Recombinants harsh to HIV vaccine development

By Esther Nakkazi

Today is World HIV vaccine day. As we celebrate the day, we have a lot of hope this time around more than ever.

For the first time in many years, four efficacy vaccine concepts are in phase III and could give us an HIV vaccine. But even if they do not it is a still a great leap forward.

“If they do not give us a vaccine they will at least give us information about how it works,” said Dr. Francis Kiweewa, the head of research and scientific affairs at Makerere University Walter Reeds Project (MUWRP).

Kiweewa said we shall get to know this important information just two to three years from today in either 2020 and 2021 and that is not far off. He was speaking to journalists at their monthly science cafe organized by Health Journalists Network in Uganda, HEJNU.

But that withstanding you could ask do we still need an HIV vaccine anyway? In some circles, the debate is could HIV be the first epidemic to be eliminated without a vaccine.

I guess you have heard of all the interventions these days, the condom, the antiretroviral therapy for both treatment and prevention, the vaginal ring that showed promising results and more to it scientists are busy in their laboratories cooking up new HIV prevention and therapeutic tools every day.

Dr. Kiweewa says despite these efforts we still need an HIV vaccine. "The numbers of new infections remain incredibly high," he says. For instance in Uganda 500 youth get infected with HIV every week. In South Africa, 5000 young women are infected with HIV every week.

Also, the high cost of treatment is unsustainable and ultimately a vaccine would be cheaper, reach many more people and let us not forget that ‘prevention is better than cure’.

Even if we get the HIV vaccine in the next two to three years, there is a possibility that it might not be suitable for us. And here is why an HIV vaccine might work elsewhere and not for Uganda or East Africans.

HIV has many sub-types, the East African region has two predominant subtypes A and D while southern Africa mostly has subtype C. The Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI) scientists did a research, sequencing the virus and found that 50% of the HIV virus in Uganda are recombinants of subtype A and D.

This means 50% of the estimated 1.3 million people who are infected with HIV in Uganda have a combination of subtype A and D or AD/DA. While it may not necessarily be more virulent scientists say it progresses faster.

“A vaccine has that challenge,” says Prof Pontiano Kaleebu, the director of MRC/UVRI and the London School of Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). It is for that reason and many others that the renowned professor thinks we are a forgotten lot. 

“They are forgetting us here where we have recombinants in east Africa,” said Kaleebu. In other words, the spread of recombinant forms of HIV could have implications for vaccines developed to guard against only certain sub-types and not others.

Not enough research is being done in the region, your governments are not investing enough money so that the scientists develop that vaccine that is suitable for you.  So keep the optimism but also be mindful of the future that we could walk away empty handed here where the HIV burden is highest.

ends.

WhatsApp Groups with Journalists and Their Sources Must End

By Esther Nakkazi

As we commemorate this year’s World Press Freedom Day, I feel compelled to voice a growing concern: the practice of journalists and their sources mingling in WhatsApp groups must come to an end.

In today’s digital age, WhatsApp groups spring to life after every event or cause, serving as platforms to exchange information, debate issues, network, or even fundraise. Some of these groups are fleeting and purposeful, vanishing as quickly as they form. A personal favorite of mine is the baby shower WhatsApp group—an ephemeral gathering where we joyfully deliberate on the baby’s gender, plan surprise gifts, and, on the big day, revel in the mother’s delight. Once the celebration ends, the group dissolves, leaving only fond memories in its wake.

But while such groups create moments of camaraderie, the dynamic changes when it comes to journalists and their sources. Here, the ethical waters grow murky.

The rise of WhatsApp has revolutionized communication, offering a platform for vibrant discussions, feedback, and increased visibility for stories. Yet, the idea of journalists and their sources sharing such intimate digital spaces feels fundamentally wrong. Journalism, at its core, demands a certain professional detachment. This boundary, once sacrosanct, is now blurred as savvy public relations officers and communication teams infiltrate these spaces, often weaponizing them to push their agendas.

It’s not uncommon to see WhatsApp groups become pipelines for press releases, voice notes, or curated updates. By the day’s end, radio stations across the country echo the same quotes, like a chorus singing in perfect, rehearsed harmony. What’s worse, the discussions often meander beyond news, spilling into casual gossip, unsolicited flattery, and trivial updates—a far cry from the dignified exchange of ideas that journalism demands.

Defenders of these groups argue that they’re akin to virtual press conferences, offering a modern avenue for journalists and sources to stay connected in the fast-paced news cycle. But in practice, these groups often devolve into spaces where journalists are pressured, manipulated, and cajoled into submission.

I’ve been part of WhatsApp groups where conversations veered into deeply personal or uncomfortable territory. PR officers have openly chastised journalists for stories deemed unfavorable, urging retractions or apologies under the guise of job security concerns or placating “angry bosses.” The group dynamic amplifies this coercion, making it harder for individual journalists to push back against such manipulation.

A personal message to a source? That’s one thing. But a WhatsApp group where journalists and sources collude to craft narratives, pander to egos, and sanitize coverage? That’s an affront to the principles of good journalism.

Until we collectively recognize that journalists and their sources serve fundamentally distinct roles—one holding power to account, the other often wielding it—we cannot continue sharing these digital spaces. Journalists must reclaim their independence and reassert the boundaries that uphold the integrity of their work. Only then can we truly honor the spirit of press freedom.

Malawi’s six-year maize export ban increased consumption but made farmers poorer

By Esther Nakkazi

Malawi’s six-year maize export ban increased consumption by 6 percent, achieving its objective of increased food security, measured narrowly in terms of availability of maize at lower prices, according to a study by Karl Pauw et al.

But these gains come at a cost to the rural farm sector, which suffered a 0.2 percent decline in agricultural value-added and lower disposable income levels, especially among poor farmers. Malawi imposed an uninterrupted maize export ban from 2011/12 until the end of 2017.

The ban was instituted through the government regulation of international trade of so-called “strategic crops” through its Control of Goods Act (2015). In there, commodities listed in the act, such as maize, require an export license. So export bans are enforced by withholding licenses, which in practice means formal exports through recognized border posts are affected.

Our results show that policy-induced distortions in the form of export bans or export levies on agricultural commodities create disincentives for farmers to produce, rendering these policies self-defeating and unsustainable in the long run. Moreover, export restrictions can be welfare-reducing and welfare losses tend to be biased against poorer farm households says the study.

It says when short-term political motivations outweigh longer-term socio-economic considerations, adverse effects may be conveniently overlooked by policymakers.

"Our results also highlight a more general concern about uncertain and incoherent agricultural policy environments that prevail in so many Sub-Saharan African countries, namely that they perpetuate a subsistence farming culture rather than encouraging commercial crop cultivation," says the study.

"This has negative consequences for the supply of marketed foods and intermediate inputs required by agro-processing sectors. Ultimately this is inconsistent with the stated economic transformation ambitions of so many African countries, articulated in the case of Malawi in its second Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS II) as shifting its economy from being a “predominantly importing and consuming economy to a predominantly producing and exporting economy”

In the past decade, more than 30 countries, including virtually all the world’s top grain producers and several southern and eastern African countries have imposed grain export restrictions.

Given the political and socioeconomic importance of maize in Malawi, the export ban has always been a highly sensitive topic, and any advocacy on the matter was done discreetly.

More about this study can be found at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X18301025