Though brief, the article did a good job of presenting demographic information on the terrible impact of HIV/AIDS in the African American community. It provided a brief personal narrative that humanized the epidemic, and the need for more open discussion. However, it missed the opportunity to explore the stigma that continues to inhibit public discussion and outreach.
The article provided a fascinating window into the dialog between science and traditional medicine in Africa, where the AIDS epidemic has taken a devastating toll. It did not provide enough information about research on the disputed herb, for the reader to form an opinion about its usefulness in treating HIV. With some poignance, it noted both scarcity of western pharmaceuticals in Africa, and mistrust of them, compared with traditional herbs and folkways.
The article raises an important topic but is too cursory to be useful. It fails to identify sources of "US funding" for HIV prevention that require condemning of prostitution by grant recipients. Therefore the claim is hard to verify. Is there a further requirement that commercial sex workers be denied outreach services for HIV prevention? After all, one could both condemn and provide condoms.
This is an example of poor journalism. The headline and lead sentence are misleading, by giving the impression that researchers have either refuted that HIV is an infection, or refuted the commonly held model of how the HIV virus destroys the immune system. At best, the article provides an argument that the current theory is incomplete. It quotes a research professor, Jaroslav Stark (role in the research not identified), stating that the commonly held model, if accurate, would lead to more rapid depletion of infection-fighting T cells than what is observed. If true, one would look for unknown factors protecting the immune system. The article states "The Imperial team thinks one possible explanation could be that the virus slowly ... More »
The story seems neutral about the prospects for success of the new Iraqi government, commenting on the frustrations presented by the failure to fill the last 2 cabinet posts, while registering no reaction of parliament members to the 37 which were filled, or to the program of the Prime Minister. The late arrival of 2 Sunni members was interpreted as reluctance to attend, without supporting details; similarly, when Mutlak, a Sunni parliament member, spoke out of turn, the Speaker's actions were interpreted as "to try to stop Mulak's speech," a statement in need of clarification.
