2007: Another Year of AIDS

You mean giving the drug to people who aren't infected?
Yes. Even though the studies will probably be effective, a lot of people will worry about millions of people who aren't infected taking a drug that has potential side effects and potential for building resistance … and that has a fairly substantial cost. Another thing that could make a big difference is opt-out testing for AIDS. One reason the Centers for Disease Control revised its recommendation [and is now advocating voluntary testing] for everyone [in the United States] aged 13 to 64 is because they think it will be an important prevention strategy.

Why?
If they know they're infected, most people will take great precautions to make sure they don't infect someone else. CDC calculations estimate that 250,000 people in the U.S. who are infected don't know it, and, if they did, we might be able to reduce new infections by 50 percent. If that's right, that's substantial.

Is the U.S. government dedicating enough funds to fight the disease?
President Bush has been a star for the PEPFAR program [the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, established in 2003]. And now he wants to double the initial commitment to $30 billion. A lot of us say thank God for that, not only because it is an AIDS program but because it is helping to develop the infrastructure to bring vaccines, malaria control and several other kinds of health aid to these areas around the world that we should have brought it to years ago.

Do you expect the next president to provide a similar level of support?
I hope so. I hope we get even more support. But we'll see.

© 2007