From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,alt.politics.correct,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Heterosexual AIDS
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:03:20 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <POLITICS%92112216504744@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET writes:
>Ted Frank re-posts my stats on AIDS and HIV:
>>What?!?!?!  Are you saying that homosexual men comprise 32% of the
>>population?  I don't see how you can claim the rate of HIV
>>infection is higher among heterosexuals.
>
>Now, now, Ted, however did you pass those LSATs?  Look carefully at the stats -
>when you get HIV, you *will* have full-blown AIDS within 3-10 years.  Look at
>the numbers...64.8% of AIDS cases are from homo/bi contact; only 5.5 are from
>hetero contact.  But ahh! look at HIV infection!  32.4% are homo/bi BUT 27.0%
>are from hetero - these people will have AIDS in a very short time.  The rate
>of HIV infection is growing *much* faster for heteros than homo/bis.  

The rate is *growing* faster.  Ok.  But that tells us nothing.  Absolutely
nothing.  If I had a $10 debt last year that increases to $150 this year, you
can say my debt is growing at a faster rate than the federal government's, but
it certainly doesn't indicate that my debt is a greater problem than the
federal government's.

The same is true here.  Gay men are 2-5% of the population, but 32% of new
HIV cases.  Heterosexuals are 90-97.5% of the population, but 27% of new HIV
cases.  Gay men are still twenty to fifty times more likely to acquire
*new* HIV.

>I know
>the Conventional Wisdom doesn't support this - still a "gay" disease...but when
>you have something like HIV - which means barring a cure when you have HIV
>you'll get AIDS - we can clearly see that this is *now* a "mainstream" disease.

Your own statistics show that AIDS is still predominantly acquired through
homosexual sex and (presumably) needle-sharing.   

>Actually, Ted, the above was a bitter sarcasm to those who felt that they'd
>get AIDS from wounded homosexuals bleeding on them in battle.

I agree that this is a ridiculous concern.  But your statement that a
heterosexual one-night stand was more likely to result in HIV than a
homosexual one-night stand is false.

>As for the lying about sexual status - that's not completely true.  The Navy
>doesn't hold the doctor-patient confidentiality as strictly as civilian law -or
>even the confessional - but there are plenty of doctors out there who took their
>hyppocratic oath *before* their commission (thankfully) so being straight (no
>pun) with the doctor doesn't *automatically* guarantee a discharge.

Unless the patient knows in advance which group his doctor is in, he's not
going to risk the discharge.  As you yourself note, some doctors will report
homosexuals to their superiors.  Thus a homosexual going to a military doctor 
has every reason to lie.  They shouldn't have to, but until the military gets
over its homophobia, that's what's going to happen.

>>>Suffice it to say, yet another myth destroyed in not only the
>>>fight against AIDS & AIDS Ignorance, but in the fight against
>>>Ignorants Who Fear Gays in the Military.
>
>>I support allowing gays in the military (heck, they're already there).
>>But your post perpetuates AIDS ignorance, rather than fights it.
>
>Do you think so, Ted?  I don't.  Kind of like when white Southerners (oh, I'm
>for civil rights...sure...) said they weren't prejudiced, it's just that the
>"negro" invites more bias when he sits at the Woolworth lunch counter reserved
>for whites.

I'm sorry, your analogy makes no sense.  Posting misinformation that
heterosexuals are as likely to get AIDS as homosexuals (which simply isn't
true) is only going to result in unnecessary suffering.  If every fad
is that "the sky is falling" (and I've seen global cooling, child-kidnapping,
global warming, and AIDS in this category) then someday the sky *is* going to
fall, and noone will believe the warnings because they've been cried wolf at
over the latest incarnation of the end-of-the-world-of-the-week.  

>Showing the fallacies and lies of the homophobic certainly decreases ignorance
>- regardless of whether or not you agree with the numbers or the tactic.

But you're not showing the fallacies -- you're creating them.  You're
increasing ignorance by posting false information.  I fail to see how
inaccurate information will lead to the end of "AIDS ignorance."
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU