Conference hydra::dejavu

    	Why is every new disease considered THE disease to end all
    diseases?  The Black Plague of the Fourteenth Century was very
    devastating - it was far easier to catch than AIDS, and there was
    almost no protection against it at the time - yet the human race
    did not die out, and in fact we are back to overpopulation status
    again.
    
    	If "Gaia" wanted to clean out the human closet, it should have
    picked a much more widespread disease.
    
    	Larry
    

    	AIDS may affect a lot of species besides humans.  Something
    with a lifespan under five years, may be relativly unnaffected
    by a disease with such a long incubation period.   Many insects
    in Africa are known to be carrying the virus, but are not believed
    to be a part of the transmission cycle with humans.
    
    	Where did it come from?
    		1) Gaia, or planet earth fighting back.
    		2) escaped from a biological warfare lab.
    		3) random arrival, piggyback on a meteor
    		4) virus harbored by a previously isolated tribe,
    			they have immunity, but we don't.
    		5) Psychicly generated, from buildup of negative
    			thought forms.
    
    	I have heard believers in each of these possible sources.  #2,
    that alleges the virus escaped from a warfare lab is probably the
    most popularly believed rumored source.  (see the cover of the new
    "Y & T" album, "Contagious")   The Russians have published a little
    propaganda accusing a USA biological lab in Maryland of having created
    the virus.
    
    	The public will never know the source of this virus.  All of
    this is purest speculation.   I tend toward theories #2 + #4, myself.
    
    	If Gaia does have it in for our species, there is probably little
    we can do about it.   Gaia apparently monitors the gaseous balances
    in the atmosphere, and our technological tinkering may have alerted
    this hypothesized being.   Since the largest part of Gaia is
    apparently made up of single cell bacteria and viruses, a disease
    might just be the type of weapon Gaia would use against us.
    If this is the case, I sure hope Gaia can distinguish one human
    from another, as that is an enemy I do not want to have.
    
	Alan.

    Re .0:
    
    >All life on earth, save the "Modern" Human Being, seems to respect
    >this theory. It is only we who think we can "outdo" this planet,
    >by changing the land and sky, putting things where they weren't
    >intended, and taking for ourselves what isnt ours to have.
    
    Well, most life seems to operate on the basis of fitting into the
    ecology, but that might not be the same thing.  Ask any dinosaur.
    Also, I dunno -- who's trying to "outdo" this (or any) planet? 
    And how?  Abnd finally, what are we "taking" that isn't "ours to
    have"?
    
    >If not, then, why is it [AIDS] here and why does it only affect
    >Humans?
     
    We don't know it's only affecting humans; it's too new.  Also, we've
    never been victims of the tobacco mosaic virus ... because we and
    tobacco plants are different parts of the natural scheme of things.
    Things are more subtle than they may seem.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I would really like to know if anyone knows if Nostradamus predicted
    the outbreak of what we know and call AIDS?
                
    Thanks.     
                
    

    There are really *two* Gaia hypothoses floating around the original
    one and the mystical one.
    
    The original Gaia hypothosis is simply a proposal that scientists
    change the scope of their thinking.  Traditionally it was realized
    that living organisms, even the very simplest, demonstrate homeostasis
    -- mechanisms by which they monitor their own condition and feedback
    corrective measures to keep things at a desired point.  In even
    moderately complex organisms (e.g., an amoeba) the various feedback
    mechanisms interact with each other to produce very complex results.
    
    It wasn't long before these properties were extrapolated to "social
    groups" of related organisms.
    
    The next step was a broader understanding of ecology -- which includes
    complex feedback mechanisms between genetically un-related organisms.
    
    Then there is the concept called (among other terms) co-evolution,
    the idea that organisms evolving in contact with each other effect
    each others evolutionary development so that they each evolve to
    take advantage of the other as part of their feedback mechanisms.
    
    The Gaia hypothosis is that what we would normally term geological
    processes are affected, over long enough time-spans, by biological
    activity.  As a result, the entire biosphere has evolved to use
    and to modify the geological environment as part of its homeostatic
    mechanisms.  At this point, it becomes difficult to distinguish
    the long-term behaviour of the atmosphere and crust from the organisms
    which interact so intimately with it.  Furthermore, since they interact
    through the Earth itself, one cannot really talk about distinct
    communities of organisms.  At a sufficient time scale, the biosphere/
    geosphere as a whole act as a single complex homeostatic mechanism.
    
    Note that there is nothing really mystical about this whole proposal,
    everything works in ultimately mechanical ways to restore balance.
    Changes in temperature cause changes in plant cover, which changes
    carbon-dioxide and water vapor content which effects heat etc. (I
    can't think of the details at the moment).
    
    The AIDs pandemic relates to this in a perfectly straight forward
    way.  It's interpretation doesn't really require the Gaia hypothosis
    since it is purely biological -- it is part of the "ecological"
    hypothosis, instead.  When the population density of an organism
    goes above a certain point, it makes it easy for a pathogen to be
    transmitted.  Deadly pathogens (bacteria, virii etc.) are normally
    evolutionarily selected against since they are likely to kill their
    hosts before they can be transmitted to a new one.  With sufficient
    population density (especially when combined, as in the Black Plague,
    with unsanitary conditions) deadly diseases can be transmitted before
    killing the host and therefore have an available ecological niche
    to "radiate" into.  There is thus a homeostasis mechanism at work:
    if population density increases beyond a certain point then pathogens
    will evolve to decrease the population.
    
    Where did AID's come from?  The previous list doesn't mention the
    possibility which is considered far and away the most likely by
    virtually all scientists.  The AIDs virus mutated from a strain
    previously harmless to humans.  When this occured in the past, it
    quickly died out, since it tended to kill its host before being
    transmitted.  Now it has occured when conditions were right for
    it to be transmitted before killing its host, so now it survives.
    Retro-virii such as the AIDs virus are very hard to isolate.  It
    was found only because of new technology (if the epidemic had occured
    ten years before, the AIDs virus would probably not have been
    identified) and because the disease itself told them where to look.
    The virus was previously harmless either because it previously had
    at most only mild symptoms, because its previous symptoms looked
    like something else, or most likely because it previously normally
    only infected animals (an African green monkey is the primary
    candidate).  As has recently been announced, the AIDs virus is mutating
    and a phenomenal rate, so what it "was" only a few years ago is
    probably very different from what it is now.
    
    Personally I think that the Gaia Hypothosis is a powerful, heuristic
    metaphore which encourages some much needed systems thinking about
    issues which are too often ignored.  My guess is that as an
    *explanatory, scientific theory* it will be falsified, but we will
    see.
    
    The mystical Gaia Hypothosis attributes a literal vitality (in the
    original sense of the word) to the Earth.  It further attributes
    purpose (rather than evolved function) and even emotion to the Earth.
    I have no beef with those who believe in the mystical Gaia Hypothosis
    go -- as spiritual ideas go it is truely elegant.  Keep in mind,
    however, that it is not what the scientists who understand the Gaia
    hypothosis are talking about.
    
    By the way -- people live according to their nature and with nature
    as much as any other organism.  Individual organisms, and even species
    have evolved to be rather short sighted.  The power to effect our
    environment that we have evolved to is such that normal short-sighted
    nature is likely to lead to cataclysm unmatched since similarly
    short sighted organisms changed the atmosphere from reducing to
    oxidizing.
    
    					Topher
    

    	RE .5 and .2
    
    	>Topher's account of the source of the virus in .5 should
    have been on my list in .2, I agree.     It is clear that this
    virus evolves quickly, and is a member of a class of viruses
    known to behave in this way.   I didn't mean for my list in .2
    to include all possibilities.
    	In general, I agree that the virus probably came from some
    natural source, however given the dramatic impact of certain
    movies and books ( like "The Stand") the average person will
    probably believe the virus came from a bio-warfare lab.   I
    suspect the Russian propaganda will succeed in angering most
    of the world against the US, in spite of the mounting evidence
    that the epidemic started in Africa.
    
    Alan.
    

    The virus came from a monkey in AFRICA called THE GREEN MONKEY 
    it was transfered through natives that got bred, if you get my drift.
    
    Believe it or not this information came from my son who is fifteen.
    In the school system he goes to they have a very strong awareness
    program that has to do with sex, aids and drugs. This is what their
    research produced.
    
    Nancy
    

    SORRY FOR THE MISSPELLING. BRED SHOULD BE BORED.

    	Regardless of how the AIDS virus first got into humans, the
    effects of blood pooling surely brought the US and Africa to the
    current stages of pandemic. 
    
    	A likely reason why gay men were the largest group affected first is
    that they were commonly given a hepititus vaccine (I think it was a
    vaccine...though it might have been a drug to cure the condition. In
    SOAPBOX is an article that I got this info from, .1 to the AIDS topic
    in there.) which was made from large amounts of pooled blood. It is
    still unclear where all of this blood originally came from, but private
    companies that did the pooling do not have to disclose exactly where
    they got it. Generally, it was from Africa and the Carribean. 

    	Ed

    	This is getting a little off the topic (This is DEJAVU, not
    SOAPBOX, right?) but it is such an important discussion, that I
    should probably put some of the article in here. It is fascinating,
    and rather horrifying. Whether this particular vaccine played a
    major or minor role in the spread of AIDS, there was a large, even
    tremendous amount of blood pooling done by private and public agencies
    (Such as the World Health Organization) in the third world, and
    much of that pooled blood was imported into the more 'advanced'
    (sorry, I can't say it with a straight face without the quotes ;-)
    countries as various blood components. There is still a lot unknown,
    like how long would the virus survive in the blood pools...but to
    me it sounds tragically plausible. 
    
    	Ed

                              INTERVIEW MAGAZINE
                          " Health: All about AIDS "

                               DR. MATHILDE KRIM
                                by Larry Kramer

BACKGROUND:

Mathilde Krim, Ph.D., is Co-chairperson of the American Foundation for AIDS
Research. (Elizabeth Taylor is the Foundations's National Chairperson, and its
board not only includes some of the country's most distinguished doctors and
scientists, but also such members as Warren Beatty, Barbra Strisand, Woody
Allen, Liz Smith, Katherine Graham and Leonard Bernstein.) 

...

LARRY KRAMER:  Let us begin by mentioning three recent newspaper articles. The
first said that AIDS is now the biggest killer of straight women between- 

MATHILDE KRIM:  The ages of 25 and 29. 

LK:  And that in a few years it's going to be the biggest killer of straight
women period. 

MK:  The biggest killer of people in the years during which they're sexually
active. Men and Women. 

...
    
    [Discussion of education, and publicizing the dangers of AIDS, as
    well as expression of frustration at a drug, AZT, which was known
    to be effective, but was given out only to a limited number of AIDS
    patients.]
 
    
LK:  How do you make the most of your time?

MK:  I talk a lot to the media and the press on basically medical and
scientific information. I do a lot of public speaking, because in many states
they just now are setting up their educational program, and they're just
learning. In the Midwest, this is a new problem for them. I try to fight the
idea that the gay men are giving us AIDS. I explain that we probably gave it
to the gay men to start with, by inoculating them with infected gamma
globulin which is probably what happened. 

LK:  The gamma globulin we received to protect us against exposure to
hepatitis was infected?

MK:  That's right. The gamma globulin was made in the early '70s out of
pooled human blood that was not collected in this country. It was bought
in the Caribbean and Africa.

LK:  That's what you think?

MK:  It's a hypotesis, but it makes a lot of sense to me, and it also makes a
lot of sense from the epidemiological standpoint, because if one person had
caught AIDS in Haiti or somewhere and had come back to this country and given
it to another person, who gave it to another person, we would have seen a
picture like this: one case on year, ten cases the next year, 20 cases a year
later and so forth - a slow buildup. In 1981, after having identified the
first five cases in L.A. and the first nine cases here [NYC], people started
looking around, and suddenly we had several hundred the same year, and then
several thousand a year later. 

What occurred was what we call a multi-focal infection. Many people must have
become infected at the same time. How can such a thing happen? I first thought
it was during the clinical trials of gamma globulin preparations for
prevention of hepatitis that the infection occurred, but I checked the dates.
These trials started in '78, '79. That's too late; we already had cases then.
The infection occurred at least five years prior to that. It must have
occurred in the early '70s, and in those years, industrial companies - not the
not-for-profit blood centers, but the for-profit blood industry - were buying
blood from prisoners and from overseas, including Africa and the Caribbean. If
they purchased lots of blood where many individual blood donations were
infected, and they pooled all this blood and concentrated all the gamma
globulin, an infectious virus in large amounts would become trapped in the
gamma globulin. The purification steps, in combination, are able to inactivate
a large proportion of the virus, but only a proportion of the virus, because
one doesn't want to damage the antibody proteins in the process. If you start
with a big enough concentration of virus in the original blood, you may end up
with blood with an infectious virus at the end. The experiment was actually
done in the lab and published: You need to start with a high concentration of
virus, but if you do, you find infectious virus at the end. So it is
technically possible in the time frame. 

LK:  We were all getting gamma globulin shots back in the early '70s. The
minute you said you'd been to bed with someone who came down with hepatitis,
your doctor would pop you a shot. It was like taking aspirin for a cold. 

MK:  That's right. As hepatitis is highly prevalent among gay men, doctors
did that routinely. Recent gamma globulin is clean of virus. It's made up of
American blood that is screened. 

LK:  Well, then, why weren't there more straight cases in the early days?

MK:  No other group was so constantly, almost habitually, given gamma globulin
as gay men. Ron Grossman [a physician with a large gay practice] told me it
was absolutely routine to give gamma globulin. 

LK:  How many shots in the course of a year is routine?

MK:  Ten, twelve. [per-person]

LK:  Oh, I see - big, big receivers of gamma globulin, not just your odd
shot here and there.

MK:  Now, we don't have absolute proof, but there is this belief that a little
dose of virus is perhaps something that we can overcome - even rabies virus,
which is also lethal. When the dose is too big and the virus has time to
multiply sufficiently to overcome antibody immune reactions and so forth, the
infection really takes hold. So it's possible that rare, small doses would
not achieve infection, but repeated or large doses would. 

LK:  Is this your idea?

MK:  It's my idea; I don't know that anybody else thought of it. I've also
never heard the question asked, "Why gay men?" Why? Certain behaviors may
facilitate the spread of the infection, but they don't create it. 

LK:  Is there any way to investigate this?

MK:  It's very difficult. These preparations of gamma globulin were made by
private industry, and they're not going to volunteer the information to us. We
could go through their freezers, dig out some of the preparations and check
them, but it may be impossible. In order to preserve gamma globulin in a
functioning condition, your have to keep it at a temperature that eventually
destroys the virus. 

LK:  What do you think are our chances of getting a vaccine for AIDS?

MK:  They're quite good. There's nothing that indicates the vaccine will not
be possible. We don't have all the positive answers in yet, but we also don't
have any major obstacles. We have five different methods for developing a
vaccine, and several of them seem to work, so I'm pretty sure we'll have
something. 

LK:  In a couple of years?

MK:  It depends for whom. I think for people at risk, who are willing to
volunteer for clinical trials of vaccines, safety trials, there may be
something available within months - we're that close. Now for the population
at large, with little babies, that's ten years away. 

... 

MK:  Organized religions are going to have to do some rethinking. I think
there will also be a decrease in birthrates, because large numbers of people
will be effectively unable to procreate. There will also be a very large
number of children who will be abandoned because they are infected, and since
it is cruel and expensive to keep these kids in institutions, I think adoption
laws will be come more flexible. This is one good consequence of a bad
situation. And so there will be more children raised in unconventional
families. I also think our whole medical health delivery system, already
obsolete and failing in many ways, will completely crack at the seams because
of AIDS. We have to - at long last - devise a system that is much more
diversified in the kinds of services it can offer. The acute-care hospital
will be used much less. We're going to have to create nursing home-style
facilities and hospices and home care. Much of it has started, or has been
advocated but never adopted because there has been tremendous resistance from
the medical profession. 


Great article, you should pick up a copy -

                             Interview Magazine
                            Febuary 1987 - $2.50

__________________________
    
    Ed    
    
    

RE: .11,.12
    
    Hmm.  I would say that it is plausible but unlikely.  I'm no expert
    in this area but I have seen no indication that it is widely held
    by those who are.  The two major facts presented as requiring this
    theory to explain them, the sudden onset and the initial concentration
    in gay men, seem to be quite adequately explained by conventional
    infection theories.  It apparently dismisses as coincidental the
    other major early at-risk group -- Hatians.
    
    					Topher

    re: .13
    
    Not necessarily, If the hemoglobin was imported from Haiti then
    the link is formed.
    
    Overall:
    Mankind is now effecting the Global Ecosystem in ways unimaginable
    by previous generations.  Even today our government isn't addressing
    the acid rain issue.  If we continue our growth undifferent to our
    impact on the Earth, we may break the system and find our home
    inhabitable.
    
    and something else will evolve to take our place.

    I heard that it was spread via blood plasma from North Africa. Do
    the time frames {plasma from the 70's} coincided with where we are
    today?

RE: .16
    
    The stereotype is that this behavior is characteristic of *all*
    male gays.  It does seem to be true of some -- particularly young ones.
    
    Since AIDs doesn't have any obvious symptoms of its own (its symptoms
    are the appearance of certain rare diseases, which nevertheless
    can arise on their own without AIDS being present) it took a while
    before it was recognized.  Thus it is not surprising at all that
    it appeared suddenly with lots of cases right "at the beginning".
    
    I really don't think that this is particularly appropos this newsgroup,
    however.
    
    					Topher

    
    My doctor is married to someone who is currently doing AIDS research,
    so we've had a couple of conversations on this topic.
    
    Having been a subscriber of scientific-type magazines for many years,
    I first remember reading about this disease at least 5 years ago.
    
    Why, then, has it taken so long to get the funding required to AIDS
    research to find a cure to this disease and to educate the general 
    public as to the dangers of this disese?
    
    I asked my doctor this, and his reply was that since the disease
    seemed to be limited to homosexuals and 'undesirable communities',
    at the time, the majority of the public turned a cold shoulder.  
    (thereby judging them and comdemning them to suffering and certain
    death without any hope of a cure being discovered).  It wasn't 
    until people outside of these communities became affected that 
    the public interest was *finally* piqued.
                                     
    Just passing along a few of my thoughts and observations.
    
    
    
    

         For whatever it is worth to anyone else, I have included
    in 358.73 some of the highlights from notes I have taken from
    some Lazaris workshops in regards to aids.  
         Yesterday, at yet another workshop, it was mentioned that
    Lazaris has donated a short talk and a meditation (45-minute tape)
    to an organization in L.A. whose name I don't remember but it
    is run by a woman (I think it is called the Hayes Organization
    or something similar.)  It could prove of value to someone who
    is in need in this area.  
         The Lazaris (Concept:Synergy) address, however, is
       
           279 S. Beverly Drive #604
           Los Angeles, CA. 90212     Phone # 213-285-1507
      
    Frederick
    

    
    Sometime in the last few days, I half heard a news report which
    claimed that researchers have narrowed it down to one man who brought
    the AIDS virus to the United States from Africa quite a few years
    ago. Apparently, this man had an incredibly voracious sexual appetite,
    hence the quick spread of the disease - rather than one case one
    year, two or three cases the next year, etc. Also, apparently, he
    eventually was aware that he had the disease and of the primary
    way(s) in which it is spread, yet he continued to satisfy his desires,
    intentionally spreading AIDS. 
    
    Has anyone else heard this story? What do you think?
    
    				-Amy.
    
    

    Re .22 (Amy):
    
    Yes, it was a man who's referred to as "Patient Zero."  He was an
    airline employee, apparently quite handsome, and he had many liaisons.
    He was the sort of Typhoid Mary of the late 20th Century.  The Center
    for Communicable Diseases in Atlanta is reported to have all the
    data in him (he, needless to say, died some time ago).
    
    What do I think?  I think that some people with AIDS don't mind
    taking others with them. :-(  Is is moral, ethical, or even nice? 
    No.  So what else is new?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .22
    
    	I just read an article on the man known as Patient Zero.  Out
    	of the first 200 reported AIDS cases, 40 of the men had slept 
    	with PZ.  PZ was a Canadian, and he had an unusual name I can
    	not remember now.  He was a flight attendant.
    
    	He cooperated fully with the Center for Communicable Diseases
    	as far as giving names, dates, parties, etc., but he remained
    	sexually active until the last of his days.  He was quoted as
    	saying something to the effect that "if I have it there's no
    	reason everybody else shouldn't."
    
    						Carla
    

    re: Patient Zero
      
         It's truly sad that people are so "selfish" and greedy in
    their searches for love.  This guy wanted others along for his
    "death-ride" as a way to combat loneliness.  This speaks highly
    to the concept (as put forth by Lazaris) of the homosexual population
    (in general) having a certain "defensive" attitude about themselves.
    In their "defense" they attack.  Clearly this is not limited to
    the homosexual populace nor to AIDS victims alone.  It is a pretty
    "good" way to demonstrate that the approach to love taken by gay men
    (i.e., by having sex with as many men as possible) is apparently
    (to me, at least) not the answer to love.  As Lazaris, again, has
    suggested, the message here is that there are "better" or more
    appropriate ways to love.
         Most of our "lessons" seem to have a similar sad ring to them.
    This is why, as Lazaris has repeatedly suggested (and clearly spells
    out in his new book,) it is time to change our reality to a new
    world, and not by trying to carry on with the methods from our
    pasts.
      
    Frederick
    

    Re .25 (Frederick)
    
    I kind of have to dispute the idea that PZ was searching for love in
    his last days.  Deliberately giving someone AIDS (or any communicable
    disease, esp. a non-curable one) is a pretty heinous thing to do.  Some
    areas have ruled that this is a form of assault. I think it was a
    combination of a greedy search for pleasure and a "misery loves
    company" concept. 
    
    I don't think the majority of the homosexual population would do such a
    thing.  I also fail to see how they (as a group) are attacking anyone.
    From what I've seen they just want to be left alone to do what they
    wish with whom they wish. 
    
    Elizabeth
                             

    I agree Elizabeth.  PZ was an evil man and love had nothing to do
    with it.  Nor does PZ represent the homosexual community, just those
    who were promiscious and (sadly) soon to die.

    
    The article I read on this person was in 'People' magazine where
    their top 25 'people' for 1987 were listed.  Made me shudder just
    to look at his picture.  Apparently the estimated number of encounters
    he had after contracting AIDS and before dying (at age 32 a few
    years ago) was somewhere around 2500.  
    

    re: .26
       
         Let me attempt to clear up what I think was misunderstood.
    I haven't got any personal agendas against what you say; I've known
    a few gay and bi-sexual men and several bi-sexual and homosexual women
    and I feel that their lifestyles are their own.  I think that you
    need to recognize, however, that there are many "levels" of reality
    and I was talking to a level which I think you missed.  
         What level is that?  Well, the level you spoke about is fairly
    obvious.. gays are "people" first and foremost and have the same
    sensitivities as all the rest of us.  The point is, though, that
    we VERY RARELY understand our own thoughts and feelings, LET ALONE
    anyone else's.  It never ceases to amaze me when you find that someone
    has done such-and-such and people say "Gosh, I had no idea they
    had those thoughts, etc."  In "truth" we have our emotions well
    hidden.  When we express them (if we do) they are frequently bizarre
    (to others, and sometimes even to ourselves.)  The issue I wish
    to make clear here is that *you* (*none of us*) knows what is in
    someone else's "mind."  So, the contention is that all of us
    (and gays in particular) have a difficult time expressing or "finding"
    love.  If you think this over, I believe you will agree.  Why?
    Because of society's stigma (in general) towards the like-sex 
    proclivities we are talking about.  Is it any wonder then that these
    individuals should feel some resentments towards society and 
    its populace?  While most of them may have managed to work much
    of this out, maybe many have not.  Please, I'm not "picking" on
    gays, for this could apply to many segments of our society.  Let
    me quote something from "The Sacred Journey..." by Lazaris here
    (without permission) which I think will bring home the point I was
    originally trying to make.
        On page 62 he talks about the Skill and Art of Loving.  He talks
    about things to do for love and this is number 4.
      "Know.    There are two ways of knowing someone-through inflicting
    pain or through seeking understanding.  Because so many are afraid
    of love, they inflict pain-on themselves and on others.  Your ther-
    apists, through psychological studies of surviving prisoners of
    war, know that an interesting, if not bizarre, relationship developed
    between captive and captor.  Through the pain, they came to know
    each other more deeply than either anticipated.
         Yes, one route of knowing is through pain, but there is another
    route.  Seeking understanding begins with a conscious desire and
    concludes with a conscious commitment.  It involves taking the time
    to really reach out-tenderly, to reach out...to develop the skill
    of loving, seeking understanding of yourself and others.  You are
    not in this world to be understood.  You are here to be understanding."
      
         Another point I was attempting to show was that many gays have
    taken the attitude (again, not just gays) that they could demonstrate
    how much love they had by how much sex they had...that by having
    sex they were obviously showing their love.  Obviously, hetero-sexuals
    in our society feel this, too, and yet they, as a "class", don't
    usually have *as much* indiscriminate sex.  Sex is not love.  It
    is an expression of love.  Having lots of sex is not necessarily
    having lots of love.  It so happens that at this point in our
    history/time/space that it "befell" upon the gays to experience
    this "lesson" before or more than it befell upon others.  From their
    experience we can learn...ALL of us can learn.  
        Once more--->this is all GENERALITIES.  I agree that PZ was
    particularly greedy and heinous.  Very few humans, I think, would
    show that kind of callousness.  But I also believe that, deep, very
    deep, down inside, all he really sought was love...to feel it and
    to give it.  He failed miserably.
      
    Frederick
    
    

    re .26 (Frederick)
    
    I don't think you are talking about the differences between gays
    and straights as much as you are about the societal differences
    between men and women.
    
    Gay men are (as a generality) very promiscuous.  Gay women (as a
    generality) are not.  Heterosexuals of both sexes are (as a generality)
    not promiscuous.  Why gay men?  Perhaps because part of the definition
    of macho in our society is how much a young man can "score".  Women are
    taught "nice girls don't", unless there is love and commitment. So, in
    the case of gay men, you have 2 involved who are thinking "let's
    score", so they do.  The other situations you have women involved with
    the "let's at least get to know each other first" attitude, which slows
    things down.  I don't think there is any real significant difference in
    the area of love between gays and non-gays. It is really just another
    sad commentary about sexism. 
    
    Elizabeth

    
    
    Re:  last few
    
    What my understanding of what Frederick is saying is that we all
    have the same longing for love.  It's just that it's expression
    gets distorted in many different ways when it is filtered through
    the personality and all that has affected it - pain, guilt,
    love, hate, frustration, satisfaction, and on and on.
    
    Carole
    

    I haven't seen this stuff about "patient zero"; however, given the
    current situation regarding gays in this country, coupled with the
    current AIDS problem, I'd be very careful about what I said and
    to whom I said it.
    
    My initial reaction to the reference to this (alleged) person was
    that it sounded like some homophobic set-up. "Gay guy spreads disease
    without regard to ...etc. etc." Bad, bad, gay guy. I'm not sure
    now *what* to think, but I know people in general are not thinking
    clearly about AIDS. This could even be some kind of hoax,
    misinformation, or whatever...
    
    And: bottom line....does it really matter how it got here? It's
    here, and we have to deal with it.
    
    Please don't misunderstand me - no-one here has said anything
    homophobic - I just wanted to say that we all need to be careful
    about what we say (and think!)
    
    Dawn
    

    Re .32 (Dawn):
    
    >My initial reaction to the reference to this (alleged) person was
    >that it sounded like some homophobic set-up. "Gay guy spreads disease
    >without regard to ...etc. etc." Bad, bad, gay guy. I'm not sure
    >now *what* to think, but I know people in general are not thinking
    >clearly about AIDS. This could even be some kind of hoax,
    >misinformation, or whatever...
     
    I doubt that the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta has the time
    or desire to perpetrate hoaxes.  If (as I suspect is probable) Patient
    Zero has been identified, it's an important medical datum.  Moral
    judgements aside, it tells us something about the way the disease
    was vectored.  Psychologically, it suggests the mind-set of someone
    who knows he has a terminal, incurable, and contageous disease (not
    as a generalization, but to show one probable problem from a medical
    perspective).  More important, if the liaisons with Patient Zero
    can be traced and some of those did _not_ result in AIDS, then it
    might help researchers find a cure.
    
    >And: bottom line....does it really matter how it got here? It's
    >here, and we have to deal with it.
     
    Indeed.  And the more information we can obtain, the better armed
    we can be to deal with it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .33
    
    Let's keep in mind, however, Steve, that unless you are on the Center
    for Disease Control's press release mailing list we have a *report*
    on what was said by the CDC.  The probability is very high that
    that report is distorted, the only question is whether whatever
    distortions have been made are particularly significant to this
    discussion.
    
General:
    
    This Patient Zero thing is, however, rather explanatory.  A not
    particularly contagious disease like AIDS needs to somehow infect
    a rather large number of people before it can spread.  Unless it
    reaches a "critical mass" of sources of exposure for each individual
    in a population it will die off.  In effect, it needs a large enough
    "seed" to start crystalization (how's that for a metaphor?).  A
    single super-active individual would go far in explaining how that
    critical mass could be reached.
    
    					Topher

    I would like to suggest that Patient Zero probably did not know
    he had a fatal disease for quite some time.  I figure that to be
    the case because AIDS surfaces as a succession of seemingly unrelated
    medical problems.  It probably took a very long time for anybody
    to put two and two together.  All the while he was infecting those
    who were close to him.  What a downer it must have been for him
    when he found out!  Not only is he going to die, but so are those
    with whom he had physical relations.
    
    Marion 

    20/20 had a story about this guy.  They gave his name, had pictures of
    him and interviews with some of his partners and the CDC people who
    worked with him.  His existence was revealed by a gay newspaper man
    in San Franciso who wrote a book about the AIDS crisis called
    "And the Band Played On" or something like that.  The book blasts
    the government for not spending enough money soon enough, the CDC
    for not doing more about Patient Zero, and the gay community for
    not taking more precautions.  I haven't read the book but I read
    an excerpt in the Denver paper.  It appeared to be a well written
    and balanced book.  It obviously did not appear to be homophobic.

    Mike

    20/20?
    hmmmm   I thought I saw it on 60 minutes, oh well could be wrong.
    The versions here are about what I remember.  Initially, of course,
    he had no knowledge of what he was spreading, or that he was
    spreading anything.  However, the direct quotes, from the researchers
    that dealt with him after he was diagnosed, and before he died,
    indicated that he WAS willfully spreading the disease, even after
    he knew he was infectious.
    
    This would appear to have been a _very_ twisted person.  I supect
    that homophobes are fooling themselves.  Nothing, so far, indicates
    that AIDS is peculiar to gays, it just got started with that group
    first.
    
    dave pierson

    Reply to .38, Mistovich,
    
    There was quite a lot of discussion on that subject in GDE. I don't
    think that patient 0 had that much to do with the spread of Aids
    since many people contracted the disease through blood transfusions
    of blood plasma from Africa.
    
    For instance, I remember that 20/20 or 60 Minutes said there are 6,000
    (?) hemophiliacs in Germany that have Aids, contracted from blood
    transfusions alone. Green Monkeys are native in Africa and it seems
    that blood plasma from poor Africians was much more likely to be
    patient 0. 

    Somebody had to be the first person to bring the disease to the US, 
    he happened to be that person.  It could have been anybody of any 
    sexual orientation or as Mike says, it could have been a pint of blood 
    from Africa.  

    Mike

    
    
    I do not believe that Patient Zero is responsible for the spread
    of AIDS.  I've been doing a lot of research on this. (See Holisitic
    note 203, and Human_Relations note 431).  It seems to me that the
    majority of AIDS patients (especially patients with PCP or Kaposi's
    Sarcoma) are people suffering from tertiary syphilis.  There is
    a very good article on this in the January 1988 issue of THE ATLANTIC
    MONTHLY.  Another good article is also in the January 1988 issue
    of SPIN.  It almost seems like HIV is a "by-product" of tertiary
    syphilis, not the CAUSE of "AIDS".  It is interesting to note that
    Dr. Gallo, who "discovered" HIV, could only "cause AIDS" in the
    blood of leukemic patients, NOT in the blood of patients with healthy,
    normal immune systems.

    
    Oh well,...that's my 2 cents worth....
    
    Linda

    I read somewhere (Omni I think) that scientists did some research
    on a young man who died in 1969, and discovered the AIDS virus.
    According to the article, it was before Patient Zero.
    
    Deb

    AIDS could have entered this country multiple times with no
    effect.  Its characteristics are such that it would have to come
    in contact with a particularly susceptible population (such as
    the sexually-hyperactive segment of the male gay community, or
    the intravenous drug sub-culture) and have to almost similtaneously
    infect a significant portion of that community.  If it hadn't done
    that the probability that it would survive and spread (i.e., infect
    at least one other and frequently more than one other person on
    the average before it kills its host) would be very small.  There
    could be multiple infections over a long period, therefore, which
    though shedding light on the disease and its history, would not
    have much to do with the source of the current epidemic.  Patient
    Zero might well explain how the virus overcame that difficult
    threshold on *this* importation.
    
    					Topher