Conference turris::womannotes-v1

re: .0:

  >One would think the
  >first priority would be to prevent the spread, research the cause, then 
  >implement a plan of action.

  >	In all of his infinite wisdom, the President has refused to 
  >accept the idea that preventive medicine is the best cure.

What makes you think that this is not the case.  The amount of scientific
effort and media attention is extraordinary for a sexually transmitted
disease.  (When did you ever read about "anal retentive intercourse"
or "rimming" in your local Sunday paper before Aids.)  It certainly
seems to me that monogamy and celibacy are "preventive" medicine.

  >[President] Reagan ... is impementing [the Moral Majority's] ideas
  >freely into our democratic system.

Isn't his moral stance one of the reasons he was elected?  That is,
after all, the way our "democratic system" is supposed to work.

  >... and finally, is attacking the minorities (the immigrant, federal
  >prisoners, individuals working in centers for research of the disease,
  >and gays).

Huh?  The president is proposing that Aids be classified with other
communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis.  Immigrants are tested
for other diseases (and must present chest X-rays on entry).  How is
Aids testing any different?  The government is responsible for the
health of prisoners.  Is Aids testing reasonable?  If a prisoner tests
positive, what should a responsible prison administration do?

The "media" is starting to do a good job of getting Aids information
out.  The Boston Globe published a 4-page insert to their Sunday edition,
with extensive TV advertising.  Nightline is devoting much of this week
to Aids -- with a 4-hour show planned for Friday.

What is perhaps more interesting is that the incidence of Aids has dropped
in the San Francisco gay community -- apparently information on safe
sex practices has reached its audience.

I certainly don't agree with Presiden Reagan's politics in general,
nor with his Aids agenda in specific.  However, .0 seems to imply that
the government is basing its agenda solely on moral grounds.  This doesn't
seem to be the case.

Martin.

    	As proof that just knowing that you have AIDS will stop you
    from having sexual intercourse...
    
    	There is a rather sensational case in Columbia, S.C. right now.
    Seems this guy found out he had AIDS and while at the emergency room
    at the local hospital, he informed the nurses that he had aids and
    intended to infect as many people as possible.  Later that day he raped
    a woman.  He is being charged with aggravated asault with intent
    to kill.  The DA has said the if the woman gets AIDS and dies, he
    will be charged with murder.                              
    
    Tracey
    

    Unfortunately, Tracey, by the time the victim would be diagnosed (we
    can pray she won't be) the rapist will probably himself be dead. 
    
    						=maggie

    I saw an interview on Boston TV awhile back with a young man from
    the Boston area who had Aids.  He basically seemed like a nice person
    and the show was really sad, but this guy admitted to the reporter
    that when he first found out he had Aids he cruised gay bars on
    purpose, picking up and having sex with other men without telling
    them about the Aids.  He said that he bitterly felt that if he had
    to die why shouldn't they.  I guess we can't trust people who have
    been given a death sentence to act reasonably.
    
    Lorna
    

>The "media" is starting to do a good job of getting Aids information
>out.  The Boston Globe published a 4-page insert to their Sunday edition,
>with extensive TV advertising.  Nightline is devoting much of this week
>to Aids -- with a 4-hour show planned for Friday.
	
	The Boston Phoenix topped that - this past weekend they
	included a "safe sex kit", with very explicit information on
	how to avoid AIDS (including a fascinating list of "safe"
	activities), and a free condom (Trojan, lubricated).
	
	While I generally agree with .1 (AIDS testing should be
	matter-of-course wherever testing for TB and other diseases is
	done), I still have a feeling that Reagan looks at AIDS as a
	gay disease that "innocent Americans" must be protected
	against. I'm waiting for him to propose quarantines...
	
	Mike

            <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA11:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics Of Interest To Women >-
================================================================================
Note 326.6                   OLD FASHION WITCH HUNT                       6 of 6
VIKING::IANNUZZO "Catherine T."                      13 lines   2-JUN-1987 12:43
                                    -< ex >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .4
    
    The special was about Paul Cronin, the telephone worker who
    was diagnosed with AIDS, lost his job, etc., and sucessfully
    sued to get his job back.  He admitted to ONCE picking up a
    guy and having unsafe sex with him.  As you may be aware,
    coming to terms with a fatal disease can cause lots of mixed
    and irrational feelings, including denial and rage.  I don't
    think that your interpretation of what he said and did reflects
    what he really said. Some of this sounds like "urban legend".  
    It's also worth noting that unsafe sex takes two.
    
   
    

    Re .6, .4, yes that was the special I watched the one about Paul
    Cronin.  I didn't remember that he only picked up somebody once.
     I still wouldn't want to be that one unlucky guy.  Of course, I
    can imagine that he would feel very bitter.  The show was very moving.
     I just happened to remember what he said, which probably was one
    instance, when someone else mentioned if most people finding out
    they had Aides would stop having sex.  I just felt it was an example
    that you couldn't depend on it since this guy seemed like a very
    nice person and even he did it once.  
    
    Does anyone know what happened to Paul Cronin?  Has he died?
    
    I was really surprised to find my free condom in my Boston Phoenix
    this week, too!  
    
    As far as Reagan goes, I don't like him or anything I know about
    him.  It's too bad somebody couldn't have done something to protect
    "innocent Americans" from him.
    
    Lorna
    

    one complication is that the aids test has a high rate of false
    positive results. another problem is that a positive result shows
    whether the person has been exposed to the aids virus. it doesn't
    show that the person actually has aids. and it's still unclear 
    whether mere exposure is always a precursor to the full-blown 
    disease.  therefore, requiring testing appears to be a band-aid,
    not a fix.
    
    btw, did anyone else catch bush's gaffe yesterday? he addressed
    the aids convention in wash, dc, and got heckled. when he was done,
    he assumed that the microphones had been turned off and said
    "is that the gay group?"  geez. you don't have to be gay to be
    concerned about either aids or the administration's policies.
    
    liz
    

    >another problem is that a positive result shows
    >whether the person has been exposed to the aids virus. it doesn't
    >show that the person actually has aids. and it's still unclear 
    >whether mere exposure is always a precursor to the full-blown 
    >disease.  therefore, requiring testing appears to be a band-aid,
    >not a fix.
    
    I believe it is true that being exposed to the virus doesn't guarantee
    that one will develop the disease, *but* they are *still* contagious!
    And therefore still a threat to any potential sex partner.

	-Ellen    

    <--(.10)
    
    Yah, but what good does the test do toward reducing the spread?
    None that I can tell.

    More comments on AIDS testing...

.9>    I believe it is true that being exposed to the virus doesn't guarantee
.9>    that one will develop the disease, *but* they are *still* contagious!
.9>    And therefore still a threat to any potential sex partner.

    I'm not sure about this, but a test for antibodies indicates the
    presence of antibodies, not necessarily the presence of the virus. If
    that's true, a true positive test doesn't indicate that the person is
    contagious. 
    
    Many false positives are expected from the AIDS test. So, testing
    positive may not mean anything, but may cause much unnecessary anxiety.
    This doesn't make the test useless, but it's no complete solution.

    What happens when someone does test positive? If all the government(s)
    have for an AIDS policy is testing, where does the patient go? Are
    there any support groups? counseling? hospitals? insurance assistance?
    special unemployment benefits when she's fired from a job?  Don't just
    tell someone that she's going to die and end it there.  

    There's a lot of stigma attached to having AIDS. People have committed
    suicide on learning of positive results. Can it be guaranteed that
    tests will be 100% confidential? Will people who test positive lose
    jobs, insurance, friends, family? Are there any reasonable guarantees
    that test results won't be used for discriminatory practises?
    
    What if the positive result is a false positive (that is, the test
    shows the presence of antibodies, but there really aren't any)? Will
    the employer/immigration/insurance company/etc provide a second test?
    What if that test produces a false positive? A recent article in the
    Boston Globe pointed out that if the AIDS test were required for
    marriage licenses, some people would be found, but 1/3 of the positive
    results might be false, even after a second test.

    I'm all in favor of protecting the general public (after all, that
    includes me), but AIDS testing isn't the answer.

    Reagan has *consistently* requested less money for AIDS than the
    Congress appropriated in the previous year. I don't think he cares
    much.

    There was an article in the NY Times on Sunday past about AIDS. There
    were some strange points of view expressed.  For one, people seem to
    not worry about having sex with people they know. Obviously, only
    strangers can transmit AIDS! Another point was that the general
    public (and our governments) didn't start caring until the disease
    stopped being mostly a problem of gays and drug addicts. Now that
    "regular folks" are going to start dying, it's time to start caring.
    Very nice.


    By the way, Margaret and I walked in the "From All Walks of Life" walk
    this past Sunday. Some 3000 people raised $650,000 to support AIDS
    services and research in the Boston area.  If you'd like to make a
    contribution, send money (and matching gift forms) to 
    	AIDS Action Committee
	661 Boylston St
	Boston, MA

    Just some info on the subject. Regarding the studies, I heard the
    results on NPR, but I can't quote chapter and verse.
    
    1) AIDS increase is declining among the Gay population, becoming
    GREATER in the heterosexual population
    
    2) A poll found that "positive" Gay men practiced safe sex to about
    90% - "positive" heterosexual men practiced safe sex less than 50%
    (The implications of this about male attitudes toward female partners,
    as opposed to male partners, are interesting, and scary)
    
    3)There was a special (on NOVA, maybe?) about the testing of a
    Hepatitis-B vaccine on volunteers from the Gay (male) population
    of Greenwich village. This took place just before AIDS appeared
    on the scene. AFter these tests, the vaccine was shipped to Africa,
    where there was a heavy concentration of Hepatitis-B patients. AIDS
    first appeared in the gay male population and in Africa. I don't
    know if this is 2+2, but it's interesting.
    
    4) Flame on - The government will crap on whom it damn well pleases.
    If 99% of the population with AIDS were rich WASP businessmen, and
    1% of the population with AIDS were gey male hairdressers (Yes,
    Virginia, that's a stereotype) guess who would get quarantined??
    And guess who would get help? Flame off (for now)
    
    DAwn
    

    re .13
    
    There are MANY safe sex practices. What is a "safe sex" prectice?
    One that does not involve the "exchange of bodily fluids" (to wit,
    blood and sperm).
    
    While one's favorite "practice" may not be in the group, for heaven's
    sake, a little variety and imagination in the cause of saving one's
    (or one's partner's) life is NOT too much to ask , I think.
    
    Dawn
    

    re .11
    
    I have read that one way that AIDS may have reached the United States
    was as a result of blood products like gamma globulin. Apparently
    some of the manufacturers bought blood in countries that now have
    a high rate of AIDS infection.
    
    In Africa where the disease apparently orignated (native green monkies
    carry the virus harmlessly) the disease passes heterosexually and
    the numbers of women and children ill and dying of "slim" is quite
    high. Prejudice against Africans is also at an all time high in
    Europe.
    
    This is a diesease that can affect any one of us.
    

    Sorry - my last reference wasn't to .13, but now I don't remember
    the number - anyway, the question was, essentially - "How do we
    stop the spread of AIDS?"
    
    Confused amongst the all the action on this note, I am,
    
    sincerely,
    
    Dawn

    re .10:
    
    >Ironic that while time is being wasted while the disease
    >propagates, the gays accuse everyone who don't agree with
    >homophobia. I suspect there is a large amount of jockeying
    >for political power on this issue (gays now have a national
    >cause in common with the usual leftists, e.g. ACLU) and its
    >being milked for all its worth. Meanwhile, more and more cases
    >are created by unknowing carriers. So much for nice liberal
    >sensibilities when you or someone you love gets it...

    For the record, the ACLU defended the American Nazis right to
    demonstrate peacably in Illinois.  If that's a typical leftist
    activity, then that's a new one on me.

    re .18:
    
    >...AIDS victims have been helped from the outset, no matter what
    they were.
    
    Not by our federal government, which is what is being discussed here.
    I agree with whomever said that the reason help is now coming (if
    it is, I'm not even sure of that) is because the mainstream
    heterosexual population at large is now at risk.
    
    As an aside, can you admit that homosexuals *are* discriminated against
    and have been for as long as history?  Seems to be pure fact to me,
    not something open for debate.  Given that, if the AIDS scare has
    homosexuals claiming that this is an excuse to practice discrimination
    against gays, who can blame them based on history and given the
    "moral-majority" climate of our country these days?
    
    	-Ellen

re: .11
>
>	The walk for life raised over $650,00 and DEC was THE corporate
>sponsore, whatever that means, so I know this cultural climate is earmarking
>our productivity dollars to a worthy cause.  Keep up the good work DEC!!

    if you mean "From all walks of life", the AIDS walk on 31 March,
    the name "Digital Equipment Corporation" wasn't listed *anywhere* in the
    program. Lotus was the only corporate sponsor last year, and was joined
    this year by the boston globe foundation and one other I can't think
    of.

    You're right about education, though.  Spending money to teach people
    about how AIDS is transmitted ("You want to tell my little darling
    about s-e-x?  Oh, no you don't!") is much better than spending money on
    falsly-positive test results.

    When Dr. Koop was selected as the surgeon general, I never expected
    that I'd side with him, but he's turned out ok.  By the way, it looks
    like people in Chester Atkins congressional district (in Mass, the 5th
    district, I think, covering the Greater Maynard Area) will be getting a
    copy of the report in the mail soon.  That means that we have the only
    2 reps who're mailing the report out.


    before the walk started, Gov. Dukakis said that maybe in a few yrs,
    we'd have someone in the white house who'd read the surgeon general's
    report. A later speaker (rep. barney frank, I think) said that it'd be
    nice to have a president who reads at all. He suggested making up some
    nice graphics...

I strongly disagree with 326.18. It's not true that the administration
has helped AIDS victims from the outset.  To back up my argument, I'm
including a section from a research paper I wrote on AIDS in December
1985. Sorry about the format -- processed scribe doesn't make it online.

Also, quarantine for all gays or just for AIDS patients has been 
recommended -- it's not something that's just been invented.


liz augustine



In 1983,  Margaret  Heckler,  then  head of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), called AIDS a "scourge... that is causing tremendous
human suffering". AIDS patients   are   "Americans",   and  that  to  hold
up  funds  would  be "deplorable."@Cite(26mar83)  Nevertheless, in the spring
of 1983, Larry Kramer, founder of the Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York, 
called the allocation of $245,000  by  the  National Institute of Health  
for AIDS study a "piss poor  sum...  Reagan  and  Stockman  are  guaranteeing
that this epidemic is taking  longer  than  it  needs  to take and that more
will die than need to die."@Cite(14may83)  In  1983  and  1984,  the  combined
allocation for AIDS research was just $2 million.@Cite(4jun83)

The White  House has shown little interest in the issue. On a day in
1983 designated to call the White House about AIDS, the White House received
more  calls  by  mid-morning  than they had received in one day on any other
single subject. They pulled the plug on the phone.@Cite(26nov83)

Henry Waxman, who in 1982 was the Chair of the House Subcommittee on
Health and the Environment, felt the the administration's foot dragging
was due to homophobia. Because AIDS victims are primarily
out of the main stream, the administration responded too slowly to 
the  disease.  In comparison, he recalled the speed with which the government
responded to Legionnaire's disease.

@begin(quotation)
There is no doubt in my mind that if the same disease had
appeared among Americans of Norwegian descent,
or among tennis players, rather than among gay males,
the responses of both the Government and the medical
community would be different...@Cite(9oct82)

I want to be especially blunt about the political aspects
of Kaposi's sarcoma.  This horrible disease afflicts
members of one of the nation's most stigmatized and
discriminated-against minorities.  The victims are 
not typical Main-Street Americans.  They are gays,
mainly from New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco...
Legionnaire's disease hit a group of predominantly
white, heterosexual middle-aged memebers of the 
American Legion.  The respectability of the victims
brought them a degree of attention and funding for 
research and treatment far greater than that made available
so far to the victims of Kaposi's Sarcoma.  I want to 
emphasize the contrast because the 'more popular' 
Legionnaire's disease affected @u[fewer] people and
proved less likely to be fatal.  What
society judged was not the severity of the disease
but the social acceptibility of the individuals
afflicted with it.@Cite(8may82)
@end(quotation)

Robert Bressan cites another example of a medical problem that 
was accorded immediate attention and funding:
"When we had the Tylenol scare
in 1981, in which five people died, the government spent $22 million
in one week.  That was America at its best... Then we have this AIDS
thing."@Cite(8nov85).

AIDS research  has  received  increasingly  larger  allocations, but in some
years  these  funds  have been diverted from other, equally needed projects.
Another  complaint  has  been that research has focused on detection of AIDS
rather  than  on  treatment  or prevention. The @i[Washington Post] reported
that  at  a  1983  conference  for  mayors,  an  administration document was
circulating that said caring for AIDS patients should be "the responsibility
of   state,   local   and   private  entities",  not  that  of  the  federal
government.@Cite(25jun83)  The Office of Technology Assessment more recently
criticized  HHS  for  concentrating  on  biology.  "Psychological and social
factors,...  the  service needs of AIDS patients, and public education and
prevention have not been considered funding priorities."@Cite(8mar85)


References   Sorry -- these are in SCRIBE input form, but should still
----------   be readable.
    
@article(26mar83 
	,Journal="Gay Community News"
	,Date="March 26 1983"
	,Pages="2"
	)
    
@article(14may83 
	,Title="Thousands Demand More AIDS Funding"
	,Author="Bob Nelson"
	,Journal="Gay Community News"
	,Date="May 14 1983"
	,Pages="1-2"
	)
    
@article(4jun83  
	,Journal="Gay Community News"
	,Date="June 4 1983"
	,Pages="2"
	)

@article(26nov83   
	,Title="AIDS/Health"
	,Author="Diane Feinberg"
	,Journal="Gay Community News"
	,Date="Nov. 26 1983"
	,Pages="5"
	)
    
@article(9oct82
	,Title="The AIDS Mystery: Crisis and Challenge"
	,Author="Gordon Murray"
	,Journal="Gay Community News"
	,Date="Oct. 9 1982"
	,Pages="8"
	)
    
@article(8may82 
	,Journal="Gay Community News"
	,Date="May 8 1982"
	,Pages="2"
	)

@article(8nov85
	,Title="A filmmaker's need to do something about AIDS"
	,Author="Kay Longcope"
	,Journal="Boston Globe"
	,Date="Nov. 8 1985"
	,Pages="17"
	)
    
@article(25jun83
	,Title="AIDS Funding Jeopardized by Veto Threat"
	,Author="Bob Nelson"
	,Journal="Gay Community News"
	,Date="June 25 1983"
	,Pages="3"
	)
    
@article(8mar85  
	,Title="OTA Critical of AIDS Initiative"
	,Author="C. Holden"
	,Journal="Science"
	,Volume="227"
	,Date="March 8 1985"
	,Pages="1182"
	,Note="From a report about AIDS by the Office of Technology Assessment."
	)

    

I was at the Aids Action Committee recently and asked them
how may of their clients (AIDS victims to whom they provide
services) are women.  They have approximately 300 clients
and about 10% are women.  

The two groups that are producing the most AIDS/ARC diagnoses
are people of color and IV drug users.

    re: .23
    
    >Talk of quarantine is not only among the right wing. Lots of people
    >are afraid enough to vote for it if given the chance.
    
    Fortunately, this isn't the case.  Such a bill recently hit the polls
    in California; in the end, education won and the bill was defeated. For
    a while, I was worried, though.  Figures my home state would be first
    to come up with such a ludicrous proposal ...
    
    While AIDS is hitting all segments of the population, and while the
    heterosexual population is being more affected by AIDS, the numbers
    aren't too bad (yet).  Last year (1986), only 4% of the AIDS carriers
    were heterosexual.  By FAR, IV-Drug users and the gay community are at
    most (and very high) risk.
    
    In the health care community, there is a big fear that AIDS will become
    more common in the heterosexual population.  In 1985, only 2% of the
    AIDS carriers were heterosexual.  While the numbers are small, this
    does reflect a 100% increase.
    
    The AIDS virus is not very "robust".  It will die easily unless it is
    transferred by direct body fluid; you won't get it from a toilet seat,
    for example, or by handling some contaminated object (the virus dies
    very quickly when exposed to air).  The primary fear by health care
    professionals is that the virus will become "stronger" with time; this
    has happened many times in the past (with other disease), and will
    probably happen in this case too, unless a breakthrough comes quickly.
    
    	-- Jeff

    AIDS has been with us for about 7 years now.  It has taken that
    long to educate the gay community, bring about substantial changes
    in sexual behavior, and create the support structures that currently
    exist for persons with AIDS.  Most of those support systems --
    volunteers who take care of PWA's, provide counselling, medical
    assistance, food, housing, hospices, home care, education were created 
    by the gay community to meet its own needs, and with precious little
    help from the government or anyone else.  The impact has been
    substantial, and rate of new diagnoses among gay men is falling.
    The gay community, however, is still the source of most of the
    care and support that PWA's get, so hysterical straight people
    who call on the hotline because they've had a fling with a stranger
    last night can thank the gay community for being there.

    The disease has suddenly been discovered by the media because
    heterosexuals are realizing they are at risk.  However, they seem
    to be having a very hard time adjusting to the notions of safe
    and responsible sex.  Safer sex means that you should always
    behave as if EVERYONE is infected, including yourself.  You protect
    yourself, and you protect your partner.  There is no need to lock 
    up AIDS carriers, or even to test them.  If you are responsible in 
    your own behavior, then no one can infect you against your will 
    (rape is the only exception, and that is already a violent and 
    offensive crime).  It seems to me that a lot of the mania for
    testing, quarantines, etc. is because heterosexuals want scapegoats
    and don't want to have to take the kind of personal responsibility 
    for their sexual behavior that gay man have had to adjust to for years now.
    The disease could be pretty effectively stopped in its tracks if
    everyone was willing to practice safer sex.  Are heterosexuals 
    just naturally more selfish?

    It is worth noting that the risk to the heterosexual population
    does not come from gay men.  The infection is spreading to the
    largely because of heterosexual IV drug users.  Many of these people 
    are still quite uneducated about the disease.  They don't have the wealth 
    of social organization and media outlets the gay community has.
    They are not being reached, and their particular problems
    are not being very well dealt with.  Suggesting they give up
    IV drug use as a solution is pretty unrealistic, and hypocritical
    moralizing prevents authorities from making sterile needles
    available, or registering addicts and providing them with
    controlled substances.  To think that IV drug users are an
    isolated population that won't affect the "mainstream" is
    an incredible act of blindness.  

    Women are especially in a postion to be victimized by infected
    men, since it is much easier to spread the infection from man to
    woman than from woman to man or woman to woman.  Male semen is
    the most deadly substance, from the point of view of virus
    concentration.  Women need to be much more assertive about taking
    responsibility for their own safety, and insisting on safer sex
    with men.  Lesbians are among the lowest risk populations, but even
    then, they should be careful to avoid menstrual blood contact and
    should take precautions with a particularly high risk partner (IV
    drug use or active bisexuality).
    
    There is no need for hysteria, just a responsible attitude.
    
	(This reply was slow getting in, and several others have made
    similar points.  Sorry for any redundancy).
    

    Re .27
    

    I do not think testing is a prudent means to take to determine
    who may give blood since, as several people have already
    mentioned, the test is not foolproof and produces many false
    positives.  Also, it takes about three months for the AIDS antibodies
    to develop in the blood, which is what the test looks for.  That
    means lots of recently-infected people could be donating all of
    the time and corrupting our blood supply.

    Also, I think that the politicizing of the disease becomes a moot
    point when viewed in the light that we are in the midst of an
    epidemic.  Regardless of where it originated, we all need to be
    educated in order to protect ourselves and guard against panic
    and paranoia.  I think the general population should follow the
    lead of the gay community.  They have given us a good example of
    how to deal with the crisis.
    

    Margaret
    

This is a fact-sheet on Aids that is posted monthly to Usenet by
a New York medical student.

Path: decwrl!decvax!philabs!aecom!werner
From: werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner)
Subject: AIDS9: Monthly informational posting on AIDS
Message-ID: <1080@aecom.YU.EDU>
Date: 22 May 87 06:41:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Lines: 214

+ 	Please do not followup this article. Post all queries on AIDS as
+ original postings to sci.med only. However, note, that by and large, the
+ net is neither a fruitful nor a reliable source of AIDS information.

The following are reliable sources of information on AIDS:
	Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 1-800-342-AIDS (404-329-1290 in GA)
	U.S. Public Health Service  1-800-447-AIDS  (202-646-8182 in DC)
	American Association of Physicians for Human Rights
		P.O Box 14366, San Francisco CA 94114
		415-558-9353 (415-673-3189 in Bay Area)
	National Gay & Lesbian Task Force   1-800-221-7044 (212-741-5800 in NY)
		80 5th Ave, Suite 1601, NY NY 10011
	The recently published Surgeon General's report is available
	free from the U.S. Public Health Service by writing:
		AIDS / Box 14252 / Washington DC 20044
	Also I must highly recommend the following special issue of
		New Scientist: 26 Mar 1987 113:36-59.
	
	In 1976, a San Francisco prostitute died from a rare form of
pneumonia. Later testing showed that hers was the first known death
attributable to the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in the U.S.
	The Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) has been diagnosed in 
30,396 persons in the United States with 17,338 deaths as of Feb. 6, 1987. 
56% of the adults and 61% of the children diagnosed with AIDS have died,
including over 79% of those patients diagnosed before January 1985.

	In the first 15 weeks of this year, there were 5,465 (3,578 in the same
period last year) reported cases of AIDS.
	This compares to 225,611 (239,771) reported cases of
Gonorrhea, 9,357 (7,315) cases of Syphillis, and 5,538 (5,430) cases
of Tuberculosis.
	In all of 1986, 13,008 new cases were reported (compared to 
8,355 in 1985) 
	In perspective, there were 896,383 (883,826) reported cases of
Gonorrhea, 27,559 (26,868) cases of Syphillis, and 22,575 (22,144) cases
of Tuberculosis in the year 1986 (1985).
	(Many of the above statistics from the US Centers for Disease
Control's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.)

	Although the United States has the highest number of AIDS cases,
AIDS has been reported in 102 countries.  Of the appromately 50,000 cases
reported to WHO, about two-thirds have been in the United States.  Brazil
has reported 1,012 cases, Canada 926, Haiti 785, Mexico 316, and Cuba 3.
4,869 cases have been reported in Europe, 126 in Asia, and 33 in the USSR.
The per capita incidence in Africa approaches that of American cities,
with an epidemiology resembling that of other sexually transmitted diseases.

------------
AIDS Summary
------------

*** What is Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome? ***
	AIDS is a consequence of infection with a retrovirus that specifically
infects cells carrying the CD4 (OKT4) protein.  These include white blood cells
of the Helper T-cell lineage.  Infection with this virus, variously called
HTLV-3 (Human T-Cell Lymphotophic Virus, type III), LAV (Lymphadenopathy-
associated virus), ARV (AIDS-Related Virus), and HIV (Human Immunodeficiency
Virus),  is not by itself fatal. However, the virus impairs the immune system
of the host to allow opportunistic infections. Opportunistic infections are
infections with organisms generally incapable of causing disease in healthy
individuals, but can be fatal in immunocompromised persons.
	Cellular Determinant 4 (CD4), which acts as the receptor for the
AIDS virus entry into the cell, is found predominately on Helper T-cells, and
is in fact crucial for this help to occur. It is said that if a virus had to
pick one molecule in the immune system that would do the most damage by
its absence, the CD4 molecule is it.  The CD4 molecule is also expressed
is some Killer T-cells, Macrophages (Mononuclear phagocytes), in an unknown 
cell type in the brain, and has recently been reported to be expressed in low
quantities in human colorectal cells (and quite possibly in all cells
derived from embryonic endoderm).
	The actual diagnosis of AIDS is made according to a very strict
case definition set up by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The diagnosis
of AIDS is a pathological diagnosis and requires a biopsy. Evidence
of infection and illness not meeting the strict case definition is called
AIDS-related complex (ARC). Asymptomatic infection is also possible.
It is not clear at this time what percentage of each group will progess,
however, once the diagnosis of full-blown AIDS is made, the mortality
approaches 100% by 5 years after diagnosis.
	A revised definition of AIDS recently proposed would increase the
number of cases approximately 25% by reclassifying some patients currently
diagnosed as having AIDS-related complex (ARC).
	It is also known that virtually all AIDS patients, if they live
long enough will develop changes in mental status. In most cases, these
are due to opportunistic infections of the nervous system. However, in 
some cases it is due to a direct CNS infection by the virus itself. 

*** What is the virus? ***
	The Virus is an RNA virus that upon infecting a cell reverse 
transcribes itself into a DNA and stably inserts into the cell's DNA,
using the cell's machinery to produce RNA copies of its genome as well as
viral proteins.  The mechanism by which the virus actually kills the cell
has not been elucidated. It appears, however, to be a much more complex
process than the popular "cellular burnout" scenario.  
	Robert C. Gallo has proposed that the virus acts in-vivo not
so much by directly killing the cells it infects so much as preventing
their clonal expansion in response to an immune stimulation.
	The virus that causes AIDS appears very similar to the virus
STLV-III, which infects the African Green Monkey without causing
disease, as well as the virus HTLV-IV, which infects humans without
causing disease.  Two other viruses capable of causing AIDS are the
recently isolated LAV-2 and SRB.  They are all closely related, and belong 
to the Lentivirus family, of which the Sheep Visna virus was the first
characterized. A Lentivirus that causes AIDS-like symptoms was recently
identified in cats. 

*** How is it spread? ***
	AIDS is spread by direct transfer of infected bodily fluids.  Infection
via blood and semen have been proven.  The virus has also been isolated 
rarely and in small quantities from saliva and tears, but no cases to date 
have been definitely linked to these routes of transmission.  Similarly, 
no evidence suggests that AIDS is transmitted by casual contact, or 
even household contact, or by insect vectors. In fact, a growing body of 
negative evidence suggests otherwise.
	Similarly the virus cannot exist free for an extended period of time
(> 20 minutes or so), and is killed by routine sterile procedures (including 
autoclaving and dilute chlorine bleach).
	In short, it appears to have the same pattern as transmission as
Hepatitis B virus, but is much less virulent.  

*** Can it be cured? ***
	At this time, great strides have been made in the understanding of
the causative virus, as well as the treatment of the superimposed
opportunistic infections.  The average survival time from diagnosis has
been gradually and steadily increasing, but at this current time, there is
no way of successfully reversing the underlying immune deficiency.
	Recent clinical trials with 5-Azidothymidine (AZT) appear to slow 
the progression of the disease and improve quality of life in a defined 
subset of patients, although the drug is not without side-effects.  A 
special AZT hotline has been set up  by the National Institutes of Health
at (800)-843-9388. AZT has recently been approved under the trade name
Retrovir, although it is, at present, extremely expensive. 
	Similar promising results have been acheived with the antiviral
drug Ribavirin, however both it and AZT can only slow the progression
of the disease, not provide a cure, and each has toxic side effects.
Ribavirin has not yet been approved for use by the FDA.
	It has also recently been reported that although Ribavarin
and AZT each inhibit the virus at unique steps, they are antagonistic
rather than synergistic, and cannot be used in combination.
	Work on recombinant and/or synthetic vaccines has also proceeded
rapidly, but none has yet advanced far enough for human trials, and there
are no suitable animal models to test vaccine candidates.

*** Who is at risk? ***
	Due to the nature of its transmission, AIDS has so far been limited 
to certain defined risk groups. These are: Sexually active homosexual males,
Intravenous Drug Abusers, Hemophiliacs and others who received contaminated
blood products, the sexual partners of the above, and children born to
infected women. Recent immigrants from areas where AIDS is endemic (including
Haiti and Central Africa) also represent a disproportionate number of cases.
	NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT INCLUSION WITHIN A RISK GROUP IS NOT IN AND 
OF ITSELF AN INCREASED RISK, BUT IS MERELY AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL TOOL to 
predict exposure to the virus, i.e.  a gay male who has been celibate 
since 1977 is at no increased risk of developing AIDS. Similarly, merely
being Haitian is not a priori, a risk factor for developing AIDS.

The epidemiological data is as follows:
	60% of adult AIDS victims are white, 25% Black, 14% Hispanic.
	90% are between the ages of 20-49, 93% are men.
	Gay men with no history of drug abuse account for 66% of all 
cases, Gay drug abusers, 8% (total gay = 74%), Heterosexual drug 
abusers, 17% (15% of male cases and 51% of female), Hemophiliacs, 1%,
Sexual Partners of those infected (2% of males and 27% of females), and 
Transfusion associated, 2% (1% of males, 10% of females).
	Among children, 20% are white, 57% black, 22% Hispanic. 55% are male.
	79% of children were born to infected mothers, 13% are transfusion
associated, 6% are hemophiliacs.
	Numbers may not add up to 100% due to incomplete reporting.
	Blacks and Hispanics accounted for 22% and 14% of the male cases,
respectively, but 52% and 20% of the female cases.  The relative risk
for Black and Hispanic women is 13.3 and 11.1 times higher than for
white women.  The cumulative incidence among Blacks and Hispanics is
3 times as much as their proportional population. 
	AIDS has been reported in all 50 states, but over 3/4 of all cases
have occurred in just 4: New York, Florida, New Jersey, and California.
Female AIDS patients have been reported in 41 states, pediatric cases
in 29 states. 

*** How to avoid AIDS? ***
	Since over 99% of AIDS cases are linked to sexual or direct 
parenteral (Blood and body fluids, includes IV drug use) transmission, 
CELIBACY AND AVOIDANCE OF IV DRUG USE WILL EFFECTIVELY REDUCE ONE'S
CHANCE OF CONTRACTING AIDS TO NEAR ZERO, especially since blood 
products are now screened for contamination.
	Given the general unpopularity of complete celibacy, the use of
condoms in combination with spermicides, and other measures to avoid 
exchange of bodily fluids (by which is usually meant semen and
blood), and stable monogamous relationships will provide relative
but not absolute protection. 
	To put it plainly, the fewer sexual partners you have, 
the lower your risk of contracting AIDS by sexual contact.
	Avoiding shared razors and toothbrushes has also been suggested, 
as these may be contaminated with blood.
	Donated blood is now screened for contamination, and the risk
from of contracting AIDS by this route is nearly as low as it was in 1977.
	There is absolutely NO RISK of contracting AIDS by DONATING blood.
This belief has caused a critical shortage of blood in this country. 
Therefore, if you are healthy, have not used IV drugs or engaged in
sex with a male homosexual/bisexual since 1977, and have not engaged in
prostitution, or have not had sex with a prostitute in at least six
months, contact your local Red Cross to become a blood donor, please.

*** About the poster ***
	Craig Werner is a frequent poster of original articles to net.med.
He is currently a NIH medical scientist trainee, has completed the two
years of medical school basic science and passed the National Medical
Boards - Part I, and is now doing research on the molecular genetics of
human filarial parasites. By the time the dust settles after the turn of
the decade, he will hold a Masters degree in Microbiology and Immunology,
an MD, and a PhD.
-- 
			      Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91)
				!philabs!aecom!werner
              (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
               "Why is it that half the calories is twice the price?"

    re: .28
    
    Actually, based on a talk that I recently attended (sponsored by the
    Department of Health), it can take up to six months (not three) for the
    AIDS antibodies to develop in the blood.  Thus, to REALLY know if you
    have AIDS or not by current testing today, you'd have to lead a mighty
    restrictive lifestyle for six months prior to your test.
    
    No, I don't think that mandatory testing of certain groups is a very
    good answer to our problem ...
    
    	-- Jeff

    re .29  by rancho::holt
    
    you say that the "gay community created the problem... because they
    refused to be responsible". can you back this up?  when aids first
    made itself apparent, it was unclear how the disease was transmitted.
    when researchers decided that aids was communicated through "exchange
    of bodily fluids", the community reacted pretty fast. members of
    that community radically altered their sexual behavior and have been 
    extremely responsible about donating blood.  the latter reaction was 
    almost immediate (and the blood supply became almost completely
    "clean" of the aids virus). also, it appears that the incidence of 
    aids is decreasing in the gay population (which indicates that 
    education has had a good effect), and is increasing in the rest
    of the population.   
    
    to rancho::holt and djpl -- i welcome you to reveal the sources
    of your statements.

    liz augustine

    With reference to the base note, it appears that the President's
    remarks asked that immigrants and aliens seeking permanent residence
    be tested and federal prisoners be tested.  I don't see what the
    objection would be to testing of these groups.  Immigrants are already
    required to be tested for all kinds of diseases from tuberculosis
    to substance abuse and are barred if a clean bill of health is not
    submitted.  I don't think it unreasonable to deny entry to someone
    with an incurable disease (especially if said disease can be spread
    by that person). As for testing of federal inmates, the only objection
    I have found is that if the test is NOT positive, he'll (or she
    will) be a more likely candidate for rape.  However, in this scenario,
    I suppose the results would have to be posted in a public place
    such as the prison bulletin board.  It appears that the hostility
    is directed toward testing of any kind.
    
    I am a proponent of research but I don't see how there can be any
    comprehensive research without some form of testing.  
                                        
    As for education, one of the things it means is how homosexuals
    can have safe sex.  If there are any homosexuals today who are so
    dumb that they still don't know about AIDS and preventative measures,
    they don't need education but a brain transplant.
    
    Education relative to IV drug users appears to me to be a waste
    of money.  How does one educate someone addled enough to shove a
    needle into his arm that someone else has previously used?  It appears
    to me that some people are not very educable, especially those with
    needle marks on various appendages.
    
    Education for the general populace seems to be getting done (such
    as kit offered by Boston paper mentioned in previous notes) as I
    have heard more about AIDS and the prevention of same in the past
    year than in the prior five years.
                                     
    Until research is successful in doing something about AIDS,
    I guess I don't find testing, with the results kept private, is
    such a terrible thing, whether for specific groups or the populace
    in general.  Apparently, a lot of homosexuals agree with this as
    an examination of homosexual publications will show advertisements
    from people seeking partners including claims that the advertiser
    has been tested and certified medically.  If testing is ok under
    the above circumstances, I can't understand what is intrusive about
    tests for a couple being married.
                                                               
    

    	re:  .34
    
    	Just wanted to add that the *other* sexually transmitted
    	diseases have been drastically *REDUCED* in the gay community
    	while at the same time being drastically *INCREASED* among
    	heterosexuals.
    
    	The reason for that is two-fold.  First, the gay community is
    	showing responsibility (by practicing SAFE SEX) while the
    	rest of the population is *NOT*.
    
    	Secondly, health officials are not pursuing the sexual partners
    	of those that are diagnosed as having non-fatal STD's with as
    	much fervor as they used to do.  That is most likely due to
    	their heavier concerns regarding AIDS.
    
    	People in the gay community have been enlightened as to the
    	dangers of unprotected sex (while many heterosexuals still
    	feel that they are in no danger since they are not in one of
    	the primary "risk groups.")
    
    	One could say that heterosexual people are now contributing 
    	to the spread of *ALL* STD's (by our ignorance and our refusal 
    	to accept what the gay community already knows:  that *NONE*
    	of us are safe from AIDS no matter *WHAT* group we are
    	in.  Anyone who engages in sex can get AIDS if he or she
    	does not take precautions.)
    
    	Obviously, education is badly needed in the heterosexual
    	population.  
    
    							Suzanne...

    	RE: 35
    
     >  If there are any homosexuals today who are so
     >  dumb that they still don't know about AIDS and preventive measures,
     >  they don't need education but a brain transplant.
    
    	My point is that *if there are any HETEROSEXUALS* who are so
    	dumb that they still don't know about AIDS and preventive
    	measures then (by YOUR logic) *HETEROSEXUALS* don't need
    	education but a brain transplant.
    
    	Guess what?  We have millions of candidates for your 
    	recommended brain transplant (BILLIONS, in fact!!)
    
    	Ready to stand in line (or do you agree that education is
    	a better place to start?)
    
    						     Suzanne...

    	re:  .35
    
    	P.S.  Statistics indicate that very few gays would be joining
    	the rest of us "dumb heterosexuals" in the brain transplant
    	line.
    
    							Suzanne...
    

RE: .26

According to  All  Things  Considered last night, transmission of AIDS
from  women to men was as likely as transmission from men to women. No
explanation  of  the  transmission path was offered, as it is probably
not known because there is a ~5 year incubation period, which makes it
hard to pinpoint exactly where transmission took place.

RE: .16?
The 5 year incubation period makes it hard to tell whether people with
antibodies  are infectious. If everyone had only one sexual partner in
the  last  five  years  it would be possible to tell, but I don't know
many single people who fit that description.

Re: history
Two  friends  of  mine who did their (medical) internship in the early
70's saw a patient who they couldn't help (or even diagnose) then, but
who,  they are now conviced, had AIDS. So perhaps the disease has been
around in the States longer than people think.

--David

>    Education relative to IV drug users appears to me to be a waste
>    of money.  

    Seems it's possible. I heard a report on the radio (NPR, of course)
    that some group was distributing vials of chlorine bleach to IV drug
    users, and it's apparently helped.  (See Martin's Usenet posting, which
    says that dilite chlorine bleach will kill the virus).

    So, perhaps one can teach any dog new tricks, eh?

    RE: 39
    
    The report *I* heard last nite on NPR said it was indeed more difficult
    to pass the disease FROM the female; and easiest to pass FROM the
    male.
    
    RE:.22 and the other net posting
    
    Thanks. Well done, Liz.
    
    Dawn
    

    I heard on the news a few nights ago that the problem with positive
    tests is this:  For every 1000 tests given, one will be a false
    positive.  But when you are testing a population where the incidence
    is one in a thousand or less, you could be wrong 50% of the time or more.
    
    
    Also, a friend of mine from college just recently "came out" to
    me (admitted his homosexuality) (no, this does not affect my friendship
    with him in the least, nor do I feel it should)....and he told me
    the most difficult thing to deal with is not curtailing the sex
    - because sex is not all there is to a relatioship.  He pointed
    out to me that what is most troubling is the loss of intimacy he
    and others like him are experiencing....the feeling of "outcast
    unclean"...the lack of support (whether it be financial, medical,
    or emotional) from much of the heterosexual community.  These people
    don't need to be branded and marched off like sick cattle...they
    are human...they need understanding and healing...they are dying,
    and for all some of them know they may still be harboring the
    virus...it may be waiting to overtake them like some insidious toxic
    waste.  
    
    Well, in Africa the virus is harbored 50/50...the same news broadcast
    (NBC?) stated that half those infected are men...half are women...and if
    this is, indeed, the case, then the heterosexual community should
    be taking these precautions YESTERDAY.  And the investment of time,
    effort, money, education, etc. should grow proportionately.
    
    in the words of one immortal man ... "I have a dream..."
    
    can anyone tell me who I should write to? Congressfolk, representative,
    etc?
    
    -Jody
    

    re .41, .39, .26, etc.
    
    There was a report in the AIDS conference this week from Belgium on the
    incidence of AIDS in the spouses of infected people. There was no
    higher incidence of AIDS in wives of victims than in husbands of
    victims. This seems to indicate that previous reports of transmission
    to women being easier than transmission to men were in error, but
    nothing is certain. Remember, there are lots of people doing lots of
    studies and getting lots of differing data. It's also very easy for
    statistical anomilies to crop up all over the place. 
    
    re AIDS being a mutation:
    
    Robert Gallo, one of the people who isolated HIV-I, is of the opinion
    that AIDS is not a mutation, but was relatively common in populations
    that were isolated from the outside world. His opinion is that the
    social upheavals of the past two decades of African politics pushed the
    virus into the mainstream population. He is also of the opinion that
    more retro-viruses will be found that were similarly pushed into the
    outside world. He also announced finding a new retro-virus that causes
    a new AIDS-like disease. The virus is currently known only as Nigeria-X.
    
    Now before you go panicing, Gallo is hopeful about finding cures for
    these "new" viruses. He says that they all use similar techniques for
    spreading and reproduction, and that a treatment for one of these
    viruses is likely to treat many. Also, there have been recent
    breakthroughs in figuring out the mechanisms that the viruses use. This
    is *very* good news. 
    
    re false positives on the antibody test:
    
    The rate of false positives on the AIDS antibody test is 3%, not 0.1%. 
    
    	Jon
    

	Generalizing about heterosexuals all ignoring the danger sheds
	no more light than the generalizations about homosexual
	bathhouses. There are plenty of us who know "the C-word". And,
	of course, that there are alternatives to intercourse in
	physical intimacy. 
	
	re RANCHO::HOLT: You might be taken a little more seriously if
	you refrained from the gay- and liberal-bashing. The
	homosexual attitude in the early days of AIDS was exactly the
	same as the heterosexual attitude now - there are those who
	take precautions, and those who think it'll never happen to
	them until someone close to them gets it. AIDS is not a gay
	disease, as events in Africa show - it first appeared in the
	U.S. among men who coincidentally happened to be gay, and thus
	spread through the gay community first. Please try to remember
	that those gays with the disease are the *victims* here, not
	the cause.

	Finally, let's not panic. This isn't something that can be
	casually passed along like the flu - to catch AIDS, you have
	to engage in certain specific activities, which can easily be
	avoided altogether, or rendered essentially safe. If you don't
	want to catch AIDS, mind your own behavior, not that of
	others.
	
	Mike

re: .41
>    can anyone tell me who I should write to? Congressfolk, representative,
>    etc?

    Write to everyone. Write to the president, write to your federal reps,
    write to the governor, write to your state reps, write to the town
    select board, write to the town health board, write to the school
    committee, send money to the AIDS Action Committee. It may be that no one
    will listen, but if everyone does something, they'll have to listen
    eventually.

    The only way that this (or any other) problem will be solved is if
    people care and do something. No matter how small your contribution is,
    it is much better than doing nothing.  Do something.

    	RE:  .44
    
    	Exactly right (about not being able to generalize about *all*
    	heterosexuals ignoring the danger of AIDS by not using protection.)
    	It appears that heterosexuals are (in general) *less cautious*
    	than homosexuals (my source for that info is a report about
    	the fact that the new cases of other STD's is going *UP* in hetero-
    	sexuals while the number of new cases is being *reduced* among
    	gays.)  I can get you an exact source for that if needed.
    
    	Whenever I see statements made by heterosexuals (regarding AIDS)
    	that run along the lines of, "Well, if gay people will just
    	practice safe sex, then AIDS won't spread so fast" -- it makes
    	me more and more aware that the hetero population still has
    	quite a few members that don't see the big picture.  There are
    	too many of us who still think that "only gays and drug users
    	get it, so why bother practicing safe sex."
    
    	What really kills me is when I see the reasons why some heteros
    	say that they don't practice safe sex.  I have a good male friend
    	whose wife has a history of cheating (the sex_with_a_stranger
    	type scenerio.)  She promised she wouldn't do it anymore, so
    	when her time is unaccountable now, my friend gives her the
    	benefit of the doubt.  Well, sure -- you have to trust your
    	spouse if you expect the marriage to work.
    
    	I asked him if he was practicing safe sex with his wife, and
    	he said "Of course not."  He didn't want her to think that he
    	still suspects her of cheating.  He is showing how much he
    	trusts her by acting as if he is dead certain that she is being
    	monogamous.
    
    	I just shook my head and thought to myself, "Sure.  What do
    	you have to lose besides your life.  Why worry -- the worst
    	that can happen is that you both will die and your small son
    	will become an orphan."
    
    	Interviews with high school kids show that most kids think that
    	practicing safe sex is an insult to their partner.  "If you
    	love me, you'll have sex with me without protection."
    
    	The stakes are just too high for that sort of logic.  
    
    	When you have unprotected sex with someone, you are having sex
    	with every partner they've had for the past 5-7 years (PLUS
    	every partner that these OTHER partners have had prior to their
    	getting together with YOUR new partner.)  

    	It amazes me that the message is so hard to communicate.
    
    						       Suzanne...

    	re:  .46
    
    	It seems to me that Reagan is falling into the same sort of
    	line of thinking that much of the rest of the country has
    	accepted (the "IT AIN'T US" syndrome.)
    
    	It's people coming in to the country, it's guys in prison,
    	it's gays, it's drug users, it's single people (who could be
    	about to get married.)  It's not *US*.  Before we let them
    	walk among us, let's test them and see if they deserve the
    	honor.
    
    	You're right -- it directs attention away from the fact that
    	it *IS* us (that it can happen to anyone.)  
    
    	Reagan is telling the general populace what it wants to hear.
    
    						      Suzanne...

    
    	<----  .49
    
    	Correction -- AIDS can happen to anyone who does not take
    	precautions.

    With all apologies to the base-noter, who'd really like to get this
    note back on track...
    
    RE: practicing safe sex.
    
    I saw parts of a program on cable last eve, Sgt. Matlovich was on,
    and also some woman representing a group whose name I didn't catch.
    Her "thing" was that teenagers should be celibate, and society should
    encourage that by advertising celibacy as well as (or maybe instead
    of ) condoms.
    
    That may be a fine idea. But what planet is this person living on?
    How many generations of kids have been told by their parents - DON'T
    (parents, by the way, who mostly DID) - and the kids did it anyway??
    
    Sure, n% won't, but most WILL. Teenagers are hard to convince about
    their own vulnerability.
    
    Unless individuals like this person, our prez and VP, and many others
    get their heads out of the sand and understand REALITY, we're gonna
    get nowhere fast.
    
    Mr. Reagan can say - "Trust me - the government won't do anything
    nasty with this information" But I, for one, don't believe him.
    And when some "well-meaning" person from the public health office
    has called your employer, it's too late to withdraw your trust.
    
    The U.S. government and its various agencies have NEVER been
    trustworthy to minorities. Building trust takes time. We don't HAVE
    lots of time. This is a problem. A real problem.
    
    Dawn
    

    
    Re: Base note .0
    
    Your continuing attacks on Reagan administration policies and actions
    are specious at best, your information is highly biased and distorted.
    Nevertheless, todays news that the democratically controlled senate
    voted unanimously to test immigrants for aids renders the argument
    moot. It is not an issue of politics, i.e., conservative vs liberals.
    It is however an issue of government and populace response to
    an increasing epidemic that threatens us all.
    
    Re: Rancho holt, what you write does make sense to some of us.

    I don't really have a problem with the testing that goes along with
    applying for a marriage license or that of aliens.  I do not see
    what benefit it might have to test prisoners.  My SO is violently
    opposed to any of the above.
    
    I do have a problem with people saying "gay" or "homosexual" when
    they mean gay men.  If anyone is unclear that discrimination takes
    place against gays because of AIDS, look and see how many people
    even shy away from lesbians because they have heard that "gays can
    give you AIDS".  Even for those of you people who know you are talking
    about the men when you use those words, please consider that other
    people reading your note (or hearing you talk) are going to,
    subconsciously or consciously, generalize.
    
    Thank you for your support  :-)
                                                 
                 Carol

Just a reminder:  Many people writing in this note have said that 
safe sex will protect you against AIDS.  NOT TRUE.  Abstinence
will prevent you're getting AIDS, other safer sex practices will help
your chances of not getting AIDS.  I seem to remember hearing that
condoms are about 80% effective in preventing AIDS, which sounds 
about right, as they are 85% effective against pregnancy.  
  Nonoxynol-9 (the only spermicide in common use in the US) kills the
AIDS virus in vitro, but there are no in-vivo data yet.  It probably
also helps your chances, but THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SEX,
ONLY SAFER SEX.

--David

    Let us talk for a minute about those 'specious facts' that (I gather)
    include the idea that the Reagan administration might favor quarantine
    of gays or other 'undesirables' due to their current high risk
    classification.   This administration has certainly not acted to
    *prevent* the movement toward such a quarantine.    Did you hear
    any loud outcries in 1986?   How much influence do you think the
    administration has over the Justice Department?
    			In 1986 the Justice Department issued a decision 
    that held it permissible for employees to bar AIDS patients or those
    infected with the virus from work.   The ruling held that federal
    law did not protect the civil rights of those who might be considered
    dangerous to others;  moreover, the ruling left the evaluation of
    such "real or perceived" risks to the employer.    This sounds like
    the first step involved in a quarantine to me (in fact, sounds a
    lot like the early laws that were passed in Germany to separate
    the Jews from the rest of the population so that other Germans wouldn't
    notice when the Jews started to vanish).    It sounds to me like
    folks need education on AIDS.
       (Note that this is while Reagon had (and has) insisted until
    very recently that all we need to do is tell people to be celibate--not
    to educate folks about the disease.   Also note that Mr. Reagan
    was (or should have been) well aware of the importance of AIDS since
    1983 when Edward Brandt, the then government top health official,
    called AIDS the nation's number 1 priority in public health.)
    
    In conclusion, I quote from the words of journalist Charles Krauthammer
    who noted that the 1986 ruling undercut all anti-descrimination
    legislation:
    	The whole point of such is to say this: it may indeed cause
    	you psychological distress to mix with others who you irrationally
    	dislike or fear.   Too bad.  The state has decided that these
    	particular prejudices are destructive and irrational.  Therefore
    	the state will prohibit you from acting on your groundless
        predudices.	...
    	It should not matter if people think you can get AIDS in the
    	XEROX room.  You can't.  Ignorance is a cause of descrimination.
    	It is not a justification for it.
    
    
    Celibacy isn't an option for the thousands of Americans who are
    finding they have AIDS.    We need a social solution to the problem
    and education is the key--particularly since we don't *have* a
    scientific solution yet.      
    
    Tamar
    ps My source is the "Journal of Law, Medicine & Health Care," VOL
    	14, #5-6, Dec 1986; AIDS Science & Epidermiology.
    

    re .48
    
    >Is it now a rule that
    >we may NOT criticize gays and/or liberals? Is free speech only
    >for the hip, liberal, and/or gay

    I don't think it's okay to bash blacks, Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, or
    homosexuals.  (Liberals is another story)  It's *not* a free speech
    issue.  No one will arrest you for bashing homosexuals or blacks.  But
    decent people won't tolerate group-bashing.  *I* certainly don't and
    I hope this community supports me in this, or else I shouldn't be here.
    
    You can start by rewording your replies to say "many gays" or "some
    gays" rather than "gays" or "the gay community", the way we've all
    tried to do in the past few months when talking about "men" and "women".
    
    	-Ellen

    	RE:  .53
    
    	In case anyone out there is not aware of it, lesbians are (and
    	always *have* been) the group least likely to develop almost *ANY*
    	sort of sexually transmitted disease (among groups considered
    	to be sexually active.)
    
    	So much for the "extreme_radical_right_moral_majority_or_whatever"
    	opinion that "gays" are the cause of this whole problem (and
    	that they are being "punished" for living a gay lifestyle.)
    
    	Half the gay community is currently in one of groups "most at
    	risk" (while the other half is in the group that is currently
    	one of the "least at risk" among sexually active portions
    	of the population.)  Eventually, if the current trend continues,
    	heterosexuals *MAY WELL* take over as being a group "most at
    	risk" (if we don't take a stronger stand about "realistic
    	sex education.")  
    
    	As for the testing, I'm very much in favor of making it available
    	on a confidential basis to anyone who wants it.  The idea of
    	mandatory testing in order to partition-off members of our
    	society is a concept that bothers me a lot.  No matter what
    	the government *SAYS* they will do with the data, I have a hard
    	time believing that they will just send a card that says, "Sorry
    	to inform you that you have AIDS.  Hope your last years are
    	not too difficult.  We promise we won't tell anyone.  Go ahead
    	and get married/or_whatever."  Somehow, I don't think that's
    	what they have in mind.

    						      Suzanne...

    I heard on the radio this morning that a doctor at the Aids conference
    noted that 20% of the male population between the ages of 20 and
    40 are probably infected.  There was no mention of the female
    population.
    
    I agree with .58 that gay women are the segment of the population
    with the least risk and are being lumped into the greater "gay fear"
    population.  There are new pamphlets out describing safe sex practices
    for lesbians too.  Education, not testing, is key to preventing
    the spread of this dreaded disease.
    
    
    J.T.

re: .58

The number I heard was that 1 out of 30 American men between the ages
of 20 and 50 are HIV positive.  (I.e. they carry antibodies to the
Aids virus.)  The other numbers I heard was that Aids is the second
largest cause of premature death (after accidents) in this age group.
(I.e., it surpasses cancer and other diseases.)

Somehow "20% of the male population" seems excessive.  I could believe
that 20% of the male homosexual population, but even if you believe
the gay rights propoganda that 15% of the population is gay, that
still works out to 3% of the population as a whole (with apologies
for sloppy math) which seems to fit in with the 1/30 number above.

Martin.

    Re: .58 and .59:
    
    The 20% of males number is a new estimate.  It was reported in last
    night's papers. 
    
    
    re: I forget which, on why you want to test prisoners:
    
    Because forced homosexual intercourse is one of the most common
    activities in many quite average penal institutions.  If the rapists
    carry AIDS, they can infect a lot of unwilling victims.  
    
    --bonnie

    RE:60 ----The social climate is one of fear.  Everyone is finger
    pointing.  The straights are blaming the gays.  Everyone is blaming
    IV drug users.  Singles are either putting blinders on and ignoring
    the facts or are practically putting out questionnaires about new
    partner's sexual history.  The administration is just beginning
    to acknowledge that this is a political as well as a social issue.
     I agree that Reagan has done very little until very recently--almost
    a bit of too little, too late.
    
    Research needs funding, governmental and private.
    
    Educational programs must be put into place, starting at the elementary
    school level.
    
    Regan's testing policy is not the answer and although I agree that
    testing some prisoners may prevent spread through male rape, what
    are they going to do with the prisoners that test positive?? Isolate
    them?? Give them lots of condoms??  What makes one think that they
    will use them??
    
    Not only is this a lame duck administration, it is one that is living
    in the past.
    
    
    J.T.

    re: earlier
    
    I know what they can do with the male prisoners who test positive:
    Put them in prison!
    
    Seriously, I don't think they can do anything with them.  For years
    now, prison officials have complained that conditions are too crowded
    and staff is too few.  Their isolation areas are more than filled.
    In addition, if they are testing all prisoners, what will they do
    with the women prisoners who test positive?
    
    I still ask: why test the people in prisons?
    
                   Carol   

    Considering how the average prison is managed, they'll probably
    arrange it so those who test positive can infect the maximum number
    of other prisoners, the younger the better.
    
    --bonnie

        I rather think that most of the people who have spoken publicly
        about the AIDS problem are blowing smoke. The Surgeon General
        does the most creditable job, but does not go quite far enough.
        For my money the answer is neither safe sex or testing it is
        chastity. This ain't gonna be popular in the current atmosphere,
        but while I agree that education is the key, it is not merely
        the disemination of facts that is going to help. 
        
        Values and behavior need to be taught as well. We need to stop
        promoting a casual attitude towards sex. We need to educate our
        children about sex and about ALL of the repercussions of sex,
        about the issues of pregnancy, child rearing, the whole range of
        sexually transmitted diseases, the profound psychological,
        behavioral and spiritual effects of good (or bad) sex. We need
        to teach responsibility and thoughtfulness (in both senses).
        
        Culture, be it manifested in the educational system, in art or
        in the entertainment media, teaches and embodies values. We
        claim to teach only the facts in our schools and to entertain or
        inform without expressing values in our media, but that just
        isn't possible. We need to start teaching values explicitly.
        
        JimB. 

    About testing federal prisoners and immigrants

    
    re: .66
                                    
            
        >Culture, be it manifested in the educational system, in art or
        >in the entertainment media, teaches and embodies values. We
        >claim to teach only the facts in our schools and to entertain or
        >inform without expressing values in our media, but that just
        >isn't possible. We need to start teaching values explicitly.
    
    Who's "we" Jim?  Whose values are going to be used.  What about
    people with differing values?  I know, it seems like if there was
    going to be uiniversal agreement on anything, it would be this,
    but I don't think that's possible.
    
    If "we" is the parents of a child, then I agree with you.  If we
    is anyone else, we are in disagreement.  I'm not being belligerent
    here.  I just want to be clear on what you're saying before I put
    my foot in it.
    
    DFW

    What exactly is considered "safe sex" for heterosexuals?  (Please
    excuse my naivety.)  I know about condoms, and spermicides (or whatever
    they're called?), and trying to maintain a monogamous long-term
    relationship.  But, is there anything else (other than total chastity)?
     It would seem to me that oral sex would not be considered "safe
    sex".
    
    Suzanne mentioned her friend not practicing "safe sex" because he
    didn't want to appear to doubt his wife's faithfulness.  I have
    to admit this is a potentially very touchy situation for people
    who are in monogamous relationships.  By insisting on "safe sex"
    practices in a monogamous relationship a person is definitely implying
    that they don't really believe their partner is always faithful.
     Quite a strain for a relationship since nobody wants to be doubted
    by someone they love, and sometimes the success of a love relationship
    *can* seem as important to people as life itself.
    
    I'm not really against testing for immigrants, but I am against
    testing for people already in the United States.  People have already
    brought up enough examples of this type of thing to make me have
    sick feelings, such as what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany.
     When governments do this type of thing they prey on baser side
    of human nature and that can get pretty scary.  The thought of
    concentration camps in the U.S. for people tested positive sickens
    me.  Mass hysteria has got to be one of the most frightening things
    in the world.
    
    An unpleasant view from the "man on the street":  About a month
    ago I was standing in line in a candy store in Provincetown.  A young,
    male employee was stirring a big vat of cotton candy.  The man standing
    next to me, who went a long way towards perpetuating a stereotype for
    me, (he was a middle-aged, overweight, white male with a Southern
    accent),  turned to the crowd and said in a loud voice, "Hope you
    boys don't throw any Aides in this here candy!" and chuckled loudly.
     There was total silence in the store.  For some reason, I felt
    so overwhelmingly embarrassed I just turned and walked out of the
    store.  This man finds Aides to be so amusing that he goes to a
    resort very popular with gay men and loudly jokes about it!  I hope
    our population doesn't include many like him or the possibility
    of witch hunts isn't far-fetched.
    
    Lorna
     

    re: .69, what is "safe sex" for heterosexuals?
    
    As someone noted earlier, there is really no such thing as "safe sex",
    just "safer sex".  All sexual practices have a certain amount of risk
    attached, and one must make informed decisions about the kind of risk
    one wants to accept. 

    The following is some rather explicit information, rating sexual
    practices into "no risk", "slight risk", "risky", and "dangerous".  
    Since I've got no reference literature in front of me, I've got 
    to do this from memory.  Let me know if there are any combinations
    I've left out.  Next unseen for the squeamish.

    
    No Risk
    =======
    Hugging, touching, body-rubbing
    Dry kissing
    Fantasizing
    Masturbation

    Slight Risk
    ===========
    Deep kissing
    Receiving oral sex (male & female)
    Vaginal sex with condom 
    Anal sex with condom **
    Giving oral sex to male with condom
    Giving oral sex to female with protection
    	(dental dam or saran wrap)
    Watersports on unbroken skin
    Finger penetration with "finger condom" or glove
    Vulva-to-vulva contact (avoiding menstrual blood)

    Risky
    =====
    Giving oral sex to female
    Giving oral sex to male, without ejaculation
    Giving vaginal sex without condom
    Giving anal sex without condom

    Dangerous
    =========
    Receiving anal sex without condom
    Receiving vaginal sex without condom
    Giving oral sex to male and swallowing
    Anal or vaginal fisting
    Rimming
    Sharing sex toys
    
    **there is some debate about this in the gay press.  Some think
    it should be in a riskier category, that most condoms are more
    likely to break in anal sex than vaginal sex.

    ==========================================================

        RE: "total chastity"
        
        Please don't confuse "abstinence" with "chastity". Chastity
        consists of refraining from sex outside of marriage. Sexual
        relations with one's spouse are chaste. Abstinence consists of
        refraining from sexual relations altogether. 
        
        It is quite reasonable to treat mutual chastity as safe sex,
        assuming that we discount chains of remarriages. Of course, this
        is only if you are viewing sexual contact as the only or major
        way to introduce the disease into a household. A chaste
        relationship with someone who shares needles isn't very safe.
        
        Retreating to total abstinence is, I would say, an over-
        reaction. Others who have a higher estimate of the level of the
        epidemic might disagree. 
        
        JimB. 

        RE: .68
        
        I meant precisely what I said, and what you are affraid I meant.
        "We" are "we as a culture". I am claiming that value-free
        education is not possible. We should therefore be deliberate
        about what values we teach. We can not, I would argue teach the
        explicit religious teachings of any religion, nor can we
        encompass all of the non-religious philosophies. What we can
        teach is that values are important, that certain values are
        fairly universally accepted, that we are responsible fr the
        consequences of our actions, that different people embrace value
        systems that are different in detail.
        
        Such a teaching will not mak members of the most extreme
        religious and philosophical sectors of the public, but please
        note that they are already not terribly happy with what is being
        taught in our schools. Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and atheistic
        fundementalists believe in very extreme sets of values which
        allow very little in the way of lee-way for disagreement. They
        each will not be really happy unless their values are taught or
        reinforced.
        
        Despite the fact that we can't agree on one single set of values
        and moral judgements that everyone will accept, we can teach
        that values are important. We can teach responsibility. We can
        teach treating others as we would be treated. We can teach the
        practical value of chastity, and the fact that many choose it
        and feel that it is right. We can teach deliberation and
        listening to our conscience. We can teach valuing differences.
        
        By trying to avoid all values, which is not really possible, we
        imply that there are no values. By teaching freedom, but not
        values, we imply that there are no values, that there are no
        standards or strictures. By ignoring moral issues we fail to
        teach moral reasoning. If you will observe our media you will
        find that on the one hand it reflects the trends of our culture,
        but on the other hand that since we try to avoid religion and
        morality, it does contribute to the movement away from
        traditional values.
        
        I do not accept much of the concern and beliefs of the religious
        right with reagrds to either "Secular Humanism" as a religion or
        the dangers of the "New Age Movement". On the other hand, behind
        these boogey men there is an issue. The issue is that there is a
        tendancy in avoiding each specific moral system to end up
        pushing amorality.
        
        I will agree that it is very hard to come up with a properly
        balanced ciriculum regarding values. It is not, however,
        impossible. It is not contrary to the traditions of our country.
        It is also important in many realms. If we look at the actions
        of people like the Surgeon General, we can see the way that may
        work. 
        
        If we look at the value systems of the worlds great religions
        and philosophies, we will find that there is much that they have
        in common. The common elements can not, I am affraid, be built
        into a complete or rich system of values. But we don't need to
        indoctrinate in a specific system. We need only to teach the
        importance of values, morality, responsibility, judgement, love,
        compassion, and the like. We can leave the detail work to
        parents and religious organizations. 
        
        JimB.

        Although I think that chastity is the major tool that can and
        ought to be used to cut back the spread of the disease by sexual
        means, the notion that "chastity for carriers will have to be
        mandatory" is anathema to the values upon which this country is
        based. "Lives come before freedom" as a justification for this
        is totally unacceptable and much more in keeping with a system
        totalitarianism than with our constitutional republic. 
        
        Chastity isn't something you enforce on others to protect you.
        It is how you protect yourself and your loved ones.
        
        Beyond that there is NO practical way even in a totalitarian
        regime to find out who is carrying the virus. (You don't detect
        the virus with the "AIDS test". You detect the antibodies, and
        the antibodies take a long time to develop). Beyond that, there
        is no way to enforce chastity on them.
        
        This is not a problem that can be solved by laws. It can only be
        solved by medical science, education, and a much stronger
        emphasis on the importance of chastity. The idea that you can
        enforce a solution, that you can solve this sort of problem with
        laws is a strong indication that a lot more education is
        needed. 
        
        JimB.

    	RE:  .74
    
    	As you said, chastity is a choice that we have to make for
    	ourselves and cannot make for others.  So while we can
    	try to instill values and encourage chastity, it has to go
    	hand in hand with education about what to do if one is not
    	chaste.
    
    	Many parents over the past few generations have made the mistake
    	of thinking that if they discussed birth control with their
    	teenage children, they would be encouraging their teenagers
    	to engage in sexual relations.  Rather than do that, they just
    	strongly encouraged them to be chaste.  When the children found
    	themselves in the throws of passion, they were unknowledgeable
    	and/or unprotected from pregnancy.
    
    	It would be nice if we could have certain knowledge that our
    	children and loved ones are being chaste outside of monogamous
    	relationships, but we have no such guarantees.  We can only
    	guarantee what *we* do with our bodies.  A decision to be
    	chaste is a personal one for each individual.
    
    	In the meantime, it is vital that we educate people about the
    	methods of "safer sex."  Since all of us (including our children)
    	will ultimately decide for ourselves as to whether or not we
    	will be chaste, the best gift we can offer to all is the most
    	up-to-date knowledge on the risks, methods of reducing the
    	risks, and all the other known facts about AIDS.  
    
    	With teenage children, it is especially important for them to
    	know that they can come to us with their questions (knowing
    	that we won't "go berzerk" if it turns out that they are not
    	being chaste.)  If I had a daughter, I would rather that she
    	came to me and asked me about birth control (rather than find
    	out the hard way by becoming pregnant.)  If my son had a
    	steady girlfriend, I would rather that *he* come to me and ask
    	me about "safer sex" and birth control (rather than lose his
    	own life as a result of his ignorance, or create a new life
    	at a time when he is too young to deal with it.)

    	Teaching morality is important, but EDUCATION about how to
    	best protect oneself from AIDS in the event that chastity is
    	not being followed -- it is still the key in the fight against
    	the disease.
    
    						     Suzanne... 

    	P.S.  By the way, with my own son, I have been telling him
    	for years (as soon as he hit puberty) that if he ever engaged
    	in relations with a girl, that *HE* should consider himself
    	responsible for birth control (and *NOT* to leave it up to
    	the girl to do for both of them.)  I've recommended condoms
    	from square one.

    	As for morality, I once saw him do something that gave me a
    	big clue as to where he sits on that score.  When he was 13
    	years old, I drove him to a convenience store so that he could
    	buy a Slurpee with part of his allowance.  (I waited outside
    	in the car.)  As he was coming out, I saw him look into his
    	hand (at the change) and go back into the store and hand the
    	cashier something.  When I asked him what it was, he told me
    	that the cashier had given him an extra quarter in his
    	change (so he went back to return it to her.)  I wonder how
    	many adults would do that (much less teenagers.)

    	At 15 years old, he spent the summer visiting my parents in
    	their big condo off Waikiki and (according to my folks) created
    	quite a stir when he found a wallet containing over $700 and
    	went to a lot of trouble to find the owners and return it (with
    	every cent in tact.)
    
    	Ryan isn't perfect, but he is honest.  I sincerely believe that
    	he would come to me if he needed help or furthur information
    	about birth_control/safer_sex.  If/when he does, I plan to be
    	there for him with answers.
    
    						     Suzanne...

    re -1:
    
    Wow!  What a son, you must be very proud.
    
    To Jim B - now that you've clarified your stand, I have to say it
    is well thought-out and I mostly agree with it.  It's based on
    compassion, it's not espousing any one religion (which scares the
    heck out of me), if only we could try it and see!
    
    	-Ellen

        RE: 74 and 75
        
        Suzanne,
        
        I agree with almost everything you've said. The importance of
        education as to the mechanisms of sex, sexual transmission of
        disease and the prevention of same are all quit important. They
        should be taught publicly, but on a low-key matter of fact
        basis. (The recommendations that I have heard from the Surgeon
        General on conducting this sound to me to be right on the mark.)
        
        The only point at which I think we disagree (prehaps more in
        what we have said than it what we believe), is that you place a
        stronger emphasis on the factual aspect of education, whereas I
        think that the value side is critical. It may be that as my boys
        are young and I am concentrating on instilling values and you
        have already pretty much completed the job with Ryan (based both
        on your report and on my conversations with him), but are now
        faced with his entry into manhood we see the different aspects
        in different lights.
        
        That Ryan knows he can come to you, and that he would be
        sufficiently motivated to learn what he should do and to do it
        even if it is inconvenient rests on the foundation in values
        that you have laid down. Without the responsibility to care for
        and protect himself and any young lady (presumably) he might
        become involved with all of the facts in the world would do no
        good. 
        
        JimB.

    Let us assume that Jim Burrows' advocacy of chastity produces
    a working result:

    Bam!  You, a post-pubescent female, renounce your former promiscuity.
    There is a post-pubescent male you would like to date, et cetera.  He
    too has renounced his former promiscuity, and likes you too.

    Great!  But.  At this point you both must have had enough factual
    education about AIDS in order to take the next step.

    Before embarking upon this chaste relationship which will (among
    other things) keep you from taking part in the spreading of AIDS,
    you must each be sure you do not already carry the AIDS virus.
    Even if you haven't been sexually active, did you have a blood
    transfusion in the early 1980's?  Did you borrow someone's
    toothbrush at camp?  Did you engage in some other activity that
    we do not yet know transmits AIDS?

    Hmmmm.  Sounds like you should each take a blood test.  Then.  Did
    you engage in one of those prohibited activities within the past
    six months?  Then you should be celibate until it HAS been six
    months since you did any such thing.  Now take another blood test.

    Now.  If the results were negative for both of you [both times], you
    may enter upon your chaste relationship.

    What happens if this relationship ends?  Again, you must be
    educated enough to understand your situation.  *You* do not have
    to go through the test-wait-test cycle, but your partner might.
    Question:  Can/Should/Do you take your new partner's word on this?

    In conclusion, let me point out that chastity without education
    is insufficient, and that this chastity should also be advertised
    as possibly including at least one bout of celibacy which could
    last as long as six months.

    							Ann B.

    It's been some time since I posted note 97.0 on prevention of AIDS.
    Thought I would bring it to the attention of those readers who have
    joined the conference since that time...
    
    Marge

    My brother who is with the British Save The Children's foundation
    writes:
    
    "The drought finally broke in north central Somalia last month,
    but not before claiming several hundred lives.  Thousands of people
    have gathered in temporary camps in order to get emergency rations;
    the government is setting up camp vaccinations in order to prevent
    measles outbreaks.
    
    "It seems that some people are theorizing that smallpox vaccination
    triggered the origin of AIDS in the '70s.  I hope the theory is
    disproven.  AIDS, which we don't have in Somalia, is the talk of
    the continent, and any discussion linking it with vaccination could
    have very nasty repercussions on our program.  On that cheery note,
    I leave you."

Posted by: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!ucla-cs!aids-request
Organization: 
Approved: dgreen@cs.ucla.edu
Xref: decwrl sci.med.aids:1 soc.motss:1959 sci.med:2283 soc.singles:9122 news.groups:928
 
 
A new newsgroup, "sci.med.aids," was created on June 3, 1987 after
an overwhelmingly positive vote by members of "soc.motss", "sci.med",
"soc.singles", and "news.groups".
 
Authors should post articles relating to AIDS solely to sci.med.aids.
Do not make AIDS related postings to soc.motss, sci.med, or soc.singles.
 
                             SCOPE
 
Medical, economic, legal, and social issues surrounding AIDS are fair
game in sci.med.aids.  Questions at any level of sophistication are
welcome.  However, before submitting a "naive" question, please read 
Craig Werner's monthly AIDS summary posting (in soc.motss, soc.singles, 
sci.med, and sci.med.aids).  Perhaps you will find the answer there.
 
Recent AIDS news is most welcome in sci.med.aids.  Please supply
references with "breaking news".  You will provide a valuable 
service if you volunteer to monitor a particular news source (such as
"Science", "Lancet", "Nature", "The New York Times", etc.), and
regularly summarize or excerpt critical information in sci.med.aids.
Random submissions about your own work are also encouraged.
 
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is an always fatal, 
epidemic disease.  AIDS had been diagnosed in 30,396 persons in the 
United States with 17,338 deaths as of Feb. 6, 1987.  Recent 
estimates indicate that 1 of every 30 U.S. males carries the HIV 
(AIDS) virus.  
 
We assist each other and society in combatting this disease by 
disseminating accurate and timely information.  If we all pitch in, 
this newsgroup could save lives.
 
                           MODERATION
 
The sci.med.aids newsgroup is moderated by Dan Greening at the UCLA
Computer Science Department.  The vast majority of news software will
automatically forward articles to the moderator, so article submission
and followups work the same as for unmoderated newsgroups.  In unusual
circumstances, you may wish to mail articles directly to the moderator
at aids@cs.ucla.edu or ..{ucbvax,ihnp4,sdcrdcf,trwspp}!ucla-cs!aids.
 
Small delays occur naturally as a part of the moderation process,
however once received at UCLA, accepted articles will usually be
resent within 24 hours.  At least for now, moderation will be
loose, to encourage submissions.
 
1. Questionable facts will be allowed, IF the information presented
   appears in the popular or scientific press, and the author supplies
   references.
2. Authors will be asked to rewrite articles containing personal 
   attacks or derogatory stereotypes.
3. Articles will be rejected if they present extremely inaccurate
   information.
 
Readers are cautioned that historically USENET has not been a source of
reliably accurate AIDS information (although certain authors have been).  
It is hoped that the moderated sci.med.aids newsgroup and your active 
participation will improve the situation.
 
Submit today!
 
 
Play safe.  It could save your life.
 
 Dan Greening   Internet  dgreen@CS.UCLA.EDU
                UUCP     ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgreen

    I agree with the several favorable comments regarding Surgeon General
    Koop's approach (I also did not think I'd be agreeing with *him*)
    to educating children and covering all sexual lifestyles.
    
    I heard on the radio last week that Phyllis Schlafly (you remember
    her - she's the woman who travels all over the country telling women
    to stay at home :-{) (and I'm paraphrasing here) has said that the
    Surgeron General is advocating the teaching of sodomy to 9-year
    olds. 
    
    AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!
    
    Dawn
    

I taped (Beta) the entire four hour ABC Nightline special -- I suppose
I could make copies if someone delivers a machine and some pizza.

Near the end of the show, when things were getting a tad loose, and the
question of safe sex came up, someone asked about using a condom for
cunnilingus.  After the laughter died down, the panel's prostitute
-- who apparently didn't hear which flavor of oral sex was being
discussed -- said "she always recommended a condom on the first date."

Ted Koppel replied that "first dates sure have changed since I was a
kid."

Martin.

	I stayed up until 4:00 AM last Saturday watching The Ted Koppel
    special on AIDS, and when it was over, I must've looked as white as
    a ghost and frozen stiff in the corner of the couch with paranoia
    (unusual for me).

	Judging from the way society is too busy arguing about what sort of
    action (or lack thereof) is to take place to combat this disease, and
    from the fact that perhaps 28% of all doctors surveyed have admitted to
    having already accidentally pricked themselves with medical instruments
    which may have been exposed to the virus, I shudder to think what we
    have in store for us in the next five years.

	It is said that something like one-third of the earth's population
    died during the plague of the 11th century, and considering the latency
    period for this disease, along with the fact that we have very little
    idea of exactly how wide-spread this disease is, it's hard to guess what
    the end results will be (although since it is much harder to transmit than
    the plague was, I doubt if it will be nearly that bad).

	The one bright note (no pun intended) of this whole mess is the fact
    that VAXnoting is a nice alternative to actual physical contact, and could
    well prove to be a useful communication tool for those who are stricken
    with such a disease.  Think about it, any number of us here could be dying
    of AIDS, but it wouldn't effect our ability to note! (at least not any more
    than dying from another disease would).

								-davo

    you're gonna love this....(sarcastic grin) (Heard on NBC Sunrise)
    
    yesterday, one of Reagan's official spokesfolks suggested that inmates
    who have been tested positive for the AIDS virus may be refused
    parole.  Maybe the next step the officials will take is to make
    sure everyone ELSE who tested positive just JOIN them there in prison.
     
    grumble...
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    
    
    I know this is off the subject but are you really making
    59 cents to the male dollar here at DEC?

    	Thanks for adding that, Hank. I was thinking the same
    	thing.
    
    	Scott

    
    WHo said anything was absurd?
    I was just wondering if the inequality you speak of financially
    exists here at DEC. Again, do you earn 59 cents to the male dollar
    here at DEC?
    
    Secondly, to help me understand the meaning of the stats. you offered
    in .92 could you answer the following?
    
    What is the significance of wage level 14?
    How many people total are at that level or higher?
    How many people are in higher level management?
    
    				Thanks
    

    As far as I can figure out, women at DEC earn about 90% of what
    men in the same positions here earn - a VERY good record for DEC!
    It might even turn out to be 100%; it is very hard to determine
    other people's salaries in the US since it is a touchy subject in
    our culture.  However, DEC is not the norm.  I read recently that
    the norm now is 65% rather than the famous 59% of a comparable man's
    salary, depending on the industry.

Among other AIDS folklore is the rumor that lesbians are the least
likely class of people to develop this disease.  Perhaps some out-of-
the-closet dykes will demand a higher salary by pointing to the
predicted lower health-care costs.

At least, this might make some overly-priggish insurance salesmen
gag.

Martin.

    
    It's no rumor, Martin.  Lesbians are the least likely to get AIDS.
    If health insurance rates were set fairly, I suspect there might
    be some discount for lesbians, kind of like non-smokers??
    
    

    Please continue the discussion of salaries at note 331 so to keep
    this one on it's original topic. I will move any further notes
    entered here on salaries to 331.
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator

    Is AIDS everyone's problem? The answer to this is yes and no.  
    
    It seems that I am inundated everywhere by warnings about AIDS.
    Not a day passes, it seems, without some "expert" turning up on
    TV, radio, or other media to add a few million additional people
    to the prospective victim list.  Posted on public transportation
    systems (at least in Chicago) are posters picturing people of all
    ages, sexes and colors with the message "AIDS, Its everyone's problem"
    
    However, there is a lot that we do not know about AIDS, but one
    fact seems to be obscured (probably for social sensitivity or political
    reasons).  This fact is that AIDS still is and has been from the
    beginning, a disease that strikes predominantly at bisexual and
    homosexual men (apparently associated in major part through sodomy)
    and at IV drug users.
    
    Chicago Health Dept. testing of about 2500 people over the last
    2.5 yrs show that 12% showed evidence of exposure to the virus,
    of those, 86.8% were bisexual or homosexual men, 11.5% were IV drug
    users, and less than 1% from contaminated blood transfusions. Of
    247 heterosexuals tested (who had multiple sex partners, but no
    partners in high risk categories) only one tested positive.
    
    It is apparent to me that the media does not want to accept that
    it is in the interest of the (male) homosexual community to obscure
    this fact.  Homosexuals have an understandable reason for propagating
    the idea that AIDS strikes indiscriminately. They have been victims
    of intolerance and discrimination even before the arrival of AIDS.
    They also know that the broader the perceived potential danger of
    this disease, the greater the chance of getting public support for
    massive commitment to finding vaccines against same.
    
    Likewise, IV drug users tend to be from urban ghettos and are
    predominantly from people of difference (blacks and hispanics).
    This community also has been the victim of prejudice and
    discrimination. And they know that government has (in the past)
    tended to ignore them.
    
    Reasonable people do not want to offend or be insensitive to any
    group in society and civilized people will react with compassion
    toward AIDS' victims.  Despite frequent predictions about the spread
    of AIDS into the general population, only 4% of AIDS cases can be
    attributed to heterosexual intercourse and the major source of this
    infection is needle sharing by IV drug users.
    
    It seems to me that hiding the facts will help spread fear and panic.
    This does not help in finding cures or seeing reality.
    

    Back to the subject , sort of.
    
    A friend of mine is a EMT. Several weeks ago he got a call to carry
    a person to the hospital. When he got to the home the person was
    not breathing, so he had to give mouth to mouth. As a normal routine
    practice the EMT now have rubber gloves and use an instrument for
    giving mouth to mouth. The relatives of the patient were insulted
    when he put on the gloves and used the instrument, but when they
    were asked what was wrong with the person they were very evasive.
    The patient was transported to the hospital. When the EMT asked
    the doctor what was wrong with the patient he also was evasive.
    The EMT decided to stay around to find out what was wrong with
    the person. He finally found out that the person had AIDS.
                                                              
    IF people can't be honest about it. How do you expect to control
    it. 
    
    dave
                                                
    
    

    .100
    
    Unfortunately, only part of what you said it now true.
    
    AIDS is now spreading faster, in percentages (which will lead to
    increases in numbers), through heterosexual contact. The gay community
    has gotten the message. The straight community still tends to think
    it's not their problem. 
    
    New evidence presented at last week's conference, suggests the rate
    of infection is almost equal, from male to female *and* from female
    to male. It's estimated that 75%-90% of the prostitutes in and around
    the New York area are infected. In NYC, 1 out of every 10 *women*
    (straight or gay) is infected. 1 in 30 men in the general population
    of the US under the age of 50 carries the antibodies. 
    
    Yes, it started in the gay population, but it then spread to
    intravenous drug users and from there *very rapidly* to the general
    population.
    
    AIDS *is* everybody's problem now. In the next 2-3 years, if you
    live in an urban area of the US, someone you know will die from
    AIDS.
    
    Tamzen

    326.100)   Would someone refresh my memory for ddmail::tom's
    		sake if I have the facts a little off...
    There was a quite recent story that I heard (on NPR) about a man
    who had AIDS.   The man's sex partners (17!) were tracked and though
    some of them had slept with the man only once, all (maybe it was
    only 16) were displaying the first stages of AIDS.    The man's
    partners were all female.  
    
    Though currently the highest percentage of those with AIDS are from
    the high risk groups, doctors believe (this was from the AIDS
    conference) that the largest growing group of AIDS victims is the
    heterosexual community.   I believe TOM (sorry don't know your name),
    that the danger of AIDS to the heterosexual community is not hype.
    Besides, what have you got to lose if you believe me, and act
    accordingly?
    
    Tamar

    Given this kind of statistics, how can anyone think visiting 
    a prostitute is worth it?  The potential price is so lethal that 
    I can't imagine anyone would think the experience is worth it.
                                           
    

    	RE:  .100
    
    	It disturbs me a little to think that your mistaken impression
    	might be widespread amoung heterosexuals (that there really
    	is nothing to worry about and that the gay community is trying to
    	hype us in some way.)
    
    	Remember that in Africa, the disease has *NEVER, EVER* been
    	a homosexual disease.  It has been heterosexual from square
    	one.
    
    	So why were our first victims (in the Western culture) gay?
    	Well, there has to be a reason why it hit gay males first (and I
    	personally subscribe to the theory that it came from Africa
    	by way of vaccines that were made from blood products that
    	were obtained in Africa from infected donors.)  The hepatitis
    	vaccine was being given quite commonly in areas like San
    	Francisco (and was being given to gay men because of the fact
    	that hepatitis can be easily spread the same ways that AIDS
    	can be spread.)

    	However it came to the U.S, gay men did *****NOT***** start
    	the disease, nor are they responsible for the fact that it is
    	now spreading to the heterosexual population.
    
    	Gay men were the first victims of the disease (in our culture.)
    	They now know (and are trying to tell us) that we are all in
    	danger.  Gay men are taking precautions to prevent AIDS, but
    	it is widely known that heterosexuals *in general* are *NOT*
    	taking precautions.
    
    	If you want to think that they are telling you to protect yourself
    	as some sort of scam, you are free to think that.  If many of
    	us heterosexuals believe as you do and fail to protect ourselves,
    	then many, many, many of us will die needlessly.
    
    	It is to our detriment that our culture did not respond to the
    	danger because many believed that the disease only affected
    	gay men.  It was clearly a homophobic reaction on a cultural
    	level.
    
    	If we sit back now and think that we are not in danger (and
    	that gay men are using their warnings as a ploy to get us to
    	do something for them that we wouldn't do otherwise) -- we
    	are in more danger than they ever were.
    
    	Our enemy is the disease itself (*NOT* the unfortunate folks
    	who, for reasons unknown, were our first victims.)

    	Ignorance and a refusal to accept the truth will be fatal
    	to many of us in the next decade.
    
    						      Suzanne...

    In Africa current projections are that up to 25% of the population
    both male and female may die from 'slim' as AIDS is called there.
    This will be predominantly from the young and well educated city
    dwellers. There was also wide spread refusal to believe that the
    disease was real and serious. One country called it (roughly translated
    from French) the imaginary illness for discouraging lovers - which
    was taken from the letters spelling the French name for aids.
    Although some of the spread is from reusing needles most of it
    is attriibuted to sexual life style.
    
    Bonnie J

    
    I read recently in the Boston Globe that a new study done in
    New York City found that young gay men were actually using less
    protection than other segments of the population. They also found
    that Aids was being primarily transmitted among gay men by an 
    overwhelming percentage. They also admit that obtaining relevant
    data from African countries is close to impossible, partly because
    of the high illiteracy rate. 
    
    I only bring this up to show that there is still much conflicting
    data regarding the spread and origin of aids. With all of the
    speculation about it and the myriad studies taking place, absolute
    facts are still hard to obtain. 

    RE: 101
    
    While it was not a comfortable situation for the EMT's not being
    told that the individual had AIDS, it would be well to remember
    two things: 1) They had performed their duty with the necessary
    protections 2) *MANY* AIDS patients have been refused transport
    to hospital and interim treatment by EMTs/ambulance attendants.
    They have left the person where they found them. Walked out. Did
    nothing. If I had an AIDS patient in my house and they needed an
    ambulance, I,too, would be reluctant to tell the EMTs.
    
    
    RE:105 - going to prostitutes
    
    I heard that the latest "thing" is for the "higher class" of prostitute
    to have a doctor's certificate saying that she doesn't have AIDS.
    With the incubation period being what it is, I wonder how this
    certification can be made, unless she knows she hasn't been exposed.
    (Always used comdoms, none ever broke, etc.)
    
    Dawn
    

    According to the NPR report on the AIDS conference this disease
    started in monkeys and was transmitted to humans. The largest reason
    for the spread of the desease was the moving of out lying black
    tribes (where the disease was isolated) to black townships with
    other tribes. Sex is just one of the easiest ways to get the disease
    but certainly not the only one. Consdier the report of the hospital
    tech who got AIDS by repairing a blood machine and then touching
    her face where she had acne. The AIDS entered through the acne.
    liesl

    re .109 The fact that obtaining 'accurate' data (rather than
    'relevant') from Africa does not make the information that I mentioned
    earlier - the large number of male and female victims, and the high
    percent of infection - invalid. All it means is that we are dealing
    with estimated figures and the real numbers could be lower, and
    ...sigh...could be higher.
    
    Also in reference to hepatitis - I believe that it was the gamma
    globulin shots against hepatitis not the vacine that could have
    been made from purchased infected blood. I am not aware that vacines
    are ever cultured in blood products - tho I could be mistaken.
    
    Bonnie J

    	re:  .112
    
    	You are correct -- it *was* the gamma globulin shots against
    	hepatitis that used blood from Africa.  
    
    						        Suzanne...
    

    There is debate over how to cope with AIDS.  It now appears that
    the debate is leaving the arena of hysteria to the discussion of
    more logical matters, particularly the questions related to testing:
    Who should be tested?, By whom? and for what purposes? Gay rights
    groups picketed the White House last week and VP Bush was booed
    for endorsing "routine" testing for exposure to the virus. "Routine"
    testing means testing of people whom the government already tests
    for other diseases - prison inmates, would be immigrants, couples
    applying for marriage licenses.  It is open to argument whether
    the benefits of such tests are worth the cost but cost benefit analysis
    does not usually inspire picketing and booing.  Militant gays oppose
    testing not because the tests lack value but because they want to
    make the idea of screening for AIDS illegitimate.
    
    Any minority as persecuted as gays may be excused for distrusting
    the motives of the majority.  They fear that the test will be used
    for new abuses of their civil rights. They also fear that if the
    government proceeds with testing of anyone, the next step is testing
    for everyone.
    
    Universal testing makes sense for a lethal, contagious disease that
    spreads through normal people to people contact.  Historically,
    this kind of diseasecannot be stopped with incessant ads if some
    members of the highrisk groups will continue to act in an irresponsible
    manner. It can be stopped if victims are identified and isolated from 
    fellow citizens.
    
    Quarantining does not appear necessary at this time since it appears
    that the uninfected can protect themselves.  It is only the rare
    cases that a person is infected with AIDS without cooperation (by
    sharing a needle with IV drug users or having sex with an infected
    partner).  Almost all of the uninfected can protect themselves.
    There is no apparent conflict (per current research findings) between
    the safety of the community at large and the freedom of AIDS carriers.
    Given that, gay groups may have reason to oppose testing at large.
    
    In opposing limited testing, they are wrong.  The Reagan proposal
    to test prisoners and immigrants serves a reasonable purpose. Prisoners
    who test positive ought to be segregated from other inmates in a
    setting known for rape.  Foreigners who test positive will be barred
    from living here, a policy applied to those with far less lethal
    diseases (tuberculosis, syphilis, etc.).
    
    It is also legitimate in the private sector. Gay rights advocates
    have tried to prevent insurance companies from using tests to show
    exposure to AIDS.  Some jurisdictions (California) have banned the
    use of testing. Insurers already test for a variety of medical
    conditions, and AIDS does not deserve a special exception. Insurers
    are not philantropic organizations. The fact that they profit from
    pooling and the spreading of risks does not prevent them from excluding
    high risks as they do all the time (such as insuring oil tankers
    in the Persian Gulf). Gay advocates respond by saying that those
    with the antibodies do not all get the disease (a disputable fact
    at present, not enough information) so insurers ought not be able
    to exclude them. But the risk is high enough (20% of those exposed
    will get AIDS) and the cost great (about 60k per patient) enough  that 
    insurers cannot afford to ignore it. 
    
    Life insurers are especially vulnerable.  A New York insurer reported
    statistics that showed that in 1986, 45% of policyholders who died
    of AIDS had procured policies in the last two years compared with
    13% of deaths from other causes who had purchased policies in past
    2 years. Additionally, the average benefit was twice as large for
    AIDS' victims. It is reasonable for insurance companies to protect
    themselves from the unscrupulous.
    
    Gay rights groups should not oppose sensible and modest measures.
    They are correct in defending the rights of AIDS carriers.  They
    can do this without trampling the rights of the rest of us.
    
    						Bill
    

re: .95,

	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the term "lesbian" or "gay"
    is the accepted term, so go wash your mouth out with soap.  Also, the
    rumor you mentioned is quite true.

re: .111,

	I wouldn't be surprised if monkey blood isn't behind all this.  It
    is a little known fact that monkey blood is used quite extensively when
    human blood is not readily available.  As a result, I worry most about
    blood transfusions (and other blood related products) since this is where
    it seems that even the most precautious people are the most vulnerable.

	I think it is time to impose a new system for blood storage which
    would allow individuals to donate blood to be used later by themselves.
    This system would work similar to a savings account where you occassionally
    make a deposit and so that you may make a withdrawl if you ever need it.
    Each time, you are certain that the blood you donated is your own blood
    thereby not exposing yourself to contaminated blood.  This system would
    be a little more expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the cost of
    your life and the lives of those whose blood you come in contact with.
    I would think that insurance companies would endorse such an idea.
	
							-davo

    IF they do have testing and IF a majority of the population must
    participate then I suggest this (although the thought of this is
    abhorrent, that may indeed be what it comes to):  Let them test
    all groups, equally.  Let them retest all positives shortly thereafer
    - maybe once - maybe twice.  As the percentage of those actually
    infected increases - the likelihood of false positives being repetitive
    will be reduced.  Also, six months later - do a follow-up test (perhaps
    some people genetically test positive - like on TB tests).  Hopefully
    the frantic hysteria will pass, and people will be able to look
    logically at how the disease can best be tracked.
    
    As for irresponsible people who will not reduce their sexual activity
    (remember how, when Herpes was the new thing, some people didn't
    care who they infected, or decided it was "safe" to have sex when
    the disease seemed inactive - without telling their partners)...
    maybe the europeans had a good idea when they took criminals and
    harlots and "branded them" with a fleur-de-lis (or some such). 
    That way they couldn't just "move out" and change their name - every
    time they were undressed - it was there - so nobody could get "close"
    to them without realizing who/what they were.  Someday I get the
    feeling there will be a nationwide computer system that will track
    everyone's health from birth to death (every doctor will be able
    to check you out - with your "permission code" or whatever), and
    therefore people will be routinely "earmarked".  Should they try
    to move and change their name - since they have no history - they
    get no healthcare (a BIG problem for most).  
    
    But I'm just playing "what if".  If they find a cure, or a completely
    reliable test, or a way to at least arrest its spread in those already
    infected - that would be the best way to go.  Anyone else been playing
    "what if" with this (hmmmm...maybe this is the way the bubonic plague
    started-but whatever it is, it's pretty grim).

    -Jody
    

RE: .111
    AIDS ORGIN:

    The aids virus has been in animals every since they existed.  Their
imune systems are designed to fight off the virus.  Aids is found in pigs.
The Bible has given man specific rules about not to lie down with beast,
and man not to lie down with mankind.  I don't want to get into bashing
or morals but for specific reasons the man upstairs wrote these laws to 
keep our society free from these viruses.

It is a known fact the syphilis is in sheep (I know you all have heard the
rumors men have done it with sheep).  The aids virus did not orginate in
Africa.  It came from America from tainted hepatitus-b vaccine made from 
Homo-sexuals blood (Since they had a outbreak of hepatitus in 1980).  At that
time AIDS was not known.


   Right now there is another aids virus.  No one knows where this one came
from.  But rest assure if man keeps on continually messing around with animals
we will always have STDS.  With the way our society is today, promiscious we
will never wipe out the STDS.  Nobody is talking about the 100 % increase in
syphilis in New York City, LA, and Flordia.  Also the large increase 
precentages in other STDS.  People today want everything easy.  They want
instant gratification and they are paying to price.  Hopefully this virus will
get peoples attention to reform there ways before the whole human population
is wiped out.  I think mother nature is outraged by the way things are today
is balancing things out to return them to normal.


If we plan to wipe these viruses out we will have to educate our children.
Teach the importance of abstainance (For life and death reasons).  The stats
are pretty bad 1/7 teens has some from of STDS.  1,000,000 teen preganices.
College campus are now reporting cases of the aids on their campuses.  

It seems like to me that history repeats itself.  Man never learns from past
mistakes of other societies. 




Associated Press Mon  6-APR-1987 00:47                           Sex Diseases

aawX 6-APR-8700

   AIDS Gets Headlines, But Other Sex Diseases Still Strike Millions
Eds: Also moved for AMs
                            By ROBERT BYRD
                        Associated Press Writer
   ATLANTA (AP) - AIDS is dominating the headlines but other
sexually transmitted diseases still affect millions, including a
virus believed to cause cancer that is ``spreading in epidemic
proportions,'' researchers say.
   Sexual contact has become the chief form of transmission of one
form of hepatitis, a liver disease. And the chances of getting such
diseases as herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis are vastly
higher than the odds of getting AIDS.
   ``Because of the consequences of AIDS, it's very easy to say
these other sexually transmitted diseases are just nuisances,''
said Dr. Jonathan Zenilman, a specialist with the Division of
Sexually Transmitted Diseases at the Atlanta-based national Centers
for Disease Control.
   ``You don't die, generally, from gonorrhea or syphilis, and
                                                            More -->
Associated Press Mon  6-APR-1987 00:47                  Sex Diseases (cont'd)

certainly not from chlamydia,'' he noted. ``But there's a danger of
them getting lost in the shuffle. They are still very much
important health problems.''
   AIDS has struck more than 33,000 people in the United States, so
far killing more than 19,000. In 1986 alone, 12,049 cases of
acquired immune deficiency syndrome were diagnosed in the United
States, the CDC reports.
   But the same year saw more than 13 million cases of other
sexually transmitted diseases, according to CDC estimates.
   Last year's total included 896,383 reported cases of gonorrhea,
up from 883,826 a year earlier but down from 1,042,900 in 1980.
Researchers say reported cases are the tip of the iceberg; the true
incidence of gonorrhea is estimated at 2 million to 3 million cases
in 1986.
   Other estimates include 4 million to 5 million cases of
chlamydia, 1 million cases of genital warts from human papilloma
virus, 500,000 new herpes cases and 90,000 cases of syphilis,
Zenilman said.
   Human papilloma virus of HPV, a cause of venereal warts, ``was
thought to be just a nuisance - get rid of them, and that's the end
                                                            More -->
Associated Press Mon  6-APR-1987 00:47                  Sex Diseases (cont'd)

of the story,'' Zenilman said. But new research is strongly
pointing to the virus as a cause of cervical cancer, he said.
   The virus also can cause anal cancer, most often in homosexual
men, and squamous cell cancers in the mouth, he said.
   ``I think HPV is probably going to be the disease of the '80s
and '90s,'' said Dr. Alan Lawhead, assistant professor of
gynecology and obstetrics at Atlanta's Emory University and a
specialist in HPV research.
   ``If it wasn't for AIDS, I think HPV would be one of the big
topics,'' he said. Infection with HPV ``appears to be spreading in
epidemic proportions.''
   Researchers believe HPV can spread even when warts are not
obvious, he noted. As many as 10 percent of women who show no
symptoms of HPV-related disease may be infected.
   Although hepatitis B, a type of contagious liver disease, is not
commonly considered a ``sexually transmitted disease,'' sexual
contact has become the chief mode of transmission, Zenilman said.
   Scientists estimate that 200,000 cases occurred in the United
States last year, with 10 percent of those patients becoming
chronic carriers of the disease.
                                                            More -->
Associated Press Mon  6-APR-1987 00:47                  Sex Diseases (cont'd)

   Herpes ``really does not cause a life-threatening condition, but
it certainly causes substantial emotional trauma to anybody and
their sexual partners, because it's prone to recur over and over
again,'' Zenilman said.
   And scientists have recently learned that, contrary to a
long-held belief, herpes is contagious when it is dormant and no
lesions are present.
   Gonorrhea and chlamydia can cause urethritis in men, but the
greatest danger is for women. If infected and not adequately
treated, women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, which leads
to infertility or even to potentially fatal ectopic, or tubal,
pregnancies.
   CDC statisticians say the numbers for several sexually
transmitted diseases haven't changed very much in the last few
years, but they aren't encouraged because such diseases are down as
much as 80 percent among gay men in some communities.
   ``Somebody's making up the difference,'' Zenilman said.
``There's more occurring in the heterosexual population than ever
before, and it's extremely disturbing.''

    Re: .117
    
    The notion of banking your own blood is already in use, but it has
    severe limitations, mainly because stored blood has a short lifetime.
    Most of the cases of this today are when people know they're going
    in for surgery, and they can build up a small supply in the couple
    of months before the operation.  But long-term?  Forget it.
    
    Besides, you tell me what happens when you're in an accident in
    California, and "your blood" is sitting in Massachusetts!
    
    The Red Cross has been doing an excellent job of screening donated
    blood for the past few years, and I believe that no new cases of
    people contracting AIDS from blood transfusions have occurred since
    that program became fully effective.
    
    I fear "routine" AIDS testing for the persecution that will
    inevitably result.  Yet there are good arguments for such testing.
    Still, I am in favor of education as the primary battle against
    the spread of this disease, and am heartened by the regular news
    about research done in this area.
    					Steve

re: .119

I would appreciate references for the following claims in .119:

  >Aids is found in pigs.

  >The aids virus did not orginate in Africa.  It came from America from
  >tainted hepatitus-b vaccine made from Homo-sexuals blood (Since they
  >had a outbreak of hepatitus in 1980).  At that time AIDS was not known.

I haven't seen either of these claims in the general medical literature.
Also, tracing Aids to hepatitus-b vaccine doesn't seem logical.

C'mon folks, there's enough hysteria around already.  Factual information
is as near as the phone or the public library.

Martin.

re: do EMT's ever really refuse aid

I don't know about EMTs [how's that for a coherent reply :-)], but I
have a friend that used to work in a surgical supply house in CT. Many
people there refused to deliver or pick up supplies from PWAs (Persons
With Aids). I suppose EMTs should be a cut above that, but we're all
human.
	Mez

    326.119)
    
    M. (for Mr. or Ms.) Law, your thoughts leave a few, ahem, loopholes.
    Aids, you declare, is found in pigs.    The Bible, you point out,
    has given "man" specific rules about "not to lie down with beast,
    and man not to lie down with mankind."    It sounds as though you
    are suggesting that gay men, ahem, like pigs?  I understand that the
    term gay means men who like people of their same sex, not that
    they like animals. 
    
    I would ask you (not that I am concerned, nor do I wish to know, just
    for you to think about it), if you are a Christian?     Do you also, by
    chance, ever *eat* pork?    The, ahem, "man upstairs" gave some strict
    prohibitions against that very thing, though your copy of the Bible may
    not have it...
    
    Tamar

    Re.119
    
    At this point, I feel there is certainly sufficient evidence to point
    to the green monkey in Africa as the original host for the AIDS and
    AIDS-related viruses. Scientists have done serological (blood) studies
    on frozen samples of blood and found the virus in samples from Africans
    back to the mid '50's. 
    
    The main reason it didn't spread, before the 70's, is that it occured
    in very isolated tribal area. Tribes didn't have much if any contact
    with each other. Then there were major revolutions and social upheaval
    during the 60's and '70's through out central Africa. The populations
    intermingled and radical changes occured in national vs. tribal
    boundaries.
    
    How it got into the human population from the monkeys is most likely
    thru being bit by infected monkeys or eating inproperly cooked meat
    from the monkeys.
    
    There are currently several theories as to how it spread so rapidly
    into the American gay population. One is thru gamma gobulin shots
    given to prevent hepititis.
    
    But I seriously doubt that AIDS is spread thru bestiality.
    
    Tamzen

< Note 326.124 by VAXRT::CANNOY "The seasons change and so do I." >
	thank you, .124.

	as for .119's claim that STDs come from animals, it's too
	absurd to merit a reply.
	
	Viruses are capable of mutating fairly quickly, so there's
	no particular reason to believe that AIDS has been around
	forever.  It could easily have evolved within the last
	30-40 years, and new strains are evolving even now.
	It's one of the difficulties of developing a vaccine.

    Dr. Robert Gallo, the American who co-discovered HIV-I (the AIDS
    virus), is of the opinion that HIV is *not* mutating, but that there
    are several related viruses that escaped from central Africa at about
    the same time. 
    
    Tamzen described his scenario for the spread in .124. Gallo said that
    he is "guardedly optimistic" about fighting AIDS and its friends. Even
    though there are several viruses, they all use much the same mechanism
    to infect. He is of the opinion that a treatment for one of these
    viruses will work on others. He may be wrong, of course, but he knows
    more than I do, so if he's guardedly optimistic, so am I. 
    
    At the recent conference in DC, people gave talks about the mechanism
    that both HIV-I and HIV-II (but nothing about Gallo's Nigeria-X) work.
    This is very good news. Another thing to be thankful for is that these
    new viruses are appearing now, not ten or twenty years ago. We know
    enough about molecular biology to have a chance these days.
    
	Jon

    re sales of condoms:
    
    It's an interesting statistic that sales of condoms to women are 2:1
    over men, but you should be very careful drawing conclusions from
    statistics. If you are of that bent, you can conclude that men are
    less concerned. However, there are other possible reasons.
    
    One possible reason is that the men already have a cache of condoms.
    Art Buchwald wrote an article recently in which he said that most of
    his friends that are of his age have been carrying a condom in their
    wallets for nigh thirty years. For almost all of them, it's been the
    same condom for all that time. He said that when they use that one,
    they'll go get another one. 
    
    Another, more cynical view is that for most women, keeping a supply of
    condoms is an act of self-preservation. For most men, it's an act of
    hubris. 
    
    	Jon

    Re: .117
    
    Monkey blood is NEVER used for human tranfusions. It would kill
    the recipient.
    
    The rest of the half-truths you spouted have been refuted by others.
    Please check your facts before sounding off.
    
    -bs

re: .128,

>    Monkey blood is NEVER used for human tranfusions. It would kill
>    the recipient.

	Au contraire mon ami.  A scientist was recently interviewed on the
    tonight show who had worked with primates for upwards of 20 years in the
    jungles of Borneo, and she was the source of this information.  According
    to her (this was a month ago, so I have forgotten her name already), the
    blood of certain species of primates is so similar to that of humans that
    it is sometimes used as a cheap substitute when no human blood can be found.
    
>    The rest of the half-truths you spouted have been refuted by others.
>    Please check your facts before sounding off.
    
	Which other "half-truths" would you like me to support?  I suggest
    that you support your half-truths now that I have supported mine.

								-davo

    re .129 (re.128) 
    NO - Monkey blood or gorilla blood or chimpanzee blood - i.e. whole
    blood directly drawn from an individual - is *NEVER* used for direct
    transfusion to humans. PERIOD> There are four types of human blood
    A, B, AB or O - even if you have a reasonable match given the possible
    permutations of the human blood types there are many sub types that
    can cause further problems when it comes to things like tissue typing.
    NO lower primates are a perfect match for any homo sapiens blood
    type! It can be possible to use primate blood products such as
    platlets,or sera, or cells (I do not know this is true - but I am
    speculating) but direct tranfusions of whole blood have never happened
    and will never happen.
    
    Bonnie J

    re .132:
    
    As I understand the composition of blood, the red blood cells are
    distinct from the platelets. The red blood cells have a much more
    important function than clotting (which is accomplished by the
    platelets) and that is carrying oxygen to the cells.
    
    Blood is composed of many more than two parts. First there is the
    plasma, then the red cells, then the platelets, then the white cells.
    The white cells are subdivided into many different types with their
    own special functions.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

RE: .132

	 Please check your facts before giving lectures on Biology. In
	 particular:


>    The body
>    uses the red cells for clotting purposes - in fact, red cells were
>    so boring to study, the doctor managed his department around the
>    morphological study of red blood cells (i.e. using the microscopy he
>    photographed the cell to its death).
 
	 Red blood cells contain Hemeglobin which is an Oxygen binding
	 protein.  Their main funtion is to carry Oxygen in the blood.
	 They  have  nothing  to  do  with clotting. They are still an
	 interesting  object  of  study  as  there  are a few diseases
	 (sickle  cell  anemia  is the most common) that are not fully
	 understood,  but  which  are  clearly  diseases  of red blood
	 cells.

   
>    Now, the white cells is where the action is -  the immune system
>    reside here.  These white cells are broken into more components,
>    such as chromosomes and lymphocytes.  There are x number of chromosomes
>    (If I recall correctly,15, maybe it's 16, oh well). These numbers
>    directly relate to specific functions.  One is related to sex (XX XY)
>   and so forth. Each group has its importance. 
 
	 All cells  have chromosones. In humans each cell has 23 pairs
	 of chromosones, one of which determines sex. 
   
    
>    Oh yes, another point, one of the results from the morphological
>    studies of the red cell highlighted a note of importance only becuase
>    you can't have a cell without red and white working together...a bad
>    blood cell attaches itself to the good cell and the lymphocyte from
>    each cell battle it out.  If the winner is the virus, it moves onto
>    another good blood cell and with more fervor.  If the winner is
>    the good blood cell, it swims on continuuing it's seek and destroy
>    mission..
 
	 Pseudo-scientific hogwash.  Red  and  white  blood  cells are
	 different,  but  each  is a cell by itself. As for a bad cell
	 attacking  a  good one, biology is somewhat more complex than
	 tag-team wrestling, which is what you seem to be describing.

	 Sorry about  the  tone  of  this, but there are limits to the
	 nonsense I'm willing to tolerate under the rubric of science.
	 (Especially since I spent a year working on oxygen transport, and 
	 have published 3 papers on the subject.)

--David
   
                         
    
    
    
    

    re .136 and previous  - platlets are cell fragments responsible
    for clotting and are not derived from red blood cells.
    Bonnie J.
    Who taught Biology to college students for 12 years before coming
    to DEC.

    I am truly impressed with all the biological knowlege we have in
    our little group.
    
    You know, I think that if the Red Cross, etc, was smart, then they
    would be heavily involved in advertising geared for lesbians to
    get them to donate blood to save the world.  :-)
    
              Carol

    RE: EMT's, etc.
    
    I saw a documentary on PBS which mentioned a situation in which
    EMTs arrived at the house, learned the patient had AIDS, and left.\
    Since then, I've seen similar incidents mentioned in
    newspapers,magazines, etc. Can't quot chapter and verse, but saw
    EMTs/ambulance attendants interviewed who said they'd NEVER transport
    and AIDS patient.\
    
    Now, I can understand someone being leery of the situation if they
    had to give CPR, etc. but I am appalled that anyone would refuse
    to simply transport a patient to the hospital. You don't get AIDS
    by touching someone. Even those who have cared for AIDS patients
    in their homes have not contracted the disease - presumably, they
    followed precautions to the letter. 
    
    Hugging's OK, too.
    
    Dawn

re: .110
>    
>    While it was not a comfortable situation for the EMT's not being
>    told that the individual had AIDS, it would be well to remember
>    two things: 1) They had performed their duty with the necessary
>    protections 2) *MANY* AIDS patients have been refused transport
>    to hospital and interim treatment by EMTs/ambulance attendants.

    When I was an Emegency Medical Technician (from '77 to '83), we were
    taught that it was wrong to leave a patient unless she was in someone
    else's care. I don't remember if it was illegal, or simply immoral, but
    wrong nonetheless.

    Even then we had those little green plastic tubes (I think they're
    called airways) for assisting in artificial respiration. The original
    use was for badly blocked respiratory passages, but we were taught that
    we could use them if we were worried about any kind of infection.

    In general, EMTs and other first-aid volunteers are a dedicated bunch.
    The first rule of first aid, though, is to make sure you don't injure
    yourself, because a dead EMT is of no use to anyone.  Hard choices...

    re: .-1
    
>        When I was an Emegency Medical Technician (from '77 to '83), we were
>    taught that it was wrong to leave a patient unless she was in someone
>    else's care. I don't remember if it was illegal, or simply immoral, but
>    wrong nonetheless.
    
    This is called abandonment, and is quite illegal today.
    
    EMTs live by rules that deal with "standards of care", and abandonment
    doesn't happen to be one of those standards ... :^)
    
    	-- Jeff

    Epidemiologic evidence seem to show that time is the only co-factor
    for death from AIDS.  That is, there is very little evidence to
    keep one from believing that every AIDS infection will result in
    death.  However, the "very little evidence" preventing one from
    validating this conclusion is that there is a lack of information
    about AIDS victims at the beginning of the cycle (infected carriers
    without symptoms).  Given the above, it seems rational for the public
    at large (in a effort to collect data) to demand that the infection
    with the virus be made reportable.
    
    Historically, diseases have been made reportable for 3 reasons:
    1. define size of problem
    2. administration of vaccine or cure
    3. halt spread
    
    Traditional legal and health precedents provide guidance for public
    actions.  In California, 58 communicable diseases (including sexually
    transmitted diseases) are listed by the Public Health Department
    as being reportable.  AIDS is on the list, but not the state of
    carrying the virus for AIDS. AIDS carriers are NOT INCLUDED in the
    statute that makes it a crime for anyone to knowingly expose another
    to a disease.
    
    The rationale for this is defended by the fears of breaches of
    confidence from possible unauthorized releases of patient records.
    Reportability does not mean that everyone needs to know who are
    carriers.  That is only the business of the individual, his doctor
    and the public health service. This reportability will secure the
    carrier's accountability.  In return, the carrier gets a right to
    privacy by honoring the trust that the carrier will not spread the
    disease.
    
    If a carrier abuses that trust to society by knowingly passing the
    virus, the right to privacy is ethically limited.  The state public
    health service should be authorized to pursue routine procedures
    to control this individual's irresponsible actions.
    
    It is argued that only education can work as a effective control.
    Other notes have discussed the decline of AIDS in the San Francisco
    gay community.  Homosexual men there seem to be curbing sexual
    appetites. However, it can be argued that this community is already
    saturated with the virus, if true, reported cases of course would
    decline.
    
    The rest of us cannot afford this delay.  One should not delude
    ourselves into thinking that education alone will raise the social
    consciences of carriers. Education about birth control has not reduced
    unwanted pregnancies or abortions. Prisons are overflowing with
    people who were told about the consequences of murder, rape and
    robbery but the crimes were committed anyway. Lung cancer and other
    tobacco related disease victims had plenty of information about
    the risks of tobacco.  
    
    To stop the spread of AIDS, traditional health policies and procedures
    used effectively in the past to control communicable venereal diseases
    must be resurrected.  Safeguards for confidentiality already exist,
    and if lacking, new laws can be passed.  It makes no sense to
    accomodate new laws or expend funds in an effort to create an AIDS
    industry without taking the first step of public health policy
    requiring the reportability of this communicable disease.

    May I interject a request for a little info? Can anyone tell me
    a little more about the above-mentioned AIDS action committee?
    I'm interested in contributing to AIDS research, and like to know
    to whom or what I'm donating.
    
    Is there a phone number for the committee that I could call for
    info, perhaps?
    
    Thanks, Chuck

    I have been thinking about this issue, and though I haven't been following
    the relevant scientific journals, but rather relying on the popular
    science journals, my understanding is that the test is a test for the
    antibody of the AIDS virus. That in fact they do not test for the virus
    itself.
    
    At present of course this is a minor issue: if you have the antibody
    then you have, or had the virus in your system. Nearly everybody who
    has been exposed sufficiently to develop antibodies develops either
    ARC or AIDS.
    
    Now suppose science develops a good vaccine. A vaccine by its very nature
    causes the body to generate the antibody: thats how it works. Once you
    have the antibodies in your blood you can resist a subsequent infection.
    
    However a succesful vaccine will leave everybody testing positive!
    
    A second thought. Suppose everybody is tested, and positives are
    quarantined. About 1 per mill of all tests are false positives. With
    the population of the US standing at about 250,000,000, that means 250,000
    people will be sent to concentration camp for nothing.
    
    /. Ian .\

re: .146

	The AIDS Action Committee is the organization in Boston
that is responsible for just about everything that is being done
to deal with AIDS in New England.  They provide education, community
outreach, counseling, testing, social services to PWAs, etc.  
The address is:

	AIDS Action Committee
	661 Boylston St.
	Boston, MA 02215
	(617) 437-6200

Digital will match any contributions made to them.

    RE: 147
    
    You may extract this note for creation of another file. 
    
    I am not against universal testing for AIDS.  A cost/benefit analysis
    of same ought to be done.  I don't understand why you would object
    to testing of immigrants, federal prisoners, or couples to be married.
    It is reasonable to bar would be immigrants who are carriers of
    a communicable disease (as they already are for more controllable diseases
    like tuberculosis, syphilis, etc.).  It is also reasonable to segregate
    prisoners AIDS in a setting known for rape.  Couples about to be
    married are already required to take a blood test so an additional
    requirement for an AIDS test is not any more intrusive.  I am against
    putting forth the idea that education is the only method to stop
    the spread of AIDS. If universal testing is needed, so be it.
    
    Mayor Feinstein of San Francisco (On ABC-TV Town Meeting), a city
    with the second largest number of AIDS carriers (New York is first)
    stated that the message to be heard from AIDS is that "we can no
    longer be a promiscuous society". 
    
    The problem in dealing with AIDS is that few doctors and fewer
    politicians want to send the necessary messages. They fear AIDS
    less than they fear the ridicule of those who would cry foul at any
    hint of strong government action to combat AIDS. While giving lip
    service to concepts of monogamy they are reluctant to advocate normalcy
    and look instead at a management strategy.
    
    If you think that information and education can combat AIDS, I think
    you are mistaken.  As previously stated, people die of smoking related
    lung cancer even though they had plenty of information of the dangers
    of smoking.  Birth control education has not stopped unwanted
    pregnancies and abortions.  Knowledge of the consequences of rape,
    robbery, homicide have not made our prisons obsolete.
    
    If the Reagan administration through its ineptitude has allowed
    AIDS to become a problem where micromeasures are no longer effective,
    then a policy shift is needed.  The policy of "persuasion" (as in
    ads for safer sex, clean needles, etc.) should be shifted to one
    of coercion ("to compel to an act or choice"), as in coercing citizens
    into doing what needs to be done (that is, an AIDS carrier who
    knowingly spreads the virus has ethically lost the right to privacy
    and should be made accountable for this behavior).  This can be done
    through universal testing, if necessary, and with the type of
    information given by Mayor Feinstein. Stopping AIDS will not be
    accomplished by suggestions that people, especially those in high
    risk groups, can continue to practice the same behavior as before
    in a safer manner.  Mayor Feinstein's message needs to be repeated:
    "WE CAN NO LONGER BE A PROMISCUOUS SOCIETY."

Re: .150 

>  It is also reasonable to segregate
>    prisoners AIDS in a setting known for rape.

       Perhaps that is reasonable, but Attorney General Meese has been
       suggesting  denying parole to prisoners with AIDS. This attempt
       to  make  testing  positive  to  AIDS  a  crime  is  absolutely
       unacceptable.  Testing positive for a disease (or even having a
       disease)  is  a misfortune, not a crime. (This may be my Jewish
       culture showing, in some parts of Christianity a disease may be
       God's  punishment  for  something  or other.) To deny parole to
       people  with AIDS is equivalent to jailing innocent people with
       AIDS. In both cases someone who by other laws should be free is
       in jail solely because of a disease.
    

>    If you think that information and education can combat AIDS, I think
>    you are mistaken.  As previously stated, people die of smoking related
>    lung cancer even though they had plenty of information of the dangers
>    of smoking.  Birth control education has not stopped unwanted
>    pregnancies and abortions.

       This is  clearly false. The gay community has certainly altered
       its  behavior because of information about AIDS. I suspect that
       the straight community will soon start to practice safe sex for
       the  same  reason.  (Many  of  my friends tell me that they are
       being  much  more  careful  than  they used to be.) As for your
       other examples (which are repeated several times in this note),
       none of them uphold your position: The percentage of smokers in
       the U.S. has dropped from about 40% to under 30% as a result of
       education  about  the  dangers from smoking. This includes many
       smokers who quit despite being addicted to nicotine. The number
       of  pregnancies  is substantially smaller in schools that offer
       sex education than in schools that don't offer such classes. It
       is  remarkable  how  well  education  works  in  all  of  these
       examples, even though many people were originally skeptical.

       It may be that education is not completely effective in solving
       any  of  these  problems, but it works remarkably well, doesn't
       interfere  with  anyones  civil liberties, and may well be more
       effective  than  coercive laws (anyone remember prohibition?)

--David

    I was listining to a news report yesterday morning, a couple of
    items of interest were that some testing has been done in prisons
    already and the results showed that approximately 50% of the prison
    population had been exposed to the virus, mostly from IV use. The 
    second interesting thing mentioned was that the group with the 
    fastest growing spread of aids was the IV users. The spread of 
    aids was not as great from male /female contact and the homsoexual 
    spread was slowing down.
                         
    dave

    Are these the same kids who were denied sex education just a few
    years ago?  What is the percentage of kids who are not IV drug users
    who have AIDS?  Why are the high risk groups being ignored while
    limited funds are being spent on focusing on kids again?  
    
    Since all of our prisons are filled way beyond their intended capacity
    where will they put those AIDS victims they intend to quarantine?
    
    I've been hearing so many conflicting statements and statistics
    regarding the spread of AIDS that I can't help but wonder if anyone 
    really knows where it came from or whats going on.  

    <---.-1
    
    Yeah, it was a lot easier to deal with AIDS when it was a gay disease
    which'll eventually wipe out the f****ts. 'They' created it, 'they'
    get it, and it don't make no difference to me.
    
    Got kinda complicated when the "normal" folks began getting it.
    Not to be paranoid (well, even paranoids have enemies :-}) but it
    makes me wonder about the motives of the disseminators-of-information
    in this society....
    
    Dawn
    

I suppose we probably need an AIDS notesfile.  Not that I'm volunteering,
of course.  Here follows an abstract from an article on the mathematics
behind the spread of Aids, which I recently posted to Usenet.  The
Dec Maynard library subscribes to New Scientist.

In his monthly Aids posting, Craig Werner mentioned in passing a special
issue on Aids in the New Scientist, 26 March 1987.  In addition to some
beautiful photographs (by Lennart Nilsson, who is probably best known
for his series on foetal development), there are several fascinating
articles on "The Science of Aids".

Perhaps the most interesting -- in that the information hasn't been
discussed in other articles -- is on mathematical models on the spread
of the disease.  The article is too dense to be adequatly summarized.
With apologies for errors, then, the following is an abridged quotation
from the article.  I have not noted editorial changes.  Please do not
criticize this article from my posting -- read it first.

   The rate at which the virus spreads depends on the probability of
   transmission (B) for the particular type of relationship between the
   infectious person and the person susceptable (for example, heterosexual
   man to woman, infected person to nurse drawing blood, etc.) and the
   "effective average" number (C) of such contacts with susceptable individuals.

   In the early phase of the epidemic, the number of people infected rises
   exponentialy, doubling at a rate equal to B*C.  Because Aids is transmitted
   sexually, promiscuous people are both more likely to give and to get
   the virus.  So, the way C is calculated is crucial.  It is not simply
   the mean number of partners, rather it is the square of the number of
   partners divided by the mean: C = M + s^2/M, where M is the mean and
   s^2 the variance of the statistical distribution of new partners per
   unit time.  Consider a population of homosexual men among whom 50% are
   relatively monogamous, acquiring new partners at the rate of roughly 1
   per year, while the remaining 50% have around 19 new partners each year.
   The mean number of partners is 10, but the "effective average" is 18
   (C = .5*(1 + 361)/10), which is significantly higher.

   We know neither B nor C for HIV infection.  But in the US and Europe,
   cases of infection seem to be doubling every 8-12 months, which corresponds
   to the product B*C having a value of around 1 per year.  Other data suggests
   that C may be arund 10 per year (for homosexual en in large cities in
   developed countries) and B (the probablity of transmission) around 0.1.

   To model the epidemic, we also need to know know how long people are
   infectious (D, the average duration).  With all this information, we
   could then calculate the "basic reproductive rate", R, defined as the
   number of new infections produced, on average, by an infected individual
   in a susceptible population (R = B*C*D).  This is important because
   the infection will spread if R is greater than 1, but not otherwise.
   Some people infected with HIV may remain infectious for five years or
   more, shich suggests that R is 5 or more among homosexual men in large
   cities, making it more "intrinsically spreadable" than smallpox.

   Among heterosexuals, the epidemology is complicated by separate
   probabilities (male to female vs female to male) and different
   rates of acquiring new sexual partners.  Take a hypothetical example.
   Suppose that all men are moderately promiscuous, having around 4 new
   female partners per year, while the female population is more varied:
   90% have 1 new male partner, while 10% have on average 31 new partners.
   This difference in effective averages could explain the equal sex
   ratios for AIDS cases in Africa (the larger effective average number
   of partners caused by female prostitution counterbalances the greater
   probability of male->female transmission.

   "At present, we  know too little to decide whether the R [basic
   reproductive rate] for heterosexual transmission will fall below or
   above 1 -- values greater than 1 mean thre will be a major epidemic."

From the conclusion to the article -- abstracted:

  Hopes of halting the spread of AIDS rest on persuading people to change
  their sexual habits.  "Safe sex" (condoms, etc.) can reduce the probability
  of transmitting the virus.  Reduction in the rates at which people acquire
  new sexual partners reduces the rate at which new infections are produced.
  Unfortunately, our estimate of the basic reproductive rate of HIV infections
  among homosexual men in developed countries suggests that there must be
  substantial changes if we are to halt this epidemic.  The basic reproductive
  rate for heterosexually trnasmitted HIV in developed countries may, however,
  be substantially lower.  It may, therefor, be amenable to being reduced below
  1 by such cultural changes.  The kind of constructively aggressive programme
  of public education now being launched in Britain, although not on anything
  like the same scale in the US, face the difficulty that they aim to change
  behavior among young people just entering the sexual arena.  Mechanisms
  of denial are strong, and it seems easy for poeople genuinely to believe
  one thing, yet do another.

From Anderson, Roy, and Robert May.  Plotting the Spread of AIDS.  New
Scientist, 26 March 1987.  54-59.

Martin Minow
decvax!minow

	 The Science  and  the  Citizen  column  of  the July issue of
	 Scientific   American   includes   a   short   article  on  a
	 mathematical  model  of AIDS spread. This model paints a very
	 bleak  picture (10% of the population infected --I think, the
	 article  is  at  home).  A  couple  of  critics are quoted as
	 saying that they think the model is to pessimistic, but admit
	 that it may be reasonable.

    re .155:
    
    Never attribute anything to malice that can be explained by stupidity.
    Before you can talk rationally to someone, you have to get their
    attention. Some people need a tap on the shoulder, others a 2x4 over
    the head. 
    
    In the early days of AIDS awareness, there were a lot of people who
    thought it was just a scare contrived to get gays to straighten up and
    fly right. I must admit that I, too, raised an eyebrow at it. After
    all, if I were trying to scare people into "moral" behavior, that's the
    tactic I'd take. Well, gee, it really was real, and lots of otherwise
    sensible people let time slip by because of their paranoia. The same
    gay rights groups that lead the education efforts in the U.S. today,
    were saying some terribly unkind things about the AIDS researchers not
    that many years ago. 
    
    In the twenties, the problem was syphilis (which is in many ways
    similar to AIDS -- it's not difficult, but not easy to catch, it takes
    a long time to kill you, and it isn't particularly pleasant). The
    medical community was preaching safe sex (but they didn't call it
    that), and being battered by the same elements that batter them today.
    The difference is that the batterers were far more effective then.
    Public awareness messages were banned from magazines. Yup, banned.
    Medical journals gave short shrift to research articles. You see, if
    you admit that it exists, you admit that people have sex. If you admit
    that people have sex, then why that's practically encouraging it! And
    besides, it's all God's punishment on sinners anyway. The more things
    change, the more they stay the same. 
    
    There *is* a difference, though. The difference is that this time we
    don't have to talk about it in whispers. Ignoring the problem is not
    seen as desirable, it's seen as a problem itself. Despite the
    government's petty, juvenile, and rather calvinist attitude, the word
    is being spread, the research is being done. Dr Gallo, who was pretty
    bleak last year, is "cautiously optimistic" this year. If we're lucky,
    the next time we have a major epidemic, it won't end up being a major
    epidemic. 
    
    	Jon

    Can I ask for some help from what appears to be the most active
    notes on AIDS ?  I'm posting this note for my wife, Pat, who is the
    Aids Liaison Officer for READING (UK!)  I keep her aware of this
    note and she has asked me for some information. 
    
    She is particularly interested in the Globe and Phoenix articles
    (I mean the ones with free condoms) and asks if anyone could tell us the
    addresses of the two newspapers so that she can contact them ?
    
    If there is anyone who would like UK based information, Pat would
    be pleased to help.  Please mail me on HERON::GASCOIGNE Many thanks
    
    Roger 

    The Boston Globe
    135 Wm. T. Morrissey Blvd.
    Dorchester
    
    The Boston Phoenix
    100 Massachusetts Av.
    Boston

    
    
    re -1
    
    But what about the latest news in Mass.?!  As I understand it, Mass
    Insurance agencies will now be allowed to "Screen" applicants using
    the Aids Antibody Test.  Does anyone have any more info?  Is there
    anything we can do to stop this?  Will the test be applied
    universally or only to "high risk" groups?  And will the definition
    of "high risk" be expanded to include the fastest growing risk group,
    heterosexuals??
    
    We may have a whole new category of homeless, poor people - those
    who test positive on this fairly unreliable test!!!  
    
    Justine

    Juse heard this a.m. that the insurance commissioner resigned because
    of the AIDS testin by insurance compaines ruling.
    
    The beat goes on...
    
    

	Another one for the Duke.  The ruling states that insurance
	companies may use the HIV antibody test as a prerequisite for 
	life or disability insurance, but not health insurance.  That 
	doesn't mean you can get health insurance for AIDS, though: the 
	companies are not required to pay any health insurance benefits
	if you get AIDS during the first two years of the policy.

    In case you haven't seen it, some of the local biotech companies
    have recently relased a test that directly picks up the presence
    of the antibodies....and they claim it is 100% effective....well
    we'll see.
    
    Anyway, for years insurance companies have required extensive physicals
    for older men particularly concentrating on heart disease and have
    routinely declined to cover certain combinations of symptoms, or
    physical situations.  (ie if you were over weight, over 40, and
    had family history etc...)
    
    No one complained then.
    
    How is aids any different?
    
    The fact of the matter is that selling insurance is a profit making
    business (how else could they build those skyscrapers in all of
    the cities in the country).  If they don't make a profit at it,
    there's no incentive.  If aids is covered by insurance, they will
    definately go broke, since most healthy people would cancel their
    coverage rather than pay the high rates that would follow.
    
    The only answer to AIDS coverage is going to be government funding.
    
    For a somewhat incomplete but nevertheless interesting analysis
    see last weeks issue of the Technology Review from MIT.  It comes
    to the same conclusion.
    
    Just like health care for the elderly is too expensive for the
    insurance companies, so too is health care for AIDS patients.
    
    One has to wonder why we let them operate in the first place.
    Socialized medicine would be so much cheaper, or better, were we
    to spend the money on equipment, research, and docters rather than
    on buildings 500 feet high full of people trying to figure out why
    they don't have to pay your claim.
    
    /LEn
    

    re -1:
    
    As far as insurance companies are concerned, everything is fine
    until you get sick and need them to pay.
    
    	-Ellen