From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:51:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.163214.18175@bradley.bradley.edu> larry@bradley.bradley.edu (L. D. Stratton) writes:
>   The Center for Disease Control has all the figures you might want on 
>   HIV/AIDS cases within the US and statistical reports on age, sex, risk
>   groups, etc.


	Free, too--for the most part.. Unless you choose to subscribe to
	something, then you pay though the nose.


>   The fastest growing segment for infection is women, and particularly
>   minority women.  There has been a slow-down in the rate of homosexual
>   men but quite an increase in the young adult population.  Remember,
>   these are percentages, not numbers but percentages do indicate trends.


	See below.	



ME>>	BTW:  If anyones interested, the number from the teenagers
ME>>	study was somewhere between 400 and 600 <--out of
ME>>	how many tens of millions?
>   Check your numbers and look at the larger picture of increase of 
>   rates.  Again, CDC publishes the larger report quarterly.


	That was, "400 or 600 teenagers out of how many million
	teens in this country?"  --> i.e. the "number doubled!" 
	story was FUD, not news, because 600 teens is pretty much
	an irrelavent number.



>   I doubt you could convince any epidemiologist of this being a 'non-issue'.
>   WHO estimates 80-110 million infected worldwide by 2000.


	WHO estimated the same for 1990, but look at us now.  Besides,
	110 million (the high end) out of 6+ billion people is not 
	that terribly high.  Do you know how many people still die
	of bubonic and malaria each year?

	



>   Research conducted at Northern Illinois University and now by BioTech
>   here in Illinois show some very promising results with RNA replication
>   of the virus and the ability to interrupt that replication.  If this
>   research proves to be productive, the ramifications indicate that those
>   infected by HIV could expect a normal lifespan.  Note that this is not
>   a vaccine but a treatment for HIV+ patients.  I do not share your
>   pessimism.



	The problem here is that I am a real, hard core pessimist.
	While I believe in my heart that the big two technologies
	(computers and genetics) promise to utterly reshape the
	next century, I do not feel a great deal of joy at the thought
	that HIV+ individuals will live out their lifespans.

	Not because they are gay or whatever else, but because
	that simply gives them a longer time to spread it around. 

	While I'm sure the big pharmaceutical companies would love
	this (i.e. imagine an entire population, all infected--
	not too far off in the land of sci-fi) I personally would not 
	want to see it.  

	But that's FUD, too.


>   RESOURCE INFORMATION:  Journal of the National Academy of Science
>                          Vol. 89 (?)  Nov. 15,1992


	Ladies and gentlemen, if we had an award for alt.sex
	poster of the month, I would nominate Mr. Stratton for 
	message excellence.  



>   Think again.  Tremendous advances are being made in DNA/RNA research.
>   I will direct your attention to the above resource where several 
>   articles have appeared this year on advancements in this area as 
>   well as the Saulk Institute publications.  I am not overly optimistic
>   about an effective treatment in the next 2 years or so but I am 
>   optimistic for the future.



	Tremendous advances have been made in a number of things over
	the years, but viral therapy?  Monoclonal antibodies were once
	touted at _the_ culmination of more than a decade of our nations
	fight against cancer--the silver bullet.  Are they coming?
	Maybe.  Are they effective, really?  Maybe.




>   Rather broad statements!  You fly in the face of current research 
>   with your statement on those with AIDS.  The research that I am 


	I don't agree.  Anyone with AIDS now, not just HIV+,
	will be dead before any kind of successful treatment 
	becomes available.  I'd like to be wrong, I think, 
	but I do not feel that I am.
	


>   involved with negates your first statement and supports your second
>   statement to the extent that erradication of the virus through RNA
>   replication intervention would do nothing on the antibodies which
>   are currently used as the innervator of HIV testing.  Were other tests


	Again, I agree--it sounds hopeful.  My point was, there is
	not now and will likely never be a "cure".  Someone who is
	HIV+, even if these "treatments" to keep it in check come to
	be, will always be HIV+.  They will have to live with precaution
	and care for the rest of their lives, something that not
	all HIV carriers <aware of their standing> are doing now.



>   research is fruitful.  Let's pray to God that ours, or some other
>   researcher's work is fruitful.


	If I believed in god, I would.  If not AIDS, then something
	else--at least.  To me, this is what the game is all about--
	it's time man took over it's own destiny.

	<philosophical mode off>



>   You are probably too young to remeber when we didn't go swimming in 
>   August for fear of polio.  That was prevention.  The solution was
>   the vaccine.


	Prevention.

	The vaccine did nothing for people in the iron lungs.  

	The problem with people discussing the coming "treatments"
	<which you agree should not be called "cures", although
	you said it better than I did> is that it turns them away
	from the obvious:  the best treatment for HIV is not to get it.


	BTW:  I know there are still polio cases now and then (in 
	fact, I read one article that gave a number I thought
	was surprisingly large)--do you know what the yearly rate is?
-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?