From: manley@optilink.com (Dave Manley)
Subject: Re: The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 5917
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:16:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.010731.17552@cs.ucla.edu> lcc!uunet!mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!CUNYVM!SECBH.mitvma!BITNET.mit.edu@CS.UCLA.EDU writes:
>manley@optilink.com (Dave Manley),Archive-number: 5894 writes:
>
>>the threat of AIDs to >heterosexuals in the U.S. was overstated
>..............
>>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.
>
>Mr. Manley in this article (and in previous postings) presents a view
>of the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. which deserves attention and makes
>some good points.
>
>However, they are marred by one repeated theme for me.  I
>accept his detachment of homosexual people as not being part of
>the heterosexual population -- as we quite obviously are not if
>sexual orientation is the standard.
>
>But I find the casual exclusion of IV drug users (and their partners)
>from consideration as part of the heterosexual population to be
>a bit too much like the rigging of statistics and facts which he
>often faults others for.

Ok, I agree, you're right.

Excluding the partners of IV drug users is wrong when the vector for
their infection is heterosexual sex.

Permit me to strike from my original statement the clause "not including
partners of IVDUs".  The point of the statement still stands that
the heterosexual infection rates do not come close to the one in
ten number.

You make many good points in the rest of your post including comments
on the "War on Drugs".  It is clear that a major component of AIDS
cases is IDU related.  Sex-ed and condom distribution in the public
schools is not an effective means of treating this population - it
would help reduce secondary infections but does not treat the primary
probem: drug use.  Additionally, the sexual orientation of the drug
user is irrelevant - obviously, condoms can not prevent the spread of
HIV among IDUs. 

[...]

>As long as concerns are based on sexual orientation these people
>fall within Mr. Manley's bailiwick.   And may God have mercy on them.

I'm not sure what it is that you are saying here.  It is my hope, and
I believe Mr. Fumento's as well, that the limited resources available
to attack HIV/AIDS, from both a medical and social viewpoint, be used
in the most effective manner possible.  Fumento argues that certain
tactics are not effective.  Misinformation used to influence policy
makers is not necessarily a good thing.  HIV/AIDS is manifesting
itself in different communities in different ways.  A broad-brush
application of sex-ed and condom distribution in schools will surely
help in a number of ways (not necessarily all HIV/AIDS related).  It
may however hurt by reducing funding available for specific prevention
methods for specific communities.  No doubt the pamphlet sent
nationwide by the Surgeon General in the 80's did some good.  Would
the money have been better spent by targeting the needs of specific
communities? 

My apologies for the spelling/grammar flames in the previous posting.
Perhaps I should stop reading *.politics for a while - it put me in
a bad mood.

--
dave
manley@optilink.com

Newsgroups: sci.med.aids