|
Thabo Mbeki Denial Responsible for 5.7 Million South
Africans with AIDS
|
|
|
 |
|
Strike Aimed at Mbeki |
|
|
JOHANNESBURG (By Celia W. Dugger,
NYTimes) November 26, 2008 — A new study by Harvard researchers cites toll of
AIDS policy in South Africa estimates the South African government would have
prevented the premature deaths of 365,000 people earlier this decade if it had
provided antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and widely administered drugs to
help prevent pregnant women from infecting their babies.
The Harvard study concluded that the policies grew out of President Thabo
Mbeki’s of the well-established scientific consensus about the viral cause of
AIDS and the essential role of antiretroviral drugs in treating it.
Coming in the wake of Mr. Mbeki’s ouster in September after a power struggle in
his party, the African National Congress, the report has reignited questions
about why Mr. Mbeki, a man of great acumen, was so influenced by AIDS denialists.
And it has again caused soul-searching about why his colleagues in the party did
not act earlier to challenge his resistance to broadly accepted methods of
treating and preventing AIDS.
Reckoning with a legacy of such policies, Mr. Mbeki’s’s successor, Kgalema
Motlanthe, acted on the first day of his presidency two months ago to remove the
health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, a polarizing figure who had proposed
garlic, lemon juice and beetroot as AIDS remedies.
He replaced her with Barbara Hogan, who has brought South Africa — the most
powerful country in a region at the epicenter of the world’s AIDS pandemic —
back into the mainstream.
“I feel ashamed that we have to own up to what Harvard is saying,” Ms. Hogan, an
A.N.C. stalwart who was imprisoned for a decade during the anti-apartheid
struggle, said in a recent interview. “The era of denialism is over completely
in South Africa.”
For years, the South African government did not provide antiretroviral
medicines, even as Botswana and Namibia, neighboring countries with epidemics of
similar scale, took action, the Harvard study reported.
The Harvard researchers quantified the human cost of that inaction by comparing
the number of people who got antiretrovirals in South Africa from 2000 to 2005
with the number the government could have reached had it put in place a workable
treatment and prevention program.
They estimated that by 2005, South Africa could have been helping half those in
need but had reached only 23 percent. By comparison, Botswana was already
providing treatment to 85 percent of those in need, and Namibia to 71 percent.
The 330,000 South Africans who died for lack of treatment and the 35,000 babies
who perished because they were infected with H.I.V. together lost at least 3.8
million years of life, the study concluded.
Epidemiologists and biostatisticians who reviewed the study for The New York
Times said the researchers had based their estimates on conservative assumptions
and used a sound methodology.
“They have truly used conservative estimates for their calculations, and I would
consider their numbers quite reasonable,” James Chin, a professor of
epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Public
Health, said in an e-mail message.
The report was posted online last month and will be published on Monday in the
peer-reviewed Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
Max Essex, the virologist who has led the Harvard School of Public Health’s AIDS
research program for the past 20 years and who oversaw the study, called South
Africa’s response to AIDS under Mr. Mbeki “a case of bad, or even evil, public
health.”
Mr. Mbeki has maintained a silence on his AIDS legacy since his forced
resignation. His spokesman, Mukoni Ratshitanga, said Mr. Mbeki would not discuss
his thinking on H.I.V. and AIDS, explaining that policy decisions were made
collectively by the cabinet and so questions should be addressed to the
government.
The new government is now trying to hasten the expansion of antiretroviral
treatments. The task is urgent. South Africa today is home to 5.7 million people
who are H.I.V.-positive — more than any other nation, almost one in five adults.
More than 900 people a day die here as a result of AIDS, the United Nations
estimates.
Since the party forced Mr. Mbeki from office and some of his loyalists split off
to start a new party, rivalries have flared and stories about what happened
inside the A.N.C. have begun to tumble out, offering unsettling glimpses of how
South Africa’s AIDS policies went so wrong.
From the first year of his presidency in 1999, Mr. Mbeki became consumed with
the thinking of a small group of dissident scientists who argued that H.I.V. was
not the cause of AIDS, his biographers say.
As president he wielded enormous power, and those who disagreed with him said
they feared they would be sidelined if they spoke out. Even Nelson Mandela, the
revered former president, was not immune from opprobrium.
In a column in The Sunday Times of Johannesburg on Oct. 19, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, a
senior party member now running the party’s 2009 election campaign, recounted
how Mr. Mandela, known affectionately as Madiba, was humiliated during a 2002
A.N.C. meeting after he made a rare appearance to question the party’s stance on
AIDS.
Mr. Ramatlhodi described speakers competing to show greater loyalty to Mr. Mbeki
by verbally attacking Mr. Mandela as Mr. Mbeki looked on silently. “After his
vicious mauling, Madiba looked twice his age, old and ashen,” Mr. Ramatlhodi
wrote.
Mr. Ramatlhodi himself acknowledged in a recent interview that in 2001 he sent a
22-page letter, drafted by Mr. Mbeki’s office, to another of Mr. Mbeki’s most
credible critics, Prof. Malegapuru Makgoba, an immunologist who was one of South
Africa’s leading scientists. The letter accused Professor Makgoba of defending
Western science and its racist ideas about Africans at the expense of Mr. Mbeki.
In 2000 Mr. Mbeki had provided Professor Makgoba with two bound volumes
containing 1,500 pages of documents written by AIDS denialists. After reading
them, Professor Makgoba said in an interview that he wrote back to warn Mr.
Mbeki that if he adopted the denialists’ ideas, South Africa would “become the
laughingstock, if not the pariah, of the world again.”
But Mr. Mbeki indicated last year to one of his biographers, Mark Gevisser, that
his views on AIDS were essentially unchanged, pointing the writer to a document
that, he said, was drafted by A.N.C. leaders and accurately reflected his
position.
The document’s authors conceded that H.I.V. might be one cause of AIDS but
contended that there were many others, like other diseases and malnutrition.
The document maintained that antiretrovirals were toxic. And it suggested that
powerful vested interests — drug companies, governments, scientists — pushed the
consensus view of AIDS in a quest for money and power, while peddling
centuries-old white racist beliefs that depicted Africans as sexually rapacious.
“Yes, we are sex crazy!” the document’s authors bitterly exclaimed. “Yes, we are
diseased! Yes, we spread the deadly H.I. virus through our uncontrolled
heterosexual sex!”
In 2002, after a prolonged outcry over Mr. Mbeki’s comments about AIDS and the
government’s policies, Mr. Mbeki agreed to requests from within his party to
withdraw from the public debate. That same year, the Constitutional Court ruled
that the government had to provide antiretroviral drugs to prevent the infection
of newborns. And in 2003, the cabinet announced plans to go forward with an
antiretroviral treatment program.
“We did an enormous amount of good in the early days in South Africa, not
because of the Health Ministry, but in spite of the Health Ministry,” said
Randall L. Tobias, who was appointed by President Bush in 2003 to lead the
United States’ $15 billion global AIDS undertaking.
In the same years, former President Clinton and his foundation were also deeply
involved in helping South Africa get a treatment program going. Mr. Clinton
attended Mr. Mandela’s 85th birthday celebration in Johannesburg in 2003. During
the dinner, he and Mr. Mbeki slipped away to talk about AIDS, Mr. Clinton
recalled in a recent interview.
Mr. Clinton said he told Mr. Mbeki how antiretroviral treatment had reduced the
AIDS mortality rate in the United States and reminded him, “I’m your friend and
I haven’t joined in the public condemnation.” That evening, when Mr. Clinton
offered to send in a team of experts to help the country put together a national
treatment plan, Mr. Mbeki took him up on it.
The Clinton Foundation helped devise a plan and mobilized 20 people to travel to
South Africa in 2004 to help carry it out. But the South African government
never invited them, Mr. Clinton said. So the foundation, which had projects all
over Africa, was to have none in South Africa.
Changes since Mr. Mbeki’s fall from power have prompted many to hope for
forceful South African political leadership on AIDS. Mr. Mbeki’s rival and
successor as head of the party, Jacob Zuma, who is expected to become president
after next year’s election, himself made a famously questionable remark about
AIDS.
In his 2006 rape trial, in which he was acquitted of sexually assaulting a
family friend, he testified that he sought to reduce his chances of being
infected with H.I.V. by taking a shower after sex. Nonetheless, he seems to have
more conventional views on the pandemic.
“Who would have thought Jacob Zuma would be better than Mbeki, but he is,” said
Richard C. Holbrooke, the former ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton
administration who heads a coalition of businesses fighting AIDS. “The tragedy
of Thabo Mbeki is that he’s a smart man who could have been an international
statesman on this issue. To this day, you wonder what got into him.”
For South Africans who watched the dying and were powerless to stop it, the
grief is still raw. Zackie Achmat, the country’s most prominent advocate for
people with AIDS, became sick during the almost five years he refused to take
antiretrovirals until they were made widely available. He cast Mr. Mbeki as the
leading man in this African tragedy.
“He is like Macbeth,” Mr. Achmat said. “It’s easier to walk through the blood
than to turn back and admit you made a mistake.”
| |
|