George Clooney answers your questions about malaria! Hooray!

George Clooney got malaria in Sudan.  Now him and buddy Nicholas Kristof have a Q&A on the disease at NYTimes.com.  I tried not to be cynical.  I thought it would be a cute, gimmicky way to draw attention to an important disease, and perhaps dispel some myths along the way.  Unfortunately, they ended up creating some along the way instead.

The answers range from harmless:

What side effects did you have? And what were your symptoms when malaria was detected?
— Gayle

A.

Not much in side effects, the symptoms are fever, the chills, and exciting adventures in the toilet..weak..really just very bad flu conditions with a little food poisoning thrown in to make you the perfect party guest.

To mildly dim:

George – A dear friend of mine had malaria…does it recur? And if you’ve had it once, can you get it again?
— BrazenMuse

A.

It can…it depends on what type you get..i didn’t get that strain thankfully.
— George Clooney

[Big aside: The number one reason malaria reoccurs is inadequate treatment, meaning all the parasites were not killed in the first place. Old treatment regimes caused the parasite to "retreat" to the liver, rather than fully killing it. Today, when malaria is treated with drugs that it has developed resistant to, or treated incompletely (with a partial course), malaria can reoccur.  Many drugs available to treat malaria experience partial parasite resistance, but are still used either because they are effective first line treatments (in an area of incomplete parasite resistance), or because they make the symptoms go away, encouraging clinicians and patients as to their effectiveness.  Recurrence is more common in certain strains, but usually because these strains have delayed symptoms, causing malaria to not be treated or to be treated inadequately, or high rates of drug resistance.  Adequate, complete, and timely treatment can prevent malaria recurrence in almost all cases (except in the case of reinfection, which is also quite common).  Malaria recurrence despite adequate treatment is treatment failure, in which case second-line treatments are deployed.]

To foolish and misleading:

George – How did your treatment for malaria differ from the treatment that the average Sudanese would receive?
— Joy F.

A.

I had drugs to take before during and after…pills that should be just provided to these people, like a polio vaccine..life saving drugs for diseases that kill millions needlessly, belong to mankind not to companies to profit from….we need another Jonas Salk.
— George Clooney

OK, first of all, I don't know what he means by "before, during, and after."   If by the "before" part he is referring to prophylaxis pills, then, no, these wouldn't be available to the typical Sudanese, because prophylaxis pills aren't meant to be taken for a long period of time.  They're essentially ongoing treatment for malaria, which kills the parasite immediately in case you contract it--the liver has to work over-time to process these pills, and they have to be taken daily or weekly.  Ongoing prophylaxis use in endemic areas is medically inadvisable, financially unsustainable, and logistically infeasible.

Let's move on to the next part of his response: "life saving drugs for diseases that kill millions needlessly, belong to mankind not to companies to profit from."  I agree, the sentiment sounds nice.  It's just a matter of wresting the life-saving drugs from the evil pharmaceutical companies, and all our problems are solved!  It certainly sounds much nicer than, "How do we sustainably ensure supply, distribution, and use of lifesaving technologies in a constantly changing disease environment, where even free commodities face take-up challenges?"  Unfortunately, that's the actual problem at hand.

Celebrities are full of surprises: Jessica Simpson re-emerges as likeable, well-adjusted woman

I used to think Jessica Simpson was the antithesis of feminism. I despised her "I'm dumb, isn't it cute?" persona, which she admitted was just that, an affected personality for the purpose of getting others to like her. Her father once said her perfect looks and perfect voice were too much for people, she needed to act dumb to seem less intimidating. Writing for my college newspaper, I said I feared Simpson's celebrity foretold "a world where to be popular, a woman should be all things but remarkable."

But as much as Simpson's fake ordinariness rankled me then, it's her real ordinariness that I find charming now. Simpson has fought back against the haters who criticized her weight cruelly and relentlessly not by appearing looking stunning on the cover of US Weekly (well, there was that Vanity Fair shoot), but by being herself, insisting she has a right to do just that, and thinking about the broader implications of the war over her size. I found her appearance on Oprah remarkably thoughtful and well-adjusted, and was delighted when she teased David Letterman for "making it all about the boys" during her visit to his show.

Simpson's new reality show certainly has problems of its own, but it's an interesting effort with its heart in the right place. Similarly, although I think stars appearing without makeup is something of a gimmick, I nonetheless think it's a more thoughtful gimmick than stars airbrushed within an inch of their lives selling workout tips. As such, I appreciate Simpson's appearance in Marie Claire makeup and airbrush free, although I wish more of the quotes in the resulting photo spread were of this variety: "I don't have anything to prove anymore. What other people think of me is not my business." Than this one: "People think updos are so hard, but they're not. Your hair should look tousled and undone."

I don't think Jessica is perfect. I don't think she's now some kind of feminist ideal. I think her, and her new way of presenting herself to the public, are a work in progress. But, it's an increasingly interesting type of progress, and one that I'm glad to have buzzing around pop culture land in place of giggling malapropisms and daisy dukes.

Erykah Badu Strips to Make a Statement Which is Largely Unheard

In her recent video Window Seat, Erykah Badu shed her clothes on a busy street in Texas, and sparked debate across the blogosphere. The dominant reaction has been outward criticism of her public nudity and her mock assassination near the location John F. Kennedy was killed.

I first watched the video to try to figure out why she had chosen to strip naked for this song. I watched Badu’s discussion of the video posted at the WSJ, and felt at the end that a major problem was that Badu had a great message about conformity, but I wasn’t sure that nudity served a real purpose or that the exact topic was of sufficient gravity to justify the imagery of JFK’s assassination. However, I also noticed that not many people seemed willing to listen to her explanation because they decided they were offended after their initial viewing of the video.

My impression is that people were mostly upset with the nudity because they did not believe it was essential to communicate her artistic message. However, I think this controversy creates a great opportunity to open the discussion of the way women are portrayed in music videos. Women are often filmed semi-nude and portrayed in ways that are truly exploitative. I wonder why this video, which did not (in my opinion) overly sexualize her naked body, has sparked such outrage while there are numerous music videos, advertisements, and shows that portray women in a demeaning way and are only a blip in the public consciousness. Why is nudity/semi-nudity in these cases not met with equal outrage?

Basically, I found the nudity inoffensive but sadly did not feel it successfully strengthened her message. If this video discussed the implications of the way women are represented in pop culture, I would have felt the assassination imagery was more warranted. But either way, Badu is an interesting artist, and I'm glad she's willing to take risks and express herself in different, sometimes controversial, ways.

Kate Harding asks: What exactly did Sandra know about this Nazi stuff?

Kate Harding at Jezebel:

I'm all for giving celebrities their privacy amid salacious gossip and personal turmoil, but since Bullock surely knows all about that photo and the other accusations now, I can't figure out why we haven't heard from her yet. This is not the kind of thing you let slide, even if all you want to do, quite understandably, is hide out and lick your wounds. Perhaps she's just taking her time crafting a blistering statement denouncing James' apparent anti-Semitism, avowing her unfortunate but total ignorance of it and announcing the imminent divorce. But if that's not out by tomorrow? Something's seriously [f*ed] up here. Remaining silent at this point is such an inexplicable career move — questions of human decency aside — I can't quite believe we haven't seen such a statement already. And I really can't believe there aren't more people making noise about it yet.

I think it's a fair question.  Others don't, apparently, so Kate has a new piece at Shapely Prose defending the original article.

The straight-washing of America

This week, Ricky Martin confirmed that yes, he is in fact gay.  Which, of course, surprised no one.  So, while Ricky Martin's coming out was absurd, even more absurd was the fact that I've heard it being compared to Sean Hayes' coming out.  That's when I thought, Sean Hayes needed to come out?  What?  But, it turns out, Hayes had been demurring to questions about his sexuality since way back in the Will & Grace days.  So, is the problem with celebrities who improbably insist on their heterosexuality, despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary?  Or is it with media figures who badger them about their sexuality (as Barbara Walters did to Martin in 2000), forcing them into a queer Catch-22: their career or their integrity?

Femonomics reads the internet so you don't have to: Don't ask please tell, Sandy's tale of woe, and reality TV roundup

The NYTimes has a piece on a new book featuring photographs of gay men and women in the armed forces, posed with their faces obscured.  Go check out the author's website to see the moving, poignant pictures yourself.  The idea of our nation's soldiers having to cover their faces instead of hold them high (for fear of being discharged, dishonored, and stripped of benefits) just emphasizes to me how much this policy is not at all acceptable.  An Iraq war vet recently chained himself to the White House fence (and was later arrested) to make just that point.

As you've probably heard, a woman has come forward claiming Sandra Bullock's husband, Jesse James, had an affair with her.  Normally I wouldn't rush to believe the rumors, but given that Sandy canceled her scheduled European appearances for "personal reasons" and James has issued an apology, it seems likely at least some portion of the accusations are true. This really kills me, not just because Sandra seems like such a genuinely nice person who was so grateful for the recent accolades coming her way (and issued a heartfelt thank you to her husband each time) and who I just wish could have the chance to savor her little slice of happiness, but also because I know about the inevitable media storyline to follow: "Sanrdra Bullock's marriage collapses as her career reaches new heights.  Maybe there's just no way to have it all," I can already here the press cackling.  For some reason, journalists seem to delight in this arc of public success and private failure, especially when it comes to women who seem to be playing in the big leagues career-wise.  At least on these pages, we won't be drawing any conclusions about how her busy work schedule drove him to seek attention and comfort in another woman's (tattoo-covered) arms.  We'll just say that we're sorry, and hey, she'll always have Oscar.

And in other news two new interesting reality shows are arriving on VH1.  One featuring Jessica Simpson going around the world to try other cultures' beauty rituals, and the other featuring a transsexual makeover squad.  Check out feministing's deconstruction of both here and here.  I know these shows are far from perfect, and will probably end up using their constructs (foreign people doing crazy things!  Ladies who used to be men!) as gimmicks more than once, but nonetheless I find these two shows at least intriguing, as opposed to most of what VH1 and other purveyors of "reality" fare put out.  I say, bravo for pushing the envelope; now try to toe the line. 

Madonna's Malawi Girls' School: Is this how we help?

The BBC reported Friday that the 200+ villagers in Malawi set to be displaced by Madonna's new school have ended their protest and agreed to move.  Madonna's planned Raising Malawi Academy for Girls can now move forward.

Look, I'm all for empowering women in developing countries through education, but something about this whole thing strikes me as icky.  Madonna thinks what they really need on that land is a school; the people that live there think that what they need is to, well, live there.  Madonna has the money, so she gets to make the call.  But if she's doing this in the name in the name of philanthropy, shouldn't the preferences of the local people come first?  Couldn't she have negotiated with village leaders to find the most appropriate site for the school, that would displace the fewest people?  To me, this feels like vanity aid, which is the last thing developing countries need.

Madonna's money might have been better spent on a preexisting educational charity with local connections, but then she might have gotten less of a reputation boost, I suppose.

[Hat tip to the Msungu Malawian]