Conference quark::human_relations-v1

         Well, I mentioned something in the Living, Dieing, Loving
    note but since this is AIDS specific here goes. Call me Brother
    Emilio the Celibate :-( NO really, if anyone caught the special
    on ch 7 last night with Dan Rather, it was a pretty heartbreaking
    hour of TV viewing. It also got the message across that society
    can no longer dump it on the gay community and it would have just
    been a matter of time if it didn't hit gays first that the hets
    would have brought it home. If blacks came down with it first
    the unwashed masses would have jumped on them after it spread to
    whites, the hysteria is just part of the perversity of human
    nature.
         I have always been cautious in sexual relations, maybe from
    all the  VD films the chaplain's department bombarded us with
    while I was in the Navy. NOw I do know that many single young
    hets are every bit, maybe more promiscuous as young gays, one
    guy on th show last night said that before the crisis, he slept
    with 5-6 women every weekend. I wa neve big on bodily fluid
    exchanging. Well anyway I read all the articles but didn't
    worry that much about AIDS until early this year when a good
    frind went into a coma and died of PCP, Pneunocyctis Pneumonia
    and NO! I had never slept with him, it was jus that now it was
    in my small circle of friends. Then this Summer I ran into a
    friend who I hadn't seen for 18 months, and yes he was in the
    terminal stages of KS Kaposi's Sarcoma and is dead now. Then
    just last week I called a very old and dear friend who moved
    to San Francisco 5 years ago and learned that he has ARC, Pre
    AIDS and has lost his home, life partner, job and 45 pounds
    in two months. 
        I think that all people gay or not have a deep need to settle
    down with one special life partner, pair bonding is built into 
    all people. Well, today I'm single, and from the looks of
    things I'm really not interested in settling with someone
    unless I know just about everyting possible about them I can.
    This is really hard, how does one know how many people and
    what kinds of practices they were into before meeting you?
        What do I do now, mostly not sleep with anyone, on the
    couple of occasions that I have, everything was safe. I had
    the HIV blood test done and it came back NEGATIVE Phew, but
    the nurse told me that really doesn't mean much at all, due
    to, incubation periods, etc. Another thing I've done is
    channel my sexual energies into other areas, like my writing,
    and other hobbies. All I can say is use condoms, know thy
    partner, take care of all parts of your life. Keeping a
    healthy immune system also means eating and sleeping right,
    getting proper exercise, dropping recreational drugs, etc.
    All the sane things one would do to keep healthy.
        It's a known fact that many people who have or have died
    of AIDS, had immune systems that had been compromised before-
    hand by living out of balance.
                      
    
    Ray

    Hi Ray,  

	I thought that show was more of a scare tactic than anything.

    Most importantly though, I hope everyone realizes that
    AIDS is confined to Homosexuals, Haitians and Intraveneous drug
    users IN THIS COUNTRY ONLY.  In Africa (from whence it came)
    it is MOST prevolent in Heterosexual couples.

    Be safe!
    Be Smart!

    

      Sorry Michael,
    
         Even after the screening of plasma there are cases of AIDS
    showing up all over the place from a variety of people.  There
    is so little know about it that the carrier aspect hasn't even
    had time to evolve yet.  It may turn into an Andromeda Strain
    syndrome because the disease is maturing.   
    
         The problem of classifying people to disease rather than
    the disease to people isn't a very scientific approach to
    understanding the problem!
    
    GRG

    I saw the special last night, too.  I thought the producers did
    a great job of reporting objectively and compassionately on a
    subject that too often is sensionalized by the media.  I don't
    quite know why .2 "thought that show was more of a scare tactic
    than anything."  I feel strongly that everyone should be made 
    aware of the threat this disease poses and the need for educating
    people about how to avoid it.  This the program did very well, I
    thought.  I also think the need for waking people up to the
    need to change our attitudes about the people who have AIDS--to
    view them as victems of a virus, not carriers of a plague or
    recipients of the wrath of God was met in the program.
    
    Too bad it ran opposite the World Series--it deserved a wide
    audience.
    

    Good points all of you.   Oh, what I meant by scare tactic
    was that I think the show had alot of emotion in it
    rather than actual facts.  I would have liked to see more
    facts (ie:Numbers).  Not to say this is NOT an emotional
    issue, just that I like facts 8-}

        I didn't see th TV show, but I heard a long segment on AIDS in
        Africa in All Things Considered on my way home a few weeks back.
        It was heart-breaking. In some sections of Africa the percentage
        of the population that has AIDS or the AIDS virus is staggering,
        concentrations like 10%, to 30%, (to 50%? my memory is failing
        the number was huge) of the sexually active population in
        certain urban areas. The problem is that the level of education
        is poor, the medical facilities are limited, and the funding
        available is negligible. (Also the promiscuity rate is
        phenomenal.) 
        
        The worst part was the babies. In one of the worst hit areas
        there was an estimate of 10% of the newborns having the virus.
        (Remember that there is a difference between having the virus
        and having the disease.) The reporter painted a picture of what
        it would be like to be an adolescent growning up in a time when
        even having only one partner who themselves had only one partner
        wasn't sufficient to protect you or yuor children.
        
        All-in-all it didn't feel like sensationalist journalism or
        scare tactics, just heart-breaking tragedy. I wept.
        
        JimB.

    Thanks for clarifying that comment for me.  You're right, it was
    a very emotional program.  I thought that was good, in a way, if
    it reached people who might not have responded to the hard facts
    (stats) of AIDS;  I do feel there's always a danger in an emotional
    issue like this of causing people to panic and respond irrationally,
    but basically the program avoided this, I think.
    
    I have a few stats, taken from the Sept. 25th edition of Rolling
    Stone, in an article about AIDS on campus--pretty grim:
      
      There are now 1 million to 1.5 million people who have been exposed
    to the HIV virus, which is known to lead to the immunological breakdown
    that characterizes AIDS.  While it's estimated that some 20 - 30%
    of these people will go on to develop full-blown AIDS, *all* of
    those exposed are assumed to be capable of transmitting the virus
    to others--for the rest of their lives.
    
    Readings figures like that, it's important to realize that researchers
    are still not very far along either in predicting the behavior of
    the virus or in projecting its spread in the general population.
    But considering that the virus can be dormant in the system for
    years, and that people infected with the virus often have no symptoms
    and don't know they have it for a long time, the implications of
    having so many potential carriers is threatening, to say the least.
    
    Which brings me to the real topic of this note--an excellent one,
    by the way!  Since I have become aware of AIDS, and, like .1, have
    come to know people who have been affected directly by the disease,
    I have done some serious thinking about it and about sexual
    responsibility. I'm in a long-term monogamous relationship, so I
    am not in any danger of contracting AIDS (I'm not an IV drug user,
    either); but I believe strongly that were I not in this position,
    I would make practicing safe sex an unbreakable rule--not just to
    be safe, but to stop the disease.  This for me would mean redefining
    my priorities in a sexual relationship, not an easy thing to do;
    but in light of putting an end to the pain caused by this epidemic,
    it doesn't seem like a big sacrifice to me. 
    
    Sorry I've rattled on; what do others think?
    
    Sandy

    This is an interesting topic. I really don't have a fear of AIDs
    or VD. I am more afraid of falling in the bathtub. :-).
    
    Seriously, I know that these problems exist and are not a pleasant
    thing to experience but I try not to worry about it. Being selective
    about the partners one has is a good way to avoid catching something
    you don't want. Granted, VD doesn't look at someone's bankroll or
    Ivy League background, but being selective should cut down the chances
    of obtaining something you don't want.
    
    Incidently, Playboy had an interesting article just recently. It
    was something like "Has AIDs Cut Down the Sexual Revolution?"
    I'm not sure of the month or the exact title.
    
    Mike

    RE .3-.8
    
        More stats:
    
        The old friend I referred to who moved to San Francisco, shered
    some unsettling numbers. He has been working with AIDS patients
    now since the beginning of the outbreak. A lot of his effort was
    in hospice care. He told me that over 70% of the men he's seen with
    ARC, or pre-AIDS have gone on to develope the full blown disease.
    Of the men he has worked with who had AIDS, between 60-70% are now
    dead. He told me the bay area is seeing ~ 20 new cases a week, a
    lot now among heterosexuals and IV drug users.
        He did *not* acquire ARC by working with AIDS patients. He moved
    out there the year before the news of a new disease hit the press.
    When he moved there he was single, and like any young single gay
    or non gay person he sowed some wild oats. I really feel for the
    poor guy. Since contracting ARC, his house was burned down, under
    suspicious origins, his life partner walked out, and he lost his
    job; had just comlpeted his masters in nursing and wanted to go
    on to be a doctor.
        He told me that all the heterosexual and gay bath houses and
    after hours sex clubs are closed, which is good. Boston has gotten
    off fairly easy so far for a major city, this may be partly due
    to the conservatism of New England. Boston was never a haven for
    after hours bars and sex clubs
        From talking to my friend in San Francisco, people working 
    with AIDS organizations and reading reports, it seems that AIDS
    is the product of living in a highly mobile society. Consider
    the number of Haitian immigrants who came into the counrty during
    the late 70's to present, many were gay and came here for a safe
    haven. AIDS was also a problem in Haiti as well as Africa. So
    waht do we blame the Haitians?....no! the gays?....no! a virus
    that knows no cultural or moral boundary?......YES!
        his closing words were, "please, for the love of God, be
    careful and take care of yourself"
    
    
    Ray

    If you are interested in epidemeology, I recommend William McNeil's
    "Plagues and Peoples".
    
    AIDS is a classic case: endemic in an African mammal (the green
    monkey), becomes endemic in African human populations in a mild
    form, gains access to a larger non-African pool of humans and
    becomes less and less mild, and more and more aggressive as an
    epidemic in the new pool.  Initially it grows at an exponential
    rate, then it comes up against the limits of the new population.
    
    The exponential growth phase of AIDS has probably just stopped.
    In the long run, baring medical counter-measures, it would become
    an endemic disease mostly prevented by "cultural" measures (such
    as a monogamous ideal).
    
    As someone said about the drug fashion: the error was made by,
    and the blame belongs to, those people who thought they could have
    a good time forever for free.  I don't mean to disparage the pain
    felt, but the answer to "why me?" is "you chose to gamble and lost."
    I have a dangerous hobby (kayaking).  If I die, I'm not going to
    blame the river.
    				-John Bishop

    RE 113.10  Aids victims are getting their due for promiscuity
    
    I feel OK about people getting their due from taking risks, but
    how about the children that are born with aids or the people that
    become infected by non sexual channels?  It seems to me that the
    cultural grief is for them.  At least, that is what I feel.

    re .11:
    
    I don't think that John was saying that anyone was "getting their due."
    I think he's trying to point out that if you have a dangerous hobby, be
    it kayaking or camping or promiscuity, you have to accept the risks. It
    is indeed sad when innocent bystanders get hurt, but that's really a
    different issue. 

    When I was in college, I took a course called "Sexual Morality." It was
    taught by one of the Philosophers of Science, who also ran a national
    magazine for the gay community. He stressed that promiscuity is indeed
    a dangerous hobby, and that you should take precautions. This was
    before anyone knew about AIDS, although he did say once, "how do you
    know some new disease isn't going to work its way up from the tropics?"
    He reccommended semi-annual physicals for anyone being promiscuous, and
    his health guidelines were similar to the "safe sex" guidelines being
    promoted today. 
    
    	Jon

         Some of you may find these two points interesting as they
    relate quite well to this topic. I was still in the NAvy and was
    home on leave. My mom was a nurse of ~25 years asm like most
    medical people the coffee table was littered with medical magazines
    and journals. I very vividly remember reading and article that
    showed concern over the growing sexual revolution (it was ~1970)
        It zeroed in on oral and anal sex practices in general, and
    no mention of the gay community was made; save to say that there
    were studies doen that proved semen to be very rich in various
    concentrated viruses, some not well known. The concern was over
    repeated exposure to these bugs through oral and anal channels,
    and how they might affect the immune system, especially those
    through anal intercourse, since the large colon is a good semi-
    direct interface to the blood stream. The bottom line was con-
    cern about immune deficencies over a period of years. At that
    time not enough data was available to know if any real hazard
    existed. But some people were thinking about it, hmm!
    
    Case 2,
    
        A while ago I met a friend (non gay) who one day told me about
    a bad car accident where he required large amounts of blood. About
    18 months later he developed a rare form of lymphatic cancer, which
    took 5 years to get into remission. He never putmade the possible
    connection between his cancer and the transfusion until AIDS became
    a topic. He told me that the accident occured 13 years ago, so it
    was before AIDS. As he said, kinda makes you wonder how many people
    have gotten sick in the past and never made any connection between
    a transfusion they recieved and a later cancer. If my memory serves
    me right all they used to screen for was venerial disease and blood
    count, am I right?
                
    
    Ray

RE: .10

>    I don't mean to disparage the pain
>    felt, but the answer to "why me?" is "you chose to gamble and lost."
>    I have a dangerous hobby (kayaking).  If I die, I'm not going to
>    blame the river.

This sound to me like blaming the victim. OK, if you die in a river accident
you won't blame the river, but what if you were to get cancer due to
chemical contamination of the plastic in your kayak, paddles, wetsuit, life
vest, or whatever? If it were negligence on the part of the manufacturers,
you would be right in blaming them. What if it turned out to be a poison
that nobody knew (until you got sick) was poisonous? Is it then your own
fault you got sick because you're a sporting enthusiast? No, it's just
another human tragedy, and you deserve all the support and health care the
human world can muster for you, just as AIDS victims do.

Don.

    My grandfather dies of that form of cancer, a very rare
    strain though and my father now believes that it was due
    to AIDS since my grandfather received tranfusion every year
    because of a blood disorder.

    Re .14:
    
    If I get cancer due to something nobody could have predicted, that's
    just the breaks.  It's nobody's fault.  If I get cancer because
    someone didn't bother to take reasonable care, it's just the same
    as if that person failed to heed a red light and drove into me:
    it's their fault.
    
    I don't believe in always blaming the victim; I also don't believe 
    in not blaming the sufferer when he (or she) is the one who made
    the decision leading to the bad event.
    
    WARNING: This discussion is turning into a "political" one!
    
    In any case, I don't "deserve all the support and health care the
    human world can muster", no matter what happens.  I deserve the
    health care I paid for (directly or through insurance).  I have
    no claim on the rest of the "human world".  Neither does anyone
    else, no matter how fashionable their disease.
    
    As for innocent victims: they exist.  It's sad.  So what?  I don't
    see that anything follows automatically from that.
    
    			-John Bishop

    RE .17
    
    In England we have the National Health Service (thank God).
    I have been a contributor for quite a while now as have my
    family.  We are all very healthy and rarely need a
    Doctor.  This does not make me feel resentful about paying
    towards caring for the chronically ill, the elderly, the very
    young.  I rejoice that we do not "have" to pay. I accept my
    responsibility to people who have worked (usually) for their
    country.
    
    We can if we wish also join BUPA or PPP.  We can insure should 
    we wish to be cared for privately.  YOU try and get taken on
    by these bodies if you or someone dear to you has "need" of them 
    or happens to be old, they are run from the profit motive
    and it is not profitable to take a sick person on who you may
    have to spend those profits on caring for him/her.
    
    It would frighten me to believe that should I be involved in
    an accident the care I receive is related to what I can pay.
    
    My aunty died because they could not afford the proper care
    for her during her pregnancy.  
    
    Long live our National Health Service!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    

    SORRY I DIGRESSED.  MEA CULPA MEA CULPA MEA MAXIMA CULPA.
                                                             
    In response to the question of Aids.  Why don't we stop
    looking at who is to blame.  The effects of the disease
    are horrifying, the people it hits come from every walk
    of life and any age or sex.  I would like to see countries
    like America and Britain pooling their resources and going
    all out to find out how to combat it.
    
    ************          *****************         ************
    
    A slightly different thought, but this disease was first
    noticed in a country which is notoriously over populated.
    Could we be seeing Natures answer.  The black death, the
    cities were over populated.  Perhaps the strain on the
    worlds resources is too great and she has found a temporary
    balance?
    
    
    Too fancifull perhaps?
    
    

    			< How can you be cautious? >
    
    RE: to those replies that said they didn't worry about AIDS because
        they were "cautious";
    
    How can you be cautious against getting AIDS? You would have to
    know about every sexual partner back to '76 or '77, when AIDS
    started appearing in the U.S. How can you question someone in
    that detail, or even know, if you have been very promiscuous
    yourself during those past years, whether you are carrying the
    virus yourself? 
    
    This will be more and more an issue as AIDS moves into the
    general population, which it is doing. Avoiding prostitutes
    and having "safe sex" seem to be the only precautions you
    can take, and those are certainly not foolproof. A woman
    could easily have sex with a bisexual male and not know it.
    
    Wish I had some answers,
    Bob

	Re:  .0  The Original Topic

	>	AIDS: 	Acquired Immune Deficiency.
	>
	>		How many of you have changed you personal
	>		attitude/sex_life because of this dreaded
	>		affliction ?

	In attitude I do ponder it once in awhile.  It's so tragic, and *so*
	monumental in proportions.

	No real change in practice, still celebate until *very* *significant*
	relationship.  Which by my definition means still celebate, sigh. 

	Course, in relation to this topic, that "sigh" can be one of *relief*
	as well as *longing*!  :'}

	Steve

    RE: .20
    
         How can you be cautious? The special on ch 7 last week said
    that using condoms is the only vaccine against AIDS. But condoms
    are a pain, they can break, etc. After tossing an s.o. out two
    years ago for every concievable transgression of a committed
    relationship, I've been celibate for the most part over the last
    24 months. A female friend and I discussed this over drinks after
    work one night and both agreed that celibacy isn't as bad as it's
    made out to be. Sure there are times when it would be nice to come
    home to a life partner, but in these times....as  you put it, I
    know where I've been since 77-79, but where have they been and are
    they telling the truth.
        As I said in an earlier note, I had the AIDS virus blood test
    and it came back negative. I thought it would put a lot of fears
    to rest but the administrator told me that the test is not fool
    proof, that I could be celibate, come back in 6 months and it
    might be positive.
        What is scary is the 77-79 possible critical time frame. There
    was a lot of promiscuity in young gay and hetero people, and once
    you do have antibodies to HIV, you are marked for life, the
    possibility that you'll pass it on or get sick yourself. I don't
    think there are any easy answers.
        I have one question. When I got married, the only thing they
    tested pre-nuptial couples for was siphillis. Those of you who
    are planning marriage or just got married, is the HIV antibody
    test now being given as part of the blood test??? Just curious.
    
    Ray
    

RE: this .0, or other AIDS.0

How can you be a monogamous homosexual and have a daughter?

RE: .14

I would not waste time blaming the victim, but I would not waste time listening
to them blame someone else!  It sounds to me like you want to blame God, the
'"manufacturer"'... 

The only person I can see blaming, is the person they caught AIDS from.
Seriously, I can empathize with their problems, but I think at that time "blame"
is a waste of time. 

Jim.

    This was in the VOGON NEWS this morning (Edition: 1187)
    
    Science, Technology, Medicine, and Nature
    -----------------------------------------
    
    			AIDS UPDATE
    
    Three scientists have independently come to the conclusion that
    Aids is a man-made virus (or at least that it was artificially
    mutated).  Ther is even speculation that it was made by US scientists
    in the late 70s and escaped unintentionally.  Meanwhile, it is now
    known that there is a second strain of Aids virus which escapes
    the standard tests for the first strain.  If Aids originated in
    Africa as a mutation of a similar virus carried by green monkeys,
    as is genrally thought to be the case, its likely source was Burundi,
    in Central Africa, where Aids is now an epidemic.  Burundi has been
    corrupted by the influx of foreigners and the rate of prostitution
    is high - it is believed that about 70% of the prostitutes have
    Aids.  In Africa Aids is passed almost exclusively heterosexually
    (homosexuality is rare) in both directions - it is now believed
    that it can be transferred to the woman via semen and to the man
    by vaginal secretions.
    
    		Source: various items in the Times, BBC and other sources.
    
    /Jo-Ann

     From 113.24:
    
>    RE: this .0, or other AIDS.0

>    How can you be a monogamous homosexual and have a daughter?

    It's not hard.  Many lesbians and gay men spend a lot of time trying
    the conventional way (wife/husband, kids, house in the suburbs...)
    before they figure out that it isn't working.  There are also many that
    intentionally set out to have kids.  This is usually easier for
    lesbians to manage for obvious reasons, but it is not unknown for males
    to arrange.  There's also adoption. 
    

There is certainly a growing level of hysteria about this, as evidenced
by the contents of some of the previous replies.

A high level of concern can be good, to the extent it mobilizes support for
research into understanding and control of the disease.  It can be bad if
it results in repressive government action, irrational fear, etc. 

As with most other things, this should be kept in perspective.  Even Time
Magazine says "AIDS is not, and is not likely to become, another Black
Death, decimating the population." 

Further, one can manage the risk.  Being a promiscuous male homosexual
makes the risk pretty high.  However, your chances of acquiring AIDS in
1991 are reduced to about 1/7th that of being killed in a car accident in
the same year given only that you are heterosexual. (Based on the
projections of the two recent reports, Surgeon General's and National
Academy of Sciences). And of the 7000 cases among heterosexuals expected in
1991, it could be fairly assumed that those would be concentrated among the
most promiscuous individuals. 

Hence, I find the wailing about celibacy or lifelong monogamy to be much
too extreme.  Merely maintaining a lifestyle within a couple standard
deviations of today's norm is likely to keep the risk of AIDS down there
in the noise level with all the other essentially random causes.

On the other hand, the research must be continued and intensified. 
The impact of AIDS can't be ignored merely because it affects one's
own lifestyle to a lesser degree.  Besides, present projections could
be wrong...

Last night, the Surgeon-General commented that monogamy was the major safe way
to curtail the spread of the AIDS epidemic, and that if you were not currently
in a monogamous relationship, then one should be exceedingly cautious.

I'm curious. Given the (self-)advertized large numbers of readers of this
file who are not monogamous (either by opportunity or intent), how has the
AIDS epidemic affected your life? What steps do you take now that you didn't
before? Do you still believe that it can only happen to other people? How do
you ask someone that "all-important" question?

			Nigel

 In Boston, there is an "AIDS Action Line" to answer questions and
quell fears about the AIDS virus (plague, whatever). This organisation
has no problem with their phone number appearing on an electronic
bulletin board (I checked, at the request of a moderator). The
phone number is
	(617) 536 7733

 This is the same organisation that answers questions on a major Boston
Radio station, which shall remain nameless (but be referred to by the
initials WBCN)


			Nigel

    
    This kind of thing always gives me the quivers.  Why are these people
    doing this?  If they don't trust someone enough to be honest about
    something like this, why aren't they having second thoughts about
    a session in the rack with them?
    
    All right, I have to concede the possibility of being of victim
    of some kind of sadistic betrayal.  I don't think oprganizations
    like this are the answer.  If I had the extra money, I would think
    it better spent towards financing AIDS research.
    
    DFW

Re:      sadistic betrayal, dishonesty

I think you missed the main point.  The main danger is *not* that someone
will knowingly pretend they don't have AIDS and sleep with you.

The danger is the honest person not *knowing* they have AIDS and sleeping
with you.

(by "having AIDS" I mean being infectious, not necessarily having symptoms)

I think AID-free organizations might work, but of course they're only
as safe as the honesty of the members in terms of really only sleeping
with other members.

Also, there's the question of the validity of the tests.

What would be great, perhaps the next best thing to a cure for AIDS,
would be a dependable test.  You meet someone.  You want to become lovers.
You each take an AIDS test, then wait the time needed in order for test
to become valid, let's say three months.

Then you take second half of test.  If you both pass, you go to bed.
Unless of course you broke up in the three months, and then it's probably
better you didn't bed her anyway !

/Eric

    Until the test is 100% confidential, I won't take it.  And to me
    100% means NO insurance people can get anywhere near it, nor can
    they require that I take the test and tell them the results.
    
    Till then, it's safe sex or no sex, I guess.   :(
    
    Lee

    The tests are not perfect--false positives (the test says you have
    antibodies, and you don't) and false negatives (the test says
    you're ok, but you aren't) run about at about two to three percent
    _even if the test is correctly administered_ (which it often is
    not).*
    
    Given the actual rate of AIDS antibodies in the population (estimates
    I've seen are around less than one million), the chances are bigger
    that the test will have falsely reported you have AIDs (1% to 2%)
    than that you will have the disease (0.4%).
    
    AIDS is not a plague, and not a big deal demographically, and not
    likely to become one.  Real plagues are not hard to catch, do not
    take a long time to kill, and don't wind up their period of exponential
    growth at the 100,000 victim range.  I highly recommend William
    McNeil's book, _Plagues_and_Peoples_ for those who want to understand
    what's going on.  McNeil is a historian at the University of Chicago,
    and the book is about how diseases and human populations interact.
    
    				-John Bishop
    
    * From an article in the Wall St. Journal (or was it The Economist?)

    To answer the original question: I'm being very very cautious.
    I have taken the test myself (negative, thank god) and would
    ask any prospective lovers to do the same. Am I being overly
    paraniod? Probably, but it's better to be paranoid than dead.
    
    To correct some mis-information in the preceding replies:

    The test is very accurate with the one caveat that it takes
    about 2-3 months to develop antibodies. So to get a meaningful
    result one would have to be celibate for 3 monthes prior to
    taking the test.
            
    False positives are not that big a problem. First they do the
    ELISA test, and if that is positive, then they do the more
    accurate Western Blot test. The chances of both tests reporting
    a false positive are very very low, probably less than .1 percent.
    
    So-called AIDS-free clubs are dangerous because they offer a
    false promise. Most of them do not take into account the 3-month
    time window that it takes to develop antibodies. And the danger
    is that once they allow a single infected individual in, they've
    create a pool of promiscuous people who will rapidly spread the
    virus to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if, several months
    from now, studies showed a higher rate of AIDS infection within
    the so-called AIDS-free clubs than within the general population.
    
    Confidentiality of test results
    is not that big a problem if you go to the right
    places. There are testing centers that identify you only by a number,
    so they don't even know your name. You don't have to worry about
    insurance companies getting the results.
    
    As to whether AIDS is a "plague", that is a matter of semantics.
    It's clearly a serious problem, but nobody knows exactly how
    serious since widespread testing has not been done. But, the data
    I've seen is very disturbing. E.g., the AIDS testing center in 
    Nashua NH is seeing a 14% positive rate. True, not a random sample
    of the population, but distressing nonetheless. A study of auto
    accident victims in Baltimore
    (presumably a more random sample) revealed a 3%
    infection rate. Recent studies indicate that close to 100% of
    infected individuals will get the disease, if you wait long enough.
    All this implies millions of cases in the 1990's. And no, I do not
    get my information from "media hysteria", I get it from individuals
    in the health care industry and from reputable sources such as
    the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and so on.
    
    	- Rich