Is the AIDS response a genuine fight or a staged wrestling match?

HIV and AIDS were discovered almost 30 years ago.

Let that sink in for a second or two.

3 decades have passed since the first observed cases (and deaths) of this immuno-deficiency virus and resultant syndrome of complete immune system compromise.

The response has ranged from complete blame being placed on gay men for the creation of this virus and the portrayal of them as infectious disease vectors (see GRIDS); to the denial of conservative Governments of the unique vulnerabilities of men who have sex with men (MSMs) and the refusal to implement population-specific interventions because of the homophobia they have institutionalized and are now slaves to.

I for one am almost completely disenchanted with the HIV response as I see it in Jamaica and specifically with the response to the needs of the most vulnerable, namely sexual minorities.

In this hyper-sexual, uber-conservative, oxymoronic soup of hegemony we still are not able to have mature discussions on human sexuality and speak specifically to the unique risks faced by gay men. It is so sad to watch grown men and women at the helm of HIV and AIDS policy in Jamaica stutter to say the word GAY, or conversely, it is even more disconcerting to watch them talk the talk when heaven knows they are not in favour of any relaxation of any law making same-sex activities criminal and neither are they interested in meaningful, sustainable, targeted interventions with this group as they believe them to be sexual deviants of reprobate minds and 'their blood shall surely be upon them' like any good evangelical should believe.

None of them is willing to walk up to Jamaica House and defiantly say "I am a Gay man living with HIV, I am not alone, and refuse to be ignored!"

If those that have usurped or been entrusted with power hesitate to use it to improve the lives of the people they represent then what can result but misery?

Let me not beat around the bush: The IAS Conference in Vienna has left me pensive.

Having participated in the Mexico City instalment of the conference in 2008 I am aware of the immeasurable value in this monumental gathering of stakeholders in the pandemic. The experience was truly life-altering both in terms of its scale as well as the wealth of information I received to last a lifetime.

However, in hindsight I am only now fully coming to terms with my discomfort with the very things that made it such a positive experience for me 2 years ago.

The scale of the conference is mind boggling, and accordingly the budget must be astronomical. How can this (vulgar) expenditure for a fancy conference in spite of the ever-growing pandemic be justified? Given the statistics, especially in the developing world, the organizers should be ashamed that they could spend on this scale while children in the third world die daily because of lack of access to food and medication.

The only word that comes to mind: Avarice.

I cannot get this word out of my mind the more I reflect on my experience. I believe that AIDS is an industry and whereas profit is the key for the pharmaceutical companies, the sustainability of the pandemic is of the utmost importance to the clandestine enclave of power at the helm of 'civil society' within this industry of suffering and exploitation. There is big money in AIDS and also the very trends and fads that exist in the world of capitalism which can drive income potential skyward. Except in this case those trends and fads are people and not commodities.

I sincerely hope that my disillusionment will fade. I am beginning to subscribe to the notion that man is inherently selfish, defeatist, and programmed for self-destruction. I am beginning to lose faith in mankind and hope that it is renewed soon.