↓
 

Hepatitis C Blog

Hepatitis C Blog
  • Home
  • Eblast SignUp

Tag Archives: Harm Reduction

Post navigation

← Older posts

Why needle exchange programs work

Hepatitis C Blog Posted on September 30, 2015 by Alan FranciscusDecember 1, 2015

 By Kara Blake

As a vocal advocate for harm reduction and needle exchange services, I have often been asked, “why needle exchange?” To public health professionals, needle exchange programs (NEPs) are an obvious and urgently needed intervention. Research study after research study continues to show conclusively that NEPs reduce the transmission of HIV and viral hepatitis, are tremendously cost-effective, and provide a range of other services that benefit the participants and greater community. Even though the evidence is clear, public and political pushback against NEPs persists across the country. Cape Cod is no exception.

Without proper information, it might make sense that a citizen or politician may be resistant to the idea of a needle exchange. How could this intervention possibly support drug users? Won’t this only perpetuate their addiction and its consequences? Won’t this facility increase crime and drug use in my community? The answer, plainly, across the board, is no.

Someone who accesses a needle exchange is making what can be the first contact with a professional about their addiction. Recognizing that not all people using drugs are ready, willing or able to stop using at that moment, staff compassionately discuss and educate participants on the potential harms associated with their drug use, and how to reduce those harms. Rather than shame drug users and require abstinence, staff meet and talk with people where they are in their addiction without judgment. This approach is called “harm reduction.” Through such relationships, participants are also able to access services such as screening for HIV, hepatitis C and sexually transmitted infections, access to Narcan and overdose prevention, enrollment in health insurance, and referrals to substance use treatment and medical care.

Read more….

Share This Page
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow Us
Facebooktwitter
Tagged Harm Reduction, hepatitis C, HIV, needle exchange

Why needle exchange programs work

Hepatitis C Blog Posted on September 30, 2015 by Alan FranciscusDecember 13, 2015

 By Kara Blake

As a vocal advocate for harm reduction and needle exchange services, I have often been asked, “why needle exchange?” To public health professionals, needle exchange programs (NEPs) are an obvious and urgently needed intervention. Research study after research study continues to show conclusively that NEPs reduce the transmission of HIV and viral hepatitis, are tremendously cost-effective, and provide a range of other services that benefit the participants and greater community. Even though the evidence is clear, public and political pushback against NEPs persists across the country. Cape Cod is no exception.

Without proper information, it might make sense that a citizen or politician may be resistant to the idea of a needle exchange. How could this intervention possibly support drug users? Won’t this only perpetuate their addiction and its consequences? Won’t this facility increase crime and drug use in my community? The answer, plainly, across the board, is no.

Someone who accesses a needle exchange is making what can be the first contact with a professional about their addiction. Recognizing that not all people using drugs are ready, willing or able to stop using at that moment, staff compassionately discuss and educate participants on the potential harms associated with their drug use, and how to reduce those harms. Rather than shame drug users and require abstinence, staff meet and talk with people where they are in their addiction without judgment. This approach is called “harm reduction.” Through such relationships, participants are also able to access services such as screening for HIV, hepatitis C and sexually transmitted infections, access to Narcan and overdose prevention, enrollment in health insurance, and referrals to substance use treatment and medical care.

Read more….

Share This Page
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow Us
Facebooktwitter
Tagged Harm Reduction, hepatitis C, HIV, needle exchange

Huntington needle exchange program set to launch

Hepatitis C Blog Posted on September 2, 2015 by Alan FranciscusDecember 1, 2015

HUNTINGTON, W.Va. — West Virginia’s first-of-its-kind syringe exchange program will launch Wednesday in Huntington and Cabell County.

“The community has recognized a need and demand of this service for some time and we’re just excited to be able to offer it,” said Michael Kilkenny, the physician director for the Cabell-Huntington Health Department.

The pilot project will involve education and treatment resources to make clean needles more readily available. There will also be efforts to stop the spread of infectious diseases, like hepatitis B and hepatitis C, by giving addicts points of contact within the health department.

Read more…..

Share This Page
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow Us
Facebooktwitter
Tagged Harm Reduction, hepatitis C, HIV, needle exchange, West Virginia

Huntington needle exchange program set to launch

Hepatitis C Blog Posted on September 2, 2015 by Alan FranciscusDecember 13, 2015

HUNTINGTON, W.Va. — West Virginia’s first-of-its-kind syringe exchange program will launch Wednesday in Huntington and Cabell County.

“The community has recognized a need and demand of this service for some time and we’re just excited to be able to offer it,” said Michael Kilkenny, the physician director for the Cabell-Huntington Health Department.

The pilot project will involve education and treatment resources to make clean needles more readily available. There will also be efforts to stop the spread of infectious diseases, like hepatitis B and hepatitis C, by giving addicts points of contact within the health department.

Read more…..

Share This Page
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow Us
Facebooktwitter
Tagged Harm Reduction, hepatitis C, HIV, needle exchange, West Virginia

Needle Exchange – A Matter of Public Health So why is the government playing politics with this ticking time bomb?

Hepatitis C Blog Posted on February 20, 2015 by Alan FranciscusDecember 1, 2015

Alan Franciscus
Editor-in-Chief, HCV Advocate

The following article originally appeared in the April/June 2003 issue of Hepatitis, and is so current that we thought we would repost it here, now.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association (APHA), the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the Society of Christian Ethics, to name a few, all endorse needle exchange programs. So why has it not been possible to achieve federal funding for such programs from 1988 to the present?

Needle exchange programs, which increase the availability of sterile syringes, are an important means of reducing the transmission of HIV infection and other blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis B and C among injection drug users and their often unsuspecting sexual partners and children – the most rapidly growing population of people with HIV. Most needle exchange programs operate on a one-for-one basis, so they also reduce the presence of infected needles in playgrounds, streets, and trash receptacles, thus protecting children, sanitation workers, and others from accidental needle sticks.

The use of federal funds to support needle exchange programs has been prohibited by Congress since 1988. The original intent was that the ban on federal support would remain in effect until the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services determined that such programs were effective in preventing the spread of HIV and did not encourage the use of illegal drugs. In the years since the funding ban was put instituted, an impressive number of researchers and medical organizations have carefully examined the issue and concluded that needle exchange programs are effective, necessary, and did not increase injection drug use.

In April 1998, then Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala publicly announced that the scientific evidence was in: needle exchange programs were effective in preventing the spread of HIV and did not encourage illegal drug use. But after Secretary Shalala made this determination, she nonetheless continued the federal ban on needle exchange funding. The decision was criticized by Mohammed Akhter, MD, MPH, executive director of the APHA, the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 organizations. “The administration today has recognized that needle exchange programs work to protect the health of the American people,”said Dr. Akhter. “In the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence, not releasing federal funds gives the impression that politics takes precedence over saving lives”.

The scientific evidence is so overwhelming that the AMA encourages needle exchange programs and supports legislation revoking the 1988 federal funding ban. Additionally, the AMA encourages state medical associations to initiate state legislation to modify drug paraphernalia laws so that injection drug users may legally purchase and possess needles and syringes without a prescription. In 2002 former President Bill Clinton said he had made a mistake in not supporting needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV and other diseases among injection drug users

As a presidential candidate, George W. Bush opposed needle exchange programs. That policy continues to the present day. Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, has said that the administration has no plans to permit federal funding of needle exchange. In an administration known for demanding loyalty, Bush’s “AIDS Czar” Scott Evertz nonetheless once let it be known that in his own view, needle exchange saves lives and the evidence in its favor is conclusive.

In July 2002 the Bush administration announced that Joseph O’Neill, MD, would replace Evertz as director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy. Dr. O’Neill is a career civil servant who has been acting director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of HIV/AIDS Policy. With the Bush administration, the terms of the debate on AIDS have changed. Needle exchange, although recommended by a majority of medical authorities, is not even up for discussion. Instead, questions are being raised about the effectiveness of condoms and -despite the increasing number of people living with HIV/AIDS – AIDS funding is leveling off.

The harm reduction paradigm is simple and approaches addictive behavior on the basis of three fundamental principles. First, excessive behaviors occur along a continuum of risk ranging from minimal to extreme. Addictive behavior is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Second, changing addictive behavior is a stepwise process, with complete abstinence as the final step. Those who embrace the harm reduction model believe that any movement in the direction of reduced harm, no matter how small, is positive. Third, sobriety simply isn’t for everyone. This principle requires acceptance of the fact that many people live under horrible conditions. Some are able to cope without the use of drugs, while others use drugs as a primary means of coping. Until we as a society are able to offer an alternative means of survival to these people, we are in no position to cast moral judgment. Harm reduction holds that the health and well-being of the individual is of primary concern; if individuals are unwilling or unable to change addictive behaviors at this time, they should not be denied services. Attempts should be made to reduce the harm of their habits as much as possible. This approach to addiction is viewed by some as compassionate and pragmatic; by others as selfish and dangerous.

State laws prohibiting syringe sales without a prescription or possession of syringes for the purpose of injecting illegal drugs have made sterile needles hard to obtain and have led to substantial needle sharing, resulting in the spread of incurable diseases. In minority populations that are subject to considerable police presence, injection drug users avoid carrying syringes in order to avoid arrest, thereby increasing the frequency of needle sharing. An African American injection drug user is almost five times more likely, and a Latino more than three times more likely, to be diagnosed with HIV than a white drug injector.

Needle exchanges have been operating legally and illegally in the United States since at least the late 1980s. The first needle exchange program was developed in 1984 in Amsterdam in the Netherlands by a drug users’ advocacy group called the Junkie Union. The goal was to avoid an epidemic of hepatitis B when an inner-city pharmacist intended to put an end to the sale of syringes to injection drug users. The first person to hand out drug injection equipment openly in the U.S. was Jon Parker in New Haven, CT, and Boston, MA, in 1986. The first U.S. needle exchange program to provide all-inclusive services was established in Tacoma, WA, in 1988. Much has changed in the past decade. From its beginnings with a few lone individuals exchanging syringes on the streets, there are now over 100 needle exchange programs in some 80 cities and 30 states around the country and over 17 million syringes were exchanged in 1997 (the year of the last official survey). While the debate in Washington has been fairly inactive in recent years, steps forward have been made on the state level in many areas. In fact, 68 out of 113 of the needle exchanges participating in the 1997 survey were either legal or illegal but tolerated by local officials.

The Canadian experience with needle exchange programs has been quite different from that of the U.S. As early as 1989, the Canadian federal government offered to co-fund comprehensive pilot HIV prevention programs for injection drug users that included needle exchange. By 1993, nearly 30 Canadian cities had active needle exchange programs. While some Canadian community and neighborhood groups have opposed needle exchange, the debate has generally been less politically charged than in the U.S. The fact that the pilot needle exchange programs were part of a comprehensive approach to drug use that combines education, counseling, law enforcement, and linkages to other services, including drug treatment, helped diminish community resistance. In Britain, pharmacies and more than 250 agencies distribute clean needles. Before 1987, 60 percent of injection drug users regularly shared needles; today the figure in Britain is about 10 percent. Australia has also been a pioneer in the area of harm reduction. Three Catholic agencies sponsor needle exchanges in that country. According to David Waterford of the Adelaide Diocesan AIDS Council, Southern Australia (with 55 exchange programs for a population of 1.2 million) has reported no new HIV infections resulting from needle sharing over the past three years.

So what is the religious view of the morality of needle exchange? There are some extremes, from a Jesuit doctor who called on Catholic leaders to support such programs because “needle exchange saves lives,” to a Catholic priest and member of the New Jersey Governor’s Advisory Council on AIDS who stated that needle exchange undermines society.

An excerpt from Dawn Day’s article on moral issues related to the spread of HIV/AIDS among injection drug users puts this issue in perspective for those struggling with the morality of supporting needle exchange. “With the best of intentions, our legislators passed laws prohibiting people from gaining access to sterile needles – the legislators were trying to protect people from the harm that comes from injecting drugs,” wrote Day. “Medical science now tells us that these laws are not effective in stopping drug use and are causing the further spread of HIV/AIDS. It is a tragic irony that the laws prohibiting access to sterile needles, laws meant to protect people, are now the cause of people dying with AIDS. As a religious person, I feel I have an obligation to work to correct this deadly situation”. Relating to medical care for all she wrote, “[I]f a women has a life-threatening hemorrhage after giving birth, we want the doctor to provide medical treatment at once. We do not want the doctor to first inquire about the circumstances under which the woman became pregnant. Or when an ambulance goes to the scene of an accident, we want all those who need help to be treated, even the person that caused the accident.”

Day continues with the following analogy: “There is a dangerous curve in the road. One speeding driver dies. Then another. Then another. They should not be speeding. They are responsible. But we know the curve is dangerous. Don’t we have an obligation to post a warning sign? Put in a stop light? Change the traffic pattern? Perhaps even straighten the road? And the driver is not always alone. Sometimes a wife or husband is along. Sometimes a newborn child. And so it is with injecting drugs in the age of AIDS. People who inject drugs know they are taking a risk. But we know too. I believe we have an obligation to permit people who inject drugs to have access to sterile needles so they can protect their health. Injection drug users are also God’s children. And, like the reckless driver in the example above, people who inject drugs have wives, husbands, and babies. When we abandon the person who injects drugs to HIV/AIDS, we are abandoning their non-drug injecting partners and babies as well. God has given us knowledge with which to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS to all these people. Let us use it.”

With over a 100 people in the United States becoming infected with HIV, HCV, or HBV every day as a result of injection drug use, it is clear that we must do more. We must continue to educate people about the harms of drug use, particularly injection drug use. We must pay attention to the expertise and knowledge of public health officials and scientists who urge that sterile syringes be made legally available to people who inject drugs. This can be accomplished by permitting and funding needle exchange programs wherever they are needed, permitting possession of sterile syringes, permitting pharmacies to sell syringes without a prescription. In addition, drug treatment programs must be made available to everyone who seeks their services. As a humane society, we must reach the point where injection drug users in every state can legally protect themselves from hepatitis C, hepatitis B, HIV, and other blood-borne diseases, and where needle exchange workers in every state are treated not as criminals but as the public health workers they are.

Contact one of the following organizations for more information about needle exchange:

  • Harm Reduction Coalition – 212-213-6376 – www.harmreduction.org 
  • North American Needle Exchange Network – 253-272-4857 – www.nasen.org
Share This Page
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow Us
Facebooktwitter
Tagged Harm Reduction, needle exchange

Needle Exchange – A Matter of Public Health So why is the government playing politics with this ticking time bomb?

Hepatitis C Blog Posted on February 20, 2015 by Alan FranciscusDecember 13, 2015

Alan Franciscus
Editor-in-Chief, HCV Advocate

The following article originally appeared in the April/June 2003 issue of Hepatitis, and is so current that we thought we would repost it here, now.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association (APHA), the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the Society of Christian Ethics, to name a few, all endorse needle exchange programs. So why has it not been possible to achieve federal funding for such programs from 1988 to the present?

Needle exchange programs, which increase the availability of sterile syringes, are an important means of reducing the transmission of HIV infection and other blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis B and C among injection drug users and their often unsuspecting sexual partners and children – the most rapidly growing population of people with HIV. Most needle exchange programs operate on a one-for-one basis, so they also reduce the presence of infected needles in playgrounds, streets, and trash receptacles, thus protecting children, sanitation workers, and others from accidental needle sticks.

The use of federal funds to support needle exchange programs has been prohibited by Congress since 1988. The original intent was that the ban on federal support would remain in effect until the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services determined that such programs were effective in preventing the spread of HIV and did not encourage the use of illegal drugs. In the years since the funding ban was put instituted, an impressive number of researchers and medical organizations have carefully examined the issue and concluded that needle exchange programs are effective, necessary, and did not increase injection drug use.

In April 1998, then Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala publicly announced that the scientific evidence was in: needle exchange programs were effective in preventing the spread of HIV and did not encourage illegal drug use. But after Secretary Shalala made this determination, she nonetheless continued the federal ban on needle exchange funding. The decision was criticized by Mohammed Akhter, MD, MPH, executive director of the APHA, the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 organizations. “The administration today has recognized that needle exchange programs work to protect the health of the American people,”said Dr. Akhter. “In the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence, not releasing federal funds gives the impression that politics takes precedence over saving lives”.

The scientific evidence is so overwhelming that the AMA encourages needle exchange programs and supports legislation revoking the 1988 federal funding ban. Additionally, the AMA encourages state medical associations to initiate state legislation to modify drug paraphernalia laws so that injection drug users may legally purchase and possess needles and syringes without a prescription. In 2002 former President Bill Clinton said he had made a mistake in not supporting needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV and other diseases among injection drug users

As a presidential candidate, George W. Bush opposed needle exchange programs. That policy continues to the present day. Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, has said that the administration has no plans to permit federal funding of needle exchange. In an administration known for demanding loyalty, Bush’s “AIDS Czar” Scott Evertz nonetheless once let it be known that in his own view, needle exchange saves lives and the evidence in its favor is conclusive.

In July 2002 the Bush administration announced that Joseph O’Neill, MD, would replace Evertz as director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy. Dr. O’Neill is a career civil servant who has been acting director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of HIV/AIDS Policy. With the Bush administration, the terms of the debate on AIDS have changed. Needle exchange, although recommended by a majority of medical authorities, is not even up for discussion. Instead, questions are being raised about the effectiveness of condoms and -despite the increasing number of people living with HIV/AIDS – AIDS funding is leveling off.

The harm reduction paradigm is simple and approaches addictive behavior on the basis of three fundamental principles. First, excessive behaviors occur along a continuum of risk ranging from minimal to extreme. Addictive behavior is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Second, changing addictive behavior is a stepwise process, with complete abstinence as the final step. Those who embrace the harm reduction model believe that any movement in the direction of reduced harm, no matter how small, is positive. Third, sobriety simply isn’t for everyone. This principle requires acceptance of the fact that many people live under horrible conditions. Some are able to cope without the use of drugs, while others use drugs as a primary means of coping. Until we as a society are able to offer an alternative means of survival to these people, we are in no position to cast moral judgment. Harm reduction holds that the health and well-being of the individual is of primary concern; if individuals are unwilling or unable to change addictive behaviors at this time, they should not be denied services. Attempts should be made to reduce the harm of their habits as much as possible. This approach to addiction is viewed by some as compassionate and pragmatic; by others as selfish and dangerous.

State laws prohibiting syringe sales without a prescription or possession of syringes for the purpose of injecting illegal drugs have made sterile needles hard to obtain and have led to substantial needle sharing, resulting in the spread of incurable diseases. In minority populations that are subject to considerable police presence, injection drug users avoid carrying syringes in order to avoid arrest, thereby increasing the frequency of needle sharing. An African American injection drug user is almost five times more likely, and a Latino more than three times more likely, to be diagnosed with HIV than a white drug injector.

Needle exchanges have been operating legally and illegally in the United States since at least the late 1980s. The first needle exchange program was developed in 1984 in Amsterdam in the Netherlands by a drug users’ advocacy group called the Junkie Union. The goal was to avoid an epidemic of hepatitis B when an inner-city pharmacist intended to put an end to the sale of syringes to injection drug users. The first person to hand out drug injection equipment openly in the U.S. was Jon Parker in New Haven, CT, and Boston, MA, in 1986. The first U.S. needle exchange program to provide all-inclusive services was established in Tacoma, WA, in 1988. Much has changed in the past decade. From its beginnings with a few lone individuals exchanging syringes on the streets, there are now over 100 needle exchange programs in some 80 cities and 30 states around the country and over 17 million syringes were exchanged in 1997 (the year of the last official survey). While the debate in Washington has been fairly inactive in recent years, steps forward have been made on the state level in many areas. In fact, 68 out of 113 of the needle exchanges participating in the 1997 survey were either legal or illegal but tolerated by local officials.

The Canadian experience with needle exchange programs has been quite different from that of the U.S. As early as 1989, the Canadian federal government offered to co-fund comprehensive pilot HIV prevention programs for injection drug users that included needle exchange. By 1993, nearly 30 Canadian cities had active needle exchange programs. While some Canadian community and neighborhood groups have opposed needle exchange, the debate has generally been less politically charged than in the U.S. The fact that the pilot needle exchange programs were part of a comprehensive approach to drug use that combines education, counseling, law enforcement, and linkages to other services, including drug treatment, helped diminish community resistance. In Britain, pharmacies and more than 250 agencies distribute clean needles. Before 1987, 60 percent of injection drug users regularly shared needles; today the figure in Britain is about 10 percent. Australia has also been a pioneer in the area of harm reduction. Three Catholic agencies sponsor needle exchanges in that country. According to David Waterford of the Adelaide Diocesan AIDS Council, Southern Australia (with 55 exchange programs for a population of 1.2 million) has reported no new HIV infections resulting from needle sharing over the past three years.

So what is the religious view of the morality of needle exchange? There are some extremes, from a Jesuit doctor who called on Catholic leaders to support such programs because “needle exchange saves lives,” to a Catholic priest and member of the New Jersey Governor’s Advisory Council on AIDS who stated that needle exchange undermines society.

An excerpt from Dawn Day’s article on moral issues related to the spread of HIV/AIDS among injection drug users puts this issue in perspective for those struggling with the morality of supporting needle exchange. “With the best of intentions, our legislators passed laws prohibiting people from gaining access to sterile needles – the legislators were trying to protect people from the harm that comes from injecting drugs,” wrote Day. “Medical science now tells us that these laws are not effective in stopping drug use and are causing the further spread of HIV/AIDS. It is a tragic irony that the laws prohibiting access to sterile needles, laws meant to protect people, are now the cause of people dying with AIDS. As a religious person, I feel I have an obligation to work to correct this deadly situation”. Relating to medical care for all she wrote, “[I]f a women has a life-threatening hemorrhage after giving birth, we want the doctor to provide medical treatment at once. We do not want the doctor to first inquire about the circumstances under which the woman became pregnant. Or when an ambulance goes to the scene of an accident, we want all those who need help to be treated, even the person that caused the accident.”

Day continues with the following analogy: “There is a dangerous curve in the road. One speeding driver dies. Then another. Then another. They should not be speeding. They are responsible. But we know the curve is dangerous. Don’t we have an obligation to post a warning sign? Put in a stop light? Change the traffic pattern? Perhaps even straighten the road? And the driver is not always alone. Sometimes a wife or husband is along. Sometimes a newborn child. And so it is with injecting drugs in the age of AIDS. People who inject drugs know they are taking a risk. But we know too. I believe we have an obligation to permit people who inject drugs to have access to sterile needles so they can protect their health. Injection drug users are also God’s children. And, like the reckless driver in the example above, people who inject drugs have wives, husbands, and babies. When we abandon the person who injects drugs to HIV/AIDS, we are abandoning their non-drug injecting partners and babies as well. God has given us knowledge with which to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS to all these people. Let us use it.”

With over a 100 people in the United States becoming infected with HIV, HCV, or HBV every day as a result of injection drug use, it is clear that we must do more. We must continue to educate people about the harms of drug use, particularly injection drug use. We must pay attention to the expertise and knowledge of public health officials and scientists who urge that sterile syringes be made legally available to people who inject drugs. This can be accomplished by permitting and funding needle exchange programs wherever they are needed, permitting possession of sterile syringes, permitting pharmacies to sell syringes without a prescription. In addition, drug treatment programs must be made available to everyone who seeks their services. As a humane society, we must reach the point where injection drug users in every state can legally protect themselves from hepatitis C, hepatitis B, HIV, and other blood-borne diseases, and where needle exchange workers in every state are treated not as criminals but as the public health workers they are.

Contact one of the following organizations for more information about needle exchange:

  • Harm Reduction Coalition – 212-213-6376 – www.harmreduction.org 
  • North American Needle Exchange Network – 253-272-4857 – www.nasen.org
Share This Page
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow Us
Facebooktwitter
Tagged Harm Reduction, needle exchange

Canada: Campaigns launched to promote awareness of and try to prevent Hep C infections in Guelph area

Hepatitis C Blog Posted on February 20, 2015 by Alan FranciscusDecember 1, 2015
GUELPH—About 300,000 Canadians have
potentially deadly Hepatitis C, including 100,000 in Ontario, but up to
50 per cent don’t know they’re harboring the harmful viral infection,
area Hep C Dr. Chris Steingart told a Guelph audience Thursday.
The Sanguen Health Centre executive director
said the infection from tainted blood from a variety of sources, which
attacks the liver, can cause physical, mental and emotional injury, yet
each year more people are infected than seek treatment. 
“The good news is we can do something about that,” Steingart told
audience members in the health care/harm reduction field at the launch
of an information video and color-coded syringes program. He stressed
the local availability of effective Hep C testing and treatment. 
Read more…
Share This Page
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow Us
Facebooktwitter
Tagged Canada, Guelph, Harm Reduction

Canada: Campaigns launched to promote awareness of and try to prevent Hep C infections in Guelph area

Hepatitis C Blog Posted on February 20, 2015 by Alan FranciscusDecember 13, 2015
GUELPH—About 300,000 Canadians have potentially deadly Hepatitis C, including 100,000 in Ontario, but up to 50 per cent don’t know they’re harboring the harmful viral infection, area Hep C Dr. Chris Steingart told a Guelph audience Thursday.
The Sanguen Health Centre executive director said the infection from tainted blood from a variety of sources, which attacks the liver, can cause physical, mental and emotional injury, yet each year more people are infected than seek treatment. 
“The good news is we can do something about that,” Steingart told audience members in the health care/harm reduction field at the launch of an information video and color-coded syringes program. He stressed the local availability of effective Hep C testing and treatment. 
Read more…
Share This Page
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow Us
Facebooktwitter
Tagged Canada, Guelph, Harm Reduction

Post navigation

← Older posts

Search This Blog

Our Blog Gets Recognized – Three Years in a Row!

The Best Hepatitis C Blogs
The Best Hepatitis C Blogs
The Best Hepatitis C Blogs

Subscribe to our mailing list to receive our posts via email

* indicates required

Share This Site

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Follow HCV Advocate

Facebooktwitter

RSS HCV Advocate Clinical Trials Reference Guide

  • The study is aimed at assessing the safety and immunogenicity of HCV prime-boost vaccinations ChAd3-hliNSmut and MVA-hliNSmut, administered intramuscularly in healthy volunteers and DAA treated patients.
    The study is aimed at assessing the safety and immunogenicity of HCV prime-boost vaccinations ChAd3-hliNSmut and MVA-hliNSmut, administered intramuscularly in healthy volunteers and DAA treated patients. To read the entire study, click here Share This PageFollow Us … Continue reading → The post The study is aimed at assessing the safety and immunogenicity of HCV […]
  • Real-life Security and Efficacy of DAA-based Therapy in 1,000 HCV/HIV-Coinfected Patients – Spain
    The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of DAA-based regimens in the clinical practice in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients. Hypothesis: The efficacy and tolerability of all DAA-based regimens in the clinical practice is different to what is … Continue reading → The post Real-life Security and Efficacy of DAA-based Therapy in 1,000 […]

Archives

  • February 2019 (44)
  • January 2019 (47)
  • December 2018 (34)
  • November 2018 (45)
  • October 2018 (26)
  • September 2018 (28)
  • August 2018 (30)
  • July 2018 (37)
  • June 2018 (28)
  • May 2018 (53)
  • April 2018 (50)
  • March 2018 (55)
  • February 2018 (48)
  • January 2018 (40)
  • December 2017 (28)
  • November 2017 (47)
  • October 2017 (67)
  • September 2017 (63)
  • August 2017 (54)
  • July 2017 (63)
  • June 2017 (57)
  • May 2017 (65)
  • April 2017 (82)
  • March 2017 (55)
  • February 2017 (74)
  • January 2017 (71)
  • December 2016 (76)
  • November 2016 (84)
  • October 2016 (61)
  • September 2016 (66)
  • August 2016 (79)
  • July 2016 (62)
  • June 2016 (56)
  • May 2016 (72)
  • April 2016 (61)
  • March 2016 (55)
  • February 2016 (38)
  • January 2016 (40)
  • December 2015 (48)
  • November 2015 (55)
  • October 2015 (112)
  • September 2015 (105)
  • August 2015 (101)
  • July 2015 (108)
  • June 2015 (97)
  • May 2015 (172)
  • April 2015 (139)
  • March 2015 (218)
  • February 2015 (201)
  • January 2015 (217)
  • December 2014 (93)
  • November 2014 (88)
  • October 2014 (107)
  • September 2014 (84)
  • August 2014 (65)
  • July 2014 (84)
  • June 2014 (71)
  • May 2014 (100)
  • April 2014 (95)
  • March 2014 (89)
  • February 2014 (58)
  • January 2014 (48)
  • December 2013 (60)
  • November 2013 (76)
  • October 2013 (93)
  • September 2013 (77)
  • August 2013 (75)
  • July 2013 (88)
  • June 2013 (77)
  • May 2013 (74)
  • April 2013 (69)
  • March 2013 (66)
  • February 2013 (43)
  • January 2013 (60)
  • December 2012 (40)
  • November 2012 (87)
  • October 2012 (54)
  • September 2012 (61)
  • August 2012 (68)
  • July 2012 (75)
  • June 2012 (58)
  • May 2012 (92)
  • April 2012 (89)
  • March 2012 (60)
  • February 2012 (46)
  • January 2012 (60)
  • December 2011 (54)
  • November 2011 (77)
  • October 2011 (53)
  • September 2011 (49)
  • August 2011 (35)
  • July 2011 (50)
  • June 2011 (33)
  • May 2011 (31)
  • April 2011 (34)
  • March 2011 (33)
  • February 2011 (23)
  • January 2011 (22)
  • December 2010 (18)
  • November 2010 (25)
  • October 2010 (20)
  • September 2010 (7)
  • August 2010 (5)
  • July 2010 (4)
© 2015 HCVAdvocate.org Top of Blog   
↑