Being in the media center on the last day of the conference is like being back in your college dorm on the last day of finals when most people have cleared out, and its just the final few hanging around.

There are just two events today, one summary session (basically an overview of everything that happened this week), and the closing ceremonies. Think the closing ceremonies at the Olympics. minus the whole flame thing. As always tends to happen at the end of a conference or a trip, you realize there were all these things you meant to do and people you meant to talk to. I guess I’ll just have to get the paper to send me to the next conference in Mexico City so I can try to do better at fitting those things in next time.

After days of sitting in sessions, it can become very easy to get wrapped up in the political debates, the scientific discoveries, and the statistics that are so overwhelming, that it’s hard to imagine the impact of HIV/AIDS in real terms.

I think that’s one reason the conference always ends with an AIDS vigil, a very non-political gathering of people with the sole purpose of remembering those who have died of AIDS, and the ones living with the virus. After all, there would be no need for this conference if there weren’t 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS.

On the walk over to Dundas Square in downtown Toronto, my friend Lauren and I wondered how many journalists would be there, not to cover the event, but to take part. There weren’t many. As journalists, we’re so trained to not become part of the story. But when it comes to something like HIV, or any other catastrophe or disaster, I just don’t think it’s possible to report on the topic without understanding the human toll, and the loss people feel. Not understanding that part of the story, or being cold and callous about death, is part of what gives journalists a bad reputation. We’re just people, and we’re allowed to be sad and upset. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make much sense.

I meant to write about this a few days ago, but got sidetracked. I was talking to a reporter who has covered all 16 of the International AIDS Conferences. I asked him how things have changed since the beginning. One of the most striking things he said was that at the first conferences, you could look around and pick out the people who were HIV-positive. They were thin, pale, and many had scabs on their arms and face, he said. There were no drugs in those days. Only basic treatment followed in later years.

Now, as I look around this conference, I have no idea who is HIV-positive. In the developing world, people have access to drugs that allow them to live long, relatively healthy lives. There is actually a woman standing a few feet from me, and I know she is HIV-positive, but only because she spoke at an early session and disclosed her status.

There is good and bad about this. The good is obvious. No longer is HIV a death sentence. People have jobs, get married and have kids. It has also done a lot to alleviated stigma. But these are still primarily developed world results. In many third-world countries, people who test positive for HIV don’t get any medication. They lose weight, develop pneumonia, and have the same health problems people in the U.S. had 20 years ago. The dichotomy is striking. I’m not going to give any suggestions or opinions for what I think should be done about this, but will just say that it’s amazing to see how vastly different the impact of the same virus can be.

I have to give these protesters credit. This one was creative.

First, a word about why so many people here hate the pharmaceutical companies. We all know medication is expensive. Now, imagine you live in a third-world country and make a few hundred U.S. dollars a year. You test HIV-positive, and are told the only way you can get medication is to pay for it. Oh, and the yearly drug cost is equal to, or more, than your annual salary. Many of these people have been helped by generic drug companies, which can sell the drugs for much cheaper. It allows some people to pay for drugs on their own, and some countries to buy large amounts of generic drugs so they can offer them to more people for free.

Some pharmaceutical companies are not very happy about this. They argue that their scientists and researchers will have no motivation to find new drugs if their findings can be ripped off and sold on the cheap.

The protesters make it a profits versus life issue, and that causes drug company reps keep a low profile at these conferences.

Today, the focus was on finding the representatives from Abbott - literally. The protesters were armed not only with the usual signs and T-shirts, but magnifying glasses and binoculars. They were looking behind doors, under tables, you know, anywhere you might find a pharma rep. No luck on what they’ve dug up, but I’ll keep you posted.

Advertisement