From: manley@optilink.com (Dave Manley)
Subject: The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS (was Re: CDC Summary 8/12/92)
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Archive-Number: 5894
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:40:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.214255.16903@cs.ucla.edu> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.180502.8155@cs.ucla.edu> Billi Goldberg <bigoldberg@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>>"TeenAIDS: The Latest HIV Fib" New Republic (08/10/92) Vol. 207, No. 7, 
>>P. 17  (Fumento, Michael)
>
>An appropriate name for this article..
>
>>     Claims spread by the media that the AIDS epidemic will soon  affect 
>>large numbers of young heterosexuals are outright  fallacies, writes 
>>Michael Fumento, author of a book called The  Myth of Heterosexual AIDS.  
>                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>God would never strike down wholesum heterosexuals... Right....

Lawrence, are you judging a book by its title?

If you would bother to read the book instead of mocking its title you
would see the author presents the argument that the threat of AIDS to
heterosexuals in the U.S. was overstated.  The book is several years
old (perhaps five) and not much has changed since then.  AIDS remains
in the U.S. primarily a disease of male homosexuals, injecting drug
abusers and their partners.  The rates of heterosexual infection, not
including partners of IVDUs, have not changed that much - at least not
like the predictions by some of the media that by 1990 one in ten of the
heterosexual population would be infected. 

The key to all this is to focus prevention efforts on those individuals
at highest risk.  Today, as when Fumento wrote his book, this is primarily
homosexual males, injection drug users and their partners.

His book does not claim that heterosexuals do not get AIDS.

Also, with respect, your sarcastic statement, "God would never strike
down wholesum[sic] heterosexuals... Right....", is truer than you
would like to belive. Leaving God out of it, wholesome (note the
spelling) people regardless of sexual orientation, assuming they are
not ignorant of the facts have little to personally fear about AIDS.
That does not imply that they should not worry or care about others.
By definition (get a dictionary it will help you with word choice and
spelling) a wholesome person has little risk of becoming HIV+. 

>>U.S. News + World Report cautioned in its May 4 issue that, "the AIDS 
>>epidemic has taken an ominous  turn toward America's youth."  The New 
>>York Times has reported,  "As schools and public health officials 
>>increasingly realize,  teenagers are a high-risk group."  Fumento 
>>asserts that although  these claims of teenage AIDS are only useful 
>>politically, for  promoting sex education and the school-based teaching 
>>of condom  use.  The Centers for Disease Control's actual figures show 
>>that  in 1990 there were 170 teen AIDS cases reported in the U.S., and  
>>that last year the number decreased to 160.  

>There are lies[sic] damn lies and statistics. What he forgets to mention is

Catchy cliche, that.  (Look up the word 'comma' when you get your dictionary.)

>that people who catch HIV when 15 won't come down with AIDS as teenagers
>they will get it when they are in college (or out working at a gas
>station).

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.  Fumento's knowledge of the
subject is deep enough to forsee your point. 

>>The CDC also  reported that 
>>among those aged 20-24, the numbers dropped from  1,626 in 1990 to 1,485 
>>in 1991.  Teenagers comprise less than 1  percent of all AIDS cases, and 
>>20-24 year-olds account for only 4 percent of the total. 
>
>Again this is looking at infection rates 5-10 years ago...
>I seem to remember studies showing infection rates of 1% or more among
>teenagers.

1% or more among which teenagers?  Does the answer follow?

>>Young AIDS 
>>patients are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black and 
>>Hispanic.
>
>Yet another reason why we shouldn't worry about AIDS after all none
>of us are black or hispanic. As long as white male heterosexuals can
>pretend they are immune who cares about everyone else....

That's not the point.  You are too ready to find ulterior motives.

What was written:

>>                                                          Fumento 
>>asserts that although  these claims of teenage AIDS are only useful 
>>politically, for  promoting sex education and the school-based teaching 
>>of condom  use.

His point is the *majority* of the teenagers in this country are not
at risk.  Just like the *majority* of the adults are not at risk.  If
a person avoids male homosexual sex (which for a number of reasons is
known to be more effective at transmission of the virus) and avoids
injection drugs and avoids sex with IDU partners that person will 
be very statistically probable of avoiding HIV infection.

The teenage AIDS claims may, by overstating the numbers, or by
misrepresenting which teenagers are at risk, are useful in fomenting a
public hysteria towards school distribution of condoms.  I'm not
saying, and Fumento probably wouldn't either, that condom distribution
or sex education is a *bad* thing.  He is (probably) stating that this
is not the most effective means of dealing with the AIDS problem.

>>Male cases among 13-24 year olds outnumber female cases nine-
>>to-one.  Moreover,  only 21 AIDS cases were reported last year in which 
>>teenagers claimed  heterosexual contact as their risk factor, down from 
>>37 the  previous year. 

>But how many are HIV+?

I don't know.  You don't know.  No one knows.  No one keeps track of
HIV infection, why is that?  Why isn't there a CDC report giving the
statistics on HIV infection?  Why is there only the AIDS report?
After Magic Johnson released his HIV status many, many people who
would not normally have gotten tested, and probably mostly heterosexual,
went out and got tested.  What was the result of all that testing?
What are the statistics?  What do they show about infection rates
in heterosexuals?

It is obvious that some teens participate in unprotected sex based on
reported venereal disease and teen pregnancy rates.  What are the
demographics of that population?  I know in some cities, San Francisco,
for example, the teenage rates of syphilis are quite high.  Does that
mean, like it did in the 70's for homosexual men, that these teenagers are
at high risk for HIV infection?  I don't know.  What are the vectors
for HIV transmission into that group?  Mainly the same old ones:
male homosexual sex and drug abuse.

This comes down to the same old argument: how effective is it to
scare the masses into accepting a certain solution when another
solution is/or could be more effective?  Given a limited pool
of resources do you attempt to protect the whole population or
intensely focus on those individuals most at risk and by helping them
more, better protect the whole population?

As an example some states, Illinois I belive, required HIV testing as
part of getting a marriage license.  The law requiring this passed in
a moment of AIDS hysteria was completely useless at detecting HIV
infection.  It was a incredibly cost-ineffective means of dealing with
AIDS - because it TARGETED THE WRONG POPULATION.

Is condom distribution in every high school in the nation just as
ineffective a means of controlling HIV?  Probably.  Although it would
have the possible benefit of reducing unwanted teen pregnancies.

>And these same people will be complaining in 10 years that no one warned
>them about the danger...

What about the people who are complaining today who were warned?
What can you do about people who refuse to protect themselves?  I
feel there is a responsibility for people to be informed of the
risks and how they can protect themselves.  I feel *no* responsibility
for those who are informed of the danger and yet still put themself
at risk.

--
dave
manley@optilink.com
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids