Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    There has been a lot written about the impact of AIDS on the gay
    community.  There's been an enormous turnaround in the gay community as
    regards sexual practices.  As a result, they can no longer be considered
    the "at risk" group, although those who were infected years ago are now
    dying in large numbers.
    
    The largest "at risk" group now are intravenous drug users and their
    sex partners and their sex partners and their sex partners and their
    sex partners... In case I have not made myself clear, any one of us can
    be at risk if we are having sex.  It is imperative that we practice
    "safe sex" which translates to the use of latex condoms and spermicide
    cream. Barring abstinence, that is the only way to ensure you do not
    become an AIDS victim ten years hence.  You may be very confident of
    the person with whom you're sleeping, but please consider that there is
    a very long gestation period with this disease and that you do not
    know, and your partner may not know, what you or s/he has been exposed
    to.
    
    Thanks, Martin, for starting this topic.
    
    Marge

           <<< RAINBO::DISK$SPARE:[NOTES_TEMP]WOMANNOTES-V1.NOTE;1 >>>
                   -< Original Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 97.0                        AIDS and Women                       23 replies
CAMLOT::DAVIS "Grins"                                76 lines   8-OCT-1986 15:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From "AIDS Goes Straight" published in the American Health magazine, 
    October 1986 edition.  

"A PRIMER ON PREVENTION"

If monogamy or celibacy is not an immediate option, how can men 
or women who have sex with more than one person protect 
themselves? Though AIDS information is confusing, the experts 
agree on a few points.

The single best way: Simply don't allow a partner's semen to 
enter the body through any orifice--unless you're sure he's 
uninfected. Tears and saliva contain minute amounts of the virus; 
vaginal and cervical fluid have high enough levels to transmit 
it. But an infected man's semen and blood have higher 
concentrations by far.

"If you avoid direct contact with semen, you're talking about 
safer sex," says Dr. Judity Cohen, director of the Association 
for Women's AIDS Research and Education at the University of 
California, San Francisco (UCSF).

How to prevent contact? The unanimous answer: Use a condom. In 
UCSF tests, professor of medicine Jay Levy filled latex, 
natural-lambskin and synthetic-skin condoms with a fluid 
containing large amounts of the virus. After pressure tests, no 
virus got through.

"We now recommend condoms for all sexually active individuals," 
says CDC sociologist Sevgi Aral. So does the San Francisco AIDS 
Foundation, which has prepared educational materials for 
heterosexuals: "Guidelines for AIDS Risk Reduction" (30 cents, 
333 Valencia, San Francisco, CA 94103). Dr. Cohen advises women 
to insist that every new lover use condoms: "If that means women 
should go out and buy condoms, that's what it means."

When a woman also uses a diaphragm filled with a spermicide 
containing Nonoxynol-9, which kills the AIDS virus, her 
protection is that much better. According to Cohen, even the 
diaphragm and spermicide alone may help prevent AIDS, but the 
evidence isn't good enough for peace of mind. The virus could 
still be transmitted through the vaginal lining before it's 
killed by the spermicide--especially, says Cohen, if a woman has 
"a condition, such as cervicitis or a vaginal infection, that 
alters the integrity of the tissue."

Those who won't use condoms should at least limit partners. 
"After celibacy, the next best thing is a monogamous relationship 
with a monogamous partner," says Dr. Aral.

Ominously, the chance that a woman will meet an AIDS-infected 
heterosexual man seems to be growing. Dr. Mathilde Krim, a 
co-founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research in New 
York, estimates that in that city there are more than 100,000 
such men, many of them IV-drug users who may appear okay--and who 
may have no idea they're carrying the virus. "The level of risk 
in New York City may be as high as one partner in 10," she says.

Asking potential partners about their sexual history doesn't 
completely solve the problem. "Women say it's easier to take a 
general tack," says Cohen. "They say something like, 'I think 
protection against all sexually transmitted diseases is really a 
good idea for both of us.'"

Today heterosexuals have begun to change their behavior. "People 
don't go bar-hopping the way they used to," says New York 
psychologist Sara Weiss. "They look for a partner they know, or 
who knows someone they know. They're not going home with anybody 
who just comes out of the woodwork. They've slowed down, they've 
really slowed down."

						Kerry Pechter

First let me state that information and education on AIDS is important
for all of us. It is clear from that the only way to get AIDS is to
share bodily fluids (ie blood and semen), and that the only way most
of us can get AIDS is by using drugs intravenously or by having sex
with an infected partner. If you do not do those things you are not
going to get AIDS.

Now obviously most people are not going to stop having sex. So the
next thing is to make sure you not having sex with an AIDS infected
partner and/or to practice "safer sex" (safer not safe). Here is
where my comments come in.

 >   It is imperative that we practice
 >   "safe sex" which translates to the use of latex condoms and spermicide
 >   cream. Barring abstinence, that is the only way to ensure you do not
 >   become an AIDS victim ten years hence.  You may be very confident of
 >   the person with whom you're sleeping, but please consider that there is
 >   a very long gestation period with this disease and that you do not
 >   know, and your partner may not know, what you or s/he has been exposed
 >   to.

It is possible to get a blood test to check for AIDS. It is important to
note that it might not show up for six months after infection, so that
you would want the blood test at least 6 months after possible infection.
But if you are monogoumous and both partners have had blood tests then you
should not get AIDS.

I see two problems with "safer sex"

1) I feel that for a good relationship to last there has to be trust. 
And to trust someone (and hence not use a condom and spermacide)
means in this case taking a risk. Breaking that trust is taking a much
bigger risk than he/she "finding" out. On the other hand not trusting that
person will (in my opinion) cause major problems for the relationship.
(By the way I am not talking about someone you are first dating, but a
long term committed relationship.)

2) All methods so far of "safer sex" including abstinence, condoms and
spermicide are also methods of birth control. So for a couple who wants
to get pregnant - "safer sex" is not possible. Let's hope they are
monogoumous and trust worthy, otherwise there may be the heartbreak of
a baby with AIDS.

Muggsie

    Muggsie, 
    
    A few points of clarification to your note.
    
    You're right that you get AIDS by sharing bodily fluids with someone
    who's infected. I'd like to remind people that what's commonly called
    "the AIDS test" is not really a test for AIDS but for the presence in
    one's system of antibodies to the AIDS virus. You mention that it can
    take a long time to test positive to the antibodies; from what I've
    heard, this length of time can be much longer than six months. It can
    be years. And it is possible to infect someone else even if you test
    negative. 
    
    I'd also like to say that "trust" is a big factor, but even people who
    are trustworthy can have AIDS -- just because you should or do trust
    someone doesn't mean that s/he doesn't have AIDS. 
    
    You make a good point that "safer sex" measures also double as birth
    control -- I hadn't thought about it in quite that way before. 

    
    liz

Liz,

<    You're right that you get AIDS by sharing bodily fluids with someone
<    who's infected. I'd like to remind people that what's commonly called
<    "the AIDS test" is not really a test for AIDS but for the presence in
<    one's system of antibodies to the AIDS virus. You mention that it can
<    take a long time to test positive to the antibodies; from what I've
<    heard, this length of time can be much longer than six months. It can
<    be years. And it is possible to infect someone else even if you test
<    negative. 

Agree on the correction that the "AIDS" test is really testing for
antibodies. My understanding is that you may test HIV positive 
after 6 months (maybe 9 months), although you may not get AIDS
for years. Also if you test negative (and it's been enough time
since possible exposure) I don't think you can infect someone
else. The error rate for the test is very small.
My understanding comes from a session I went to on
"AIDS in the workplace" and a presentation given by a doctor 
specializing in AIDS. Now my understanding could be wrong
but I don't think so.  By the way the session on "AIDS in the
workplace was put on by the AIDS program office in DEC, and it
was fantastic and I would recommend it for everyone.

The reason I bring this up is all the statements that "noone is immune
from AIDS". This can be used as a scare tactic and increase people's
fear and hence increase discrimination against people with AIDS. I
agree we all need to be careful but you won't get AIDS if you don't
shoot up and don't have sex with someone infected with AIDS. Talking,
hugging, kissing someone with AIDS will NOT transmit the disease.
Everyone in this file may know that but it is important to make that
point.
    
    
<    I'd also like to say that "trust" is a big factor, but even people who
<    are trustworthy can have AIDS -- just because you should or do trust
<    someone doesn't mean that s/he doesn't have AIDS. 
 
Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that only non-trustworthy people have
AIDS. I meant that once you know someone doesn't have AIDS there is a
conflict between trusting him/her not to sleep with someone else without
letting you know, and protecting yourself from AIDS.   


Muggsie
 

                  AIDS WORKSHOP FOR PRODUCT MARKETING



A great deal of thought, discussion, education, and sensitivity has 
been occurring within Digital around AIDS.  It is certainly a subject
we have all heard about and we need to understand that everyone is 
potentially impacted in some way.

Corporate Employee Relations has established an AIDS Program Office, 
under the direction of Paul Ross, to help educate employees, disseminate 
Digital's position, and increase overall awareness.  The Product Marketing
Personnel groups have been working with Paul to coordinate an awareness 
seminar for our organizations. We believe you will find this session very
informative and helpful in better understanding Digital's commitment to the 
issue of AIDS in the workplace.

*************************

The above is a brief description of the workshop I went to. If you are
interested in going contact your personal person. The one I went to was
for product marketing, but they want to give this seminar to as many
employees as possible. They said they have had trouble getting it into
the engineering organizations. So if engineers started asking for it ...

Like I said it was fantastic, informative and sensitive to the issues.
Digital is doing some really positive things in the way of contributing
to AIDS research, and dealing with the issues as a corporation.

        In  order  for us to feel comfortable having safer sex, we must
        first become comfortable discussing sex. 

        I am a safe sex educator for a targeted group of males,  but  I
        would  like  to  encourage all of you to consider hosting safer
        sex educators to your homes/social groups. In fact,  maybe  you
        could consider hosting one at your next =wn= party. 

        Asking someone to wear a rubber can be tough. It's also  ok  if
        you don't know how to use a dental dam.  At these parties that I
        am describing, you 'practice' how  to  go  about  asking your 
        partner  about  wearing protection (as well as yourself), and
        how to go about discussing  safer  sex  without  affecting
        his/her  ego.  You  can  also  share ideas and experiences with
        friends. Basically, you might just save your own or  a  friends
        life. 

        Maybe you can host a party for your family.

        Consider calling your local AIDS office and inquiring? 

        							Roger M

    .0 Is a great article. I just heard this morning all Boston schools
    will have AIDS education ( Two 45 minute classes) mandatory.
    
    I am impressed,
    Kate (Who plans to attend the AIDS walk on June 4th)
                                                     
    

    I read .0 close to when it was entered and was going to reply to
    it to mention how close this has come to me. I know or have known
    too many people that have tested HIV positive. Several have died.
    I learned last Thursday evening that one the people that I have
    known for about 15 years had died of complications related to aids.
    He was a hemophiliac and got the virus through transfusions.
    
    I will be attending a memorial meeting for him this week.
    
    Les 

        I  have  learned first-hand  that DIGITAL is very supportive of
        its People-Living-With-AIDS. A  friend  has  been *very* 
        supported  by  his  fellow  employees  and the company in
        general. 

        I  tip  my  hat  to  DEC!  Let's hope we can be a model for all
        other companies and businesses across  America  in  eradicating
        discrimination against PLWAS as well as our generous financial
        commitment in combating the disease. 

        hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray!

        					Roger M 

      I was reading the other day of an extract taken from the Chinese
      cucumber that has been the first substance that has been able to kill
      the aids virus in a test tube. Apparently this has been cause for
      allowing tests in humans without the long drawn out FDA
      applications. Of course killing the virus in a test tube is a long
      way from using it to protect humans but this is at least a tiny
      light at the end of the tunnel. liesl

    After the conversation in .4-.6, I wrote to Bob KAOFS::READ (who has
    given seminars about AIDS) and asked how long it takes from the time
    one is exposed to AIDS to the time that one tests positive for
    antibodies to the HIV virus. With his permission, here is his response: 
    
    --------------------------------
    Generally, it's thought that seroconversion (developing antibodies to a
    viral invasion) takes on the order of six weeks to six months. Although
    there have been researchers that have documented cases where it took 14
    months for seroconversion to occur.  Generally, it's felt that two
    tests, taken six months apart, with no unsafe activity occuring for the
    entire period, is OK. 
    
    You can test negative, but still be infected with HIV, and still be
    contagious.  So a negative test is not a guarantee of anything, unless
    you've had no unsafe sexual activities for at least six months prior to
    the test (or more, depending on who you believe). 
    
    This is one of the frustrating things about HIV .. there's so little
    information and it's conflicting in lots of cases. One of the things
    that should be emphasises is that HIV is not AIDS. HIV is an infection
    of a virus that potentially can cause AIDS at some point in the future.
    However, being infected with HIV is not a death sentence. 
      
        

Re:  .13

>    However, being infected with HIV is not a death sentence.

Everything I read in .13 was consistent with what I believed up until this
last sentence.  Does this last suggest that they actually believe that sig-
nificant percentages of people who are infected with HIV will never develop
AIDS?  Are there any cases of people who have tested positive who have not
developed the disease (or ARC, AIDS Related Complex) after, say, ten years
of having been HIV positive?  Unless I'm mistaken, the HIV antibodies tests
haven't been around long enough to judge this for certain.

It seems at least possible that those who have remained AIDS free for, say,
ten years might develop the disease in year eleven.  If that occurs, it may
still be true that HIV infection is a death sentence.

Or is there something else I've missed?

					--Q (Dick Wagman)

From a brochure I have from the American College Health Association.


"The  largest group of people infected with the AIDS virus, however,
are not currently ill.  Since they have no symptoms, these people can
only be indentifed by a blood test for antibody to the AIDS virus.
There is no certain way to predict whether an individual with a
positive blood an no symptons will develops AIDS or ARC.  The best
estimates now available indicate that at least 20 to 30 percent of
people with positive blood tests eventually will develop AIDS; this
may take 5 to 10 years to happen.  A similar or larger proportion of
those with positive tests may develop ARC.  These percentages may
change as our experience with AIDS grows.

All people with a positive blood test for antibody to the AIDS virus
must regard themselves as carriers of the virus; even though they have
no symptoms, they are probally infectious and may transmit the virus
to others."

Re:  .-1

What is the date on that brochure?  I believe that these estimates have varied
widely from year to year.

Is this, in fact, up to date info?

						--Q

    q,
    
    i'm unclear about whether all people who test positive on the antibody
    test eventually contract aids/arc. however, there is hope that for
    people who develop the disease 10 years down the road there will
    be a cure.
    
    liz

    There was a series of notes in another conference some months
    ago promoting the idea that there is a relationship between
    AIDS in the active form and tertiary syphilis. This was pretty
    heavily debated as I recall, at the time. Does anyone know
    if there is indeed such a connection?
    
    Bonnie

RE:  a few back (Q).

It is a new brochure.  Would anyone like to type the whole thing in?
I'm a pretty bad typist.  Seems like there is a need for some AIDS
education...

john

Thanks Liz for checking on the info about the HIV test etc.

One problem with AIDS education is that we keep learning more information,
and so it is hard to keep up to date.

When I went to the AIDS seminar some of the same questions were asked the
doctor who was presenting. In regards to the question whether an HIV
positive person will get AIDS some time in the future - he was extremly
pessimistic and said that an HIV positive person would get AIDS in the
future - BUT they don't completely know for sure. He also said that a
person who takes care of themself physically and cuts down on emotional
stress will live longer. Things like alcohol and cigarette smoking and
stress wear down the body and the immune system in anyone - and will
likely speed up the process in an HIV positive person. So the best
defense for a HIV positive person is to take care of themselves, get
enough rest, eat right etc. etc.

I also asked him to explain what ARC was compared to AIDS. (I know
someone who was diagonsed with ARC and I didn't understand the 
difference). He said that people in the medical profession who are
really up-to-date on AIDS are no longer using the term ARC. Apparently
AIDS has had a certain set of symtoms that describe AIDS. Then people
who are HIV positive starting getting symptoms that didn't quite fit
into the "AIDS symptoms". He described 3 stages - HIV positive without
symptoms, HIV positive with symptoms, and AIDS.

Muggsie

For those who might be interested in the history of AIDS in the US with a
special emphasis on the political aspect of the disease, Randy Shilts'
bestseller _And the Band Played On_ provides a fascinating (if long) account
of our knowledge of AIDS.  Beginning from about 1976 when a Danish woman
involved in African health care came home to die from unknown causes, and
continuing through most of the Reagan administration refusal to acknowledge
AIDS as serious public health problem (until C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon
General, grabbed the ball and refused to drop it), Shilts surveys the entire
AIDS story in panoramic detail.  The book (over 500 pages long) is now avail-
able in paperback, and has an additional chapter at the end updating the
story to about 1988.

Shilts was (is still?) on the staff of one of the major San Francisco news-
papers, and for many years was the only journalist covering the AIDS story
full time.  Much of what I know about AIDS today comes from reading this
book.

						--Q

Here are some clarification points.  This is based on information I
was presented in a Safe Sex seminar so it it "true" to the best of my
knowledge.

RE:  .1  The only spermacide that kills the HIV virus is Non-Oxananal
[sic?]

RE:  .2  My understanding is that lambskin condoms will pass the HIV
virus.  They are made from animal intestines which Mom Nature designed
as membranes that pass things through.  LATEX only.

RE:  .7  Dental dams.  Apprarently, these are real hard to get.  You
can take a knife and cut a latex condom and make your own dental dam.

john

    
    I've heard that, too, about that particular spermicide.  But a nurse
    I know who has treated PWA's says that there is some evidence that
    the spermicide is carcinogenic although there is no definite proof
    at this time.
    
    From the reading I've done, there seems to be a general consensus
    that a vaccine will not be developed this century and that the best we can
    do to protect ourselves is to educate ourselves about this disease
    and to implement safer sex practices.
    
    am
    
     
    

I got some mail asking what a dental dam was so I thought other folks
might be also be wondering so here goes.  This description is by
definition is a bit explicit.




"A dental dam is a piece of latex that is placed between the mouth and
the female genitals for oral sex. The dental dams I have seen are
about 5x5 inches pieces of latex rubber.  Apparently, they are hard to
get but can be found in some dental supply stores.  A non-lubricated
condom cut up the side can serve the same purpose.  I understand that
although the risk for this sexual practice is lower than for
intercourse, there have been documented cases of HIV transmission
through this practice. The risk increases if menstration is occuring
or there are lesions in the area.  Of course, if either partner is HIV
antibody positive, this would absolutly be required." 

Re: .23

    If nonoxynol-9  is  indeed  carcinogenic  that  would  be  a major
    problem,  as,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  it  is  the only
    spermicide sold in the U.S. It is the active ingredient in all the
    spermicidal  jellies, creams, and foams that I've checked, as well
    as  the spermicide in the "Today" contraceptive sponge. There used
    to  be several other spermicides, but they've all dissapeared from
    the market, I'm not sure why.

--David

re: "hard-to-get" dental dams

Heavy duty saran wrap works just as well, and is very easy to get.

re: HIV and AIDS

There is still vehement discussion in the scientific community about 
whether or not HIV actually causes AIDS, whether there are other co-
factors required, etc.  I believe Dr. Gallo (one of the discoverers of 
the HIV virus) himself made a statement recently that someone could live 
with the virus for 30 years and die of old age.  WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH, 
and to assign anyone who is HIV-positive an automatic death sentence is 
premature and inappropriate.

One slight nit about the statement or questions of HIV positive being a
"death sentance".

Let's face it we all live with a "death sentance" it's all a matter of
timing. The difference for an AIDS patient is the time is known to be
sooner rather than later.

One thing I really liked about the AIDS seminar I went to at DEC was the
stress on "Living with AIDS". The point was that one with AIDS has to learn to
live with AIDS and enjoy the rest of thier life as best they can - and we
in the rest of soceity need to be supportive of that. Those AIDS patients
that contiue to enjoy life live longer than those that just give up to
death.

Muggsie

    re:     <<< Note 586.23 by SALEM::LUPACCHINO "From All Walks of Life 6-4-89" >>>
                         -< we're in for a long seige >-

�    From the reading I've done, there seems to be a general consensus
�    that a vaccine will not be developed this century 
    
    is this because we haven't the ability, or the will?
    

As I understand it is because of lack of ability to "cure" viruses. My layperson
understanding is that a bacterial infection is all around us and that bacteria
can live on thier own, so a substance can be found to kill the bacteria.

A virus on the other hand needs a living organism to survive - so viruses
live on human cells. They have not figured out how to kill a virus without
also killing the organsim it lives on. That is the reason there is no
cure for the common cold and cancer.

The best hope is to find treatment that puts the virus in remission, so that
you prolong life - but that is not a cure. This is what they have done for
certain forms of cancer.

I also gather that they know a lot about AIDS, how it works, etc. but that
they still have no idea how to cure it.

Muggsie

    re:.29
    
    Hi Muggsie,
    
    Your explaination of a virus is interesting. But cancer patients
    have been cured. Haven't they? Through drugs and radiation? Medicine
    is not my expertice. Aren't there vaccines for virus's?
    
    Kate

I don't believe Cancer has been "cured", meaning that it is gone from 
your body - I believe that Cancer patients have gone into remission (via
drugs and radiation) so that they feel better and don't get worse. But
I think the virus is still there.

I am not sure about vaccines for viruses - Are measles, smallpox etc. viruses
or bacterias? I think they are bacteria's.

I also do not have a medical background - and am giving the explanation for
lay people by  a doctor. 

Muggsie

Re:  .30

>    But cancer patients have been cured.  Haven't they?

>    Aren't there vaccines for viruses?

I'm no MD either.  With that proviso, here goes:

My understanding of bacteria and viruses is similar to Muggsie's:  a bacterium
can live by itself, and can thus be targeted and killed, while a virus is
just a chunk of genetic material which needs a cell to hook up with.  It is
thus relatively easier to single out a bacterium to kill; you could kill all
the cells which are infected with a virus, but that might well mean killing
almost all the cells in a person's body--clearly not a viable solution.

Yes; it does seem that some cancers can be cured.  But the link between viruses
and cancer is still not clear.  It may well be that cancer is not directly
caused by viruses, or if it is, that the virus comes, does its evil thing,
and disappears, so it is not necessary to kill the virus to cure the cancer.
(I'm a bit hazy here.)

Vaccines are quite different from cures; they prevent a disease rather than
stop it once it has begun.  Yes; there are vaccines for viruses (polio, for
example).  Unfortunately, the AIDS virus is a peculiarly pesky little bastard.
The technique that has been used by vaccines in the past will not work with
the AIDS virus because of the way in which it reproduces and because of its
ability to change the way it works.  This is truly an order of magnitude more
difficult challenge than polio was forty years ago; it is not due to the lack
of will that beating this virus will be difficult.

						--Q

    Bacteria:  single-celled living organisms.  Many of them tend to
    live parasitically on other organisms, where they have the side
    effect of causing disease.
    
    Examples of diseases caused by bacteria:  tetanus, diptheria, strep
    throat, pneumonia, syphillis, gonhorrea, localized infections, acne,
    dental cavities.
    
    Fortunately, while they are living cells like the cells that people
    are made of, there are significant differences, which make it
    possible to produce chemical substances (antibiotics) which are
    lethal to bacteria, but more or less innocuous to higher organisms.
    
    ----------
    
    Viruses:  Fragments of genetic material (DNA or RNA), neatly
    packaged in a protein shell.  If they can get into the right kind of
    living cell, the genetic material in the cell can cause the cell to
    start producing more viruses instead of doing whatever that cell
    ought to be doing.  Once again, the side effect is disease.
    
    Whether a virus can be called "living" is a popular subject for
    philosophical, and ultimately sterile, debate.  Certainly a virus by
    itself is nothing but a bit of inert organic chemicals. 
    
    Examples of diseases caused by viruses:  measles, mumps, chicken
    pox, herpes, AIDS, the common cold, the flu, mononucleosis, rabies.
    
    Unlike bacteria, which live autonomously within the infected
    organism, viruses are manifested by their effect on cells of the
    organism themself.  Thus, you can't (in general) kill the infected
    cells without killing the healthy cells of the organism; while the
    antibiotic trick of interfering with the life of the bacteria
    doesn't work, since viruses don't have a life of their own.  Until
    very recently, there was nothing better than symptomatic treatment
    for organisms infected with any viral disease.  Even now there are
    only a very few, very specific treatments, with only limited success
    (for example, acyclovir for herpes).
    
    ----------
    
    Cancer:  A misfunctioning of the body's own cells, in which a few
    cells start growing without unrestrainedly rather than doing
    whatever they are supposed to be doing.  A couple of cancers appear
    to be caused (or triggered) by viruses, but most probably are not.
    
    As with viral infections, it is hard to treat cancer because the
    disease cells are the body's own cells "gone bad", so it is very
    hard to kill the cancer cells without killing the healthy cells.
    The basic cancer treatment is surgery -- the physical removal of the
    tumor.  Chemotherapy exploits the very small differences between
    cancerous and normal cells to kill the cancerous cells while only
    making the rest of the organism very sick.
    
    ----------
    
    Immunity:  The first line of defense against viral and bacterial
    infections is the presence of cells and substances in the body which
    can attack and kill the infectious agents.  This system tends to
    need to be primed:  the presence of an infectious agent in the body
    causes the production of "antibodies" and immune cells which can
    attack that agent.  This is the reaon that most diseases are
    self-limiting -- the initial infection triggers the immune response
    that eventually eliminates the infection.
    
    In many cases, the presense of the primed immune substances also
    provides protection against subsequent infection by the same agent
    -- the body will already be ready for them, and they won't have time
    to get a foothold.  This is why you don't get chicken pox, measles,
    mumps, etc. more than once.  It is also the principle behind
    vaccination, which presents the body with a small dose of something
    which will prime the immune system to deal with an infectious agent,
    without actually introducing the infectious agen in a form in which
    it can cause disease.
    
    	-Neil

        The Boston School Dept is getting ready to implement  its AIDS
        prevention  program.  Evidently  they took a survey and found a
        great  number  of  seventh  graders  who  were  being  sexually
        active.   Therefore,  in  their  program,  they  are  including
        instructions on the use of a condom. (I hope dental dams  are
        included  as well). They are going to emphasize that abstinence
        is the only guaranteed method in being assured not to contract
        AIDS, but we have all realized that is an unrealistic
        expectation. 

        But, as can be expected, Cardinal Law is vehemently opposed  to
        the  instruction  of condom usage and has come out against this
        program. He feels this will be perceived as affirmation to these
        kids to have sex.

        Personally,  I  wish  the  Cardinal  would stick to running the
        Catholic church, and I think the Boston School Dept. is  taking
        a step in the right direction in helping to combat AIDS.


        					Roger M

    What are the thoughts of folks on the recent study done which
    shows the *average* college has 2 HIV infected students per 1000?
    I thought that was scary!!  As sexually active as most college kids
    are, and as unconcerned as most seem to be about AIDS, I began to
    extrapolate...what if those 2 had relations with 4 others per year
    (a low number by some counts :-)  then its very easy to see how
    quickly AIDS could spread among our young.  ANything which can be
    done to promote education should be done.  
    Roger, I agree let the preachers/priests stick to the church...
    let the school board stick to the school...these kids need as
    much ACCURATE info as they can get.
    
    deb
    

    hi deb,
    
    i heard a report about that study, but i heard different conclusions
    than you did. apparently 19 colleges sent tens of thousands of blood
    samples to be tested for aids antibody presence. there was a lot of
    protection of confidentiality, so no one knows which colleges are more
    at risk, etc. in any case, a large number of the colleges (14?) sent in
    no positive blood samples. one of the colleges had a significantly
    higher rate than the others. i think the "average" came out to 2 HIV
    positive samples per college, but the researchers cautioned people not
    to jump to the conclusion that there's an average of 2 HIV antibody
    positive people on every college campus. Remember that the number of
    colleges involved in the study is very small; further, because of
    confidentiality restrictions, we don't know where the colleges are, how
    many people attend each or how representative the blood samples were.
    
    at the same time, i'm concerned about your other conclusions --
    it's upsetting that younger people aren't taking AIDS seriously,
    and it would probably help a lot to blitz them with information.
    
    
    liz

    I'd like to add one more tidbit about that study. It seems that all of
    the samples were given by people that were having regularly scheduled
    blood tests on a voluntary basis, and that for this reason, the results
    should not be construed to apply to the college population in general.
    
    The Doctah

    If one were to pause and devote a second to each person who has
    AIDS, the silent tribute would last nearly 24 hours.  

    Two years ago it would only have been 10 hours.  

    Five years from now, the silence would go on for  f i v e  d a y s 
    around the clock and even then it would be a little short.  

    This represents a change from 37,000 cases in 1986, to 85,000 today,
    to 450,000 in 1994!

    By 1992, american deaths from AIDS will reach  t h r e e  t i m e s
    the number of american service personnel in 'Nam.

    In its first decade alone, AIDS will account for more deaths than
    polio did in 40 years.


    				(from a speech on 16 March at Harvard by
                                 Robert Haas, Chairman of Levi Strauss)

        I  was trying to think of a woman that we are all familiar with
        that has died of AIDS. 

        Those of you that attended the WALK last year  surely  remember
        Liz  Ramos.  She  gave a speech before we walked. Liz's courage
        and determination was an inspiration  to  us  all.  Before  she
        left  us, she attended a trip to Disney World that was given to
        her by the person who collected  the  most  contributions  at
        last year's walk. Shortly thereafter, Liz left us. 

        I  don't know how many people you know people living with AIDS,
        or who have left us. However, when I listened  to  Liz  last 
        year,  I remember  how  choked  up  we all were. She was so
        STRONG to be able to dedicate the last years of her  life 
        enlightening  the world  about  the  disease  that finally
        killed her so early in life. 

        I know people living with AIDS and HIV positives now that you
        wouldn't  know  about unless they told you. Isn't that amazing?
        I don't know where they get the strength,  but  they  carry  on
        their lives and usually get the best out them. 

        Last Summer I met a man who had been living with AIDS  for  two
        years (and never got sick) and was blinded by it. We had so much
        fun together. He even came out to the  clubs with  us.  He  had 
        so  much  LIFE and energy. I even asked him where he found the
        strength to be so uplifted. He said that  he just  doesn't 
        think about it anymore, he just goes on with his life and
        whatever happens, happens. I wish everyone could  meet this man
        so that he could touch your lives as he has mine!

        Unfortunately,  my  roommate  went  out  of  time  and I missed
        yesterday's paper. 

        But, the March 24, 1989 Globe had a front  page  story  on  the
        results of the study of the prevalence of HIV infection on
        college campuses.

        I  thought  for  sure  someone  would  have brought it up here.
        Anyone read it? Any reactions?  I heard it was scary!

        					Roger M

    From VNS this morning:
    
    "At the 5th International Conference on Aids, at Montreal, WHO
    estimates that there are 500,000 cases, with between 5M and 10M
    infected by the virus, and expected to rise to 20M in the next decade.
    Latest studies conclude that everybody infected with the virus will
    eventually develop the disease."

    did anyone hear the news last week regarding aids?  I heard that the
    doctor that developed the vaccine for Poleo (sp) has come up with a
    vaccine for aids.  It has been tested on monkeys who have aids and it
    actually helped to fight off the Aids.  Also, they tried re-infecting
    the animal with aids and the vaccine seemed to be fighting it.  After
    they were given the vaccine, they lost all symptoms of aids.  Does
    anyone know anything more about this?
    
    Holly

    Re: .42
    
    I read about it in the paper.  The doctor in question is Jonas Salk.
    From what I read, the results he actually announced are not as
    momentous as the hoopla would lead one to expect.  Dr. Robert Gallo,
    co-discoverer of the HIV virus, downplayed the news.
    
    What's getting to be a bit scary in the AIDS world is the tremendous
    rush for publicity and prestige that sometimes overcomes normal
    scientific caution and confidence in results.  The reason is that
    millions of dollars are at stake, and even if you don't actually
    have something useful, if you can convince enough people that you've
    got something, you'll do well.  The recent scandal over cold fusion is
    another example of this.
    
    
    			Steve

    those of you who only know about aids through what you read can easily
    be led to think that much of the hoopla over research progress is
    about money. in addition to the possible monetary rewards, though,
    lives are at stake.
    
    imagine being in your mid-twenties, watching tens of your friends waste
    away and die, and then testing positive for the virus antibodies.
    wouldn't you be extremely interested in research results? mightn't
    you pressure the media for more news? 
    
    folks, people out there are _dying_. these are people like you, people
    younger than you, people with promise, people whose lives are
    unfulfilled. and the government has essentially turned its back because
    pwa's are presumed to be gay and therefore less worthy as human beings. 
    

    liz

    The traditional ethical views toward using human "subjects" for
    experimentation have essentially been set aside for AIDS patients,
    PWAs, "persons with AIDS".  
    
    Normally, human experimentation is only considered after considerable
    data are collected on animals, and a "double blind" experiment is
    standard protocol.  Under such a protocol, half the subjects are given
    a placebo and half are given the experimental drug.  Only at the
    central clearinghouse is the data correllated.  Not even those
    physicians involved in the testing are allowed to know, thus the name.
    
    With AIDS testing, given the desperate nature of the disease, volnteers
    are coming forward to request/demand experimental drugs that are not
    yet fully tested on animals and for which there is no guaranteed
    benefit to burden/risk probability.  
    
    The experiment my brother is participating in has half the patients
    receiving a drug via steady IV and half by an IV drip method, rather
    than the standard control group (placebo) method.  It would simply be a
    cruel use of humans to have half the PWA use a sugar pill.
    
    With this in mind, it should not be surprising that we will read and
    hear of a great many experiments, such as Salk's vaccine, which will
    fail.  The failure rate will be *much* larger than with standard
    experimentation techniques. PWAs are demanding that they be allowed to
    accept the risk...there's a great "underground" of drugs in the AIDS
    community.  When you're talking your life, "rules" don't count for
    much.
    
    The announcement that was made in Montreal about DDI is of much greater
    interest to me than the Salk headline-grabber.  DDI may be a legitimate
    replacement for AZT without the side effects.  If anyone reads anything
    further about DDI, I'd appreciate a pointer or a copy.
    
    thanks,
    Marge

    I saw on CNN this weekend the announcement Jonas Salk
    made....apparently they spoke of promising results, but cautioned
    it was a VERY premature announcement...they had only tried the vaccine
    on *TWO* monkeys.  Yes, they fought off the infection and withstood
    attempts to reinfect.  But they were monkeys, not people.  And there
    were only two of them.
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .44
    
    Liz, in no way was I trying to minimize the seriousness of AIDS and
    its effect on people.  I was addressing the public-relations aspects
    of AIDS research and the way that some researchers seem to be concerned
    more about their "place in history" than finding a cure.
    
    I am sure that the media's own hysterical reactions to certain
    announcements doesn't help matters any.
    
    				Steve

    No sooner had I written my .45 reply than an issue of TIME magazine
    arrived at my p.o. box talking about AIDS research.  Seems the
    "scientists" want to get the trials under control and back into some
    sort of "normal" scheme.  TIME described the black market which I
    referred to as the drug underground.
    
    Marge

Re: .48

    It seems  that  we're  running into one of the classic problems in
    medical ethics. Final testing of new drugs must be done on humans,
    but  one  can't withhold effective treatments from people. What do
    you do with a new treatment that may or may not be effective?

    The classic  solution  is  to  do a double blind comparison to the
    current  treatment  of  choice,  with  a seperate group seeing the
    results, and if the results are spectacular (good or bad) stop the
    test  because  you  have  the  information you need. I believe the
    first  AZT  tests were stopped because it was obviously effective,
    so  to not give it everyone would have been unethical. This system
    effectively tests treatments at the cost of some delay in wide use
    of  a  new  treatment.  (In the case of thalidomide this delay was
    quite welcome.)

    When people  are desperate they are willing to try treatments that
    have  not  been  tested,  and might be harmful on the grounds that
    they have nothing to lose.  

    The problem  comes when people volunteer to be subjects in medical
    experiments and then don't live up to their part of the agreement.
    A  subject  agrees  to follow a prescribed regimen in exchange for
    possibly  receiving the new treatment (and often free medical care
    as  well.)  After  making such an agreement some people have tried
    other  drugs  as  well  as  the  one  under  test.  This  makes it
    impossible  to  tell  whether  the new treatment is an improvement
    over  the  old.  If  you  can't  test  new  drugs  in some sort of
    objective   way,   you  very  quickly  end  up  with  superstition
    controlling treatment.

    I don't know what can be done about it, as I understand the desire
    to try all sorts of self-medication hoping that one will work, but
    eventually  we  need  to have accurate data on the efficacy of the
    new treatments, and that's getting very hard to find.

--David

    You've stated the dilemma nicely, David... 
    
    Marge

    The AIDS/Syphilis connection was heavily discussed/debated in note
    203 of the Holistic notesfile and note 431 in the Human Relations
    notesfile.  There is listed in each notefile a bibliography of
    articles printed in medical journals regarding the AIDS/Syphilis
    connection (keyed in by yours truly) and a couple of the articles
    were also keyed in.  Feel free to contact me for additional
    information.
    
    Linda

Moved by co-moderator...
    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 709.0                  WOMEN AND THE AIDS VIRUS                  No replies
BOXTOP::BAILIN                                       37 lines  22-JUL-1989 22:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think there's a Women and AIDS topic but I couldn't find it...
    
    Does anyone know about how the AIDS virus is transmitted to women
    during sex?
    
    I know that you get exposed to the virus by the getting body fluids
    of an infected person into your bloodstream.  I know there are easy
    accesses to the bloodsteam and more difficult accesses.
    
    Easy access: intravenous access -- transfusions, sharing needles.
    Exposure through cuts and tears in the skin.  I think this is why
    anal sex is such an effective transmitter --it often involves tears.  
    Orally injecting body fluids can transmit the disease, but, I've 
    heard, this is less common since sometimes the chemicals in the GI 
    tract kill it.  You can also get it by getting body fluids in the 
    eyes or nose but again this is less common.
    
    I've also heard that the risk depends on which infected body fluid
    you're exposed to:  I've heard that blood, semen, feces are most
    high risk, saliva, tears, mucus are less. 
                                                              
    My question is this:  when women get AIDS from vaginal intercourse
    is it because the virus is absorbed through the vaginal wall or
    because the virus moves through the os?  If it's the latter then
    diaphragms should provide some degree of protection from AIDS. 
    Do they?  They always talk about not having "unprotected" intercourse
    -- does that just mean condoms?
    
    I IN NO WAY want to imply or suggest that anyone go easy on condom
    use but I am curious. 
    
    Is it that they just don't know because women with AIDS have had
    several high risk behaviors?
    
    Please correct any of my info if you know better. 
    
    Thanks. 

    Here are the related topics I could find on AIDS...especially the
    one the noter in -.1 was seeking:
    
    Womannotes-V1:
    97 - AIDS AND WOMEN
    334 - AIDS information
    396 - AIDS testing
    779 - AIDS facts and myths
    
    Human_relations:
    113 - AIDS - what are you doing?
    363 - AIDS testing
    431 - New facts about AIDS
    490 - Question on AIDS
    
    Mennotes:
    232 - Intimacy and AIDS testing
    
    Medical:
    25 - Autoimmune disorders and AIDS
    160 - AIDS/syphilis connection
    221 - AIDS question
    
    Holistic:
    223 - New facts about AIDS
    

    Re: .52
    
    >when women get AIDS from vaginal intercourse is it because the virus
    >is absorbed through the vaginal wall or because the virus moves
    >through the os?
    
    As I understand it, the cause is:
    
    >Exposure through cuts and tears in the skin
    
    Or at least a small tear in the membrane, which is possible, not
    terribly common but not terribly rare either.

        I know I've said it before, but I wanted to reiterate something.

        I  have  just  gone through training at the Speaker's Bureau at
        the AIDS ACTION COMMITTEE in  Boston.  The  training  was  very
        enlightening  and  I am very much looking forward to becoming an
        active speaker on AIDS issues. 

        I would like to invite any of you to call upon AIDS Action,  or
        another  AIDS  Education  group  to  give  a presentation for a
        group you're are affiliated with. The training I  just 
        underwent included  *all  aspects*  of  AIDS  and  was  very 
        thorough in treating women's (lesbian and  heterosexual)  issues 
        as  well. There  was  also  a  wide  spectrum  of  people  being
        trained. Therefore, you could expect a person with a lot in
        common  with  your  organization to give your presentation. You
        could also expect a person living with AIDS, also  with  a  lot
        in  common  with  your  group,  to  present as well. One of the
        PWAs  that  we  had  present  to  us  was  a  lesbian   mother,
        recovering addict. What a beautiful person.

        As for the question:

>    My question is this:  when women get AIDS from vaginal intercourse
>    is it because the virus is absorbed through the vaginal wall or
>    because the virus moves through the os?  If it's the latter then
>    diaphragms should provide some degree of protection from AIDS. 
>    Do they?  They always talk about not having "unprotected" intercourse
>    -- does that just mean condoms?

        From  what  I  have  deciphered  (  and I am *NOT* an expert on
        women's issues):

        Many  of  our  women  educators expressed to us that there have
        NOT been many studies concerning women and the transmission of
        AIDS. 

        One thing we do know is that vaginal fluid and semen  have  the
        highest concentrations of the virus.

        However,  studies being carried our are almost exclusively done
        on males. 

        The reason this is so important is because there seems to be  a
        difference  between  what  is  theoretically  possible and what
        happens in actuality.  For  example,  theoretically,  oral  sex
        should   be   a  *high  risk*  activity.  But,  the  number  of
        documented cases of oral sex transmission has been so low  that
        Canada  has  actually  removed oral sex from it's lists of high
        risks and does not discourage people from  having  unprotected
        oral sex (ie oral sex without a condom).

        So,  I  think  that  until the women's group can lobby for more
        conclusive  data  on   what   exposures   are   actually   more
        transmissible  in  women,  than  you  should  be  as careful as
        possible (ie us a condom and even nonoxynol-9).  That  may  not
        answer  your  question,  but if you can't find an answer, it is
        because enough studies just haven't been done  to  give  you  a
        conclusive answer. 

        					Roger M

      In the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph there was an article on
      mothers with AIDS. According to this article one in 77 births is
      with a mother that tests HIV positive. Within that 60-80% of the
      babies are born testing positive. It did say that many of them
      tested negative once all their mother's immune agents wre out of
      their blood. This seemed like an extremely high number of infected
      women. Has anybody else seen any stats on this? liesl

 re: 1 of 77 HIV positive

 I find this number to be incredibly high. This surely cannot be for the 
entire US, can it? Maybe in a small segment of the population... like an
inner city hospital or something. Can you clarify?

 The Doctah

< re: 1 of 77 HIV positive
<
< I find this number to be incredibly high. This surely cannot be for the 
<entire US, can it? Maybe in a small segment of the population... like an
<inner city hospital or something. Can you clarify?

I'll see if I can root the paper out of the recycle stack and find the article.
It struck me as a very high number also. liesl

    Strange as it may sound, cats are now developing feline aids.  As they
    work on animals, a cure or stabilization  may be closer than one might
    otherwise expect.  
    
    

    my understanding is that cats are not developing AIDS but are
    developing diseases that have strong parallels with AIDS (FIP is one).
    the virus is not the same, but the disease progresses and behaves in
    similar ways. the main point is that even though these diseases are
    highly contagious for cats, they're _not_ contagious to humans. 
    
    when one of my cats died of leukemia, i asked the vet whether research
    on cats was helping us understand aids. i believe she said no, but that
    research on cows is. 
    
    liz
    

      I found the paper with the AIDS article. The stat about 1 birth
      out of 77 being to an AIDS infected mother was for New York City.
      That's still a lot of babies being born infected. There is a 30 to
      60 percent chance the baby will stay infected once the mother's
      antibodies have left the baby's system.

      According to John Potterat, director of venerial disease control
      in El Paso county (that's where Colorado Springs is) as of 1985
      nationally AIDS is moving from the gay community to the poor
      minority women. 

      From a Chicago Tribune article - "women are the fastest-growing
      AIDS category. Up to 1986, the cummulative total of female AIDS
      cases constituted less than 7 percent of the total, but this year
      the running total of female AIDS cases accounts for more than 11
      percent...a study in New York City found AIDS to be the leading
      killer of women ages 25 to 34...From the onset of AIDS symptoms
      studies indicate, women can expect to live an average of 9 months-
      compared with 19 months for men. Heterosexual women, like male
      drug users, tend to get infections like pneumonia, which can kill
      quickly, rather than Kaposi's sarcoma that homosexual men often
      get. But scientists don't know why."

      There also seems to be a lack of studies about women and AIDS. It
      seems most of the research so far has been on men due to where the
      disease started spreading. It's apparent we need more knowledge of
      how AIDS is transmitted in heterosexual females. liesl
      

                Re: Note 586.61 by NOETIC::KOLBE

          
>      According to John Potterat, director of venerial disease control
>      in El Paso county (that's where Colorado Springs is) as of 1985
>      nationally AIDS is moving from the gay community to the poor
>      minority women. 

        I  am  sure  you  didn't  mean  this  the  way  it  *could* be
        interpreted. This could  be  misinterpreted  to  mean  that 
        those women are getting AIDS from gay men. That's generally not 
        true.

        Many heterosexual women are being infected through  unprotected
        sex with or  sharing  of  IV drugs works with people who have
        AIDS   or   who  are  HIV  positive  (exposed  to  the  virus).
        UNFORTUNATELY, and by  reading  womannotes,  blacknotes,  etc.,
        you  have  been  exposed  to the conditions that cause women of
        African-descent and Latinas to be  disproportionately  involved
        in relationships with men who are IV drug users. You  may  also
        have an idea as to why  so many women are *allowing* themselves
        to have unprotected  sex  with  these  men, or share needles 
        against  their  own  better judgment.  And of course, this is
        why there is also a disproportionate number  of babies who are
        of color as well. 

        But,  don't  be  mislead into thinking that only minority women
        are coming down with the disease.  White,  middle  class  women
        can  be  involved  with  IV  drug  users as well. If 70% if the
        infected women  in  New  York  are  women-of-color,  the  other
        thirty   percent   are   white. 

        As AIDS turns into a moral issue, women (as  usual)  are  going
        to  get the brunt of it. As with abortion, lots of other issues
        seem to surface which exemplify the subordinate role women  are
        still  expected  to  play  in society. Yes, there are woman and
        babies who are dying because society has some  women  believing
        tha  they  should  do  *anything*  for  their  man. I guess for
        some, that includes dying  for  him.  When  you  think  of  the
        groups  who  are  being  hardest  hit (gay men, women and
        babies, women and babies of color  especially,  men  of  color,
        the poor, homeless, prostitutes....) See the pattern?

        I  think  a  lot  of  societal issues need to be hashed out by
        us, including misperceptions if we are going to continue to
        combat the spread of this disease.

        							Roger

>      According to John Potterat, director of venerial disease control
>      in El Paso county (that's where Colorado Springs is) as of 1985
>      nationally AIDS is moving from the gay community to the poor
>      minority women. 

<        I  am  sure  you  didn't  mean  this  the  way  it  *could* be
<        interpreted. This could  be  misinterpreted  to  mean  that 
<        those women are getting AIDS from gay men. That's generally not 
<        true.


      No, I did not mean that minority women get AIDS from gay men. Just
      poor sentence structure. In no way do I think that minority women
      are the problem, they are the VICTIMS. After quite a few years
      working the night and weekend shifts in the ER I know that poverty
      and lower social status have harder walls than any prison in this
      country.

      Another quote from the same article

      "faced with such overwhelming problems of poverty as tuberculosis,
      cancer, violence and homicide, those now looking down the gun
      barrel at AIDS are not impressed. Clearly, the thing that's going
      to stem this epidemic is not going to be education but a vaccine.
      To me, poor, minority women should be the first to receive a
      vaccine, because they have so much trouble controlling their
      destiny."

      Amen, these women have a tough life and often aren't able to
      control what happens to them. Their doctor is the ER and now days
      hospitals are turning them away and doctors won't see them. Just
      recently in Colorado Springs the local Doctors approved midwives.
      Can you believe it? And why was this approved and for who? The
      poor women who doctors won't treat. Women who can pay and have
      insurance won't be allowed to use them. liesl

                Re: Note 586.63 by NOETIC::KOLBE

>      To me, poor, minority women should be the first to receive a
>      vaccine, because they have so much trouble controlling their
>      destiny."


          I  don't like this kind of talk. EVERYBODY should be first to
        receive a vaccine. One group is no more innocent than another. 

<          I  don't like this kind of talk. EVERYBODY should be first to
<        receive a vaccine. One group is no more innocent than another. 


      But this isn't reality. The only way for this to happen would be
      for no vaccine to be given until there was enough for everybody.
      That would mean holding vaccine back rather than starting as soon
      as some was ready.

      Of course ths whole argument is silly since as soon as the vaccine
      is proven safe the rich will be the first to get it. liesl

               
                        AIDS SUPPORT GROUP FORMING

In cooperation with the Employee Assistance Program, the AIDS Program Office 
is organizing support groups related to AIDS. The groups are for employees and 
their families who have lost loved ones to AIDS; managers who are dealing with
employees who are ill; and ill employees.

For more information, contact Paul Ross, AIDS program Office, DTN 251-1418; or
Henrietta Menko, EAP, DTN 223-8734.  All inquiries are confidential.

[copied from "Digital This Week", 8/22/89, p.7]