-------------
Mr Alex Au has provided a letter to you (the straits times)
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2004/y
It is extremely distressing that you fail to vet the statistics provided and allow such falsehoods to perpetuate as well as further the agenda of the religious right in singapore.
you can read the type of false statistics that these religious extremists are capable of.
http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/i
Your sincerely
Christopher Low
----------------------------------------
Dear Forum editor (FOR PUBLICATION),
I refer to the article by Dr John Hui Keem Peng, "Nikki ad does a great disservice to women" , 28/06/2005
In reference to the claim of the uganda experience as well as the efficiacy of condoms, this has been debated in the public arena last year.
In 4 December 2004 in the Today Paper, Dr John Hui Peng Kee in his article "Condom 'myth' is no tall tale" basically reiterated the same misleading statistics as in "Nikki ad does a great disservice to women".
This has been thoroughly debunked in my reponse of 8 December 2004 "85% figure refers to risk reduction".
---quote--
Dr Hui Keem Peng ("Condom 'myth' is no tall tale", Dec 4) says condoms, used correctly and consistently, are only 85 per cent effective in preventing HIV infection.
That figure refers more accurately to risk reduction. The 2001 report by the United States' National Institute for Health that Dr Hui quotes, states: "Among participants who reported always using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/Aids incidence was 0.9 seroconversion (HIV-positive testing) per 100 person years. Among those who reported never using condoms, (it) was 6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years."
Overall, it was estimated that "condoms provided an 85 per cent reduction in HIV/Aids transmission risk" when comparing "always" with "never" users of condoms.
What this means is, for every 100 couples (where one partner is HIV-positive) who have repeated sex over a year and who use condoms every time, only 0.9 persons will test positive. Or, if you consistently have sex using condoms with an HIV-positive person over a 100-year period, your chance of becoming HIV-positive after 100 years would be 0.9 per cent.
The 85-per-cent figure arrived at is because the risk of infection in having sex with an HIV-positive person without using a condom is not 100 per cent.
If it were, the figure would be 99.1 per cent.
---unquote--
meanwhile, the uganda experience is strictly the equal application of both abstinence education and condom usage. one can find objective information not tainted about the matter on the internet.
http://www.agi-usa.org/media/nr/200
yours sincerely
Christopher Low
Nikki ad does a great disservice to women
I REFER to the letter, 'Aids ad not meant to insult women' (ST, June 20), by Associate Professor Roy Chan, on behalf of Action for Aids (AFA).
In the letter, AFA stated that 'the consistent and correct use of condoms has been proven to effectively stop the transmission of HIV'. This is inconsistent with another letter by AFA (also submitted by Dr Chan) in December 2002.
When faced with a comprehensive 2001 report by the National Institute for Health (based in the United States) that stated the shortcomings of condom use, AFA admitted that the condom was not proven to be protective against 'genital herpes, syphilis, chancroid and the human papilloma virus, the virus that causes genital warts'.
It also admitted that the condom was able to reduce the risk of HIV transmission by only 85 per cent (not 100 per cent), despite correct and consistent use.
AFA mentioned that 'the active promotion of condom use is recommended - for Aids prevention and control programmes'. However, the fact remains that such programmes have failed miserably.
Just witness the epidemic spread of the disease in African countries, such as South Africa and Botswana, where this is actively pursued.
Only one country in Africa seems to have bucked the spiralling trend of HIV transmission - Uganda, which relied on a programme focused strongly on abstinence before marriage, and faithfulness to one's uninfected spouse thereafter. This resulted in a halving of the HIV infection rates between 1991 and 2001.
AFA's Nikki ad (in both pictorial and verbal forms) obviously enticed and encouraged men to look at women in a less-than-dignified light. The implicit message of the ad was that 'if you want to make use of this woman for your self-gratification, you can do so, but make sure you put on a condom'.
Women are wonderful members of the human race, indeed men's esteemed partners, with a dignity we should respect absolutely. They should not be seen as objects for men to indulge their baser desires.
In the light of Dr Andy Ho's article, 'HIV in women: Shift focus to arrest spread' (ST, June 18), where he showed that women were more at risk from encounters with HIV-infected men rather than the other way round, we men should educate ourselves on our responsibilities towards our womenfolk, our families and society.
Women are our equals. They should be loved, not lusted after. They should be protected from HIV, not subjected to any risk of contracting it. Women deserve no less.
AFA, in promoting the Nikki ad, has done a great disservice to the dignity, status and health of women.
Dr John Hui Keem Peng
-------------
Can someone tell me (you doctors) how to lodge a complaint against these assholes with the relevant medical professional group?
---------------
TO the forum editor (not for publication)
Dear Forum editor,
I refer to the article by Dr John Hui Keem Peng, "Nikki ad does a great disservice to women" , 28/06/2005
In reference to the claim of the uganda experience as well as the efficiacy of condoms, this has been debated in the public arena last year.
this exchange can be found here.
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2004/y
Basically, on 4 December 2004 in the Today Paper, Dr John Hui Peng Kee in his article "Condom 'myth' is no tall tale" basically reiterated the same misleading statistics as in "Nikki ad does a great disservice to women".
This has been thoroughly debunked in my own article.
-------------
8 December 2004
Published in 'Today'
85% figure refers to risk reduction
Dr Hui Keem Peng ("Condom 'myth' is no tall tale", Dec 4) says condoms, used correctly and consistently, are only 85 per cent effective in preventing HIV infection.
That figure refers more accurately to risk reduction. The 2001 report by the United States' National Institute for Health that Dr Hui quotes, states: "Among participants who reported always using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/Aids incidence was 0.9 seroconversion (HIV-positive testing) per 100 person years. Among those who reported never using condoms, (it) was 6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years."
Overall, it was estimated that "condoms provided an 85 per cent reduction in HIV/Aids transmission risk" when comparing "always" with "never" users of condoms.
What this means is, for every 100 couples (where one partner is HIV-positive) who have repeated sex over a year and who use condoms every time, only 0.9 persons will test positive. Or, if you consistently have sex using condoms with an HIV-positive person over a 100-year period, your chance of becoming HIV-positive after 100 years would be 0.9 per cent.
The 85-per-cent figure arrived at is because the risk of infection in having sex with an HIV-positive person without using a condom is not 100 per cent.
If it were, the figure would be 99.1 per cent.
Christopher Low
-------------
Mr Alex Au has provided a letter to you (the straits times)
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2004/y
It is extremely distressing that you fail to vet the statistics provided and allow such falsehoods to perpetuate as well as further the agenda of the religious right in singapore.
you can read the type of false statistics that these religious extremists are capable of.
http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/i
Your sincerely
Christopher Low
----------------------------------------
Dear Forum editor (FOR PUBLICATION),
I refer to the article by Dr John Hui Keem Peng, "Nikki ad does a great disservice to women" , 28/06/2005
In reference to the claim of the uganda experience as well as the efficiacy of condoms, this has been debated in the public arena last year.
In 4 December 2004 in the Today Paper, Dr John Hui Peng Kee in his article "Condom 'myth' is no tall tale" basically reiterated the same misleading statistics as in "Nikki ad does a great disservice to women".
This has been thoroughly debunked in my reponse of 8 December 2004 "85% figure refers to risk reduction".
---quote--
Dr Hui Keem Peng ("Condom 'myth' is no tall tale", Dec 4) says condoms, used correctly and consistently, are only 85 per cent effective in preventing HIV infection.
That figure refers more accurately to risk reduction. The 2001 report by the United States' National Institute for Health that Dr Hui quotes, states: "Among participants who reported always using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/Aids incidence was 0.9 seroconversion (HIV-positive testing) per 100 person years. Among those who reported never using condoms, (it) was 6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years."
Overall, it was estimated that "condoms provided an 85 per cent reduction in HIV/Aids transmission risk" when comparing "always" with "never" users of condoms.
What this means is, for every 100 couples (where one partner is HIV-positive) who have repeated sex over a year and who use condoms every time, only 0.9 persons will test positive. Or, if you consistently have sex using condoms with an HIV-positive person over a 100-year period, your chance of becoming HIV-positive after 100 years would be 0.9 per cent.
The 85-per-cent figure arrived at is because the risk of infection in having sex with an HIV-positive person without using a condom is not 100 per cent.
If it were, the figure would be 99.1 per cent.
---unquote--
meanwhile, the uganda experience is strictly the equal application of both abstinence education and condom usage. one can find objective information not tainted about the matter on the internet.
http://www.agi-usa.org/media/nr/200
yours sincerely
Christopher Low
