From: bhjelle%carina.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS (was Re: CDC Summary 8/12/92)
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:36:00 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 5914

In article <1992Aug14.012124.20066@cs.ucla.edu> manley@optilink.com (Dave Manley) writes:
>>
>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. 

What difference does it make that AIDS among non-IDU heterosexuals is
much less common than AIDS among gays? Anyone who makes a decision
concerning their behavior on that basis is being a fool. The
rate of HIV and AIDS among gays is totally irrelevant to
the risk among heterosexuals. The fact remains that AIDS is
increasing in the U.S. and Europe among many groups simultaneously,
so the fraction of heterosexual cases has barely risen. However,
the absolute number of cases has risen dramatically, especially
rapidly among heterosexual, non-IDU women.

When any group decides they are "not at risk", there is a
very real potential for explosive spread of virus. Two years
ago Thailand regarded the risk of HIV to be a small, distant
threat. Now HIV is spreading there like wildfire -mainly
through heterosexual activity. Are we going to make the
same mistake in the U.S.?

>>>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.

Those ulterior motives are definitely there. There is a very real
desire to find some distinction between the "good" people (white
male heterosexuals) and those who get AIDS. By marginalizing the
victims of AIDS, we allow many to drop their guards. Historically,
this is a very dangerous mistake.
>
>What was written:
>
>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.

"Not at risk" is a dangerous phrase. Such a person is at "lower
risk" (as long as prevalence among heterosexuals remains relatively
low), but definitely not "not at risk". Among women, there is
a very definite possibility of contracting HIV from one or a few
sexual contacts with an HIV(+) man. HIV(+) heterosexual men are
less rare all the time. And there are plenty of men who will
mislead partners about past drug use or homosexual activity.

Brian
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids