Talk:Treatment Action Campaign

Funding

Who funds the TAC? and are they a registered non-profit organisation? If anyone known more abnout this aspect please include it in the article and add reliable references (citations).--197.79.15.35 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article could do with some references. Verbal chat 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Firstly, my apologies for not previously adding any explanation when I originally added the tags to this article! I've just added a tag to reflect the fact that the phraseology used in this article is very one-sided and not in accordance with WP:NPOV. For example, there is no criticism of the organization and the article doesn't make mention of any other views or perspectives regarding the organization's image of itself. I've also added a tag to reflect that much of the article's wording is in contravention of WP:NOR. So far as I can see, the significant parts of the article rely on material and conclusions that are as yet unpublished. To take one example, a Google search doesn't turn up anything to support the statement that the organization is "unique for combining the issue-specific targeted direct action tactics of North American AIDS groups like ACT UP with the culture and organization of the South African trade union and anti-apartheid movements."Adrian CZ (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many references to TAC in reliable sources: with the SA developments, probably a few hundred over the last week alone. I've placed several into the article for a start. Why not help add a few? On POV, are there some specific examples you would like to see changed? Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tags, refs have been added and clearly exist. No evidence of POV has been provided. Verbal chat 07:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finding much in the way of criticism of TAC in reliable sources, and international opinion seems to be solidly on the side of TAC. In legal battles, opponents of TAC have made critical statements, of course, and there are some comments by others, including the Mbeki biographer Ronald Suresh Roberts. Some of these could be added, but care should be taken to keep an appropriate balance. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wealthy South Africans?

"...joined with a group of ten other activists to found the group after anti-apartheid gay rights activist Simon Nkoli died from AIDS even as highly active antiretroviral therapy was available to wealthy South Africans.[4]"

It's a pity the cited reference is offline, for I would like to know if it really says "wealthy". Being able to afford a medicine which the TAC themselves insisted were relatively cheaply available, doesn't take a wealthy person. Being able to afford health insurance doesn't make you wealthy either... unless we can agree on some definition of wealthy here. Okay, sorry, I'm just sensitive :-) I just dislike being referred to as wealthy. -- leuce (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Influence of AIDS denialism on government dragging feet over antiretrovirals

"Indeed, far from embracing their common victory against the patent rights of multinational companies who were not making affordable drugs available, President Thabo Mbeki began promoting AIDS denialist view that HIV might not cause AIDS, and that AIDS medications were more toxic than helpful, inviting foreign AIDS denialists to advise his government."

Some of you know my views. I wonder what effect Mr Mbeki's denialist views had on his government's policy about anti-retrovirals. After all, Mr Mbeki himself was a strong supporter of Virodene, which is an anti-retroviral. And the government's AIDS program has always maintained that HIV is the cause of HIV/AIDS, despite Mr Mbeki's personal opinions.

Also, be careful of chronological errors. If Mr Mbeki's denialist beliefs had preceded the government's refusal to supply anti-retrovirals, then one could reasonably suggest that it had had an influence. But as it happens, the government's debates about anti-retrovirals started in the mid 1990s whereas Mr Mbeki's denialist opinions only really started surfacing near the very end of the 1990s and early 2000s. There is no indication from his speeches of the early 1990s that he is anti-HIV at that stage. -- leuce (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a point that Virodene was not a real antiretroviral, but contained ingredients like industrial solvents, led to deaths, passed no recognised peer review, etc. This is documented in Helen Epstein's book, I think also mentioned in Three Letter Plague, and definitely in Nathan Geffen's book on TAC. I see now it has a wikipedia page too.

Support for this drug overshadowed and incapacitated support for and access to international recognised ARVs that could actually save lives. Sounds like proganda or POV perhaps but it's true.

128.189.255.41 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This entry seems to be accurate but there are many claims here that should be referenced. I've added in two solid academic references but it needs more. Schizo Jazz (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)