For a government that spends $1.9 billion every single day on the military, Washington's unwillingness to follow through on a $1.33 billion pledge to the Global Fund to save millions of lives is a new depth of cynicism and recklessness.
You don't need to look far to find real examples of pandemics and their huge tolls. But some of the deadliest diseases wouldn't be considered the least bit exotic by Hollywood screenwriters or even average Angelenos.
Are we confident that U.S. leadership on HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis will acknowledge the evidence about what is possible and rise to this challenge? Will President Obama heed Archbishop Tutu's call to action and do his part to end AIDS?
Global AIDS remains the same unprecedented threat to global health and social stability that we understood it to be a decade ago. The full impact of this virus will take us decades to understand fully.
According to Dr. Rajiv Shah, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, budget cuts proposed by the House would "lead to 70,000 kids dying" by scaling back on things like malaria and immunization programs.
A House-proposed bill proposes deep cuts to some of the most effective investments the US makes globally, including a drastic 40 percent reduction for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Washington clearly has a stake in the battle against HIV/AIDS, but how do we reconcile that with the chilling fact that black men in the nation's capital experience rates of HIV that rival that of Sub-saharan Africa?
It's always interesting to me when stories create news with misused facts and salacious headlines. So I thought it might be useful to have a little background and perspective from someone who's spent a lot of time with the Global Fund.