Conference back40::soapbox

    Study Confirms Drug Epidemic Is Top AIDS Worry
    / Addicts largest group of new HIV infections 
    
    
    Gina Kolata 
    
    The AIDS epidemic, continuing its demographic evolution, is becoming
    ever more closely tied to the drug epidemic, a new study shows. 
    
    Not only are intravenous drug users becoming infected, but so are crack
    addicts and other drug abusers, many of whom are women. 
    
    An extensive, unpublished analysis by researchers at the federal
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has found that
    nearly three-quarters of last year's 40,000 new infections with HIV,
    the virus that causes AIDS, were among addicts. 
    
    Many of the addicts are IV drug users who share infected needles, but
    an increasing number are crack addicts who are contracting the AIDS
    virus through unprotected sex, often with multiple partners. Men and
    women alike often go on binges, having sex with many partners in
    exchange for crack or the money to buy it. ``Maybe as much as half of
    the new infections among heterosexuals are occurring in relation to
    crack cocaine,'' said Dr. Scott Holmberg, a CDC epidemiologist who
    conducted the study. 
    
    Data and analyses from the CDC show that the people diagnosed with AIDS
    in 1993, the most recent year for which statistics on the disease are
    available, are a very different group from those the 1994 statistics
    show are now being infected with the virus. Development of AIDS
    generally occurs about a decade after infection. 
    
    Of those whose new diagnosis of AIDS occurred in 1993 -- who were
    probably mostly infected in the early to mid-1980s -- about half were
    gay men and a little more than a quarter were intravenous drug users.
    Fewer than 10 percent were heterosexuals. The remaining cases were
    hemophiliacs and gay men who injected drugs. 
    
    Now, in his analysis of national data for new HIV infections in 1994,
    Holmberg finds a very different pattern, which is continuing this year.
    Only a quarter of the most recent infections are in gay men. About half
    of the new infections are among drug users who shared needles. And
    about a quarter are heterosexually transmitted. 
    
    Holmberg said 70 percent to 80 percent of people who are getting HIV
    infections through heterosexual transmission are women, and the
    majority of those are women who had sex with men who got infected when
    they injected drugs. 
    
    Published 2/28/95 in SF Chronicle

    	People with AIDS should be quarrantined or at least isolated
    	in AIDS hospices.

      <<< Note 323.2 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	People with AIDS should be quarrantined or at least isolated
>    	in AIDS hospices.

Joe,	You are so full of [colloquial term for excrement] that it amazes
	me that any of your co-workers can stand the smell.

Jim

       <<< Note 323.0 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>


	It cost me a brother.

Jim

    I'm sorry to hear it, Jim.  While I know several people with AIDS, I
    haven't lost anyone near and dear.  Yet.
    
    DougO

    My sympathies too, Jim.
    

My sympathies as well, Jim.

Joe,
   Are you actually so obtuse as to genuinely mean that?

    Well, we're talking about about someone who thinks it's
    a hoot to equate homosexuals and pedophiles, so the
    equation here is skewed.
    
    As for AIDS, I have known its victims, and it is horrible.
    The most difficult part for me has been looking into the
    face of people my age or younger than myself and seeing
    a disease which makes them look very old. AIDS is an
    ugly mirror to look into, and I have nothing but the
    deepest heartfelt sympathy for anyone with this disease,
    regardless of how they got it.
    
    -b
    (who, frankly, is bordering on PO'd at some of the mean and
     hateful garbage he reads here.)                

    I heard a report that aids is rising in teenagers today and that they
    believe that it is being transmitted through =kissing=. 
    
    Anybody else heard this?
    
    

    Nancy,
    
    I had herd something along those lines to. They have always contested
    that it can not be transmitted by saliva (sp?) though....

    
    
    	My family doctor is dying of aids (he has left his practice since
    being diagnosed).
    
    jim

    
      An aquaintance recently died of it - I didn't know he was gay.
    
      What an absolutely apalling way to die !  As bad as cancer, and I
     have had numerous friends die horribly in pain from that.
    
      Bring back heart attacks !
    
      bb

	A sincere thanks for the kind sentiments.

	David was the best and the brightest of us. The first one in 
	our family to achieve a graduate degree. Talented in his chosen
	profession. Respected by his peers, loved by his friends and
	mourned by all those who knew him.

	He was the Technical Director of the Houston Opera when	he died.
	The only show of his that I ever saw was the memorial performance
	that the Company invited us to the day after he died. I had not
	realized, up to that point, just how talented David was. He was 
	responsible for those little things in a show that, if done REALLY
	well, you never notice. Lighting effects, sound, etc. 

	I was with him when he died. after having spent 3 weeks watching
	him suffer the effects of ever progressive pneumocystitis. Talking
	to the doctors with my Mother (a R.N.), knowing that there was
	nothing they could do (this was pre AZT). 

	David contracted the disease at a time before AIDS even had a name,
	long before anyone had heard the term HIV, but it killed him
	nonetheless.

	Today the NIH is still searching for treatement. A report this morning
	talks about the use of interluekin therapy that can double the white
	blood cell counts of those that are HIV+. It doesn't help Dave, but
	hopefully it will prevent some other person from suffering the
	horrible death that he experienced.

Jim

    AIDS is terrible.

    One good thing about it though is that it's a virus. Eventually it will
    be possible to control it.

    
    
    Sorry to hear about your brother, Jim.  He sounds like he was a
    wonderful person.  
    
    Mike

Joe,

You ceased to amaze me a long time ago, but ...

    
    joe, you sound like you need to be quarantined, from the rest of us.
    I don't know of anybody with Aids or related diseases, but it
    definitely is a hideous disease.
    
    Mark

>    One good thing about it though is that it's a virus. Eventually it will
>    be possible to control it.

Explain.

| <<< Note 323.2 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| People with AIDS should be quarrantined or at least isolated in AIDS hospices.

	I'm trying to figure out if he means it, or if he is just trying to get
some sort of reaction out of the crowd. One never knows for sure with someone
who stated that notes is a game to him.


Glen

    A vaccine.

    Look at what was done to the small pox virus. It now only exists in a
    container at the center for disease control in Atlanta.

    Now, if it was possible for people to be a little, or a lot, more careful 
    about sex and intravenous drug use, AIDS would even be easier to control.

    It's not like cancer, the AIDS virus can be controlled to a certain extent 
    now in that we know how it's transmitted. Imagine if it was an airborne
    virus, or transmitted by touch or ingestion? We'd all be dead.


    Glenn

From what I've heard, HIV has a remarkable ability to mutate.  I don't believe
this is the case with smallpox.

 Just out of curiousity, what is the big problem with using quarantine for
 AIDs victims?




 Jim

    
    Because, Jim, it isn't a contagious disease.  And isolation cannot
    be a good for treating people who are terribly depressed.
    
    Quarantine is only justified if the disease is "catching".
    
      bb

    If the AIDS virus was an airborne type, they'd be quarantined.

    ZZ    Well, we're talking about about someone who thinks it's
    ZZ    a hoot to equate homosexuals and pedophiles, so the
    ZZ    equation here is skewed.
    
    NO NO NO think damit!!  See, this pisses me off.  First of all, I was
    the one who brought up the pedophile issue here.  Secondly, I was
    equating pedophilia with predispositions.  I wasn't saying that all
    homosexuals can not control themselves as a pedophile can't.  This is
    what you implied above and I resent this because you are using this as
    a toll for miscommunicating my intent.   Homosexuals have a
    predisposition toward attraction to their own gender.  The argument was
    that this is OK.  I was merely stating that pedophiles have a
    predisposition to children.  We all know this is not good.  The bottom
    line is just because something comes naturally to a person DOESN'T
    necessarily make it okay, good, or moral.  The way you worded it above,
    you twisted this point to make it sound like I was saying homosexuals
    are uncontrollable sexaholics like pedophiles are.  What were you
    thinking about here?!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Calm down, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Joe, who
    made it a point to mention that he enjoyed taking a poke at
    Glen with the pedophilia analogy (look in 56. from yesterday).
    
    It wasn't the analogy that I was responding to, it was the idea
    that in order to game some "points" in the debate around here,
    anything goes, even cruelty. This is an extremely sad commentary
    on this conference, extremely sad. Sadder still, in that it
    frequently comes from those who are supposedly under the guidance
    of the Holy Spirit.
    
    -b

    RE: Kissing and AIDs.  
    
    The question is whether or not saliva is the carrier.  I can see where
    two younsters in the heat of teen passion cut themselves on their
    braces drawing blood or some similar mechanism.  Then again it could
    be a rumor started by the keep the chidren chaste crowd.  
    
    RE: .2 
    
    If this was a wind up, it's in bad taste IMO.  I strongly disagree with
    the opinion but am open to hearing the rationale.  
    
    Brian

re: .23

Therein lies the problem.

> Because, Jim, it isn't a contagious disease. 
 
False. The CDC (and respected medical centers) found - and reported - the
conditions under which it can be communicated, which include simply
transmitting body fluids from one who is afflicted, onto mucous membranes
of another person.

The variables include the viability of the virus during the time of
communication. In other words, if someone coughs in your face, can the
virus live in the air (what temp, humidity...) between you and the person
in front of you? Common cold germs certainly can.

 >And isolation cannot be a good for treating people who are terribly
 >depressed.
 
If the world had always followed this liberal line of thought, man would
have died off (like Dutch Elms and other living things that have
succumbed to disease) from tuberculosis or leprosy. But calmer heads
prevailed, and highly communicable diseases were treated in isolation.

My sons caught mumps at the same time. So, instead of isolating them in
their bedroom, I should have minimized their depression by staying with
them and conducting family business as usual, and just cluck-clucked when
the inevitable happened, and I caught it from them? Too bad, what happens
when an adult male catches mumps. You don't want to make the boys feel
bad. (Do I hear Barney in this?)

The political correctness of AIDS says that we're not supposed to expect
-or force- carriers to alter their behavior. So, despite the knowledge
that we do have have a cure, we also give up any chance of controlling
the spread.

Art

    i read somewhere that there is no confirmed case that was caused by
    simple saliva exchange...
    
    Chip

    
    It's the confirmed case thing that bothers a lot of people.  Some of
    the fear is irrational and some of it is not.  Anyone who thinks the
    government is telling us everything about this and other things (IMO)
    is foolish.  
    
    
    Mike  

    So which one of you "sick" people (if you can be called that) will 
    "quaurentine" (sp) your child with AIDS. You guys need some serious
    help in the Humane dept. People are dieing form this disease. Instead
    of casting judgement on them, doing away with them by quarentining them
    and forgetting they exist, do something. Your child could be next!! 
    
    God help you if your infant needs a transfusion, God help you if you do 
    too..I hope YOUR not judged too harshly when that happens. LIVE with
    AIDs or the ravages of it, then tell me you'll quarentine them....
    
    give it a rest. Ignorance is obviously something you cure. Learn
    alittle about the disease, because ignorance and fear could kill you or
    a loved one. Would YOU take that chance.
    
    

    
    <-------- calm down friend, its only joe who believes in quarantine
    
    Mark

    .31
    
    Emotionalism.
    
    You tell me would you be happy if your child infected another?
    
    I wouldn't.  I'd rather keep my child at home and away from other
    children especially at the younger age where biting is common.  If I
    had a baby at this time, there is absolutely NO WAY I'd take my child
    to a community daycare.  
    
    The mothers don't even have to tell their daycare parents that the
    child is HIV +.  And if they do, the daycare mother CANNOT reject
    caring for them on that basis... nor can the daycare mother tell other
    mothers that she's caring for a child who is HIV+.
    
    Something's wrong with this.
    
    

RE:                     <<< Note 323.31 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>
                      -< Would you quarentine your KID! >-

   >    help in the Humane dept. People are dieing form this disease. Instead
   > of casting judgement on them, doing away with them by quarentining them
   > and forgetting they exist, do something. Your child could be next!! 
    

    Who said anything about judging anybody?




    Jim    
    

    Well gosh by golly, if we're gonna do this quarantine thing,
    we better get going on it right now, because there's
    a potential incubation period of 5 to 10 years and, well,
    we better make sure we separate them all out now... of
    course, if they've contracted the virus in the last six
    months we have no test to even detect its presence so we'll
    have to keep testing them.
    
    Oh, and let's start with those grandmothers who had hip
    replacements, or those athletes that had orthopedic surgery,
    ' cause it just so happens that many of them may have been
    given tainted bone material; seems they use crushed bone
    matter or bone parts in such surgery and the companies
    that supply it weren't always dilligent about checking
    their sources.
    
    Not to mention those sinful hemophiliacs and EMTs. Nasty,
    evil people, the lot of them.
    
    -b

    
>    Not to mention those sinful hemophiliacs and EMTs. Nasty,
>    evil people, the lot of them.
    
 


 Who the heck has said anything about "sinful" anything?

    re. Nancy, 
    
    No as a matter of fact I wouldn't like my Infant in a daycare where
    your child could be bitting her/him. So this is the deal.. you quarentine 
    your infant and tell me what it's like. If my kid has AIDS they are
    well past the HIV infection. I would keep them home for their last
    days. 
    You quarentine your child..
    
    Different histeria I guess. I would give my child the best protection I
    could, because they would be more apt to catch something from another
    child if they are HIV + because of the decreased immune system. 
    
    
    .34
    
    you don't think separating someone from others because of their disease
    is making a judgement. Wake up, before people knew what cancer was,
    they separated them too. My mother has terminal cancer, would you have
    separated her from her family say.....20 years ago...yeah.
    
    AID patients know the capacity of their disease, HIV+ people also know
    what is in store for them. They have seen many with the disease die a 
    very painful and horrible death. I have compassion not judgement for
    these people. They are fighting a battle they can't win and doing it
    with more pride and honor than most of the people that would quarentine
    them, forget them or separate an infant. 
    
    Ps...didn't mean to generalize about the quarentine..I just didn't want 
    to corner someone who obviously doesn't have control of their OWN 
    environment....
    
    
    
    Nancy, did your infant crawl out of it's basinette to bite another
    child..boy if your INFANT can do that...i give you credit. 

    Nobody did..  we're talking about disease and the filters begin just
    cause we admit that we believe in God.
    
    

RE:    <<< Note 323.38 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

   > Nobody did..  we're talking about disease and the filters begin just
   > cause we admit that we believe in God.
    
    
     yeah, I guess so..

    
>    you don't think separating someone from others because of their disease
>    is making a judgement. Wake up, before people knew what cancer was,

      No, I don't.  Are we interested in ridding ourselves of the disease,
      or in people's self esteem?


>    they separated them too. My mother has terminal cancer, would you have
>    separated her from her family say.....20 years ago...yeah.
    
  
     Mine died of cancer 35 years ago.  I also had relatives with TB who
     were quarantined..at the time I didn't understand it, but it did seem
     to rid us of the disease.




   > AID patients know the capacity of their disease, HIV+ people also know
   > what is in store for them. They have seen many with the disease die a 
   > very painful and horrible death. I have compassion not judgement for
   > these people. They are fighting a battle they can't win and doing it
   > with more pride and honor than most of the people that would quarentine
   > them, forget them or separate an infant. 
    

    And I have compassion as well..however, my compassion for them is not
    ridding us of the disease, nor is your's.  

    Get rid of the "judgement" mindset.  I judge nobody.


     Jim




 

    Well, I'm sorry but medicine is NOT an exact science and I'm sorry if
    it offends others needlessly but I will continue to approach AIDS
    cautiously.  I don't believe the scientific community knows enough and
    I don't believe we know the whole truth is being put forth.
    
    -Jack

    I used to teach AIDS awareness some time ago and, at the time, it was
    not believed that the HIV virus could be transmitted through kissing. 
    
    There was suspicion that if a person was in the advanced stages of AIDS
    and his/her saliva came into direct contact with another persons blood
    stream, ie an open sore or wound, then the virus could be transmitted. 
    _However_, this was only a suspicion.  There was not then, nor do I
    believe is there now, any proof of this.  It was simply a possibility
    that was being argued by the CDC.

    What really urkes me is the drug addicts who are receiving free needles
    to help in preventing the spread of AIDS, but diabetics like myself
    have to pay for their needles.
    
    I met this woman in the drug store a few years ago that looked like she
    was rather poor.  She was getting a presciption for syringes.  I looked
    at her and said, "You're a diabetic too?"  She wasn't, but the little
    girl standing next to her was.  This little girl looked like she needed
    a warm bubble bath, some fuzzy pajamas and a good hot cooked meal.  The
    mother was paying for the needles with change.  Why can't the
    government help people like this woman who obviously needs help?  No,
    they want to help prevent a deadly disease by giving out free clean
    needles to drug users, but the rest of us poor bastards have to buy
    ours if we want to survive until tomorrow.
    
    We're talking life and death here.  I need the needles to administer
    the insulin to keep me alive.  The drug users don't need the drugs to
    live!  They won't die without it.
    
    I don't know where the government's head is when they think up these
    "brilliant" ideas.  Well, yes I do know...
    

    Re: .43
    
    How many diabetics share needles?

    Diabetics don't share needles...obviously you missed my whole point.
    
    Diabetics NEED the needles, drug addicts don't.  The drug addicts know
    damned well that sharing the needles will probably result in the AIDS
    virus, but they don't care, they do it anyway.  Why should we give
    these stupid people free needles?
    
    

              <<< Note 323.28 by CASDOC::HEBERT "Captain Bligh" >>>

>False. The CDC (and respected medical centers) found - and reported - the
>conditions under which it can be communicated, which include simply
>transmitting body fluids from one who is afflicted, onto mucous membranes
>of another person.

	And those same agencies have determined that transmission
	is extremely difficult. A direct transmission of body fluid,
	ususally blood, is required. There is no medical research that
	would support the use of quarruntine regulations for HIV+,
	or even full blown AIDS, patients.

Jim

	>>Why should we give
        >>these stupid people free needles?

    Because their stupidity might cause the disease to spread even more?
    
    

| <<< Note 323.28 by CASDOC::HEBERT "Captain Bligh" >>>

	Art, are you comparing the spread of AIDS to how a cold is spread? I
hope I read that wrong.



Glen

    Quarantine will never work because there is a large percentage of
    our population that is HIV+, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW IT!!
    
    The gay community is probably the most responsible portion of our
    population regarding HIV & AIDS at this point in time.  It's teen-
    agers who don't/won't believe it can touch them, and others like
    them who are continuing to spread the disease.  As was pointed out
    in an earlier article, drug use is tied to the current leap in
    the spread.  The disease is spreading fastest within the female
    population (is this because women are resorting to sex to support
    drug habits?)
    
    No matter how you look at it, the disease is a hideous way to die.
    Forget about the moralizing and lectures; just pray someone finds
    a cure for it, and fast!!
    

    
       Re, contagion...I'm no doctor, and know little about this disease
      except that it is mostly sexually transmitted.  I agree with the
      earlier comment, that if it were spread through the air, then the
      public safety would justify quarantine.  But my amateur understanding
      has been that the mere presence of HIV+ people poses no health
      threat.
    
       I'd change my mind and run away fast if I feared catching it !
    
       bb

    	.31
    
>    So which one of you "sick" people (if you can be called that) will 
>    "quaurentine" (sp) your child with AIDS. 
    
    	I would, just as I would for any other disease that warrants
    	it.
    
>    You guys need some serious
>    help in the Humane dept. People are dieing form this disease.
    
    	Precisely.  People are dying from the disease.  And people
    	are still contracting the disease -- at an alarming rate.
    	People with AIDS are still giving it to others.  It seems
    	that we can't count on their behavior to stem the spread,
    	so I can see no other choice.
    
>    Instead
>    of casting judgement on them, doing away with them by quarentining them
>    and forgetting they exist, do something. Your child could be next!! 
    
    	Who said anything about forgetting about them?  Quarantine
    	doesn't mean tossing them in a box.  The "boy in the bubble"
    	was quarantined, for example.  (FOR EXAMPLE, OK?  Don't go
    	ratholing this by suggesting that this is what I propose 
    	for AIDS victims.)  A quarantined patient can have all the
    	comforts that everyone else has.  
    
>    God help you if your infant needs a transfusion, God help you if you do 
>    too..I hope YOUR not judged too harshly when that happens.
    
    	Today's blood supply is very safe, and very monitored.  It is
    	a miniscule vector (if even one at all) of the disease.
    
>    LIVE with
>    AIDs or the ravages of it, then tell me you'll quarentine them....
    
    	Live with the ravages of ANY disease that requires quarantine.
    	What's your point?  Actually, I'm not as concerned with those
    	in the last stages of the ravages of AIDS.  They are less likely
    	to spread it through dangerous behavior, and are treated with
    	the utmost of caution by society as a whole.  It is those who
    	are still sexually/IV-drug active, who don't show the outward
    	signs of the disease, that need to be quarantined.
    
>    give it a rest. Ignorance is obviously something you cure.
    
    	What's your purpose of this statement.  Show me where I have
    	expressed anything ignorant about the disease.  Rather than attack
    	me, perhaps you should put your efforts into showing real reason
    	(other than your emotionalism) that quarantine would not be
    	effective.

RE:    <<< Note 323.50 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>
                -< And hope it doesn't touch someone you love >-

       
   > The gay community is probably the most responsible portion of our
   > population regarding HIV & AIDS at this point in time.  It's teen-
   > agers who don't/won't believe it can touch them, and others like
    

      Wasn't there an article in the WSJ or NYT earlier this week that
      stated that the gay community has become lax in their prevention
      habits?  I recall hearing this on Monday, but didn't catch all the
      details, but the jist seemed to be that the gay community was not
      being all that responsible of late.


  Jim
    

    	.35
    
>    Well gosh by golly, if we're gonna do this quarantine thing,
>    we better get going on it right now, because there's
>    a potential incubation period of 5 to 10 years and, well,
>    we better make sure we separate them all out now... 
    
    	Good point.  If those who could spread the disease within
    	society were removed from contact with the general population,
    	we could virtually eliminate the disease in this society
    	in that 5 to 10 years.
    
    	For that matter, we could eliminate it if we could count on
    	all those with AIDS to refrain from the behavior that spreads
    	it.  We could have eliminated it by now (it's been 10 years
    	since the basic vectors were identified) but that hasn't worked,
    	and continues to fail to work.  What else would you suggest in
    	the absence of a cure (or even the reasonable hope of a cure at 
    	this point.)
    
>    of
>    course, if they've contracted the virus in the last six
>    months we have no test to even detect its presence so we'll
>    have to keep testing them.
    
    	There are plenty of identified cases that continue to spread
    	the disease.  As more are identified, they can be added to
    	the program.  For that matter, as each case is identified,
    	their sexual partners should also be identified and tested,
    	though I'm sure that idea will also go over like a lead
    	balloon with this crowd.
    
>    Oh, and let's start with those grandmothers who had hip
>    replacements, or those athletes that had orthopedic surgery,
>    ' cause it just so happens that many of them may have been
>    given tainted bone material; seems they use crushed bone
>    matter or bone parts in such surgery and the companies
>    that supply it weren't always dilligent about checking
>    their sources.
    
    	Medical companies certainly are diligent now, and have been
    	so for quite some time.  As I said in another reply, transmission
    	of HIV through medical blood and tissue transfer is practically
    	nil now.
    
>    Not to mention those sinful hemophiliacs and EMTs. Nasty,
>    evil people, the lot of them.
    
    	Stick to the facts if you want to be taken seriously.

    	.50
    
>    Quarantine will never work because there is a large percentage of
>    our population that is HIV+, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW IT!!
    
    	So test for it!  Don't you remember in grade school getting
    	an annual TB test?  Where was the public outcry against 
    	testing for that?  This is a killer disease, just like TB.
    	Why doesn't society do all that it can to find it and 
    	remove it from society?
    
>    It's teen-
>    agers who don't/won't believe it can touch them, and others like
>    them who are continuing to spread the disease.  As was pointed out
>    in an earlier article, drug use is tied to the current leap in
>    the spread.  The disease is spreading fastest within the female
>    population (is this because women are resorting to sex to support
>    drug habits?)
    
    	Well we could work to get society to accept sexual responsibility
    	and drug prevention, but it is clear that society does not want
    	to address them either.  So if promiscuous sex and drug use are to 
    	be accepted as commonoplace, we'd better protect society from a
    	disease that is becoming rampant through those behaviors.
    
>    No matter how you look at it, the disease is a hideous way to die.
>    Forget about the moralizing and lectures; just pray someone finds
>    a cure for it, and fast!!
    
    	We have a cure in our midst today -- sexual responsibility and
    	drug use prevention.

   > The gay community is probably the most responsible portion of our
   > population regarding HIV & AIDS at this point in time.

Nonsense.  Celibates and monogamous couples are more responsible.

| <<< Note 323.49 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| >    Quarantine is only justified if the disease is "catching".

| It doesn't develop in someone all by itself.

	That has to be one of the most intelligent statements I have ever seen
you write. With the diseases that required a quarantine, it was because they
were easily spread and unless the people were put seperate, it would keep
spreading. AIDS is not that type of disease. Education could do wonders for
people, and could do wonders for learning about this disease.
	
| Had we been quarantining those who have been diagnosed with AIDS and or HIV+ 
| since the disease was identified, we wouldn't have anywhere near the 
| prevalence of the disease as we have today.

	If we had recognized it in this country as a real disease to begin with
it would have helped immensly with the spread of AIDS. But Reagan did not think
it was that important cuz in this country it had not gotten around to the hets
is large numbers. The numbers for this disease started to grow, but until they
grew involving hets, nothing was done about it by the country. Within the gay
community, education became the best weapon. New AIDS cases for gays dropped,
while they grew at a great rate for hets. So realizing earlier in this country
that this was indeed a terrible disease would have cut the numbers down
drastically. Of course if Reagan and co. looked at the worlds numbers, they
would have seen hets had the disease at a far greater % than did gays. Why in
North America it was the oppisite is unkown. 

| Instead we have merely been relying on the sensible behavior of those who have
| the disease, and that has failed miserably.

	No Joe, it has not.



Glen

      <<< Note 323.52 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>>    So which one of you "sick" people (if you can be called that) will 
>>    "quaurentine" (sp) your child with AIDS. 
    
>    	I would, just as I would for any other disease that warrants
>    	it.
 
	Just how often do you children exchange body fluids with 
	other people?

>    	Precisely.  People are dying from the disease.  And people
>    	are still contracting the disease -- at an alarming rate.
>    	People with AIDS are still giving it to others.  It seems
>    	that we can't count on their behavior to stem the spread,
>    	so I can see no other choice.
 
	So your answer is to isolate the entire population of HIV+
	patients because of the irresponsible actions of only a 
	portion of that population. For someone who is always
	telling us that people should be respnsible for their 
	own actions, it seems illogical that you intend to punish
	people for the actions of others.

>    	Who said anything about forgetting about them?  Quarantine
>    	doesn't mean tossing them in a box.  The "boy in the bubble"
>    	was quarantined, for example.  (FOR EXAMPLE, OK?  Don't go
>    	ratholing this by suggesting that this is what I propose 
>    	for AIDS victims.)  A quarantined patient can have all the
>    	comforts that everyone else has.  
 
	Then what is YOUR quarrantine proposal. the number of infected 
	people right now is roughly equivalent to the population of
	Colorado Springs. Do you plan on isoalting them all in the
	same place, or will each city and town have its own ghetto?

>    	Today's blood supply is very safe, and very monitored.  It is
>    	a miniscule vector (if even one at all) of the disease.
 
	According to the CDC, you chances of contracting AIDS via
	a transfusion is about 1 in 75,000. Not high, but not zero
	either.

Jim

	Jim, lets hope Joes doesn't quarentine them to Colorado Springs. It
would be bad enough to be quarentined, but to have him in the same town???
That's too much burden for any one person to take.

    >	For that matter, we could eliminate it if we could count on
    >	all those with AIDS to refrain from the behavior that spreads
    >	it.  We could have eliminated it by now (it's been 10 years
    >	since the basic vectors were identified) but that hasn't worked,
    >	and continues to fail to work.
    
    1,000,000. That's the conservative estimate of infected individuals
    in the US. Where you planning on keeping these people while the
    disease takes it toll? Are you planning on giving them medical
    assistance during this time?
    
    This number represents less than 5 percent of the estimated
    cases worldwide. You're gonna need a hell of a big leper
    colony Joe.
    
                                        What else would you suggest in
    >	the absence of a cure (or even the reasonable hope of a cure at 
    >	this point.)
    
    There will likely never be a cure. Viral diseases are rarely
    cured. Most likely, DNA research will find a mechanism for
    blocking the T-cell receptors that HIV uses to replicate.
    However, this requires genetic manipulation of the cell, and
    such therapy has its own consequences. Chief among them is
    that 10 or 20 years down the road, such manipulation could
    trigger other immuno responses such as cancer. Therefore,
    the "test" period for an AIDS vaccine (several such tests
    are underway) is likely to be the longest in medical history.
    
    So, the answer is Joe, there is no answer. Nature is a bitch.
    Get used to it. Quarantine, aside from being a logistical
    impossibility, has certain Constitutional and ethical
    implications.
    
    >	There are plenty of identified cases that continue to spread
    >	the disease.  As more are identified, they can be added to
    >	the program.  For that matter, as each case is identified,
    >	their sexual partners should also be identified and tested,
    >	though I'm sure that idea will also go over like a lead
    >	balloon with this crowd.
    
    Your "plenty" is believed to be in the small minority. Only
    a small portion of our population is tested; a vast majority
    of those who carry the AIDS virus are unaware of it. Are
    you about to mandate world-wide testing to go along with
    your identification process? Where are you planning on
    having your AIDS test conducted, Joe?
    
    >	Medical companies certainly are diligent now, and have been
    >	so for quite some time.  As I said in another reply, transmission
    >	of HIV through medical blood and tissue transfer is practically
    >	nil now.
    
    But the point is, that until the middle 1980s, there was no
    test at all and many people were infected. Until the last
    few years, there was no DNA test, which is the only
    effective way to identify the virus in most tissue. So,
    all of the potential victims in this group are still within
    the standard incubation period.
    
    >	Stick to the facts if you want to be taken seriously.
    
    History has shown that I have no hope of being taken seriously
    unless I agree with you, in which case, I'm more than happy
    not to be taken seriously.
    
    -b

    
    
    
       re.54
    
       Just round em' up,.....huh?? Sounds like Gestapo.
    
       I can envision this "future security force" roping off
       a particular neighborhood,...dressed in environmental
       suits with bullhorns and sidearms. "...ATTENTION,....ATTENTION
       ALL MALES AND FEMALES WHO'VE HAD UNPROTECTED SEX WITH A CASUAL
       PARTNER WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS ARE ORDERED TO THE FOLLOWING
       STAGING AREAS........,FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL
       RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST,.........RESISTANCE WILL RESULT
       IN AN INDEFINITE INCARCERATION,.....DRUG ADDICTS ARE SUBJECT TO
       BEING SHOT ON SITE,....WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE"!
    
       Ed
    

    RE .56
    
    And there aren't celibate or monagamos homosexual men and women?
    
    Give me a break!
                                  

>    And there aren't celibate or monagamos homosexual men and women?

Certainly.  But "the homosexual community" as a whole isn't celibate or
monogamous.  Assuming that the CDC knows what it's talking about, celibate
homosexuals and celibate heterosexuals have equally low risk of contracting HIV.

    
    
    The scarlet letter perhaps?
    
    
    This sounds terrible, I know, but there have knowingly put other people
    at risk.  Is there an answer to this type of problem? 

    Re: Reagan and Company
    
    I hope you include Ted Kennedy in that company because he didn't do
    chit either.
    
    
    ZZ      Just round em' up,.....huh?? Sounds like Gestapo.
    
    Ed:
    
    Recently, Fidel Castro sent quite a few AIDS patients to the shores of 
    Florida...exiled them if you will.  You may make jokes about the
    gestapo but it is currently the Clinton ilk that is the most open to
    allowing AIDS patients in the United States.  As an American citizen, I
    resent this.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 323.63 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>


| But "the homosexual community" as a whole isn't celibate or monogamous.  

	HO HO! And those non-gay people are oh so celibate (pregnancy rate for
unmarried is sooooo high) and monogomous (how many people get a divorce because
they cheated on the spouse). Sacks.... you are quite funny...

| Assuming that the CDC knows what it's talking about, celibate homosexuals and 
| celibate heterosexuals have equally low risk of contracting HIV.

	Now that's very intelligent of you to say. :-)

| <<< Note 323.65 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I hope you include Ted Kennedy in that company because he didn't do chit 
| either.

	Jack, I'm glad you stated this. Now, if you would prove it, I'd be
surprised. I would really like to see you prove this, or let us know if this is
just a gut feel of yours. I got the .com warming up.... DOH!



Glen

    
    Joe, do you feel that you or your family are at risk of contracting
    AIDS?  If so, why?  How?
    
    

    Re: .45
    
    >Diabetics don't share needles
    
    Yes, I know.
    
    >obviously you missed my whole point.
    
    I got it.  I just don't think it's a very good one.  The reason drug
    addicts get free needles is to discourage needle sharing.  Sharing
    needles promotes the spread of AIDS.  People with AIDS can spread it to
    other people.  People with AIDS require treatment, often times
    expensive treatment.  That is why we should "give these stupid people
    free needles" -- because a small expense now helps avoids huge expenses
    down the line.

	I have a hard time with this one. On one hand it makes sense to hand
out needles to help stop the spread of the disease, but on the other hand it
promotes the use of drugs. I guess it is like the condom abstinance thing.
Abstinance will automatically keep <insert disastor> from happening, but in
this day in age, who can believe that everyone will follow the abstinance
message?


Glen

    Re: .54
    
    >If those who could spread the disease within society were removed from 
    >contact with the general population, we could virtually eliminate the 
    >disease in this society in that 5 to 10 years.
    
    That means no one travels to or from Africa or southeast Asia.
    
    That means that we have to fund multiple HIV tests (a single test is
    inconclusive) for every single person in this country, since the
    disease can take years to manifest itself.
    
    That means that hundreds of facilities will have to be staffed and
    maintained around the clock.
    
    That means that Ryan White and hundreds of other children would not
    have been allowed to be with their parents and families as they died. 
    That means that _all_ AIDS patients die with only medical practitioners
    in attendance.

	.57

>were easily spread and unless the people were put seperate, it would keep
>spreading. AIDS is not that type of disease. 
    
    	AIDS **IS** that type of disease.  It is spreading, and at
    	increasing rates.  What more do you need to see it?
    
>Education could do wonders for
>people, and could do wonders for learning about this disease.
    
    	We've been educating for more than a decade.  People are
    	still getting contracting it today.  What more do we need
    	to "learn"?
    
>	If we had recognized it in this country as a real disease to begin with
>it would have helped immensly with the spread of AIDS. But Reagan did not think
>it was that important cuz in this country it had not gotten around to the hets
>is large numbers. 
    
    	Blaming Reagan is bogus.  How is it Reagan's fault that hundreds
    	(thousands?) will contract it this very day?  And just as many
    	more tomorrow...
    
    	Virtually everybody (in this country at least) knows about AIDS.
    	We all know how it is transmitted.  We all know it is deadly.
    	But it continues to spread.  
    
    	We need to remove the infected from the general population.  I
    	see no other way to stop the spread, given society's morals and
    	values.
    
>| Instead we have merely been relying on the sensible behavior of those who have
>| the disease, and that has failed miserably.
>
>	No Joe, it has not.

    	You can say "it has not" ONLY when the spread has stopped.  
    	Today you cannot.

    .58
    
    In response to your obvious one eyed look at HIV spreading....blood
    products, BLOOD PRODUCTS....this includes plasma, platelets, or any 
    other BODY fluids. So Those infants so unlucky enough to be born with
    hemophilia or other blood diseases, are at high risk.. 
    
    So ten or fifteen years ago, your child receives a blood transfusion
    from a car accident, just last week......they find they are HIV+. So 
    now what, We need to put this on a personal level. We need to get these
    people help by finding a cure. 
    
    As for the needles, I don't think that diabetics should have to pay for
    the syringes...but I don't think that drug programs don't help. 
    
    I've never been a drug addict, but yes..DT's could kill you. 
    
    

	.58
     
>	So your answer is to isolate the entire population of HIV+
>	patients because of the irresponsible actions of only a 
>	portion of that population. 
    
    	That seems to be our only resort.  
    
>	For someone who is always
>	telling us that people should be respnsible for their 
>	own actions, it seems illogical that you intend to punish
>	people for the actions of others.
    
    	True, I espouse personal responsibility.  The problem is (as
    	I previously stated) that society seems to have decided that
    	it will condone and even embrace the absence of that
    	responsibility.  At the same time we as a society seem to
    	want to refuse to address the results of that absence of
    	responsibility, but we sure like to do a lot of complaining
    	about the tragic individual devastation that comes from
    	the result of that absence of responsibility.
    
    	You can't have it both ways.  

>	Then what is YOUR quarrantine proposal. 
    
    	I don't have a specific proposal.  Yes, the numbers are high.
    	I propose taking the logistical hit now (and manage it for 
    	the 10 years it takes for the majority of current cases to
    	run their course) rather than have to deal with the continued
    	spread and propogation of the disease for the unforseeable
    	future.
 
>	According to the CDC, you chances of contracting AIDS via
>	a transfusion is about 1 in 75,000. Not high, but not zero
>	either.

    	I believe I used the term "virtually nil".  We can quibble over
    	semantics, but I think we both agree that this is no longer a
    	significant vector at all.  And taking known cases out of
    	the general population will further reduce the chances of
    	contracting it through transfusions.

    .70
    
    So by handing out needles does this make YOU want to do drugs????
    
    
    that line "promotes the use" always gets me. We are not all going to
    run out and do IV drugs because the government decided to give needles
    to drug abusers...
    
    but you're right. Do we give the drug users needles 
    to help them do drugs and stop the spread of HIV or do we allow the
    drug users to spread the disease (however conscious of the disease they
    may be). I think I'd go for the Needles free thing. It seems like it
    would help, even save one person...isn't that what prevention is all
    about. 
                      
    

    .74
    
    >> So your answer is to isolate the entire population
    >
    > That seems to be our only resort.
    
    UNCLEAN!  UNCLEAN!
    
    gee, we could rebuild the leper colony in hawaii, and maybe the one off
    the coast of massachusetts, too.  show our kids the dirtier side of our
    history by actual example.

    Not too long ago PBS traced AIDS history on Frontline or some such
    program. one of the conclusions was that if San Fransisco had the
    political courage to close Turkish baths and isolate known HIV+
    gays and drug addicts in time, spread of AIDS would have been
    contained. It was not done and rest is history.
    
    Then last year 60 minutes did a piece about AIDS in Cuba, which at
    the time was the ONLY country where spread of AIDS was declining.
    It was revealed that Cuba had a quarantine policy for AIDS patients.
    One of the US doctors interviewed by 60 minutes agreed that quarantine
    can reduce spread of AIDS but USA cannot muster political will to
    do that. Knowledge of Cuban quarantine promptly led the Human Rights
    organizations to criticise Cuba and forced it to relax quarantine
    policy. Since then AIDS is on the rise in Cuba.
    
    Cuba is not a country worthy of any praise but the ONLY one that
    used quarantine and proved that it can work. PC crowd in USA made
    sure Cuba dismantled it, and so it was.
    
    Is quarantine cruel? yes. But it should not be condemned because
    it ain't PC. 

    and china has an effective policy against drugs, too.  it's called a
    bullet in the brain if you're convicted of possession.  maybe we should
    try that one, too.  clean that ol' drug problem right up, it would.

    
    
    
        The thing that bothers me to no end about this disease is 
        the number of "factions" and "collaboratives" that are 
        working on a "cure" seems endless. Do these scientist really
        share information?
    
        There was piece in Time magazine last week about Salk, his
        HIV/AIDS research and a "vaccine" that he's trying to get
        approved for testing. The article was followed  by a ton of
        skeptics who doubted the research. At the conclusion of every
        worldwide AIDS conference,.....the message is that things are
        getting a lot worse. It appears that everyone wants to get there
        first,......what about getting there together?
    
    
        Ed
    

    Oh yeah Glen...I remember the outcries of the democrat controlled
    Congress throughout the Reagan years and even as they controlled the
    Senate during the second term.  There was such an outpouring of
    compassion in those days by the democrat leadership...NOT!!
    
    The democrat party was just as befuddled as Reagan was.  They didn't
    know what kind of plague was going to hit the country, or even the
    world for that matter.  Believe me Glen, there was no agenda to wipe
    out the gay population...okay!?
    
    -Jack

    
    Re: .78
    
    that happens to one of your least thoughtful responses, Binder.
    

    Chite. I never realized I was PC. Always thought I was just about
    the opposite really. Never realized that being PC meant respecting
    the Constitution or not treating people like garbage.
    
    -b

    I am with you eddie, there is another note in here about the government
    and what are they doing for a cure. You want to bet, any of those
    officials in the upper mucky muck get HIV and they'll be misteriously
    cured of the disease or we won't hear of it anymore. 
    
    Does it really matter where the disease orginated from or who started
    it or what SHOULD have been done.....guess not for those of us who know
    someone with HIV or someone that's died of AIDS or AIDs related
    diseases. 
    
    Ignorance does equal fear. If you are fearful of something to a point
    of ignorance of the subject, then fear will cloud your thoughts. 
    
    So how do the health officials keep from catching the disease if it's
    so CATCHY.....they take precautions, they were gloves and they are VERY
    VERY careful with needles, no matter who you are...even the dentist
    wheres face mask and gloves. 
    
    Precautions and more valid and useful research, the spread of HIV isn't
    just rising in the gay community, it could kill anyone we know. I
    thought I heard (sorry can't PINPOINT the statement) but by the year 2000
    all of us will know atleast know of, one person with HIV. That is
    stifling for me to hear. 
    
    

    .81
    
    no, actually, i thought about it carefully.  i put it there to point
    out, by offering a concrete example, that emulating another country's
    policy of human rights violation just because doing so happens to solve
    a rather sticky problem may not necessarily be the appropriate course
    to take.  too bad you missed the point.

 	.60
       
>    1,000,000. That's the conservative estimate of infected individuals
>    in the US. Where you planning on keeping these people while the
>    disease takes it toll? 
    
    	In quarantine.  AIDS communities.  Whatever.  Just because
    	the idea hasn't been worked out in detail doesn't mean that
    	it should be discarded.  Glen joked about shipping them all
    	to Colorado Springs.  Maybe he'd be interested to know that
    	Colorado Springs was once a prime location for TB sanatoriums.
    	(Sanitoria?)  That history is preserved in some of the locations
    	of the institutions as well as the Pioneer Museum downtown.
    	Why can't there be similar AIDS sanatoriums? 
    
    	These people all have to be cared for in the latter stages of
    	the disease anyway.  As the number of cases grows, we may some
    	day be faced with 1,000,000 victims all in the latter stages who
    	need hospice care.  Why not do a million now instead of 100,000
    	per year forever.  Make the investment in logistics now, and
    	we can practically mark an end to the disease.
    
>    Are you planning on giving them medical
>    assistance during this time?
    
    	Why not?  Why do you even suggest this?
    
>    This number represents less than 5 percent of the estimated
>    cases worldwide. You're gonna need a hell of a big leper
>    colony Joe.
    
    	Do nothing and the whole world can end up being a leper colony.
    	Why are you against stopping the spread of the disease?  You
    	haven't proposed a better alternative.
    
>    There will likely never be a cure. 
    
    	So all we can do is stop the spread, and let the current cases
    	run their course.  I see two ways to stop the spread.
    
    	1)  Behavior modification.  (Has failed miserably so far.)
    
    	2)  Remove those whose presence cause risk to others in the
    		absence of behavior modification.  (Unworkable due
    		to sensitivity issues)
    
    	I'd be willing to hear your additions to the list.
    
>    So, the answer is Joe, there is no answer. Nature is a bitch.
>    Get used to it. 
    
    	Maybe you can get used to the continued spread of the disease.
    	I can't.
    
>    Quarantine, aside from being a logistical
>    impossibility, has certain Constitutional and ethical
>    implications.
    
    	Bull.  They quarantine lots of people today for other diseases.
    	Why isn't it a constitutional or ethical problem in those
    	cases?
    
>    Your "plenty" is believed to be in the small minority. Only
>    a small portion of our population is tested; a vast majority
>    of those who carry the AIDS virus are unaware of it. Are
>    you about to mandate world-wide testing to go along with
>    your identification process? Where are you planning on
>    having your AIDS test conducted, Joe?
    
    	Yes.  Not worldwide, but certainly nationwide, and other 
    	countries are willing to join in.  And you can't enter this
    	country unless you are tested.
    
    	We do no less for TB and other diseases.

 In the 10+ years since AIDS appeared on the scene, what has been done to
 rid ourselves of it, and how effective have those measures been?





 Jim

| <<< Note 323.72 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| >were easily spread and unless the people were put seperate, it would keep
| >spreading. AIDS is not that type of disease.

| AIDS **IS** that type of disease.  It is spreading, and at
| increasing rates.  What more do you need to see it?

	Joe, if you had AIDS and were talking to me, would I get the disease?
If I gave you a hug, would I get the disease? If I gave you a kiss good-bye,
would I get the disease? Hell, if I slept naked with you, would I get the
disease? The answer to all of these is NO. So there is your difference Joe. 

| We've been educating for more than a decade.  

	Joe, when did Magic Johnson come out and say he had the disease?
199.... education only started for a lot of heterosexuals because the last
couple of years because most thought it was the gay plague. 

| >	If we had recognized it in this country as a real disease to begin with
| >it would have helped immensly with the spread of AIDS. But Reagan did not think
| >it was that important cuz in this country it had not gotten around to the hets
| >is large numbers.

| Blaming Reagan is bogus.  How is it Reagan's fault that hundreds (thousands?) 
| will contract it this very day?  

	I'll give you a hint. If you take all that Reagan did during his
administration to educate people about AIDS, and put it up against what Magic
Johnson did by telling people he had contracted the disease, Reagan loses by a
landslide. Magic Johnson was the KEY person who made many heterosexuals wake up
to the fact they could catch this disease too. 

| Virtually everybody (in this country at least) knows about AIDS.

	They have heard the word. It does not mean that they know anything
about it. You're a prime example of that with you quarentining AIDS patients.

| We need to remove the infected from the general population. I see no other way
| to stop the spread, given society's morals and values.

	That's only because you refuse to look.




Glen

    
    re: .84
    
    reread my note. everyone was criticizing Joe for proposing quarantine.
    I merely pointed out that quarantine was considered but rejected even
    though it was thought to be able to contain AIDS. Cuban exmaple was
    to show that quarantine was used by a country and it worked. you made 
    the assumption that I proposed emulating another country's policies. 
    Did no such thing.
    
    

    
    
    
       If the US tried to quaratine 1,000,000 people,....the civil
       unrest in this country would be staggering. Do you think people
       are just gonna' stand around and watch their families taken
       away? Like I said earlier G E S T A P O! Round em' up. Once
       the "authorities" begin the "AIDS quarantine",...what's gonna'
       prevent "them" from "quarantining"[sp] other "people",....for
       "other" things.
    
    
       
       Ed
    

    re: .69
    
    These programs have not proven to be effective...especially if earlier
    figures posted in here are true.  If anything, it encourages them to
    continue in their lifestyle.
    
    
    -steve

	.71
    
>    That means no one travels to or from Africa or southeast Asia.
    
    	Not necessarily.  Those who travel out of the country could be
    	required to have a post-return test at 6 months and 12 months.
    	If they turn up positive, quarantine them.
    
    	For that matter, a nationwide periodic testing for all residents
    	would be sufficient to catch those cases returning on the backs
    	of travelers who participate in behaviors whiel outside the
    	country that expose them to the disease.
    
>    That means that we have to fund multiple HIV tests (a single test is
>    inconclusive) for every single person in this country, since the
>    disease can take years to manifest itself.
    
    	Whatever it takes.  It's better than doing nothing and watching
    	the disease continue to spread.
    
>    That means that hundreds of facilities will have to be staffed and
>    maintained around the clock.
    
    	Whatever it takes.  But after 10 years, once all the cases have
    	run their course, we can disassemble most of the structure
    	developed to handle it.  A skeleton structure can remain in
    	place to handle the inevitable reduced flow.
    
    	Still, it's better than doing nothing, which would only result
    	in the contunied spread of the disease.  Eventually we will have
    	to have SOMETHING ELSE anyway to handle all the end-of-life cases
    	we will be having.

	Joe, you've been given a number of 1,000,000 people. You want to see
them quarentined. Yet you state you do not know how to go about this. Meg made
some real good points a few notes back, and hopefully you've gotten to them.
But even if you don't, this is still something you want. So give us a plan that
you feel will work. Remember, your plan should include the following, if not
more:


1)  finding all those who are hiv

2)  finding a way to escort them from their families/friends

3)  finding a place to house them

4)  finding a way to set up the housing (buildings, bathrooms, etc?)

5)  finding a way to feed and clothe them

6)  finding medical personel who can take care of 1 mil people

7)  finding medical supplies for this quarentine area

8)  finding seperate housing to keep the uninfected medical staff

9) finding a way to keep all americans in the country and all illegal aliens out

10) finding new cases every year

11) finding the funding


	Can you answer these things Joe? 

	.94  bah... details!  ;>

    .77  Closing the bath houses would have reduced the spread of AIDS
    in the SF area, but that wouldn't have prevented it elsewhere.
    
    The CDC has traced the initial spread of the disease to a flight
    attendant for Air Canada who flew an international route.  CDC in-
    vestigators traced the outbreaks in every major city in the US and
    several other countries to stops on this man's schedule.
    
    I remember watching a special about this; after they identified the
    attendant they contacted him about the disease (thinking he might
    not know he had it).  By the time the CDC contacted him he was
    experiencing symptoms (but his onset was long after that of some
    of his partners).  Unfortunately, he was mean spirited as well as
    promiscuous and continued to have sexual contacts after the CDC
    indicated to him that he was spreading the infection.  He died from
    Karposi's Sarcoma; before he was too ill to leave his house they
    said he sought out partners in the darkness of certain gay bars and
    he also used body make-up to try and hide the Karposi's.
    
    However, this man is the exception, not the rule of individuals
    who KNOW they are HIV positive.  When this happened, there was no
    laws on the books to address such behavior, now there are.  Just two
    weeks ago a man was arrested here in Atlanta after 2 women from
    Arkansas traced him here.  They claim he had sexual contact with
    them knowing he was HIV positive; he has been placed under arrest
    and returned to Arkansas.
    
    Jim, it was the during the coverage of this local issue that the
    reporter indicated the AIDS is spreading much slower within the gay
    community than in the hetero.  The guy arrested is thought to be
    an IV drug user; he is not gay. I find it difficult to believe that
    the gay community is getting lax about safety issues; here in
    Atlanta they are pro-active in educational programs etc.  Also, most
    gay folks have lost too many friends and loved ones to get cavalier
    about safety now.
    
    I still don't know how a quarantine could be carried out; since many
    people HIV positive are not having symptoms and not ill, it would
    take armed guards and a prison-like setting to contain them (again,
    assuming they could be identified).
    
    I can't believe people would go along with INvoluntary testing;
    especially when I see so many notes in here spouting off about our
    constitutional rights :-)
    
    

| <<< Note 323.80 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| The democrat party was just as befuddled as Reagan was.  

	Jack, why did you switch from Ted Kennedy to the democratic party?
Could you please go back and prove how Ted Kennedy did nothing please? That WAS
what I asked.

| They didn't know what kind of plague was going to hit the country, or even the
| world for that matter.  

	Jack, it had already hit the world hard before it hit us hard. All they
had to do was open their eyes. North America was the ONLY place where the
disease hit gays is higher numbers. EVERYWHERE else it hit the heterosexual
population FAR greater. Go read the CDC's results once in a while. 

| Believe me Glen, there was no agenda to wipe out the gay population...okay!?

	I didn't say there was. I did say there was no hurry by Reagan to do
anything because he thought it was a gay disease.


Glen

| <<< Note 323.82 by MPGS::MARKEY "Send John Thomas some doughnuts" >>>


| Chite. I never realized I was PC. Always thought I was just about the opposite
| really. Never realized that being PC meant respecting the Constitution or not 
| treating people like garbage.

	I'm glad you're PC on this Brian.... :-)

    .88
    
    > If someone is found
    > to have bubonic plague...
    
    which is perhaps the most contagious disease we have ever been
    confronted with.  aids isn't in the same league in this regard.
    
    > And they are quarantined
    > if found to have the disease.
    
    but only until they are cured, not for the rest of their lives.  there
    is adifference of magnitude here, joe.  for the plague, you are taking
    their liberty for a short period to prevent them from spreading a
    HIGHLY contagious disease.  you simply have no idea how fast the plague
    spreads if not contained - if someone in colorado springs has it today,
    and there is no treatment, the entire city will have it in two weeks.
    aids is not like this.  obtw, the plague's fatality rate is something
    in excess of 99 percent if it is left untreated, right up there with
    aids but a lot faster.

    Glen:
    
    If you believe AIDS is a national epidemic, then do you believe
    education will work fast enough?  Is the trend changing for the better
    or is it getting worse?  If AIDS grows into a greater epidemic, this
    would tell me that all the education in the world will not reverse the
    trend; therefore any solution that WILL reverse the trend would be
    considered.  We know pissing money down the toilet is doing no good.  
    We're too proud to bend knee and ask God to remove this plight from us,
    therefore, don't be surprised if something radical is done if AIDS
    becomes a major epidemic or even becomes a threat to National security.  
    Right now the status quo isn't working fast enough!  Or is AIDS really
    as epidemic as the gay lobby wants to admit.
    
    -Jack

    Aren't there more deaths caused by breast cancer?
    
    It was no. 1 woman killer in Canada up until last year, now it's lung 
    cancer.

	.87
    
>	Joe, if you had AIDS and were talking to me, would I get the disease?
>If I gave you a hug, would I get the disease? If I gave you a kiss good-bye,
>would I get the disease? Hell, if I slept naked with you, would I get the
>disease? The answer to all of these is NO. So there is your difference Joe. 
    
    	The vectors for AIDS spread in this society are currently
    	commonplace practices.  We *COULD* (as a society) change that,
    	but it appears that society doesn't want to do that.  Either
    	we change the practice, or change the risk in the practice.
    	Since the practices aren't likely to be changed, I only see
    	quarantine as the way to change the risks.  Do you have a
    	better solution?
    
>| We've been educating for more than a decade.  
    >
>	Joe, when did Magic Johnson come out and say he had the disease?
    
    	Magic Johnson isn't any magical timeline event.  When did Ryan
    	White die?  Well practically everyone in this country (we can
    	never say EVERYONE) knew the basic disease vectors long before
    	his death.  They were making AIDS quilts well before I moved
    	to Colorado in 1989, and you know how important it was to the
    	AIDS lobby that non-gay victims be highlighted on those quilts.
    
    	We as a society have known for a long time what was what.  Don't
    	try to kid us into believing otherwise.

>	They have heard the word. It does not mean that they know anything
>about it. You're a prime example of that with you quarentining AIDS patients.
    
    	You still haven't proposed anything better, nor shown how
    	quarantine would not be effective.

    Glen:
    
    Ted Kennedy's ilk is what I meant.  Ted Kennedy WAS the democrat party
    Glen, and he did zilch!  Remember, they are the ones who appropriate
    funding to the various departments.  There was no writhing dissent in
    appropriations to AIDS research and this was CONTROLLED by Ted Kennedy
    et al.
    
    -Jack

	.94

>you feel will work. Remember, your plan should include the following, if not
>more:

>	Can you answer these things Joe? 
    
    	We as a society are currently doing those things, Glen, only
    	we are just dealing with those at the end of their lives.
    	Every AIDS patient needs care.  All million of them will
    	eventually need it, and by permitting the disease to continue
    	to spread we are assuring ourselves that we will continue to
    	have to do all those things.  Forever.  For the next million,
    	and the next million.  And what's worse, the number of cases 
    	aren't remaining constant, but increasing, so that some day
    	we will be dealing with a million patients a year at the end
    	of their lives.  Can't you see this?

| <<< Note 323.101 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| If you believe AIDS is a national epidemic, then do you believe education will
| work fast enough?  

	Yes. And it will be MUCH cheaper than quarentining people. 

| Is the trend changing for the better or is it getting worse?  

	Better.

| If AIDS grows into a greater epidemic, this would tell me that all the 
| education in the world will not reverse the trend; therefore any solution that
| WILL reverse the trend would be considered.  

	Education has and will continue to reverse the trend.

| We're too proud to bend knee and ask God to remove this plight from us,

	You know, this is a piece of chite Jack. Tell me right now that no one
has done this. Tell me and mean it. You know you can't, so don't go spewing
that crap please.

| therefore, don't be surprised if something radical is done if AIDS becomes a 
| major epidemic or even becomes a threat to National security.

	And don't be surprised at the radical uproar that will happen from the
family/friends of those you want to radically take away.

| Right now the status quo isn't working fast enough!  

	Jack, education for heterosexuals got started in a big way in 93 when
Magic came out. Numbers will go down once we get past those who once thought
they were invincible before he talked all get tested.

| Or is AIDS really as epidemic as the gay lobby wants to admit.

	This has got to be one of the most assinine things I have ever had the
displeasure of reading from you. You don't even know who the hell is stating
what it is. You go off and state things that are not even happening. The CDC is
reporting many things about this disease Jack. Gee, what # killer is it for
people 25-40??? Could that tell you anything?? For once Jack, really, think
before you open your mouth.


Glen

 So, in the 10+ years since AIDS appeared on the scene, what has been done
 to rid ourselves of the disease, and how effective have those efforts been?





 Jim

	.108

>| Is the trend changing for the better or is it getting worse?  
>
>	Better.
    
    	The number of new AIDS cases continues to grow.  You are only
    	fooling yourself.

>	Education has and will continue to reverse the trend.
    
    	The trend is far from reversing.  You are only fooling yourself.

    >	In quarantine.  AIDS communities.  Whatever.  Just because
    >	the idea hasn't been worked out in detail doesn't mean that
    >	it should be discarded.  Glen joked about shipping them all
    >	to Colorado Springs.  Maybe he'd be interested to know that
    >	Colorado Springs was once a prime location for TB sanatoriums.
    >	(Sanitoria?)  That history is preserved in some of the locations
    >	of the institutions as well as the Pioneer Museum downtown.
    >	Why can't there be similar AIDS sanatoriums? 
    
>    Are you planning on giving them medical
>    assistance during this time?
    
    >   Why not?  Why do you even suggest this?
    
    Because, it is part of the overall equation. AIDS takes a
    long time to runs its course, a long time. OK, so you
    manage to find a place to put all these people (highly
    unlikely, but I'll play along). So you can accept the
    morality of isolating them, but not the morality of letting
    them die quickly. Would it be acceptable to you if we
    saved all the time and money and logistical nightmare
    and just executed people when they are identified as
    HIV+.
    
    >   Do nothing and the whole world can end up being a leper colony.
    
    It very well may Joe. It's not like it's in anyone's control
    at this point. New viral strains are identified all the time.
    Epidemics are on the rise. Some think its because of end-
    time prophecy, others because it's what happens in any population
    which exceeds the capacity of its environment (which is what
    I believe), but either way, its there, its happening, it
    would be nice if we could do something, but it's extremely
    unlikely.
    
    >	So all we can do is stop the spread, and let the current cases
    >	run their course.  I see two ways to stop the spread.
    
    >	1)  Behavior modification.  (Has failed miserably so far.)
    
    >	2)  Remove those whose presence cause risk to others in the
    >		absence of behavior modification.  (Unworkable due
    >		to sensitivity issues)
    
    >	I'd be willing to hear your additions to the list.
    
    I'm sorry Joe, I don't have the answer. I'm pretty much along
    for the ride, I'm afraid God hasn't clued me in here and
    neither has medical science. I hope a treatment will be produced
    someday.
    
    More later...
    
    -b

| <<< Note 323.103 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| The vectors for AIDS spread in this society are currently commonplace 
| practices. We *COULD* (as a society) change that, but it appears that society 
| doesn't want to do that.  

	Education has been doing that Joe.....

| Since the practices aren't likely to be changed, 

	Even though if you would open your eyes you would see they are....

| I only see quarantine as the way to change the risks.  

	I know you only see that, but now it is time to open your eyes.

| Do you have a better solution?

	Education.

| Magic Johnson isn't any magical timeline event.  

	Oh yes he is. He got the disease from SEX. Up until that point, most
heterosexuals did not think they could get it that way.

| When did Ryan White die?  

	Ryan White got it from a transfusion Joe. People were scared about the
blood, not sex. 

| They were making AIDS quilts well before I moved to Colorado in 1989, 

	Yeah, by friends and family members of those who died from AIDS.

| and you know how important it was to the AIDS lobby that non-gay victims be 
| highlighted on those quilts.

	I don't quite understand this one.

| We as a society have known for a long time what was what. 

	Yeah, the gay plague....then reality set in.

| Don't try to kid us into believing otherwise.

	Don't need to kid anyone Joe. The facts back it all up. You equate Ryan
White to hets realizing they could get AIDS from sex, and you talk about
kidding? 

| You still haven't proposed anything better, 

  E	D	U	C	A	T	I	O	N	!



Glen

| <<< Note 323.104 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Ted Kennedy's ilk is what I meant. Ted Kennedy WAS the democrat party Glen, 

	He was part of it Jack, but many other cogs made up the dem party.

| and he did zilch!  

	No Jack, he fought for funding, he fought for education. Again, it
appears you are talking without looking at the facts....why should I find this
surprising????



Glen

    Kindly blow it out your shorts Glen.  First you say things are getting
    better and then you get offended when I infer it isn't a rising
    epidemic.  If things are getting better and education is working, then
    why are the numbers continuing to climb?  No, it wasn't a stupid
    question Glen.  You just presented a knee jerk reaction!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 323.106 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| We as a society are currently doing those things, 

	No Joe, we are not. We are not going around and testing EVERY
individual, we are not going out rounding them all up and putting them in one
centerally located area, we are not rounding up all these health care workers
and shipping them off to one central location, etc. 

| Glen, only we are just dealing with those at the end of their lives.

	Have you even been to a hospice Joe? Do you even know what they do?
Based on what you have been saying, I think not. Families are not split up like
you would have it. (or are you gonna cart them away too?) You are not looking
at reality Joe, you are looking at something without taking into consideration
what it entails.

| Every AIDS patient needs care. All million of them will eventually need it, 

	Joe, just a hint, the 1 mil number includes all who are HIV+ as well.
You know, the ones who can still take care of themselves, who you want to
isolate.

| and by permitting the disease to continue to spread 

	No one is permitting anything Joe. 

| And what's worse, the number of cases aren't remaining constant, but 
| increasing, 

	Joe, where are they increasing? In the het community. Why are they
increasing? For the same reason they did back with the gay community before.
Some people get tested who have had the disease for quite some time. So while
the numbers go up, it is only because more people are getting tested. People
are far more cautious now. The numbers will be going down for the het community
like they have for the gay community.


Glen

	.111
        
>    Would it be acceptable to you if we
>    saved all the time and money and logistical nightmare
>    and just executed people when they are identified as
>    HIV+.
    
    	You proposed this.  I didn't.  This statement almost made
    	me ignore the rest of your reply.
    
>    >   Do nothing and the whole world can end up being a leper colony.
>    
>    It very well may Joe. 
    
    	And that's what my little debating exercise is attempting to
    	address.
    
>    would be nice if we could do something, but it's extremely
>    unlikely.
    
    	I also agree that it is unlikely that we would be able to
    	quarantine AIDS patients.  However I believe the biggest
    	roadblock to doing it is not logistical, but political.

	.112

>| practices. We *COULD* (as a society) change that, but it appears that society 
>| doesn't want to do that.  
>
>	Education has been doing that Joe.....

    
    	You are sorely mistaken, and it would be fruitless to even
    	continue reading the rest of your reply.

| <<< Note 323.114 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Kindly blow it out your shorts Glen.  First you say things are getting
| better and then you get offended when I infer it isn't a rising epidemic.  

	No Jack, I get PISSED OFF when you infer the gay community is making a
big deal about it, when it's people, straight and gay, who are doing this. And
it is the CDC that rates what kind of epidemic it is. You make a lot of
statements Jack and try to tie them to certain groups, when they really aren't
from that group.

| If things are getting better and education is working, then why are the 
| numbers continuing to climb?  

	Read a couple of notes back for your answer.


Glen

	Joe, will you please tell us your plan? I and others are waiting to see
how you would handle this. Thank you...

>    Would it be acceptable to you if we
>    saved all the time and money and logistical nightmare
>    and just executed people when they are identified as
>    HIV+.
    
    >	You proposed this.  I didn't.  This statement almost made
    >	me ignore the rest of your reply.
    
    Ignore it if you like, I'm not holding your hand to the flame
    here. It was a serious question (and was intended as a question,
    even though I forgot the ?).
    
    I'll try again. If you can you accept the morality of isolating
    a portion of the population (and you seem to be able to accept
    it as that is what you are arguing for), can you accept the
    notion of executing this same population, and if not, why
    not?
    
    I can't take you further down this road until you answer this
    question, and again, it is a serious questions, so please
    answer it (especially the why not part, as I already assume
    you will say no to the first part).
    
    -b

               <<< Note 323.59 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	Jim, lets hope Joes doesn't quarentine them to Colorado Springs. It
>would be bad enough to be quarentined, but to have him in the same town???
>That's too much burden for any one person to take.

	Luckily, I live outside the city limits.

	;-)

Jim

      <<< Note 323.60 by MPGS::MARKEY "Send John Thomas some doughnuts" >>>

>    1,000,000. That's the conservative estimate of infected individuals
>    in the US. Where you planning on keeping these people while the
>    disease takes it toll?

	Ooops, my estimate was off my a factor of 3.

	Joe, We'll need the city of Denver, not the Springs.

Jim

    
    Joe, is AIDS spread by casual contact or by specific behaviours?
    
    Since you know the answer, lets carry on...
    
    Do you think it is right to punish those who have AIDS (by depriving
    them of their liberty and civil rights) simply because they MAY at
    some time in the future participate in one or more of those specific
    behaviours?
    

      <<< Note 323.74 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

     
>>	So your answer is to isolate the entire population of HIV+
>>	patients because of the irresponsible actions of only a 
>>	portion of that population. 
    
>    	That seems to be our only resort.  
 
	Just how many pairs of jackboots do you own?

   
>    	True, I espouse personal responsibility.  The problem is (as
>    	I previously stated) that society seems to have decided that
>    	it will condone and even embrace the absence of that
>    	responsibility.  At the same time we as a society seem to
>    	want to refuse to address the results of that absence of
>    	responsibility, but we sure like to do a lot of complaining
>    	about the tragic individual devastation that comes from
>    	the result of that absence of responsibility.

	Then anyone that dirnks and has a driver's license should be 
	arrested? and sentenced to life in prison? After all they too
	have the POTENTIAL for causing great harm. 

	At first I thought your statement was just a windup. But now I see
	that you are actually arguing in favor of this inane proposal.
    
>    	I don't have a specific proposal. 

	Look at MY suprise. The impact on the national budget alone
	should make you realize that your proposal is about the
	stupidest suggestion that has ever been made. Let alone the
	issue of Constitutional rights.

>    	I believe I used the term "virtually nil".  We can quibble over
>    	semantics, but I think we both agree that this is no longer a
>    	significant vector at all.

	Define "significant". 1 in 75,000. Just how many pints do you
	think are transfused in this country every year? I'll give you
	a hint, it's in the MILLIONS.

Jim

	.119

>	Joe, will you please tell us your plan? 
    
    	I don't have a specific plan.  All I've done is propose the
    	idea.  It's rather narrow-minded of society to reject an idea
    	simply because Joe Oppelt doesn't have all the details worked
    	out.  But you seem perfectly willing to do that.
    
    	Glen, I know very well that this idea doesn't have a snowball's
    	chance in hell.  The biggest drawback, though, isn't logistics,
    	and it isn't even the emotional cost of "breaking up families"
    	(which I don't understand why that issue couldn't be addressed).
    	The biggest drawback is the political sensitivity that causes
    	knee-jerk reactions as were so amply demonstrated in this
    	topic, starting with the very first reply to mine.
    
    	Why do you see this suggestion as such a threat to you?

    
    Note 323.125
    
    	>Why do you see this suggestion as such a threat to you?
    
    Why do you see AIDS as such a threat to you?

    
    Note 323.127

        >...but someone 
        >who has contracted AIDS (or HIV) has not perpetrated a crime 
    	>against society.
    
    ...therefore... ?????
    
    

    .127  Joe, how did Ryan White perpetrate a crime against society?
    As was pointed out, he was infected via a blood transfusion, also
    Elizabeth Glazer and many, many others.
    
    BTW, people ARE being prosecuted for knowingly putting others at
    risk and/or infecting them.  Most states now have laws to address
    this issue.
    
    

>    can you accept the
>    notion of executing this same population, and if not, why
>    not?
    
    >	No, I cannot.  I have a hard enough time trying to justify to
    >	myself the idea of executing the worst of criminals, but someone 
    >	who has contracted AIDS (or HIV) has not perpetrated a crime 
    >	against society.
    
    Thank you Joe. Now, here's the rub. What happens when you
    break the law? Society incarcerates you. In some cases,
    if the nature of the transgression is severe enough, society
    may incarcerate you for life.
    
    As it stands today, AIDS is a death sentence. But it is a
    death sentence carried out by nature, not man. While the
    sentence is "pending", the individual goes about their
    life with some level of normalcy for a number of years.
    
    What you propose is essentially "taking over the adminsitration
    of the death sentence", to, in essence, treat HIV+ individuals
    in such as way as if they had committed a crime. What do
    criminals do? They try to avoid prosecution. In this case,
    prosecution is the knowledge of the HIV status. If someone
    turns up HIV+ they get whisked off to some place that they
    are not allowed to leave - they are not allowed to return
    to the general population. Unlike other people in quarantine,
    they are probably not particularly sick, for years. Yet,
    they can no longer pursue their livelihood or otherwise
    allowed to contribute to society. This doesn't sound like
    a big incentive to me Joe. Once (whoever is in charge...)
    finds out you're HIV+, off you go.
    
    So, what would you do? Go and get tested, or _avoid_
    getting tested as best you could, for fear your number
    might come up? Make testing mandatory. Well, fine,
    any time you make something mandatory, you have to come
    up with an "or else" clause? Or else what? What carrot
    and/or stick are you going to use to get the entire
    population of the US to submit to testing? 
    
    You mentioned previously that TB testing is mandatory;
    yes it is in public and (most) private schools. So fine,
    you have TB, you can't go to school. What "you can't..."
    are you going to use to get the entire country to
    submit to testing? Whatever it is, it's probably a
    fairly hefty whack at those pesky civil rights, wouldn't
    you say?
    
    As it stands now, some portion of the population is tested,
    on a voluntary basis. Confidentiality is insured and
    people feel comfortable knowing their status. But start
    mandatory testing programs, with a guaranteed trip to
    the behavioral leper colony for the happy lottery winners,
    and you'll see virtually everyone trying as best they
    can _not_ to be tested.
    
    This is just one of many logistical arguments against
    your proposal. But, you must also consider that it's
    not just your proposal. It's been discussed many times,
    but the flaws are so gargantuan that it never gets
    past the talking phase. Good thing too, I'd rather not
    live in a country where such things happen.
    
    -b

    
    .130
    
    >  Probably some place warmer.  :^)
    
    So you're suggesting some place like Mojava desert, right? That way
    the Buzzards can do all the dirty work. And I thought I've seen
    it all in the 'box.
    
                                                          

After wading through all of the replies since I left earlier today, it
was nice to see that Brian just summarized some of the nightmare aspects
I'd been considering.

Imagine for a moment, the number of folks who may be HIV+ but are
unaware of it. Some may not even want to know, because they're already
scared silly by the disease and have just coccooned themselves in
a lifestyle which will both keep them clean if they are and prevent
them from spreading it if they aren't. They just want to continue to
enjoy a productive life for as long as they can. Now they get herded like
cattle into testing sites and take a crap roll that they can have their
lifestyle whisked away from them (and how 'bout them false positives, eh?)

If they have a job, and a home, and responsibilities, what happens to all
of that? Can't keep the job, even though they're still able to work. I
expect we'll have to give them their LTD bennies if we force them out
the door. They've got to leave their house behind. Who's responsible for
mortgage and other financial responsibilities if they can't sell? And,
now that you've taken them away somewhere against their wishes, I suppose
you get to confiscate their assets and disability income to subsidize
their upkeep even though this wasn't their idea?

Sounds to me like being treated like garbage.

	.124
     
>	Just how many pairs of jackboots do you own?
    
    	I see that theatrics are your only answer too.

>	Then anyone that dirnks and has a driver's license should be 
>	arrested? and sentenced to life in prison? After all they too
>	have the POTENTIAL for causing great harm. 
    
    	We as a society are working to change this behavior (drunk
    	driving).  We as a society are **NOT** working to change
    	the behaviors that spread AIDS, and in fact are (arguably)
    	encouraging them.
    
    	In addition, prison terms are used for rehabilitation (supposedly).
    	Drunk driving can be "cured".  AIDS cannot.

>	At first I thought your statement was just a windup. But now I see
>	that you are actually arguing in favor of this inane proposal.
    
    	I'd be interested in hearing what you have to offer that is
    	better.
    
    	I have answered many of the opposition points raised against
    	the idea.  You have primarily contributed emotional sound
    	bites and insults.
    
>	Look at MY suprise. The impact on the national budget alone
>	should make you realize that your proposal is about the
>	stupidest suggestion that has ever been made. 
    
    	And what is the imact on the national budget for AIDS care
    	today, and as an ongoing program that will only grow with
    	the epidemic?
    
>	Let alone the issue of Constitutional rights.
    
    	I fail to see how constitutional rights are impacted by
    	disease testing and quarantine.  We have exactly that for
    	other diseases.  Why is AIDS different.  If anyone can
    	show me, it would be you.  (And I ask you that with the
    	utmost of sincerity.)
    
>	Define "significant". 1 in 75,000. Just how many pints do you
>	think are transfused in this country every year? I'll give you
>	a hint, it's in the MILLIONS.

    	Removing a larger percentage of the AIDS victims (through 
    	routine and regular national testing) from the donor pool would
    	serve to reduce that percentage even more drastically.

	.131
        
>    What you propose is essentially "taking over the adminsitration
>    of the death sentence", to, in essence, treat HIV+ individuals
>    in such as way as if they had committed a crime. What do
>    criminals do? 
    
    	Again, quarantine does not have to be like prison.
    
>    they can no longer pursue their livelihood or otherwise
>    allowed to contribute to society. This doesn't sound like
>    a big incentive to me Joe. Once (whoever is in charge...)
>    finds out you're HIV+, off you go.
    
    	Through all the arguments, this is the first that has any
    	validity to me, and unfortunately one that shows a terrible
    	flaw in the idea.  Jack's addition about paying the mortgage
    	and all those dependent upon the quarrantined person adds to
    	it.
    
    	This still doesn't put up a roadblock for me against a national,
    	mandatory testing program though.  I think that anytime someone
    	gets blood drawn, for any reason, a sample should be taken if
    	that person hasn't already been tested within the last 12 months.
    
>    Make testing mandatory. Well, fine,
>    any time you make something mandatory, you have to come
>    up with an "or else" clause? Or else what? 
    
    	You can't give blood, for starters.
    
>    population of the US to submit to testing? 
    
    	It doesn't have to be as heavy-handed as "submitting".  As I
    	proposed above, any time a person gets blood drawn and hasn't
    	been tested in the last 12 months, a sample goes to the AIDS
    	test lab.  And the government should entirely fund the program.
    
>    But start
>    mandatory testing programs, with a guaranteed trip to
>    the behavioral leper colony for the happy lottery winners,
>    and you'll see virtually everyone trying as best they
>    can _not_ to be tested.
    
    	Previously it was stated that most people become very responsible
    	with their behavior once they know they are HIV+.  If we had a
    	national testing program without the consequences of the "leper
    	colony", wouldn't such a program allow the majority of HIV+
    	people who otherwise didn't know their plight to then become
    	more responsible and, in effect, "self-quarantine" through
    	responsible behavior modifications?  
    
    	Couple that with laws that make it illegal to knowingly transmit
    	HIV, and we might very well achieve a significant reduction in
    	the spread of AIDS.

    Joe,
    
    You're crossing over into a whole other area here. Good. I'm
    glad you seem to be putting this quarantine thing to rest. In
    fact, we are close to agreeing.
    
    It's a very simple matter to ask for an AIDS screening when
    blood is drawn... and it happens automatically in a number
    of cases.
    
    I've had it done several times as part of insurance physicals,
    and my local hospital has a clinic that does screening for $20.
    
    So, even if for some reason people would prefer to be checked
    by someone other than their regular physician, they can.
    
    I guess the only thing we don't agree on is the "mandatory".
    Sure, you definitely want to keep HIV+ people out of the
    blood and tissue banks. But, there's already 2 step (over
    the mimimum incubation period) blind DNA testing for that
    anyway. But the problem with mandatory testing is what is
    done with the information? If it is used to inform the
    individual of their status and is held confidential, then
    I suppose testing would be OK.
    
    What I would like to see happen is the development of a
    home test, that could be self-administered. The ideal
    test would be one that worked quickly and identified
    several common STDs (as well as HIV). If two people are to
    have sex, they can take a few minutes to make sure they're
    not infected. Such tests are under development. If the
    cost could be kept to a minimum, it could join all the other
    boink paraphenalia we already put up with... (the condoms,
    the foam, etc. etc.).
    
    Also, making people aware of the combined benefits,
    not only to birth control but disease prevention,
    of condoms and contraceptive foam, is further help.
    
    -b

    Re: .92
    
    >Those who travel out of the country could be required to have a 
    >post-return test at 6 months and 12 months.
    
    They can infect a lot of people in 6-12 months.  Not a very effective
    quarantine.  If you want a quarantine, then stick to it.
    
    >a nationwide periodic testing for all residents
    
    Well, so much for balancing the budget.
    
    I notice you didn't address the human aspects.  If your child had AIDS,
    could you really stand to not be there?

    Re: .110
    
    >The number of new AIDS cases continues to grow
    
    Given the latency between infection and development of AIDS, the number
    of new cases today does not reflect the effectiveness of today's
    policies.  We'll see the effect a couple of years down the road.

	.140
    
>    >Those who travel out of the country could be required to have a 
>    >post-return test at 6 months and 12 months.
>    
>    They can infect a lot of people in 6-12 months.  Not a very effective
>    quarantine.  If you want a quarantine, then stick to it.
    
    	In defense of the quarantine idea, allowing a 6-12 month lag time
    	is still better than allowing a 10-year lag time (which is what
    	is currently in place, given the approximate 10-year average
    	life expectancy once you get it.)
    
>    >a nationwide periodic testing for all residents
>    
>    Well, so much for balancing the budget.
    
    	The budget currently pays for a significant portion of AIDS
    	treatment anyway, considering that many in their end stages
    	are no longer employed and don't have insurance.  Medicaid,
    	medicare, welfare.  And you can top that off with hospitalization
    	costs that get absorbed by the hospitals for people who die
    	broke and have rung up serious treatment costs.
    
>    I notice you didn't address the human aspects.  If your child had AIDS,
>    could you really stand to not be there?
    
    	If you bothered to catch up before writing you would have noticed
    	some other things too.

	.139
        
>    I guess the only thing we don't agree on is the "mandatory".
    
    	It would have to be mandatory to be effective.
    
>    But the problem with mandatory testing is what is
>    done with the information? If it is used to inform the
>    individual of their status and is held confidential, then
>    I suppose testing would be OK.
    
    	I understand your concern.  I even harbor the same doubts --
    	even paranoia -- that you might about the government misusing
    	the database.  Ideally it should remain confidential.
    
    	Yet at the same time it wouldn't be unreasonable to have
    	uniform laws that make the transmission of AIDS a serious
    	crime.  If one person were to contract it from another, the
    	database could easliy be used to determine if the first
    	infected person knew s/he was infected at the time s/he
    	passed it on to another.
    
>    What I would like to see happen is the development of a
>    home test, that could be self-administered. 
    
    	Not an unreasonable option at all.  It eliminates the
    	national database.

    Do you people realise, that in 143 replies you have got absolutely 
    nowhere ?
    
    May I suggest that somebody researches the answers to Jim's (muppetman
    - couldn't resist :*)) question. The question he has asked twice. The
    last was note .109. I believe that if you look at what the professionals
    (key word) have done over the last 10+ years you will be able to
    provide your own possible solutions. Solutions that are just and humane
    and solutions that society as a whole (not just yourself) would agree on
    
    The answer lies within these answers. 

 Any comments on Monday's WSJ (or NYT) article stating tht the homosexual
community is not doing enough to police themselves wrt AIDS prevention?




 Jim

    
    Well, actually there are now 3 competing drugs that extend the
    prognosis from 5 to 6-7 years.  Two have FDA approval, and Merck's
    application is in process.  Not cures, but shown to have beneficial
    effects.  The reason the private companies do not co-operate is that
    there are big bucks in successs, not to mention fame.  Not that only
    capitalistic motives have proven at all effective so far, although
    many governments are sponsoring research into this.  I don't think
    anybody can claim the drug researchers aren't trying as hard as they
    can.  It is a very difficult bioengineering problem.
    
      bb

    People who are found to have AIDS should have their bottoms branded
    with an 'A' to warn others.
    

    .147
    
    Sure...then we should brand all the jerks in this world with "A$$",
    all the prostitutes with "P", all the drunk drivers with "D", all
    the child molesters with "C", all the rapists with "R"....
    
    And what about those people who don't know if they have AIDS or not?
    You would have to brand EVERYONE with "A?"
    
    
    

    .148
    I think they are truing the "C" for child molesters in N.J. and are
    having a very hard time with it.

    Besides, branding people isn't going to solve the problem.  Sure it
    would help minimize it, but then again you're faced with the issue that
    a bazillion people don't even know yet.
    
    I have a friend who is a foster parent for AIDS babies.  The mothers
    have abandoned their babies, and now the little guys are going to die
    without their mother.  So my friend tries to give them as much love and
    hope and comfort she can while they are still here.  She says it's the
    only thing she can do for them.  She feels horrible because the
    children are in so much pain and are so sick, but at least she can hold
    them and let them know that they are loved.
    
    Just because someone is sick, you can't abandon them.  You must show
    them that they are cared for and loved just the same as when they're
    not sick.      
    
    Children didn't do anything to get this disease except for being born
    or needing blood.  How could anyone condemn them?  
    
    Thank God there are people like my friend who care more about the
    children than the disease they are carrying.
    
    

| <<< Note 323.125 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| I don't have a specific plan. All I've done is propose the idea. It's rather 
| narrow-minded of society to reject an idea simply because Joe Oppelt doesn't 
| have all the details worked out. But you seem perfectly willing to do that.

	I think if Joe Oppelt did work it out he would see how unfeasible of a
plan it is. Another thing you can add into the equation is law suits. Joe, if
you can't come up with the plan that will work, why bring it up and push it
like it's a good idea? How can an idea that isn't even formulated past the word
quarentine be considered as something real? 

| The biggest drawback is the political sensitivity that causes knee-jerk 
| reactions as were so amply demonstrated in this topic, starting with the very 
| first reply to mine.

	Gee Joe, people would like to one, try and understand where you're
coming from, two, see a plan (DETAILS) laid out, and three, have a real reason
for doing this. You have provided us with #1, but the other two are real
important as well. Hey, what if Congress had a way to solve the budget
problems, but never said what the details were. Would you feel a little
worried? I would. Would you be one of the people who would vote for this plan?
A plan without details is really just a dream, isn't it?

| Why do you see this suggestion as such a threat to you?

	How did you come up with this one Joe?

| <<< Note 323.133 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| then the only thing to do is to prevent those who have the disease from 
| participating in those behaviors with those who do not have the disease.

	Joe, why is it that you don't seem to hold the uninfected person at
fault in any of this? I mean, if they are going to have sex, doesn't that mean
they could be potential carriers? Shouldn't we now wisk all of them off too to
prevent their behaviors from harming them? 

	And you know, now that you're talking about it, we should also take all
the smokers of the world and put them in a big bubble. This way none of us will
have to get lung cancer because of their behaviors. We should ban cars too, or
take those who drive and stuff them into a bubble or two as well.... 

| Can you think of a better way?

	Yeah, education.

     <<< Note 323.125 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


>    	The biggest drawback is the political sensitivity that causes
>    	knee-jerk reactions as were so amply demonstrated in this
>    	topic, starting with the very first reply to mine.
 
	Just goes to show how out of touch you really are. The biggest
	drawback is the COST.

	Let's assume that we can isolate these patients for the same 
	cost as incarcerate criminals, about $30k per year. No medical
	care, no frills. You're looking at a cost of $10 BILLION bucks
	every year. Where are you going to find the $10 BILLION.

>    	Why do you see this suggestion as such a threat to you?

	Any proposal that threatens the civil liberties of ANY population
	threatens me. I have an automatic response when I hear the sound
	of jackboots.

Jim

| <<< Note 323.135 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| We as a society are working to change this behavior (drunk driving). We as a 
| society are **NOT** working to change the behaviors that spread AIDS, and in 
| fact are (arguably) encouraging them.

	Let's see, the beer companies talk about how one should not drink and
drive. The AIDS commercials are talking about the disease and what it can do.
Sounds like both are doing the same things, yet one is acceptable to you, one
is not. It might be that in AIDS commercials they are talking about condoms as
well. But what is the #1 way people hear about beer? By these clever ads that
has people drinking at the beach, having parties and drinking, going to bars
full of people drinking, athletes promoting the stuff. Why don't you see this
as being in the same boat as AIDS Joe? I think out of the two, AIDS commercials
do much more to help stop the disease, than one out of 5 beer commercials
talking about no drinking or driving. EVERY AIDS commercial talks about it. 

| I have answered many of the opposition points raised against the idea.  

	Joe, you have answered nothing until you provide details. You can't
even do that!

| You have primarily contributed emotional sound bites and insults.

	Has anyone noticed that Joe plays the victim routine when he can't
answer questions? I mean, things like theatrics, sound bites, insults, etc.

| Why is AIDS different.  

	People have shown you Joe. You just keep those eyes squeezed shut so
you can't see the obvious answers.

Glen

     <<< Note 323.133 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	I can't think of another way to prevent the spread through
>    	those behaviors.

	So because YOUR mental proccesses are inadequate, we should
	lock them all up?

	Well I'M convinced.

Jim

| <<< Note 323.139 by MPGS::MARKEY "Send John Thomas some doughnuts" >>>

| What I would like to see happen is the development of a home test, that could 
| be self-administered. The ideal test would be one that worked quickly and 
| identified several common STDs (as well as HIV). 

	Brian, a plan like this would definitely get more people to do testing.
That would be a real good idea. I also think if it's accurate, it could very
easily save the medical community big $$$$.


Glen

| <<< Note 323.142 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| In defense of the quarantine idea, allowing a 6-12 month lag time is still 
| better than allowing a 10-year lag time (which is what is currently in place, 
| given the approximate 10-year average life expectancy once you get it.)

	Joe, you just shot your quarentine idea in the foot. Now how about
addressing the people who visit here, or those who sneak into the country, etc.

Glen

| <<< Note 323.143 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| I understand your concern.  I even harbor the same doubts -- even paranoia -- 
| that you might about the government misusing the database.  

	Joe, are you one who trusts the government now? IF your answer is no,
why would you want them to run a database?

	Are you one who believes the government should get out of our lives? IF
yes, why would you want them to run the database?

| <<< Note 323.144 by SNOFS1::DAVISM "And monkeys might fly outa my butt!" >>>


| May I suggest that somebody researches the answers to Jim's (muppetman
| - couldn't resist :*)) question. The question he has asked twice. The
| last was note .109. 

	Jim's question has been addressed over several notes in this topic. All
the muppet man has to do is read.



Glen

     <<< Note 323.135 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>>	Just how many pairs of jackboots do you own?
    
>    	I see that theatrics are your only answer too.

	I see that you did not answer my question. That many, huh?

>    	We as a society are working to change this behavior (drunk
>    	driving).  We as a society are **NOT** working to change
>    	the behaviors that spread AIDS, and in fact are (arguably)
>    	encouraging them.
 
	It has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions that 
	there ARE laws dealing with someone who, knowing that they
	are HIV+, engages in that behavior. So your statement is a
	simple lie.

>You have primarily contributed emotional sound
>    	bites and insults.
 
	That's about all your propsal deserves.

>    	I fail to see how constitutional rights are impacted by
>    	disease testing and quarantine.  We have exactly that for
>    	other diseases.  Why is AIDS different.  If anyone can
>    	show me, it would be you.  (And I ask you that with the
>    	utmost of sincerity.)
 
	Joe, you keep harping about "other diseases". Please give us
	a list of the diseases that are subject to quarrantine that
	are as difficult to transmit as is AIDS. TB? easily transmitted
	throught the air. Pneumonic plague? Same. Bubonic plague, 
	beleive it or not is not quarrantined, it has to be transmitted
	via flea bites.

	Give us a list. You ask why AIDS is different. Look at the 
	transmission vectors and you will find the answer.

>    	Removing a larger percentage of the AIDS victims (through 
>    	routine and regular national testing) from the donor pool would
>    	serve to reduce that percentage even more drastically.

	Joe, EVERY ONE of those pints has been tested for HIV and they
	STILL slip through. Tell me why you believe that testing of
	the population will be any more effective.

	Oh and BTW, the test costs about $40, there's another $10 BILLION
	that you have to come up with.

Jim

| <<< Note 323.145 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| Any comments on Monday's WSJ (or NYT) article stating tht the homosexual
| community is not doing enough to police themselves wrt AIDS prevention?

	Actually Jim, that's the 1st I heard of it.

     <<< Note 323.142 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

    
>    	In defense of the quarantine idea, allowing a 6-12 month lag time
>    	is still better than allowing a 10-year lag time (which is what
>    	is currently in place, given the approximate 10-year average
>    	life expectancy once you get it.)
 
	More ignorance. The virus itself can have a 10 year latent
	period before the patient develops symptoms (AIDS). From
	the onset of symptoms to death varies widely but 3 to 5 years
	is not unusual.

Jim

RE:              <<< Note 323.159 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

| <<< Note 323.144 by SNOFS1::DAVISM "And monkeys might fly outa my butt!" >>>


| May I suggest that somebody researches the answers to Jim's (muppetman
| - couldn't resist :*)) question. The question he has asked twice. The
| last was note .109. 

>	Jim's question has been addressed over several notes in this topic. All
>the muppet man has to do is read.



I've been reading.  the only answer I've seen is "education", but I haven't
seen how effective education has been in curbing the problem.




Jim

    
    
    Glen,
    
    Why do you question him when you just reprinted his answer with regards
    to the same subject?
    
    
    
    
    It seems that the concerns here all revolve around the fear of you or
    of someone you know dying from the disease.  
    
    Well, people die of this disease every day, we don't really have to
    deal with it until it hits close to home.  This point was driven home 
    to me in the last week, with the death of Ryan.  Children and adults 
    die of this and other diseases every day and I don't give it a thought 
    because I don't know them or of them.  It has been a lesson to me to 
    be more cognizant of what is happening in the lives of others that I 
    do not know.  To say a prayer for the sick and the dying.  To enjoy 
    the time I have with the people in my life and to let them know how 
    I feel about them.  Sorry for the tangent, but this has been on my mind
    quite a bit lately.  
    
    
    
    Mike

RE:              <<< Note 323.161 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>



>| Any comments on Monday's WSJ (or NYT) article stating tht the homosexual
>| community is not doing enough to police themselves wrt AIDS prevention?

>	Actually Jim, that's the 1st I heard of it.


 I haven't read the article myself, but I heard bits and pieces of it on 
 Monday. 



 Jim

| <<< Note 323.153 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

| Let's assume that we can isolate these patients for the same cost as 
| incarcerate criminals, about $30k per year. No medical care, no frills. You're
| looking at a cost of $10 BILLION bucks every year. 

	Steve, if you have 1,000,000 people who are infected with AIDS, at the
cost of 30k/year, doesn't that come out to 30 BILLION, and not 10 BILLION? I
wonder what the actual cost will be to add in the cost of medical? The cost of
doctors/staff? Police to keep crime in order? Sounds like Joe really hasn't put
much thought into this at all.


Glen

    
    Finnally!!!! A well thought out answer, to the point and poignant to
    boot!!
    
    Mark

    
    .164's I mean

    finally

| <<< Note 323.163 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>

| I've been reading.  the only answer I've seen is "education", but I haven't
| seen how effective education has been in curbing the problem.

	Jim, the answers are there. When Magic Johnson came out as HIV+, he
educated the world that hets could get it too. When gays were getting infected,
THEY went out and educated the masses. Part of that education is to get tested,
what one should or should not do. 


Glen

    Don't screw around!

    As an interesting side note to this (IMO) a new movie is coming out
    called Outbreak (I think) that deals with an Ebola type outbreak and
    the subsequent panic/containment measures used.  Not unlike the Stand
    in some ways.  
    
    I personally believe that a disease, any disease in uncontainable due
    to the sheer numbers of exposures that will occur in a very short
    period of time.  There is no practical way of starting/enforcing a
    quarantine.  The numbers worldwide are too large and movement or the
    population is too frequent.  The TB sanitaria were adequate though the 
    disease was not that contagious and virulent as to pose a threat to the 
    entire population of the world.  It was containable through vaccinations 
    and segregation of those that caught it.  
    
    I will agrgee with Joe on one point and that is the need for behavior
    modification by both sides of the sexual preference fence and the IV drug
    abusers.  IMO it is the only way short of a vaccine or treatment after
    the fact that will halt the advance of the disease.  To round up and
    place HIV+ in a single place is incomprehensible numerically and
    economically, if not socially.  No practical way to do it. 
    
    Brian

| <<< Note 323.164 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

| Why do you question him when you just reprinted his answer with regards
| to the same subject?

	Could you specify who "him" is?

| It seems that the concerns here all revolve around the fear of you or of 
| someone you know dying from the disease.

	How is that? 

| Well, people die of this disease every day, we don't really have to deal with 
| it until it hits close to home.  

	I guess the same could be said about any disease. But doesn't it make
sense to educate oneself to this or any other disease so they can know the
warning signs? 

RE: tangent

	Mike, there is nothing wrong with what you have said. It can take a
death to have people realize about a situation, whether it be a disease or
something entirely different. But does it always make sense to wait until
something happens before one does anything about it? Education alone, about
this and other diseases, can save lives. 20 years ago women weren't really
educated about checking from breast cancer, were they? Look what education has
done for them. Fewer and fewer women die as a result of breast cancer each
year. 


Glen

              <<< Note 323.166 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	Steve, if you have 1,000,000 people who are infected with AIDS, at the
>cost of 30k/year, doesn't that come out to 30 BILLION, and not 10 BILLION?

	See what happens when I try to do math before I have my coffee.
	
> I
>wonder what the actual cost will be to add in the cost of medical? The cost of
>doctors/staff? Police to keep crime in order? Sounds like Joe really hasn't put
>much thought into this at all.


	Let's not forget the LOST tax revenues from these 1 million
	people.

	Wait a minute, didn't Joe tell us some time back that Gays
	were particularly affluent. Average $60k a year jobs? Doesn't
	that work out to $16.8 million a year in lost revenues? Over
	10 years, another 1.68 BILLION bucks.

	Geez, this is getting expensive.

Jim

    
    
    Glen, Only the first line was directed at you and your previous reply
    to Glen.
    
    
    
    Has education been working?  Are you saying that education hasn't been
    going on for the last 10 or so years?  Talk to any child 10-12 years
    old and ask them if they know what AIDS is and how it is contracted,
    I'll bet you 80-90 percent could tell you the answer.  AIDS is still on
    the rise.  I'm not saying that education should stop or that it's a bad
    thing.  I'm saying that maybe we need something to shock these people a
    bit more.  I wonder if Magic will be out there when his health starts
    to deteriorate.  I think he should be out there if he is serious about
    showing others what the disease can do.  (I use Magic because his name
    has been used before)
    
    Mike

    Er,.147 was a joke.
    
    Don`t ask me what to do about AIDS. Except take up gardening instead
    of sex. Like Hilda Ogden of Coronation Street fame did.
    

    
    As well she should have; I wouldn't have done Stan.

	.153
     
>	Just goes to show how out of touch you really are. The biggest
>	drawback is the COST.
    
    	Jim, we as a society are already absorbing the cost of AIDS
    	treatment.  Without an end to the spread of AIDS we are 
    	destined to absorb that cost in ever growing amounts for the
    	unforseeable future.
    
    	As for the rest of your replies -- laced with jackboots and
    	insults but little substance -- and the same for Glen's 
    	volumes of vitriol, you two are arguing with your own demons
    	because I've already dropped the quarantine idea thanks to
    	Jack and Brian.  That you attempt to continue to argue the 
    	issue with me tells me that you are only interested in
    	arguing (for whatever personal reasons you have).  Were you
    	really interested in any sort of resolution to the discussion,
    	you would have acknowledged my change in position (which
    	neither of you did), accepted it, and moved on.

     <<< Note 323.178 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Jim, we as a society are already absorbing the cost of AIDS
>    	treatment.  Without an end to the spread of AIDS we are 
>    	destined to absorb that cost in ever growing amounts for the
>    	unforseeable future.
 
	Joe, the costs we are discussing are INCREMENTAL to the
	costs for health care. 
   
Jim

    Re: .142
    
    >In defense of the quarantine idea
    
    Only it's _not_ a quarantine idea.  It's a sort of quarantine idea.  If
    you're going to propose a quarantine, if you really believe that we
    have to do whatever it takes, then shut down travel to foreign areas,
    particularly those where AIDS is nearly endemic.
    
    >The budget currently pays for a significant portion of AIDS treatment 
    >anyway
    
    So what?  "We already spend a lot of money.  So let's spend more."

    How about this, anybody who passes on the HIV virus through sex will
    have committed a felony and will be exiled to a remote
    Island...provided, they haven't been tested in the past 4 months.
    Greenland might be a good choice.  Consider the fact that this would
    eliminate prostitution one way or the other and would...yes you guessed
    it, force morality on the public.
    
    Better get tested!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 323.175 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>



| Glen, Only the first line was directed at you and your previous reply to Glen.

	To Glenn or did you confuse me with who you meant?

| Has education been working?  

	Yes, look at the decline for gays in new cases of HIV. Like it was
stated earlier, it will take a couple of years for the results to be seen. The
study that was talked about has stated that 3/4 of all new AIDS cases for
heterosexuals is due to drugs. If this is true, then it shows that education IS
working for transmitting the disease sexually for heterosexuals as well. 

| Are you saying that education hasn't been going on for the last 10 or so 
| years?  

	In the mainstream? Not really. I heard of peoples doctors who said
straight people had nothing to worry about. Until Magic Johnson told the world
he had the disease, most of mainstream America (het) thought they could not get
the disease. You did not see commercials on tv until about 3 years ago. 

| Talk to any child 10-12 years old and ask them if they know what AIDS is and 
| how it is contracted, I'll bet you 80-90 percent could tell you the answer.  

	Errrrr.... Mike, what does this have to do with education happening 10
years ago? It's out there now, so I hope they are hearing about it.

| I wonder if Magic will be out there when his health starts to deteriorate. 

	I guess that will depend on how far he is willing to let it go before
he wants his privacy. 

| I think he should be out there if he is serious about showing others what the 
| disease can do.  (I use Magic because his name has been used before)

	You get to a point Mike where you will want to have your privacy. I
would bet he would want to still be out there, but it will be far less.


Glen

Have you asked the Greenlanders?

| <<< Note 323.178 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| because I've already dropped the quarantine idea thanks to Jack and Brian. 
| That you attempt to continue to argue the issue with me tells me that you are 
| only interested in arguing (for whatever personal reasons you have).  

	I think we were responding to your notes. That might have something to
do with it Joey.

| Were you really interested in any sort of resolution to the discussion, you 
| would have acknowledged my change in position (which neither of you did), 
| accepted it, and moved on.

	Joe, if we see a note, why would we not respond to it. Keep cryin pal.
It fits ya.

	Jack, the last line of your note was beautiful, and I agree with it
100%! The rest of that note was pure crap though. 

    Of course it was crap to you Glen...you didn't disappoint me once
    again!  So Glen, how many prostitutes do you think go to planned
    parenthood clinics for advice?  My guess is very few.  But hey, if you
    don't care for the lives of the prostitute or the Jon, then let's keep 
    playing the game your way Glen!!
    
    -Jack

     <<< Note 323.178 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	As for the rest of your replies -- laced with jackboots and
>    	insults but little substance -- and the same for Glen's 
>    	volumes of vitriol, you two are arguing with your own demons
>    	because I've already dropped the quarantine idea thanks to
>    	Jack and Brian.

	Oh Really? In .135 you were still defending it. In .138 you 
	appear to disavow it, admitting that your proposal was fatally
	flawed. BUT, then in .142 you come back with "in DEFENSE of 
	the quarantine idea" (empahsis added). .143 is the last entry
	of yours prior to .178 and it does not deal with quarantine.

>  That you attempt to continue to argue the 
>    	issue with me tells me that you are only interested in
>    	arguing (for whatever personal reasons you have). 

	I continue to argue with you about because your last statement
	on the subject was "in DEFENSE of the quarantine idea". I
	don't know about others, but a statment defending an idea
	does not imply to me that you have changed your position.

> Were you
>    	really interested in any sort of resolution to the discussion,
>    	you would have acknowledged my change in position (which
>    	neither of you did), accepted it, and moved on.

	It's tough to acknowledge a position that changed 49 minutes
	later.

	Now maybe a CLEAR statement that you disavow quarantine for HIV+
	or AIDS patients would be helpful for Glen an I in determining
	just exactly what position you now hold (assuming that you don't
	reverse yourself again after you make it).

Jim

| <<< Note 323.186 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| So Glen, how many prostitutes do you think go to planned parenthood clinics 
| for advice?  

	How does PP get dragged into all of this Jack?????

| But hey, if you don't care for the lives of the prostitute or the Jon, then 
| let's keep playing the game your way Glen!!

	Uh huh.... whatever Jack...

That's john, not Jon.

    Glen:
    
    PP was established to offer reproductive health aid to the inner city.
    (Margaret Sanger hated human weeds remember?)  Prostitutes mainly hang
    around the metropolitan areas of the country Glen, that's why I brought
    it up.  You said education was the key...well, it is a key but what I
    was saying was prostitutes won't flock to PP to find out how not to
    spread the disease.
    
    -Jack

     <<< Note 323.191 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Were quarantine to work, it would eliminate perpetual costs
>    	that we are currently destined to bear.  Consider it an 
>    	investment.  A stitch in time.

	I take it that you are back on the quarantine bandwagon?

Jim

    	.187
    
>	Oh Really? In .135 you were still defending it. In .138 you 
>	appear to disavow it, admitting that your proposal was fatally
>	flawed. BUT, then in .142 you come back with "in DEFENSE of 
>	the quarantine idea" (empahsis added). .143 is the last entry
>	of yours prior to .178 and it does not deal with quarantine.
    
    	I would hope that one is still allowed to address specific
    	mistakes/misunderstandings of something he no longer supports.
    
>	I continue to argue with you about because your last statement
>	on the subject was "in DEFENSE of the quarantine idea".
    
    	I guess some of us are more contextually challenged than
    	others.
    
>	I don't know about others, but a statment defending an idea
>	does not imply to me that you have changed your position.
    
    	idem.

>	Now maybe a CLEAR statement that you disavow quarantine for HIV+
>	or AIDS patients would be helpful 
    
    	You now have it.  Again.

| <<< Note 323.190 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| PP was established to offer reproductive health aid to the inner city. 
| Prostitutes mainly hang around the metropolitan areas of the country Glen, 
| that's why I brought it up.  

	Thanks for clearing that up Jack.

| You said education was the key...well, it is a key but what I was saying was 
| prostitutes won't flock to PP to find out how not to spread the disease.

	No, but people do go to the prostitutes and talk to them.

     <<< Note 323.193 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	I would hope that one is still allowed to address specific
>    	mistakes/misunderstandings of something he no longer supports.
 
	Certainly. Of course clarity of communication is primarily
	the responsibility of the communicator.
   
>    	I guess some of us are more contextually challenged than
>    	others.
 
	Well I didn't want to make the accusation, but if you are willing
	to confess, that's OK by me.

>>	Now maybe a CLEAR statement that you disavow quarantine for HIV+
>>	or AIDS patients would be helpful 
    
>    	You now have it.  Again.

	Does this statement precede or supercede .191?

Jim

     <<< Note 323.194 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Since I figure that's pretty well cleared up, can I ask if
>    	you disagree with the statement you took erroneously?

	Since you appear to be having a case of "Clinton Flip-Flop" in
	stating your true position on this matter, it is hard to figure
	out what to respond to in your various replies.

Jim

    
    Joe firmly believes in <mumble>.    :^)
    

	.196
    
>>    	You now have it.  Again.
>
>	Does this statement precede or supercede .191?
    
    	Neither.  You already know what's what based on the beginning of
    	.196, namely:
    
>>    	I would hope that one is still allowed to address specific
>>    	mistakes/misunderstandings of something he no longer supports.
> 
>	Certainly. 
    
	Any further claim of lack of clarity is now a problem on your
    	part.  I'll let .197 slide.

	how snarf of you

    Re: .190
    
    >Margaret Sanger hated human weeds
    
    She was also not psyched about women suffering the aftereffects of
    do-it-yourself abortions.
    
    >You said education was the key...well, it is a key but what I was
    >saying was prostitutes won't flock to PP to find out how not to
    >spread the disease.
    
    If Planned Parenthood were the only source of education about AIDS,
    that would be a problem.

    Re: .191
    
    >it would eliminate perpetual costs that we are currently destined to
    >bear
    
    First, you don't know that AIDS will persist into perpetuity.  Second,
    you don't know what the future costs will be.  Third, you don't know
    how much of those costs would come out of public funds.  Fourth, you
    don't know what a quarantine would cost.  Fifth, you don't know if the
    cost of a quarantine would, in fact, offset the public cost of dealing 
    with AIDS.
    
    This is why people are made to submit detailed proposals before
    proceeding to the implementation phase.  Right now, it looks like you'd
    have a really tough time getting past the design phase.

    .191..      Oppelt
    
    Are you suggesting that we put these people to work after we quarantine
    them....how pretell can we get SICK AND DIEING people up and atom and
    working...so what about the infants, toddlers and young adults, should
    we make them work too, gee, take away their families, friend and any
    other contact that is familiar to them, then make them work!!!
    Brilliant..so who's going to pay these people?
    
    come on, you seem somewhat intelligent...think this through. 
    If you're not in a high risk group, you're taking precautions to
    prevent the spead of HIV, then guess what, your chances of aquiring
    HIV are about as good as YOU working in the AIDS COLONY!!!!!
    
    Again, How come the health officials are not aquiring the virus
    everyday?
    

	.203
        
>    Are you suggesting that we put these people to work after we quarantine
>    them....how pretell can we get SICK AND DIEING people up and atom and
>    working...
    
    	I don't know how you got that (or anything else you said in .203)
    	from my .191 or anything else I've said.

	.202
        
>    First, you don't know that AIDS will persist into perpetuity. 
    
    	Perhaps.  But wouldn't you consider it rather shortsighted
    	to assume it won't, given current knowledge and trends of
    	AIDS?
    
>    Second, you don't know what the future costs will be.  
    
    	True, but given the current knowledge and trends, wouldn't
    	you expect it to at least remain the same, if not increase
    	due to inflation?  (Nevermind the current trend in the increase
    	in cases...)
    
>    Third, you don't know
>    how much of those costs would come out of public funds.  
    
    	Wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that given the current
    	political trends, public funding will at least remain the
    	same if not increase?  And what public funding does not
    	absorb, society itself will be forced to absorb (insurance,
    	hospital-absorbed defaults, etc.)
    
>    Fourth, you don't know what a quarantine would cost.  
    
    	First thing I agree with 100%.
    
>    Fifth, you don't know if the
>    cost of a quarantine would, in fact, offset the public cost of dealing 
>    with AIDS.
    
    	Of course I don't.  And you don't know the converse.
    
>    This is why people are made to submit detailed proposals before
>    proceeding to the implementation phase.  Right now, it looks like you'd
>    have a really tough time getting past the design phase.
    
    	Well if I ever intend to take this anywhere beyond the DISCUSSION
    	stage (nevermind the design phase) I'll be sure to let you know
    	first, OK?  Sheesh.

    Re: .205
    
    >But wouldn't you consider it rather shortsighted to assume it won't
    
    But you must then consider how common it will be.
    
    >Nevermind the current trend in the increase in cases...
    
    That is not a current trend; we have always seen an increase.  However,
    the rate of growth is decreasing.
    
    >Of course I don't.
    
    Then you cannot claim reduced costs as a justification for quarantine.

    well I did about 40+ replies.....going to skip the rest but I would
    like to address the statement/question raised back there somewhere 
    about aids being a virus thus a cure is soon to happen...
    
    I don't think there will be a cure in the near future if ever as the
    aids virus seems to be of the DNA varity (of viruses) which can mutate from
    generation to generation thus making it very hard to develope vaccines
    and anti-bodies. The other common varity is RNA based and does not
    mutate and vaccines can be made that work over generations.
    
    Examples of the RNA type are polio,small pox I think, and other
    diseases that have been irradicated from mankind. DNA types are
    represented by colds and flu's and of course the aids virus. Why they
    can develop a flu vaccine even though it is DNA based I'm not sure but
    I will ask our Dept's physician advisor next time I see her.
    
    If this was already addressed between .40 and here then ..oh well!!
    
    dick 

    it wasn't.

Joe,	I'm still looking for an example of a disease that is as 
	difficult to transmit as AIDS, ever having a quarantine
	imposed on its patients.

Jim

  Even though AIDS may be a DNA type virus I see no reason why there will not
one day be a cure. 

  Very few technological problems have proven too hard to solve once the
problems were understood. I think it' just a matter of time before AIDS,
cancer, and other diseases are cured.

  George

    Cancer will take longer to beat, but gene therapy will be more and more
    common in the next decade.
    
    Glenn

    Re: .207
    
    >It would then be very UNcommon under that scenario.
    
    Under a proper quarantine (which you have yet to require), certainly. 
    But in order to show benefits, you must contrast the situation with a
    quarantine to the situation without a quarantine.  You do not know how
    common cases will be in the future, at least not past a time frame of
    some 5-10 years.
    
    >Quarantine would have to have a tremendous one-time cost
    
    And tremendous ongoing costs.  The ongoing costs must be at least as
    high as the costs of treating and caring for AIDS patients now, for a
    period of at least 5-10 years.
    
    >to outweigh perpetual
    
    Again, you do not know that the current rate of cases will persist into
    perpetuity.  Therefore, you don't know that there will be perpetual
    costs; therefore, you don't know that you will show significant
    savings, especially given your enormous ramp-up costs.

    	.213
    
>    >to outweigh perpetual
>    
>    Again, you do not know that the current rate of cases will persist into
>    perpetuity.  Therefore, you don't know that there will be perpetual
>    costs; 
    
    	As it stands today, and as most medical sources believe today,
    	we will not have a cure.
    
    	If it doesn't persis into perpetuity, society is the big winner.
    	To treat it as if it were not going to be perpetual with the
    	knowledge we have today would be terribly shortsighted and
    	incredibly foolish.

    	re .210
    
    	Sorry, Jim, but AIDS is a disease all by itself.  You're not 
    	going to find another disease like it for the comparison of 
    	respective social policies.
    
    	And you're being terribly naive if you think that it is 
    	difficult to transmit.  We as a society would be doing an 
    	awful disservice to impressionable youth (just to name one
    	group) if we started declaring the disease to be difficult
    	to transmit.
    
    	I'm still looking for an explanation from you why quaranitine
    	would be unconstitutional.  If anyone could demonstrate it,
    	Jim, it would be you.  We trivilaize the constitution when
    	we randomly and improperly start declaring what we don't
    	like to be unconstitutional.  Don't be the boy who cried
    	wolf.

     <<< Note 323.215 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Sorry, Jim, but AIDS is a disease all by itself.  You're not 
>    	going to find another disease like it for the comparison of 
>    	respective social policies.
 
	But the concept of quarrantine is used for diseases that ARE
	easily transmitted, not for those that are not.

>    	And you're being terribly naive if you think that it is 
>    	difficult to transmit.

	And you are being particularly gullible to believe that
	it is not. Accept the fact that due to a very personal
	interest, I know a fair amount more about AIDS than you
	do.

>  We as a society would be doing an 
>    	awful disservice to impressionable youth (just to name one
>    	group) if we started declaring the disease to be difficult
>    	to transmit.
 
	Better that we LIE to them then? Why not tell them the truth?
	You can catch it from sex, you can catch it from sharing needles,
	you even take the risk of catching it from a blood transfusion.
	You MUST share body fluids, one way or the other. There is NO
	other way. You can't catch it from being in the same room, you
	can't catch it from shaking hands. You can't even catch it from a 
	toilet seat.

>    	I'm still looking for an explanation from you why quaranitine
>    	would be unconstitutional.  If anyone could demonstrate it,
>    	Jim, it would be you.  

	AIDS is not a contagious disease in which a quarrantine is
	medically required. It CAN be transmitted between to people
	that engage in some of the practices listed above. But 
	casual contact is not a risk. You can outlaw those behaviors
	and be within the Constitution, but you can not incarcerate
	a person because they MIGHT engage in a behavior. Under our
	laws, you can only punish someone for what they DO, not for
	what they MIGHT do.

>We trivilaize the constitution when
>    	we randomly and improperly start declaring what we don't
>    	like to be unconstitutional. 

	We destroy the Constitution when we ignore the protections
	that it provides. Even if those protections cover a group that
	we may personally dislike.

> Don't be the boy who cried
>    	wolf.

	Don't be so willing to don the brownshirt and jackboots.

Jim

    This one always concerns me;  You can't catch it from a toilet seat.
    
    What about a woman on her menstrual cycle who has aids or is HIV+?
    What about urine?
    
    Jim, my heart goes out to those folks who are HIV+ and those with aids. 
    If quarantine is questionable, would you be in favor of some
    restrictions regarding employment for those who carry this disease
    [which is still virtually a mystery to the medical association]?
    
    Example:
    
    HIV+ or Aids persons not being allowed to work in food preparation or
    service [waiter waitress]
    
    Daycare parents being able to turn away HIV+/Aids children who are at
    the biting age? 
    
    That disinfectants that kill the aids virus be required for use for
    janitorial purposes in all public places, including schools and
    daycares.
    
    That if one can be proven to be HIV+ prior to having unprotected sex
    with another person that they be charged with attempted murder?
    
    I'm just tossing these things out there as they come to mind...
    
    The bottom line for me is that we've proven that this generation and
    the one's following that sexual activity is encouraged, not
    discouraged.  And with this attitude permeating our youth, what kind of
    responsibility can we see being enacted by those who are HIV+?
    
    
    

    <<< Note 323.217 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    This one always concerns me;  You can't catch it from a toilet seat.
 
	Actually, I put that one in as a bit of a joke. The "toilet
	seat" excuse was a favorite explaination of those that contracted
	other "social diseases". The truth is that the HIV virus can not
	survive outside the human body for the length of time that it would
	take for the transmission to occur.

>    If quarantine is questionable, 

	There is no "if" about it.

>would you be in favor of some
>    restrictions regarding employment for those who carry this disease
>    [which is still virtually a mystery to the medical association]?
 
	Only in cases where there was sound medical science to back up the
	restriction. Far from being a mystery, the transmission vectors
	for the HIV are well understood.

    
>    HIV+ or Aids persons not being allowed to work in food preparation or
>    service [waiter waitress]
 
	No particular problem with requiring this restriction. Of course
	normal food handling precautions would also suffice.
   
>    Daycare parents being able to turn away HIV+/Aids children who are at
>    the biting age? 
 
	"The biting age"? What age is that? Is this stage universal to
	all children? If so, my daughter seems to be an underachiever.

>    That disinfectants that kill the aids virus be required for use for
>    janitorial purposes in all public places, including schools and
>    daycares.
 
	Any of the common cleaning products will do the job. Nothing
	exotic is required.

>    That if one can be proven to be HIV+ prior to having unprotected sex
>    with another person that they be charged with attempted murder?
 
	I think that laws that prohibit those with the disease from
	having sex are OK. Not sure that you could make a case
	for attempted murder though. 

>    The bottom line for me is that we've proven that this generation and
>    the one's following that sexual activity is encouraged, not
>    discouraged.  And with this attitude permeating our youth, what kind of
>    responsibility can we see being enacted by those who are HIV+?
 
	The same as you will find in the general population, they are
	no better or worse than the rest of us.

Jim

    Nancy,
    
    Are you planning on testing every individual in the US for HIV? 
    Chances are you have eaten food prepared or served  by someone who is
    HIV+.  It can take years for a person to become ill enough to manifest
    any o the outward signs of HIV infection.  
    
    Have you caught syphillis, gonnorhea, clamydia, herpes, or NSV, from a
    toilet seat?  Your risks are no greater for catching HIV from one. 
    Besides why do you sit on a toilet that looks filthy.
    
    meg
    
    

| <<< Note 323.215 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Sorry, Jim, but AIDS is a disease all by itself. You're not going to find 
| another disease like it for the comparison of respective social policies.

	Then why did you spend so much time telling us we did the quarentine
thing for other diseases, when it doesn't even compare with those diseases?

| And you're being terribly naive if you think that it is difficult to transmit.
| We as a society would be doing an awful disservice to impressionable youth 
| if we started declaring the disease to be difficult to transmit.

	It is difficult to transmit Joe. We have the answer to prevent it from
spreading. No, not quarentine. The TRUTH is what is needed to combat the
disease, not hysteria.

| I'm still looking for an explanation from you why quaranitine would be 
| unconstitutional.  

	I'm glad to see you really gave up this idea Joe....


Glen

	Nancy, do you see what you just did? You asked questions about the
disease, you had concerns and got answers about them. You were just educated
about the disease. Do you think this will help you in the future when you talk
about ways of getting the disease? My guess would be yes, but please correct me
if I am wrong. Can you now see where education can actually be of some real
good use? 

	One thing that has always bugged me is about people saying, "What about
those who know they're HIV+, but go out and have sex anyway?". While this is a
TRUE statement, people have forgotten about the other person. In this day and
age, who is going to have unprotected sex with a stranger? The answer to that
question is the target audience for education. BOTH people play a part in all
this, don't they?


Glen

    .221
    
    Most of the time it's not a stranger, Glen.  :-(
    
    

| <<< Note 323.222 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Most of the time it's not a stranger, Glen.  :-(

	Nancy, what leads you to believe that?

    Re: .214
    
    >To treat it as if it were not going to be perpetual
    
    That's not what I said.  I said the current rate of cases might not
    persist.  The incidence of AIDS could easily go down in the future. 
    Without knowing what the incidence will be, you cannot predict future
    costs and cannot promise any savings.

    
    I believe those easy HIV test should be available in
    drug store.  A lot of people don't know about their HIV
    status because they believe they are clean.  Any they keep
    spreading the HIVS to others.  I can't understand why those
    self-labeled know-everything want to ban the availability of
    the tests.  Also the government should have  records of all
    HIV positive on file through the reporting process of doctors.

| And you're being terribly naive if you think that it is difficult to transmit.
| We as a society would be doing an awful disservice to impressionable youth 
| if we started declaring the disease to be difficult to transmit.

 My understanding is that this virus needs a host cell to survive. Outside
 the body, a blood cell deforms rather quickly and the virus is 'dead' in short
 order.

 Since a blood cell in a pool deteriorates quickly the possibility of 
 transmission is infintesimal. Injestion of infected blood is also not
 likely to transmit the disease.

 Transfer of infected cells into an environment where the cell can survive is the
 only way I know of to transmit the disease. Sex, transfusions, needles.

 It's not like TB or Rabies or plague ... It is difficult to transmit (casual
 contact doesn't pass the infection).

 Doug.

	.220
    
>| Sorry, Jim, but AIDS is a disease all by itself. You're not going to find 
>| another disease like it for the comparison of respective social policies.
>
>	Then why did you spend so much time telling us we did the quarentine
>thing for other diseases, when it doesn't even compare with those diseases?
    
    	To show legal precedent for quarantine.  TO show that it is
    	not unconstitutional.
    
>	It is difficult to transmit Joe. 
    
    	One day you tell us (not in this topic) that this disease is
    	an epidemic, and now you tell us it is not difficult to transmit.

	.218
     
>	The truth is that the HIV virus can not
>	survive outside the human body for the length of time that it would
>	take for the transmission to occur.
    
    	If true, then why does it survive in shared needles or unsterilized
    	medical instruments?  If HIV can't survive outside of the human
    	body for a certain length of time, wouldn't it be sufficient to
    	simply let the needles or medical instruments sit out for a day
    	or so (or even just the length of time that it takes for one
    	person to get off the toilet and the next to get on)?

| <<< Note 323.227 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| >	Then why did you spend so much time telling us we did the quarentine
| >thing for other diseases, when it doesn't even compare with those diseases?

| To show legal precedent for quarantine.  

	Joe, if it does not even come close to the other diseases, which it
does not, then you have set nothing. 

| >	It is difficult to transmit Joe.

| One day you tell us (not in this topic) that this disease is an epidemic, and 
| now you tell us it is not difficult to transmit.

	Wow.... talk about taking stuff out of context Joe. Yes, I said both
things. 

1) It is an epidemic

	Because people do not have all the facts on the disease, or feel that
	they can't "get it". Education will cure this.

2) It is not difficult to transmit

	The ways of getting the disease are known. If you do not participate
	in these things, you will not get the disease. Education would show
	people this.


	Good twistin Joe. Someday maybe people will be able to hold real
conversations with you. But then I guess the game won't be as fun for ya. 


Glen

	.216
    
>>    	And you're being terribly naive if you think that it is 
>>    	difficult to transmit.
>
>	And you are being particularly gullible to believe that
>	it is not. Accept the fact that due to a very personal
>	interest, I know a fair amount more about AIDS than you
>	do.
    
    	And frankly, you are letting the emotionalism of your involvement
    	with the disease to tarnish your participation here.  Even our
    	court system recognizes that people with direct (and even
    	indirect) connection to the case often allow emotionalism to
    	cloud their thinking and participation, and such people are
    	excused from being on a jury for the case.
    
>	Better that we LIE to them then? Why not tell them the truth?
>	You can catch it from sex, you can catch it from sharing needles,
>	you even take the risk of catching it from a blood transfusion.
>	You MUST share body fluids, one way or the other. There is NO
>	other way. 
    
    	I guess that you fail to realize that in our society, the sharing
    	of body fluids is becoming rather commonplace.  We have evolved
    	into a sexual society, Jim, where "getting" sex as early and as
    	often as you can is becoming the norm.  We are bathed in sex from
    	the media and advertising industries.  We also have a growing
    	movement against the control of drugs because "it's just a 
    	victimless crime".  

>	AIDS is not a contagious disease in which a quarrantine is
>	medically required. It CAN be transmitted between to people
>	that engage in some of the practices listed above. But 
>	casual contact is not a risk. 
    
    	Sexual contact is becoming as casual as going to dinner.
    	By our society's standards today, AIDS *IS* a risk of a
    	contact that is becoming more and more casual.  Even Glen
    	agrees with me in .223, and I think you'll find that more
    	people that you appear to suspect would agree with me.
    
	I don't agree with your assessment that AIDS quarantines
    	would be unconstitutional.

     <<< Note 323.228 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	If true, then why does it survive in shared needles

	In the case of needles, you are talking only a few seconds
	between parties.

> or unsterilized
>    	medical instruments? 

	There is no documented case of any person contracting HIV from
	unsterilized medical instruments.

> If HIV can't survive outside of the human
>    	body for a certain length of time, wouldn't it be sufficient to
>    	simply let the needles or medical instruments sit out for a day
>    	or so (or even just the length of time that it takes for one
>    	person to get off the toilet and the next to get on)?

	Yes. Of course there are other bacteria that CAN survive for
	a day and you risk infecting a person with some disease other
	than AIDS.

Jim

	Joe, what note am I supposed to be agreeing with you again? .223 is my
reply to Nancy. Wanna specify so I can see if I really do agree or if you have
twisted my words again? Thank you

	Joe, while you're at it, why don't you also explain why you sent me a
note from SB in mail that is no longer listed in this file? Do you mind if I
post it so others can see?


Glen

     <<< Note 323.230 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	And frankly, you are letting the emotionalism of your involvement
>    	with the disease to tarnish your participation here. 

	Yes, some of my comments to you are emotionally driven. But the
	facts that I have given you are facts nonetheless.

>    	I guess that you fail to realize that in our society, the sharing
>    	of body fluids is becoming rather commonplace.

	Does not adress the issue as to whether or not we should lie to kids
	about AIDS. Education vs. Ignorance.

>    	Sexual contact is becoming as casual as going to dinner.
>    	By our society's standards today, AIDS *IS* a risk of a
>    	contact that is becoming more and more casual. 

	Different use of the term "casual". If you want to make a case
	concerning too much casual sex, fine. But that is a completely
	seperate issue than requiring a quarrantine for HIV+ patients.

>	I don't agree with your assessment that AIDS quarantines
>    	would be unconstitutional.

	Then you would, of course, be wrong.

Jim

	.231
    
>>    	If true, then why does it survive in shared needles
>
>	In the case of needles, you are talking only a few seconds
>	between parties.
    
    	So if needle users let the needles sit for a week or so,
    	there would no longer be a risk if HIV transmission?  The
    	last part of you .231 seemed to indicate that this would
    	be the case, but current "education" tells us that any
    	used needle is a risk.

>> or unsterilized
>>    	medical instruments? 
>
>	There is no documented case of any person contracting HIV from
>	unsterilized medical instruments.
    
    	So why the strong push for sterilizaton?  And how did those
    	patients get HIV from that dentist?  He certainly didn't have
    	sex with them.  

    	.234
    
>	Yes, some of my comments to you are emotionally driven. But the
>	facts that I have given you are facts nonetheless.

>	Does not adress the issue as to whether or not we should lie to kids
>	about AIDS. Education vs. Ignorance.
    
    	Your "fact" says that HIV is not easy to transmit.  I guess
    	that the current "education" out there is a lie, because any
    	grade school or high school sex-ed class will say that HIV is
    	likely to be caught if you have unprotected sex with an infeted
    	partner.
    
    	Just because you discount the likelihood of that happening does
    	not make your opinion fact.  Just ask your brother.

>	Different use of the term "casual". 
    
    	Not the way I intended it.  

    Some facts:
    
    In males, the chances of contracting HIV in highest to lowest
    order of probability are:
    
    1. Sharing needles
    2. Being on the receiving end of anal intercourse with an
       unprotected male partner.
    3. Performing oral sex on an unprotected male partner.
    4. Unprotected sex of any kind with a menstruating women.
    5. Performing unprotected anal sex on a male partner, with
       transmission via the penis.
    
    All other sexual practices, including heterosexual intercourse
    with transmission via the penis, oral sex with a female partner,
    and receiving oral sex from either a male or female partner,
    pose lesser probability of infection.
    
    In females, the list is:
    
    1. Sharing needles
    2. Anal or vaginal intercourse with an unprotected male partner.
    3. Performing oral sex on an unprotected male partner.

    All other sexual practices, including oral sex with a female
    partners, pose lesser probability of infection. There is little
    statistical data to suggest a high degree of risk amound lesbian
    partners, while the risk is somewhat higher among bisexual
    women. A vast majority of women who contract AIDS through sexual
    contact do so from a man.
    
    In heterosexual sex, the use of a condom is statistically
    more significant to an uninfected woman having sex with an
    infected male, than vice versa.
    
    Vaginal secretions in infected females generally pose a lower
    risk than does semen from an infected male.
    
    For both men and women, the probability of transmission
    during intercourse is greatly reduced with the use of
    a latex condom; while simultaneous use of contraceptive
    foam and a condom provide a significant improvement in
    protection over the use of a condom alone.
    
    The greatest risk of infection occurs during the two
    peaks in viral reproductive activity. The first peak
    occurs between three weeks and six months of initial
    infection, and is accompanied by an antibody response
    in the infected individual. Generally, the infected
    individual is unaware of the infection at this time.
    The virus then lies dormant for an extended time
    (possibly as long as seven years in some individuals).
    During the dormancy period, the concentration of
    the virus in body fluids is reduced, but can still
    be identified through testing. With the onset of
    AIDS related symptoms, the viral concentrations
    rise again and remain high throughout the course
    of the illness.
    
    And finally, let me say that the person who suggested that
    all HIV+ people be reported to the government... I thought
    I'd already heard a lifetime supply of bootlicking fascist
    tripe, but I guess I hadn't... a new low in Soapbox. What
    a distiction.
    
    -b

     <<< Note 323.235 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	So if needle users let the needles sit for a week or so,
>    	there would no longer be a risk if HIV transmission? 

	True.

>but current "education" tells us that any
>    	used needle is a risk.

	Not true. Several programs provide bleach to sterilize needles
	in between "customers". Your ignorance is showing again.

>    	So why the strong push for sterilizaton? 

	Get yourself a dictionary. Look up the word SEPSIS. Get back
	to us.

> And how did those
>    	patients get HIV from that dentist?  He certainly didn't have
>    	sex with them.  

	The last theory that was put forth was that he infected them
	deliberately. More ignorance.

Jim

     <<< Note 323.237 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

    
>    	Your "fact" says that HIV is not easy to transmit. 

	True. Like the other "social diseases" it is so difficult
	to contract you have to have sex in order to get it.

> I guess
>    	that the current "education" out there is a lie, because any
>    	grade school or high school sex-ed class will say that HIV is
>    	likely to be caught if you have unprotected sex with an infeted
>    	partner.
 
	"Likely". Can you provide proof of this statement? I have seen
	information that lists HIV as a RISK. I have not seen any that
	says that it is LIKELY.

	A little "embellishment" here Joe? Or just more ignorance?

>    	Just because you discount the likelihood of that happening does
>    	not make your opinion fact.  Just ask your brother.

	Joe, I have a suggestion for you. But I doubt that you are limber
	enough to pull it off.

	My brother was a homosexual living in San Fransico in the 70s and
	80s.

	He had a number of partners. One of those partners was HIV+ 
	(before anyone knew what that meant). He had sex with him on 
	more than one occasion. They lived together for 6 months.

	Now for the other side. I spent 3 weeks living in the same room
	with my brother at the Traub Medical Center. I took care of him,
	bathed him, helped him to the bathroom until he couldn't walk,
	then I emptied his bedpan. I held his hand and was holding it
	when he took his last breath.

	With all that contact, I didn't contract HIV (and yes, before
	you ask, I HAVE been tested).

	So when you are ready to put aside your ignorance and fear
	get back to us. Until then, refer back to my previous suggestion.

Jim

> I guess
>    	that the current "education" out there is a lie, because any
>    	grade school or high school sex-ed class will say that HIV is
>    	likely to be caught if you have unprotected sex with an infeted
>    	partner.
 
The likely hood of herterosexual transmission of HIV is less than 2% for
partners with no open wounds. It is higher for those with cuts/abrasions/tears -
/sores ...

Its possible, but not likely ...

 
  So where to I have to park my car to get one of these tracts that will
   enlighten me to the _real_ dangers of catching AIDS and why "they" all
    should be quarrantined?
kb

    If you feel frisky and risky, park a car with a gay rights sticker on it
    near some of the more virulent churches in ne colorado springs.
    
    meg who recieved a pamphlet of trash whne taking a basket weaving class
    at a school near one of said same churches.  "Hate is Not a Family
    Value" was apparently interpreted to mean my car was owned bby "on fo
    them dangerous critters"
    
    meg

	.241
     
>The likely hood of herterosexual transmission of HIV is less than 2% for
>partners with no open wounds. It is higher for those with cuts/abrasions/tears -
>/sores ...
>
>Its possible, but not likely ...
    
    	So you are saying that is really *IS* a gay disease?

    That 2% figure, I don't know where it came from, but... the chance
    of a woman becoming infected from an infected male's semen is
    much greater than the chance of a male becoming infected
    from an infected woman's normal (non-menstrual) vaginal discharge.
    
    Depends on who the infector/infectee is...
    

	.239
    
>> And how did those
>>    	patients get HIV from that dentist?  He certainly didn't have
>>    	sex with them.  
>
>	The last theory that was put forth was that he infected them
>	deliberately. More ignorance.

    	"The last theory ... more ignorance"
    
    	We were talking about medical instruments.  Deliberately or
    	not, even "the last theory" says that the vector of infection
    	was unsterilized instruments.
    
    	.240
    
>	True. Like the other "social diseases" it is so difficult
>	to contract you have to have sex in order to get it.
    
    	And again, the fact that you don't want to recognize the prevalance
    	of HIV-spreading practices does not negate the existence of it.
    
    	(Should I also deride you about ignorance and remind you that
    	there are other vectors besides sex?  I won't.  I know what you
    	meant.)
    
>>    	Just because you discount the likelihood of that happening does
>>    	not make your opinion fact.  Just ask your brother.
>
>	Joe, I have a suggestion for you. But I doubt that you are limber
>	enough to pull it off.
>	My brother was a homosexual living in San Fransico in the 70s and
>	80s.
>	He had a number of partners. One of those partners was HIV+ 
>	(before anyone knew what that meant). 

    	Somebody else's brother will get HIV today.  It will be easy
    	for him.  It will be a commonplace practice for him that will
    	introduce the virus into his body.
    
    	And somebody else's sister will catch it tomorrow.  She won't
    	expect that it can happen to her.  She won't know about it
    	until a long time from now.
    
    	Everybody knows what HIV and AIDS are.  Yet people still easily
    	get it.
    
    
    >	A little "embellishment" here Joe? Or just more ignorance?
    
    
    	You know, Jim, we've been pretty civil as of late, but I enter
    	something that touches you emotionally and you lose your usual
    	decorum.  Now you seem to need to hurt me with your writing, and
    	you are willing to prostitute yourself to your emotions and twist
    	anything I say into claims of ignorance or insults.  You are a
    	big boy, Jim.  You should be able to deal rationally with subjects
    	that raise your emotional hackles.  Check your own embellishments
    	at the door, TYVM.
    
    	I realize that we are getting nowhere between us here.  I'd like
    	to bow out of this discussion with you and let you cool off a
    	bit.  I'm sorry for you about your brother.  Attacking me won't
    	bring him back.  Being truthful about what is happening today 
    	would be much more fruitful.

    You think you were civil, Joe, when you told Jim to "ask your brother"?
    That went way beyond the pale.  You certainly didn't deserve a civil
    response.
    
    DougO

     <<< Note 323.246 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	We were talking about medical instruments.  Deliberately or
>    	not, even "the last theory" says that the vector of infection
>    	was unsterilized instruments.
 
	A deliberate act does not equate to a blanket indictment
	of AIDS transmission via unsterilized instruments.

>    	And again, the fact that you don't want to recognize the prevalance
>    	of HIV-spreading practices does not negate the existence of it.
 
	I freely admit that certain practices can transmit HIV. But
	you are arguing for quarrauntining people whether they participate
	in those practices OR NOT. THIS is where we disagree.

>    	Somebody else's brother will get HIV today.  It will be easy
>    	for him.  It will be a commonplace practice for him that will
>    	introduce the virus into his body.
    
>    	And somebody else's sister will catch it tomorrow.  She won't
>    	expect that it can happen to her.  She won't know about it
>    	until a long time from now.
 
	And they will contract tthe disease because they will participate
	in one of the behaviors that are already known to be high risk.
	THAT'S why a number of us favor education about the disease.

>    	Everybody knows what HIV and AIDS are.  Yet people still easily
>    	get it.
 
	You'd be suprised about how many people DON'T know. More
	importantly they do not understand the information about
	transmission of the diesease.

	Look at the reports about the critical shortage of blood in the US
	today. People are not donating blood because they THINK they can get 
	HIV from donating. Now you and I know this is wrong, but enough people 
	believe it that it is affecting	the supply dramatically.

>    	You know, Jim, we've been pretty civil as of late, but I enter
>    	something that touches you emotionally and you lose your usual
>    	decorum. 

	You throw a bomb like "ask your brother" and you expect
	decorum? Guess again. Shoot at me, I shoot back.

>Being truthful about what is happening today 
>    	would be much more fruitful.

	One statement on which we agree. I suggest you take the time to
	educate yourself. THis will help immensely in helping you to
	see the truth about this disease.

Jim

    	.248
    
>	And they will contract tthe disease because they will participate
>	in one of the behaviors that are already known to be high risk.
>	THAT'S why a number of us favor education about the disease.
    
    	Are you suggesting that those who so participate eventhough
    	they know the risks would then have only themselves to blame?
    
    	Or is society in part to blame because we as a society, while
    	paying lip service to the risks, at the same time enables and
    	encourages those very same behaviors?

>	You throw a bomb like "ask your brother" and you expect
>	decorum? Guess again. Shoot at me, I shoot back.
    
    	First of all, you've been uncivil from your very entry into this
    	discussion.  Laying all the blame for your behavior now on a 
    	single statement made near the end is rather unfair, wouldn't
    	you agree?
    
    	But let me apologize for a remark that was out of line.  It did
    	not come across as I intended.  
    
>>Being truthful about what is happening today 
>>    	would be much more fruitful.
>
>	One statement on which we agree. I suggest you take the time to
>	educate yourself. THis will help immensely in helping you to
>	see the truth about this disease.
    
    	Our "truths" do not agree in all areas.

    
    RE: .208 (types 0f viruses)
    
    There are 3 types of viruses - DNA, RNA, Retro.  HIV is a retrovirus.
    HIV consists of two single strand RNA molecules, which are enclosed by 
    a lipid coated protein shell. Once inside the host cell (by a membrane
    fusion process) the RNA molecules undergo reverse transcriptase. This
    process converts the RNA to DNA molecules. These DNA molecules then 
    insert themselves into the host cell's genome, and is now called a
    provirus. The provirus then commandeers the host cell's 'manufacturing
    machinery' and assembles virus RNA. Viral protein is also manufactured.
    The viral protein encloses the viral RNA and leaves the host cell by a
    mechanism know as 'cell budding'. The lipid coat is 'donated' by the
    host cell, as the new virus leaves the host cell (lipid is part of the
    cell membrane). This is an ongoing process, until the host cell dies.
    Long before cellular death, the host cell can no longer do its normal
    cellular functions, so it is in effect physiologically useless.
    
    There are several reasons why HIV is so intractable a problem. As
    pointed out earlier, it mutates rapidly. All types of viruses (DNA,
    RNA, Retro) are subject to mutation, but HIV excessively so. (HIV
    mutates during reverse transcriptase). I don't know if rapid mutation
    is a characteristic of all retroviruses or not. A vacine is very
    problematic because of this mutation factor.
    
    Another negative factor is the type of cells HIV infects. It infects
    helper T cells and monocytes. These cells are immune system cells. Both
    of these cells have CD4 protein recepters, which are what HIV binds to.
    Helper T cells regulate killer T cells and also B cells. Killer T cells
    attack cells which are infected by pathogens, B cell produce
    antibodies. Moncytes are precursors of macrophages, another type of
    immune cell. (This is how HIV infects the brain, by the way. HIV gets
    to the brain riding inside monocytes, thereby bypassing the blood/brain
    barrier.) Anyway, the final result is a complete collapse of the immune
    system and death by opportunistic infection.
    
    The long asymptomatic latency period of HIV results in infected people
    infecting other people, before they themselves are aware they are
    carriers.
    
    
    Paul
    
    
     
    subject to mutation, by HIV (I'm not sure if all retroviruses

     <<< Note 323.249 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

    
>    	Are you suggesting that those who so participate eventhough
>    	they know the risks would then have only themselves to blame?
 
	I favor people taking personal responsibility for their actions.
	I thought that you did as well. I must have been mistaken.

>    	Or is society in part to blame because we as a society, while
>    	paying lip service to the risks, at the same time enables and
>    	encourages those very same behaviors?

	I've not seen the ads placed by "society" that say "Go ahead
	and have unprotected sex". I HAVE seen ads that warn people
	of the dangers of doing so. 

>    	Our "truths" do not agree in all areas.

	As I have suggested, do some research, read the literature.
	The our truths will have much more in common.
	
Jim

    Hey you, don't be silly,
    Put a condom on your willy.

    Bumper Sticker:
    
    A tisket a tasket
    a condom or a casket.

    Just as an FYI...and it may already be in here.  The article about AIDS
    rising due to irresponsibility in New York came from an article from
    the Village Voice.  It was written by Mike Warner, a homosexual himself 
    who stated that HIV is 4 times higher than in 1987, and alot of it is
    because people know there is a risk but have unprotected sex anyway
    because the danger or the risk of death adds to the sexual experience.
    
    Great sex lies in the ability to take a chance.  I'm just telling you
    what the report said.  The problem is with heteros as well.
    
    -Jack

  I've referred to that article in here (however I had thought it was in 
 the WSJ or NYT)..




 Jim

>>The likely hood of herterosexual transmission of HIV is less than 2% for
>>partners with no open wounds. It is higher for those with cuts/abrasions/tears -
>>/sores ...
>>
>>Its possible, but not likely ...
>   
>    	So you are saying that is really *IS* a gay disease?

 No I'm not. Perhaps I should have used the word vaginal instead of heterosexual.

 But to add to this, anal intercouse (hetero or homo) has a much higher rate 
 of transmission that does vaginal intercourse (for obvious reasons).

 Doug.
  

| <<< Note 323.235 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| but current "education" tells us that any used needle is a risk.

	During drug use, yeah, as they don't wait long enough for the disease
to die. They shoot up, pass the needle, and shoot up some more. 




Glen

| <<< Note 323.236 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| You can figure it out, Glen.

	If I knew what note you were talking about I could easily see what you
mean. But I do not. It's kind of funny, really, that you make the claim I
agreed with you, but can't back it. Might be because you realized you once
again took it out of context Joe?

| re .233

| What I sent you in mail was a reply to your own .229.  You'll see your own 
| name in the header if you look closely. I sent it in mail because they were 
| primarily rathole issues that are better handled offline.  

	Let's look and see:

1) You talked about how the other quarentines set a precident for one being
   called for AIDS, and how it would not be unconstitutional. Of course you
   failed to tell me how it relates to other diseases, which is what I had 
   asked.

2) You said that you were getting tired because I tell you that not all people
   have the facts on the disease, and that education would cure that, and then
   I turned around and said that the ways of getting the disease are known. You
   then state that I am contradicting myself. Yet with what you did, you once
   again took what I said out of context. The ways are known for contracting 
   the disease, but not everyone knows them. 

3) When I call you on twisting the words from your .227 note, you responded 
   with the word loser. 

	One and two DO have EVERYTHING to do with this topic. But #3 really
doesn't. Sounds like there might have been other reasons than the rathole issue
Joe. 

| Therefore I'm not surprised that you want to dump it in here.

	No, I'd rather dump it in here to address the issues you brought up.
But I guess I have done that anyway, without having to dump it in. 


Glen

	.251
    
>	I favor people taking personal responsibility for their actions.
>	I thought that you did as well. I must have been mistaken.
    
    	You're not mistaken at all.  Glad we agree.

>>    	Our "truths" do not agree in all areas.
>
>	As I have suggested, do some research, read the literature.
>	The our truths will have much more in common.
    
    	Case in point:
    
>	I've not seen the ads placed by "society" that say "Go ahead
>	and have unprotected sex". I HAVE seen ads that warn people
>	of the dangers of doing so. 
    
    	The ads are the "lip service" that I mentioned.  So are many
    	so-called "abstinence-based" sex education classes.  Feel-good
    	buzzwords are fine, but whether you are willing to accept it
    	or not, society embrace and encourages many of the behaviors
    	that spread HIV.  For instance, whether art imitates life or
    	life imitates art, our entertainment industry is rather hostile
    	to the monogamous, married lifestyle that will practically
    	ensure safety from AIDS.  It condones, if not glorifies, 
    	promiscuous and casual sex.  No, Jim, there aren't any specific
    	ads that say "Go ahead and have unprotected sex," but you'd
    	have to be blind not to see that we are bathed in the message,
    	and in some circles even totally immersed.

| <<< Note 323.237 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Your "fact" says that HIV is not easy to transmit. I guess that the current 
| "education" out there is a lie, because any grade school or high school sex-ed
| class will say that HIV is likely to be caught if you have unprotected sex 
| with an infected partner.

	I wish I knew when you were being serious or not. Joe, if one is
instructed to know about your partner before having sex with them (know as get
tested after 3 months), to not have sex at all (which is also part of the
education), then there will be no way they will contract the disease. If one
wears a condom properly, it cuts down the risk of contracting HIV almost 100%.
(even with a condom one should not ejaculate in someone) So yeah, it is very
hard to transmit, but it is very easy to transmit to someone who has not been
educated on the disease. Something I wonder if you have taken the time to do.
Judging by your entries, my GUESS would be you've learned things from what
other people have said, but never taken the time to look into it. If I am
wrong, please correct me and tell me where you actually got training from.

| Just ask your brother.

	I've seen you go low, but this low? 


Glen

| <<< Note 323.244 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>




| So you are saying that is really *IS* a gay disease?



	I swear your game playing gets better and better Joe. Of course I guess
it could be your ignorance. 

| <<< Note 323.246 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Now you seem to need to hurt me with your writing, and you are willing to 
| prostitute yourself to your emotions and twist anything I say into claims of 
| ignorance or insults.  

	Your own words do that Joe. You are either being very non-funny with
more of your "game", or you are very ignorant to this disease. It doesn't make
you a lesser person to not know about something, but you'd probably get more
respect if you didn't try to make it seem like you did know. And who are you to
talk about twisting words Joe?

| Being truthful about what is happening today would be much more fruitful.

	Then why don't you start?

| <<< Note 323.249 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| Are you suggesting that those who so participate eventhough they know the 
| risks would then have only themselves to blame?

	Is it any different for anything Joe? If one gets lung cancer through
smoking, if they knew the dangers, they have themselves to blame for it to
happen. If you or I were to catch HIV through a way we knew it could happen
from, we would only have ourselves to blame.

| Or is society in part to blame because we as a society, while paying lip 
| service to the risks, at the same time enables and encourages those very same 
| behaviors?

	Let's see, we talk of abstinance, we talk about condoms, we talk about
knowing your partners status, we talk about being monogomous, etc. Sounds to me 
like we are trying to get the right message out Joe. You see, two people can 
have any type of sex they want, unprotected at that, and they will NEVER get the
HIV virus if 1, both partners are uninfected to begin with, and 2, they are 
monogomous. Pretty simple, huh? 

| First of all, you've been uncivil from your very entry into this discussion.  
| Laying all the blame for your behavior now on a single statement made near 
| the end is rather unfair, wouldn't you agree?

	Joe, for one who threw the comment out to bitch about how you feel they
let emotions get involved and skew their answers and how it led to them
insulting you has got to be one of the lamest things you've tried to pull off.


Glen

| <<< Note 323.260 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| precedent.

	HAAA!!! I knew you would avoid that one. It would only show that you
are wrong once again. HAAAAA!!!!


Glen

 It appears Mr. Silva has dropped his obsession with Mr. Benson, in favor
 of Mr. Oppelt

    :-)  Nice radio announcing Jimbo.

    	.261
    
>So yeah, it is very
>hard to transmit, but it is very easy to transmit to someone who has not been
>educated on the disease. 
    
    	Greg Louganis said that he was educated about the disease.  
    	Magic Johnson said that he was educated about the disease.
    
    	Almost anyone in this country who gets the disease today is
    	educated on it -- especially those who get it through needle-
    	sharing and sexual contact.  It will happen today.  And tomorrow.
    	And each day of the forseeable future.
    
    	The education you espouse has limited benefit.  If education is
    	the solution, the education it really takes is to see your best 
    	friend die from it.  And given the lag time between contracting 
    	HIV and its manifestation, even that education often comes too 
    	late.

	.264
    
>	Is it any different for anything Joe? If one gets lung cancer through
>smoking, if they knew the dangers, they have themselves to blame for it to
>happen. 
    
    	Yet we have so many suits against the tobacco industry on behalf
    	of people who died from smoking.
    
    	And can you say that there is any significant number of people
    	in this country who smoke but do not know the risks?  Yet they
    	continue to do so.  It is no different for people who participate
    	in behaviors that expose them to HIV.  More "education" won't
    	help either group.
    
>If you or I were to catch HIV through a way we knew it could happen
>from, we would only have ourselves to blame.
    
    	Yet you were blaming Ronald Reagan just the other day.
    
>You see, two people can 
>have any type of sex they want, unprotected at that, and they will NEVER get the
>HIV virus if 1, both partners are uninfected to begin with, and 2, they are 
>monogomous. Pretty simple, huh? 
    
    	Yet you were trying to convince me that having one partner at
    	a time, say a year at a time, was monogamy.  Surely you agree
    	that such "monogamy" could introduce HIV into the equation --
    	especially if all the people participating in this chain were
    	practicing the same.
    
    	And how are we supposed to know if our next partner does/doesn't
    	have HIV?  Are you willing to support regular testing for all
    	sexually-active people?

| <<< Note 323.266 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| It appears Mr. Silva has dropped his obsession with Mr. Benson, in favor
| of Mr. Oppelt

	Could it be that Mr. Oppelt is not accurate with the stuff in his notes
have anything to do with it Jim? Me thinks that's the whole reason.....

    Glen:
    
    I don't think it is a gay disease but I certainly believe it used to be
    one and then propogated into the straight community.  I'm not saying by
    any means that it is a judgement or anything like that...simply that it
    started amongst the gay community then branched out.
    
    Question is Glen, if the gay community doesn't think it's a gay
    disease, then why is the gay community treating this disease above all
    others.  
    
    I have this theory Glen...and it is just a theory.  
    The AIDS industry is a 6 billion dollar industry and I believe the gay
    lobby is attaching itself to this disease for political reasons.  I
    have no doubt but that many are personally effected by deaths of
    friends, etc.  But I believe the gay lobby needs to champion something
    to stay powerful.  6 Billion dollars is very powerful.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 323.268 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| Greg Louganis said that he was educated about the disease.

	Greg Louganis got the disease before education even game out on it.
Greg Louganis also caught the disease from his longtime lover. Someone he
thought he could trust.

| Magic Johnson said that he was educated about the disease.

	Magic Johnson said he thought he was invinsible. While he knew sex was
a way to transmit the disease, he considered it a gay disease. Being partially
educated about AIDS will not stop it from spreading, will not stop people from
spreading untruths, will not stop the hysteria. I'm not sure where you got your
information from Joe, but it certainly isn't complete by any means.

| Almost anyone in this country who gets the disease today is educated on it 

	You base this on what information Joe? Your own view or something that
you can back with facts? And once you know the amount of people who are
educated, can you tell us how many of these people are only partially educated
Joe? You mentioned Magic was educated, but not completely. You mentioned
Louganis was educated, but he got the disease before education was even out
there, and got it from someone he trusted.

| -- especially those who get it through needle sharing and sexual contact.  

	A source will be good. Hopefully your source won't be the same thing I
keep receiving in the mail from you. The source where you call me a loser. 

| The education you espouse has limited benefit.  

	No, the education has a 100% chance of working. 

| If education is the solution, the education it really takes is to see your 
| best friend die from it.  

	An extreme is one way of making one open their eyes. Look what it took
Magic Johnson to open his eyes. Through education it will hopefully not take
that kind of extreme to open one's eyes. But through Magic, many hetersosexuals
have opened their eyes.


Glen

	.273
    
>| Greg Louganis said that he was educated about the disease.
>
>	Greg Louganis got the disease before education even game out on it.
    
    	There was no education in 1986-88?  ESPECIALLY among gays?
    
>Greg Louganis also caught the disease from his longtime lover. Someone he
>thought he could trust.
    
    	And the same thing continues to happen today.  In spite of
    	education.
    
>| Magic Johnson said that he was educated about the disease.
>
>	Magic Johnson said he thought he was invinsible. While he knew sex was
>a way to transmit the disease, he considered it a gay disease. 
    
    	That doesn't mean that he was "partially educated" as you claim.
    
>I'm not sure where you got your
>information from Joe, but it certainly isn't complete by any means.
    
    	Both made the statements themselves.  Why deny their statements?
    
>But through Magic, many hetersosexuals
>have opened their eyes.
    
    	Sure looks like it, considering that the disease is spreading
    	fastest among hets, according to recent reports posted here.

| <<< Note 323.269 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| And can you say that there is any significant number of people in this country
| who smoke but do not know the risks?  

	Yeah, kids.

| It is no different for people who participate in behaviors that expose them to
| HIV.  More "education" won't help either group.

	Education has already helped Joe. Getting education will and is
helping. 

| >If you or I were to catch HIV through a way we knew it could happen
| >from, we would only have ourselves to blame.

| Yet you were blaming Ronald Reagan just the other day.

	Again, taking what I said out of context. Why is it you always do this
Joe? Explain to me, if you would, how you can compare Reagan not pushing for
education about the disease which led to more people catching it to someone who
KNOWS HOW IT IS CAUGHT getting the disease and having it be their fault? You
simply amaze me.

| Yet you were trying to convince me that having one partner at a time, say a 
| year at a time, was monogamy.  

	HELLO McFLY!!!!!!????? If a marriage, a relationship lasts for 1 year,
1 day even, and no one has cheated, then it was a monogamous <insert correct 
label>. If it is not, then what was it in your eyes?

| Surely you agree that such "monogamy" could introduce HIV into the equation 

	No, it can not. If you follow what is being taught, it will not. If you
just jump into bed without knowing your partners history, you could. This is
why it would be nice for you to get yourself educated on this disease so you
would not go around and spread falsehoods.

| And how are we supposed to know if our next partner does/doesn't have HIV?  

	Follow what is being taught, you will have no problems. Don't, and what
you mention above could actually come true.

| Are you willing to support regular testing for all sexually-active people?

	No. It is not needed. Those who engage in sex without following what
has been taught should be tested. Take for example me. I went to the doctor
yesterday to get my physical. During it he asked me about my sex life. I told
him the types of things I have engaged in, and he told me that I did not need
an HIV test. I had gotten one with him before, and it was negative. If I follow
what is being taught, I will NEVER need another test again.



Glen

	.275
    
>	Yeah, kids.
    
    	Ask any 7-year-old and he'll tell you that smoking leads to
    	cancer.

>| More "education" won't help either group.
>
>	Education has already helped Joe. Getting education will and is
>helping. 
    
    	Yes, it has already helped.  More (for those who are alread
    	educated) won't be effective.
    
>	Again, taking what I said out of context. Why is it you always do this
>Joe? Explain to me, if you would, how you can compare Reagan not pushing for
>education about the disease which led to more people catching it to someone who
>KNOWS HOW IT IS CAUGHT getting the disease and having it be their fault
    
    	No wonder you think it was out of context.  I didn't say that.

>	HELLO McFLY!!!!!!????? If a marriage, a relationship lasts for 1 year,
>1 day even, and no one has cheated, then it was a monogamous <insert correct 
>label>. If it is not, then what was it in your eyes?
    
    	There you go.  Serial monogamy.  One day even.  This is not
    	a safe practice.

>| Surely you agree that such "monogamy" could introduce HIV into the equation 
>
>	No, it can not. 
    
    	Yet you insist it is.

| <<< Note 323.271 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I don't think it is a gay disease but I certainly believe it used to be one 
| and then propogated into the straight community.  

	Jack, if you looked at the world wide figures of 2 years ago, you would
see an 11-1 ratio for the disease leaning towards the straight people. In North
America though, it had hit the gay community at first far greater than the
straight community. So for North America, you would be right to say that it
effected gays first. Why North America is the only place this happened is
something I can not explain.

| Question is Glen, if the gay community doesn't think it's a gay disease, then 
| why is the gay community treating this disease above all others.

	That's easy Jack. Take the North American stats, combine it with a
President who didn't push education because it seemed to infect gays and or
drug users, and you can see that unless we educated the masses ourselves, this
was going to be one hell of a disease. We could see where it was going, but it
would appear that Reagan did not. Like I said, until Magic Johnson got the
disease, most of the heterosexuals of our nation didn't wake up. The rest of
the world knew long before that, but somehow we didn't.

| The AIDS industry is a 6 billion dollar industry and I believe the gay lobby 
| is attaching itself to this disease for political reasons.  

	Interesting theory. But one that is not true I'm glad to say. Reread
what I wrote above Jack. That is the real reason behind everything. Are women
lining up to jump on the Breast Cancer bandwagon? 

| But I believe the gay lobby needs to champion something to stay powerful.  

	Believe me Jack, watching what others do, listening to what others say
that is derogatory towards gays is a big enough champion to hang onto. Jumping
on a disease bandwagon absolutely makes no sense.


Glen

| <<< Note 323.272 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Could be, but I'd be more apt to believe it if it were someone else who had 
| the obsession.

	It just looks worse cuz I was out yesterday and am still catching up.:-)

RE:              <<< Note 323.270 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>| It appears Mr. Silva has dropped his obsession with Mr. Benson, in favor
>| of Mr. Oppelt

>	Could it be that Mr. Oppelt is not accurate with the stuff in his notes
>have anything to do with it Jim? Me thinks that's the whole reason.....


  I suppose that's possible.  However it seems to me that Mr. Oppelt and/or
 Mr Benson could enter a note stating that today is Thursday March 9 and 
 you'd carry on a 15 reply spiral disagreeing with them




Jim

| <<< Note 323.274 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| There was no education in 1986-88?  ESPECIALLY among gays?

	I was watching Oprah last week and he said he had the disease around
1980. 

| >Greg Louganis also caught the disease from his longtime lover. Someone he
| >thought he could trust.

| And the same thing continues to happen today.  In spite of education.

	There was no education out there then. 

| >| Magic Johnson said that he was educated about the disease.
| >
| >	Magic Johnson said he thought he was invinsible. While he knew sex was
| >a way to transmit the disease, he considered it a gay disease.

| That doesn't mean that he was "partially educated" as you claim.

	If he knows sex will transmit it, but equates it to homosexual sex,
then he is only � educated about it Joe. 

| Both made the statements themselves.  Why deny their statements?

	Both are partial statements made by them Joe. Why do you take them out
of context?

| >But through Magic, many hetersosexuals have opened their eyes.

| Sure looks like it, considering that the disease is spreading fastest among 
| hets, according to recent reports posted here.

	Let's see now.... this was explained to you last week. The #'s have
been going up because more people are being tested. The #'s are going up
because those who were unsafe before are coming out positive. But you knew
that.


Glen

| <<< Note 323.276 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| >	Yeah, kids.

| Ask any 7-year-old and he'll tell you that smoking leads to cancer.

	Be real Joe. That is not true. If it is, what's your source?

| Yes, it has already helped.  More (for those who are alread educated) won't 
| be effective.

	You lost me on this one. I came up with several scenerios. Could you
explain it again? Thanks.

| No wonder you think it was out of context.  I didn't say that.

	Go read your note Joe....

| >	HELLO McFLY!!!!!!????? If a marriage, a relationship lasts for 1 year,
| >1 day even, and no one has cheated, then it was a monogamous <insert correct
| >label>. If it is not, then what was it in your eyes?

| There you go.  Serial monogamy.  One day even.  This is not a safe practice.

	You were talking about monogamy. I was addressing that. The above IS
manogamy.

	BUT, with serial manogamy alone, you're right. Add in the education, and
you're wrong. What one might do with someone for one day will not be the same 
with someone who they have a lifelong commitment with if they follow what they
have learned with education.

| >| Surely you agree that such "monogamy" could introduce HIV into the equation
| >
| >	No, it can not.

| Yet you insist it is.

	No, I am insisting that those who are not educated will. Again, you
twist the words.


Glen

| <<< Note 323.279 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| I suppose that's possible.  However it seems to me that Mr. Oppelt and/or
| Mr Benson could enter a note stating that today is Thursday March 9 and
| you'd carry on a 15 reply spiral disagreeing with them


	No, cuz that would be a true statement. 


Glen

     <<< Note 323.259 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>>	I favor people taking personal responsibility for their actions.
>>	I thought that you did as well. I must have been mistaken.
    
>    	You're not mistaken at all.  Glad we agree.

	Yet we have all this verbiage rfom you about how "society"
	is somehow to blame for the spread of AIDS. There seems to be
	a conflict in your beliefs.

>    	The ads are the "lip service" that I mentioned. 

	The ads are the public stand taken by many organizations, the
	CDC, the NIH, etc. You would ratther that these groups remain
	silent?

> So are many
>    	so-called "abstinence-based" sex education classes. 

	You are coming out against abstinence?

>society embrace and encourages many of the behaviors
>    	that spread HIV. 

	We need your definition of "society". 

> For instance, whether art imitates life or
>    	life imitates art, our entertainment industry is rather hostile
>    	to the monogamous, married lifestyle that will practically
>    	ensure safety from AIDS.  It condones, if not glorifies, 
>    	promiscuous and casual sex.

	Is your definition of "society" then confined to Hollywood
	producers?

	My definition is a whole lot broader than that.

>  No, Jim, there aren't any specific
>    	ads that say "Go ahead and have unprotected sex,"

	I didn't think so.

> but you'd
>    	have to be blind not to see that we are bathed in the message,
>    	and in some circles even totally immersed.

	And "society" (my definition) is trying to spread the word
	about how risky this behavior can be.

Jim

RE:              <<< Note 323.281 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>| Ask any 7-year-old and he'll tell you that smoking leads to cancer.

>	Be real Joe. That is not true. If it is, what's your source?



 I'm not Joe, but I'd be willing to wager that just about any parent who smokes
 and has kids in grade school, 7 year-olds included, has heard their kids
 say "Mom (and/or) Dad, why do you smoke?  don't you know it causes cancer..
 when my son Scott was about 7 he was very well aware that smoking causes
 cancer and other ills.  Heck, he was even talk that if his parents drink
 they could be alcoholics!


 Jim

              <<< Note 323.282 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>	No, cuz that would be a true statement. 

	Unless they post it tommorrow. ;-)

Jim

| <<< Note 323.285 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Oh me of little faith" >>>


| Greg Louganis tested positive in 1988. I don't think he made any claims to 
| having had the disease in 1980.

	I only repeated what I heard.

RE:              <<< Note 323.287 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>



| Greg Louganis tested positive in 1988. I don't think he made any claims to 
| having had the disease in 1980.

>	I only repeated what I heard.


   And your source was...?

	In my note, which you apparently did not read, he was on Oprah.

Both my 3 and 5 year old will tell you smoking is bad for your health
and it will kill you (cracks me up!).

They pick it up from TV. 

    Sounds like you have two smart kids and this is also a great argument
    as to why T.V. is good for you.  :-)/2

	.283
    
>>    	You're not mistaken at all.  Glad we agree.
>
>	Yet we have all this verbiage rfom you about how "society"
>	is somehow to blame for the spread of AIDS. 
    
    	You misread.

>	You would ratther that these groups remain
>	silent?
    
    	You said that, not me.

>> So are many
>>    	so-called "abstinence-based" sex education classes. 
>
>	You are coming out against abstinence?
    
    	Ditto.
    
    	I *do* stand against labeling some of the so-called "abstinence-
    	based" sex ed classes as truly abstinence-based.  I'm surprised
    	that you seem willing to simply settle for just what's on the
    	cover of the book, Jim.
    
>	Is your definition of "society" then confined to Hollywood
>	producers?
    
    	Far from it.  All I did was mention the correlation between
    	art and society.  Regardless of which mirrors which, the
    	mirror is there.  It was just one of the most glaring examples
    	(which I notice you couldn't deny.)
    
>	And "society" (my definition) is trying to spread the word
>	about how risky this behavior can be.

    	I really haven't been fair to the efforts that have been made.
    	I called them lip service.  At times this is true, but at times
    	it is quite sincere.  I just think that the overall message from
    	society is much stronger in pushing the behaviors that spread
    	HIV than it is in emphasizing the risk.  There is a big difference
    	in impact between being bathed in one message, and having that
    	bath momentarily interrupted with public service announcements.
    
    	Morbid as it seems, I think the risk message will only overcome
    	the hedonism when we watch a beloved idol like Magic succumb
    	to the virus.

	Joe, your .292 is your being avaisive at your best. Thank you for
posting it.


Glen

	That too!

    Louganis was just here in Atlanta on his book tour and was interviewed
    on noon news.  Greg said he found out he was HIV+ 6 months before the
    '88 Olympics. He got tested because his long time SO (he calls him
    Tom in book) was really getting ill.  Louganis could have been
    infected at least 10 years before.  I don't think even the gay
    community knew WHAT was taking its toll on their community in the
    late '70s early '80s, they just knew SOMETHING horrible was going
    on (and they couldn't get anyone in the straight community to listen
    to them).
    
    There has been a lot of education going on in the last few years
    (apparently it hasn't penetrated in some areas though).
    
    As was already pointed out, Magic proved no hetero is immune if
    they engage in promiscuous behavior and I do believe this message
    is starting to penetrate (just not fast enough).
    
    Louganis said he went public because he'd heard over and over,
    people innocently saying they would never be affected by AIDS.  He
    said everyone who cheered him on in his quest for the gold really
    can't say AIDS has not affected them.
    
    I watched him win all 4 gold medals and it was a thrill; we won't
    see another diver like Louganis any time soon.  I just hope his
    health holds out so he can get to a place of peace and serenity in
    his life.
    

  >  Sounds like you have two smart kids and this is also a great argument
  >  as to why T.V. is good for you.  :-)/2

  Actually they watch al good deal of CPB and a small amount of the rest of
  it (Their environment is highly controlled :-).

  It doesn't take much.

  I'll clue them in when they're a little older ...

  Doug.

     <<< Note 323.293 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>It was just one of the most glaring examples
>    	(which I notice you couldn't deny.)
 
	Well, I thought the questions I raised would indicate a position,
	but if you insist.

	I deny that Hollywood represents "society". Anyone making claims
	to the contrary is taking far to simplistic an approach to the
	definition.

>I just think that the overall message from
>    	society is much stronger in pushing the behaviors that spread
>    	HIV than it is in emphasizing the risk.  There is a big difference
>    	in impact between being bathed in one message, and having that
>    	bath momentarily interrupted with public service announcements.
 
	So then one possible solution is to increase the warning messages.
	More education in other words. Seems to me that I remember someone
	suggesting that approach.

	Glen, do you remember who it was? ;-)

>    	Morbid as it seems, I think the risk message will only overcome
>    	the hedonism when we watch a beloved idol like Magic succumb
>    	to the virus.

	You mean someone like Arthur Ashe?

	Actually, I'm probably less optimistic than you. I believe that
	no matter the message, no matter the education, there will STILL
	be those that choose to behave irresponsibly. The difference
	between you and I is that I beleive that ONLY those people should 
	be punished.

Jim

     <<< Note 323.300 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>>	I deny that Hollywood represents "society". Anyone making claims
>>	to the contrary is taking far to simplistic an approach to the
>>	definition.
    
>    	You are too transparent.  Sometimes these seem clever, but
>    	this one failed miserably.

	You said that I didn't deny it, so I denied it. What do you want?
	I don't believe that Hollywood represents "society:. You do.
	We disagree.


>    	Would you be against that message from a moral perspective?  The
>    	goal is the same.

	Actually yes. The message it far more likey to be recieved by 
	those that need to hear it if we do not couch it in any 
	moralistic terms. The goal is success, not conversion. Unless 
	you have an agenda that you have not shared with us.

>    	So you see AIDS as a punishment?  Surely I'm misinterpreting
>    	you.


	Surely you are. Your intitial representation was quarrantine,
	and however much you deny it, this is still an issue that you
	defend. Quarrantining those that do NOT participate in activities
	that promote the transmission of the virus can most certainly be
	classified as punishment.

Jim

    
    RE: .301
    
    Jim,
    
     Why do you see something from a moral perspective as "conversion"?
     Is that a personal bias or just one stereo-type you're fond of?
    
    
    Andy
    

   <<< Note 323.302 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>     Why do you see something from a moral perspective as "conversion"?
>     Is that a personal bias or just one stereo-type you're fond of?
 
	Presenting the message in "moral" terms brings an unneccessary
	element into the equation. Because this element is uneccessary
	there must be some other motive than simply preventing the
	spread of the disease. That goal can be accomplised without
	even refering to morality. So I view an attempt to bring morality
	into the picture as an attempt to convert people to a more moral
	lifestyle, not to merely stop the transmission of HIV.

	If that's bias, so be it.

Jim

    FWIW, lesbians have a very low AIDS transmission rate.  
    
    AIDS is a "create a wound where the disease can have direct access to
    the bloodstream type of disease".  Women aren't normally born with the
    optimal equipment to tear flesh.  Men are.  Needles tear flesh too.
    
    Lisa

| <<< Note 323.299 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>



| So then one possible solution is to increase the warning messages.
| More education in other words. Seems to me that I remember someone
| suggesting that approach.

| Glen, do you remember who it was? ;-)


	That person's name is on the tip of my tongue..... :-)


Glen

| <<< Note 323.302 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>



| Why do you see something from a moral perspective as "conversion"?
| Is that a personal bias or just one stereo-type you're fond of?


	Andy, look at how the word Christian is perceived by many people. The
extreme is what they think about. While it is true that most Christians do not
fit this bill, until the transformation has been done on the pr side, people
will continue to get turned off, they will automatically feel the stuff is
being thrown down their throats (regardless of whether it really is), etc. To
reach everyone, it would be easier to keep to moral issue out of it. Through
the help that is given, through the people getting to know others, the word
Christian can change from it's present state to it's real meaning. 


Glen

 What is the real meaning of the word "Christian", Glen?

	The word itself is someone who believes in and follows Christ. What I
was referring to though is the perceptions people have of the word. 

 ...and your source for that definition is?

	God.

    <<< Note 323.239 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>    	So if needle users let the needles sit for a week or so,
>>    	there would no longer be a risk if HIV transmission? 
>
>	True.
    
              <<< Note 323.257 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>| but current "education" tells us that any used needle is a risk.
>
>	During drug use, yeah, as they don't wait long enough for the disease
>to die. They shoot up, pass the needle, and shoot up some more. 
    
    
    	Well then maybe one of you two can help dispel some more
    	"ignorance".  Why do we have needle exchange programs?  You'd
    	think that by the time they get the used needles to the exchange
    	site (probably days after their use) that the HIV isn't a 
    	problem with them any more.  Or maybe in my ignorance I didn't
    	know that these needle exchanges are being transacted right
    	at the shoot-up site, and the administrator gives the sharing
    	group a new needle as each new sharer gets ready to shoot...

    And how did you determine that it came from God?  
    
    Answer:  The part of the Bible that really counts.
    
    -Jack

>    	Well then maybe one of you two can help dispel some more
>   	"ignorance".  Why do we have needle exchange programs? 

Needles get old/rust/break or otherwise fail. Has the number of available 
needles dwindles the remaining needles are shared. If eveyone has their 
usable needle there is no need to share. When it fails, get a new one.

Just another ineffective, illogical, emotional based liberal response
to the growing problems in this country.

Doug.

    <<< Note 323.301 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	You said that I didn't deny it, so I denied it. What do you want?
>	I don't believe that Hollywood represents "society:. You do.
>	We disagree.
    
    	I said that you didn't deny that THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY (as
    	just one example) bathes us in messages that encourage HIV-risk
    	behavior.
    
    	Not only have you been obstinate in avoiding addressing that,
    	but counter to your call to a broader view of things, you insist
    	that Hollywood is "the entertainment industry".  You leave out
    	Detroit and Nashville (music), New York (theatre).  The magazines
    	our kids read, and the morning radio DJ and evening news anchor
    	are also part of the entertainment industry.  Madison Avenue,
    	an industry in itself, is also intimately involved in the
    	entertainment industry.  All of these and more bombard us (and
    	more importantly our kids) with messages that ridicule abstinence,
    	that glorify promiscuity, that tell us we ought to be "scoring"
    	more.  From Calvin Klein ads to Joe Camel's nose, from erotic body
    	parts hidden in whiskey bottles and snack food ads to scantily-
    	clad women running in the background of video games and painted
    	on pinball machines, from overt messages in pop music lyrics to 
    	depiction of casual sex between first-tile aquaintances on 
    	prime-time TV, we are immersed in it, Jim, to the point that
    	we can't avoid it.  Just today in our local paper was an article
    	about a study that profanity on prime-time TV has doubled from
    	1990 to 1994, and in that same time complaints about it have
    	dwindled, indicating that we are becoming desensitized to it.
    	We are likewise desensitized to all the sexual depictions --
    	whether innuendo or overt -- because it has become part of our
    	culture.  And also in our local paper today was an article about
    	Nancy Reagan's plea to return to the messages of her husband's
    	administration regarding drugs.  We've turned away from that too,
    	and drug use among kids is up.  Our heros and leaders in all
    	arenas -- sports, entertainment, politics, business, etc. -- are 
    	swapping partners more frequently than the tabloid industry can 
    	keep up.  Major magazines post headlines ridiculing marriage ("Is
    	There Sex After Marriage?") and marriage itself is one of the
    	most popular subjects for derisive jokes.
    
    	**THAT** is what I'm talking about when I say that society
    	condones -- even embraces -- the behaviors that spread HIV.
    	Momentarily breaking the sexual mantra with periodic messages
    	about condom use, and passing mention of abstinence in sex-ed
    	followed by emphasis on the "but" clause that always follows
    	it, will NOT outweigh the constant diet of sexual encouragement
    	we as a society have adopted.

>>    	Would you be against that message from a moral perspective?  The
>>    	goal is the same.
>
>	Actually yes. The message it far more likey to be recieved by 
>	those that need to hear it if we do not couch it in any 
>	moralistic terms. The goal is success, not conversion.
    
    	It is the loss of the moral guidelines that society used to
    	hold that is the reason for our current problems.  The experimental
    	discarding of the moral fabric has failed miserably.  Shouting
    	out even louder the safety messages in the absence of moral
    	reasoning will not work.  You fear the moral message because 
    	you have some problem with religion.  Well morality does not
    	work because it is religious, it works because it is right,
    	and works in the absence of any particular religion.  You blind
    	yourself to the benefits of it because you see some bogeyman
    	"agenda", but while you scramble to villify religion, society
    	continues to crumble.

| <<< Note 323.315 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Kind of works the same way for "gay rights", eh Glen?


	You're right Joe. Both have people who think the extreme equals the
group as a whole. Both have people who hate them just because they are
different than they are. So for those two things which give people an
inaccurate picture of who these people are, you're right.


Glen

| <<< Note 323.312 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| And how did you determine that it came from God?
| Answer:  The part of the Bible that really counts.

	Jack, why did you ask if you were gonna provide the answer? Not an
accurate one, but an answer none the less.

     <<< Note 323.314 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

 
>    	**THAT** is what I'm talking about when I say that society
>    	condones -- even embraces -- the behaviors that spread HIV.
>    	Momentarily breaking the sexual mantra with periodic messages
>    	about condom use, and passing mention of abstinence in sex-ed
>    	followed by emphasis on the "but" clause that always follows
>    	it, will NOT outweigh the constant diet of sexual encouragement
>    	we as a society have adopted.

	Then increase the messages that tell about the risks. I mentioned
	this before and you ignored it. 


>Shouting
>    	out even louder the safety messages in the absence of moral
>    	reasoning will not work.

	And you think that telling a herion addict that drug use is
	immoral WILL work? What color is the sky in your world?

>  You fear the moral message because 
>    	you have some problem with religion. 

	I do not fear the moral message. And I don't have a problem
	with religion, per se. I do have a problem with most organized
	religions. And I have a REAL problem with religious zealots.

	What is wrong with a nice straightforward message that says
	"If you do this, you may DIE"?

	Kindly tell us how this is less effective than a message that
	says "When you die, you'll go to hell".

Jim

    <<< Note 323.318 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Then increase the messages that tell about the risks. I mentioned
>	this before and you ignored it. 
    
    	And I answered it, and you dismissed it.  Impasse.  Next point.

>	And you think that telling a herion addict that drug use is
>	immoral WILL work? What color is the sky in your world?
    
    	You are reacting to the symptoms rather than preventing the
    	disease.
    
    	What is the moral atmosphere that allows so many people to
    	require drug use?  Do you think that increasing the message
    	"You may DIE" (I borrowed from your words below) to *any*
    	volume or frequency will change the heroin addict?
    
    	Or even most cigarette smokers?

>	What is wrong with a nice straightforward message that says
>	"If you do this, you may DIE"?
    
    	Because we have already made that message.  Who hasn't already
    	heard it?

>	Kindly tell us how this is less effective than a message that
>	says "When you die, you'll go to hell".
    
    	Who said anything about hell?  That is a strawman of your own
    	making.  I said that morals could be practiced without religion.
    	Many have argued that very point in SOAPBOX over the years.
    
    	Instead of "You will go to hell," what's wrong with the message
    	"It is wrong!"  But it has to be more than just a message.  It
    	has to be a whole societal paradigm shift.  Just as the message,
    	"You may DIE" has proven to be ineffective, the mere message,
    	"It is wrong," will be equally ineffective.  At any decibel
    	level and with any frequency.  Instead we will have to make
    	a decision as a society that "We don't do that.  We don't
    	accept that.  We don't tolerate it."  It has taken decades to
    	throw away that mindset and get to the point where we are today.
    	I have no delusions that it would take less time to return to 
    	that.  
    
    	But we must.

     <<< Note 323.319 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>>	Then increase the messages that tell about the risks. I mentioned
>>	this before and you ignored it. 
    
>    	And I answered it, and you dismissed it.  Impasse.  Next point.

	You didn't answer it. You suggested (actually you inquired as
	to what I thought about) adding a "moral" message. This does
	not adress the issue of increasing the amount of education,
	it only addresses content.

>    	You are reacting to the symptoms rather than preventing the
>    	disease.
 
	I am reacting to the current reality.
   
>    	Instead of "You will go to hell," what's wrong with the message
>    	"It is wrong!"  But it has to be more than just a message.  It
>    	has to be a whole societal paradigm shift.  Just as the message,
>    	"You may DIE" has proven to be ineffective, the mere message,
>    	"It is wrong," will be equally ineffective.  At any decibel
>    	level and with any frequency.  Instead we will have to make
>    	a decision as a society that "We don't do that.  We don't
>    	accept that.  We don't tolerate it."  It has taken decades to
>    	throw away that mindset and get to the point where we are today.
>    	I have no delusions that it would take less time to return to 
>    	that.  
 
	It has only taken AIDS two decades to reach the rate that
	we have now. So while we are waiting for a return to your
	June Cleaver society, how many more people will become
	infected, how many more will die?

	And just how do you propose to force this paradigm shift?

Jim

| And just how do you propose to force this paradigm shift?


	Jim, I thought he was clear about that. Quarentine. :-)

    <<< Note 323.320 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>    	You are reacting to the symptoms rather than preventing the
>>    	disease.
> 
>	I am reacting to the current reality.
    
    	Agreed.  But doing that and nothing more locks us into 
    	merely reacting forever.
   
>	It has only taken AIDS two decades to reach the rate that
>	we have now. So while we are waiting for a return to your
>	June Cleaver society, how many more people will become
>	infected, how many more will die?
    
    	I've never said to ignore today's problems.
    
    	And you are welcome to get nasty and deride the "June Cleaver
    	society", but it's better than what you have to offer -- which
    	is the status quo.

>	And just how do you propose to force this paradigm shift?

	It can't be mandated.  It can't be legislated.  It can only
    	occur from within.  Grassroots.  I can only hope that the 
    	silent readers who have followed this string or other discussions
    	like it elsewhere can see the difference between a return to a 
    	sensible morality versus the status quo versus a continued decline 
    	in society.

              <<< Note 323.321 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	Jim, I thought he was clear about that. Quarentine. :-)

	We move from a quarrantine for HIV+ status to a quarrantine
	for having "impure thoughts"?? Yeah, that's the ticket!

	;-)

Jim

     <<< Note 323.322 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Agreed.  But doing that and nothing more locks us into 
>    	merely reacting forever.
 
	Agreed. But the discussion was about increasing education
	and the content of that education. It was not about other
	proactive activity.

>    	I've never said to ignore today's problems.
 
	But the only "solution" that you have offered to deal with
	today's problems you have publicly repudiated.

>    	And you are welcome to get nasty and deride the "June Cleaver
>    	society"

	Nasty, you call that nasty?

>but it's better than what you have to offer -- which
>    	is the status quo.

	Better than favoring ignorace? Better than lying to potential
	victims of this disease? Both of which you have offered us.

Jim

    Jim:
    
    You can have all the impure thoughts you want.  Just keep your pants
    on...I think that's the bottom line.
    
    The base message of Christianity is that we do have impure
    thoughts...the Spirit battling against the flesh and all that
    stuff...so you can dispell the myth that we say you can't have impure
    thoughts.  However, as Christians I see a need for a daily renewal of
    the mind.  This can take a lifetime of can happen in a short period.
    
    The paradigm shift is needed Jim.  You screw...you could die...end of
    story.  What I don't like is peoples assumptions that the human race is
    destined to act like a bunch of uncontrolled barn animals and
    that...we're going to do it anyway!  That isn't the case and it can
    be curbed as is plainly shown in other societies.
    
    -Jack  

        <<< Note 323.325 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    You can have all the impure thoughts you want.

	Why thank you. I know my weekend will be much more enjoyable.

>  Just keep your pants
>    on...I think that's the bottom line.
 
	Ooops, there goes the weekend. Should I have my wife call you
	if she doesn't understand this new paradigm?

Jim

    <<< Note 323.324 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Agreed. But the discussion was about increasing education
>	and the content of that education. It was not about other
>	proactive activity.
    
    	Says who?

>	But the only "solution" that you have offered to deal with
>	today's problems you have publicly repudiated.
    
    	You haven't been reading.

>	Nasty, you call that nasty?
    
    	Oh, true.  You can get much nastier.  (I'm not sure if you
    	are proud of this or not...)  You did real well yesterday,
    	but I noticed you falling back again, so I made a mention
    	of it.  That's all.

     <<< Note 323.327 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


>>	Agreed. But the discussion was about increasing education
>>	and the content of that education. It was not about other
>>	proactive activity.
    
>    	Says who?

	Are truly this obtuse? I asked you about increasing the AMOUNT
	of education to offest the, according to you, inundation of
	behavioral signals from the "entertainment industry". You 
	chose to NOT answer the question by diverting the discussion
	to content.

>>	But the only "solution" that you have offered to deal with
>>	today's problems you have publicly repudiated.
    
>    	You haven't been reading.

	It is true that you came up with an inane Pollyanna idea
	about changing the mores of the entire society "in a few
	decades". But that suggestion does not deal with the current
	reality.

Jim

    	Now *THAT* is the Jim Percival we've come to know and love!

	But will you answer him Joe or just keep up the diversion?

    Jim:
    
    Obviously a message directed to the promiscuous.
    
    -Jack

    Woman with AIDS sues S.J. dental clinic

    By Donna Alvarado
    Mercury News Staff Writer

    A Mountain View couple filed suit Wednesday in Santa Clara County
    Superior Court alleging that a San Jose dental clinic refused to serve
    the woman after she said she has AIDS.

    The clinic, South Bay Health Center, denied that it discriminated
    against the 33-year-old woman, Nanette Sanchez -- or anybody else who
    has AIDS. ``It didn't happen,'' said Michael Bradley, a San Francisco
    attorney representing the clinic.

    But Sanchez and her husband, Michael, contend in their suit that they
    were turned away from the clinic Dec. 10 after they came in response to
    a promotional offer for a $25 ``two-for-one'' teeth cleaning.

    The couple's attorneys, from the non-profit Public Interest Law Firm,
    said the suit was filed as a way to ``declare war'' on health care
    facilities that violate laws prohibiting discrimination against
    patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. ``No longer will we
    sit by while the law is violated,'' Patricia Price, one of the
    attorneys, said at a news conference Wednesday to publicize the case.

    Price said she did not know of any previous AIDS-discrimination suits
    filed against a health care provider in Santa Clara County.

    According to the suit, the Sanchezes arrived at the clinic and were
    given health questionnaires. Nanette Sanchez filled out hers, stating
    that she had AIDS, and returned it to the receptionist with a $25
    check.

    Several minutes later, the suit said, the couple were shown to a
    cubicle, were told that the clinic did not treat patients with AIDS and
    were given the name of a clinic that accepts those with AIDS.

    ``It's an outrage,'' Price said at the news conference as she displayed
    the $25 check the Sanchezes wrote to the clinic. She said the clinic's
    action violated federal, state and local laws.

    The suit seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting the clinic from
    discriminating against patients with AIDS. Superior Court Judge Richard
    Turrone on Wednesday scheduled a hearing on the matter for April 4.

    Price said the couple would not have filed the suit if the clinic had
    been willing to adopt a policy banning AIDS discrimination. But
    Bradley, the attorney for the clinic, said it was unnecessary to have
    such a policy.

    ``The people at South Bay Health Center will testify they don't have
    any policy against treating AIDS patients -- never have and never
    will,'' Bradley said. ``The allegation that Mrs. Sanchez was declined
    treatment because she had AIDS was not true, and we'll prove it.''

    Price said the Public Interest Law Firm has handled eight similar cases
    since 1991, all of which were settled out of court before a suit was
    filed.

    In most of those cases, she said, the facility either acknowledged a
    mistake or agreed to adopt a policy prohibiting any discrimination
    against AIDS patients. ``This is the first defendant that has not been
    cooperative,'' she said, referring to South Bay Health Center.

    A spokesman for the California Dental Association said refusing to
    serve AIDS patients is considered unethical under guidelines adopted by
    the American Dental Association.

    ``Dentists aren't supposed to discriminate against HIV-infected
    patients,'' John Galbraith said. ``They could be bounced from our
    association. It's something we don't put up with.''

    Published 3/16/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.

    interesting story on 60 Minutes last night about a diagnosed case
    from which a man died in England in 1959. he probably contracted it
    in 1948 - 1949 while a teenager (25 yrs old when he died). by all
    accounts, he was a healthy heterosexual male.
    
    opinion is that the disease could've been around 80-200yrs ago. it
    simply was diagnosed under other known illnesses. 
    
    they also stated there is no hope in determining how he contracted/
    developed the disease.
    
    Chip

	Well, I just got my mail and got something from the Living Center. It
is a safe haven for people struggling with HIV/AIDS in Boston. They have talked
about where they are getting the funding from. 

	 1%   Other
	18%   Foundations and Corporations
	21%   Individuals
	60%   Government

	It would seem while the government does fund 60% of their total budget,
it surely could not fund it all if we went by the way of quarrentine. 

    A Crosspost from Yukon::Christian
    
    I had a discussion this week with both of my boys regarding Aids and
    HIV.  I was surprised at the amount of misinformation they had and as
    well lack of understanding  just what *is* the disease.
    
    Overall we spent 1.5 hours me with marker in hand diagramming and
    writing things on a white board.  I found this to be one of the most
    positive experiences of parenting that I've enjoyed so far.
    
    I used a book entitled FACTS of LIFE which have pop out pages of both
    the male and female reproductive organs, including pull tabs that make
    certain parts move.  But no it doesn't simulate intercourse!!!
    
    However it does have a sperm page with a pull tab that makes the sperm
    wiggle!  The kids were a little concerned they had something ALIVE
    developing in them.  But as we moved on in the discussion, they
    became more comfortable not only with their own bodies, but in
    understand a woman's.
    
    The kids asked *so* many questions... and were blunt as usual with
    their own personal experiences. :-)  As limited as they are, what a joy
    to have the opportunity as a parent to guide them in this way.
    
    The end result was a question I asked them.
    
    What is safe sex?
    
    Their responses were unanimous.
    
    
    WAIT... be a virgin, marry a virgin  or HAVE blood tests.
    
    
    

	Nancy, GREAT note! Thanks for posting it.


Glen

    .335 no offense intended,but praise be that I haven`t got parents who
    talked to me about the facts of life for 1.5 hours,and showed me a pop
    up pork sword.
    
    
    
    
    

    nancy,
    
    One thing bothers me about the following:
    
        >>What is safe sex?
    
        >>WAIT... be a virgin, marry a virgin  *or* HAVE blood tests.
    
    Or have blood tests?  What. no discussion of defenses while waiting for
    the blood test to come back?  You need at least a couple over six
    months to have an idea that you are, indeed HIV -.  since this was an
    *or*, not an and, I am concerned that your boys may not have all the
    facts here.
    
    meg

    re: .335
    
    Nancy, I think you must be one courageous woman. :-)
    When I think of the possibility of my poor mother, who couldn't 
    even say the word "sex" without dropping her voice to a whisper, 
    handing me a pop up book about the facts of life, I have
    to get a napkin to wipe my eyes. And no, I'm not crying.... :-)
    
    I'm sure your boys will considered themselves blessed many
    times over in years to come for the gifts of your strength
    and frankness.
    
    Mary-Michael

    re .338
    
    meg, are you just being sarcastic with this note or do you mean it ??

| <<< Note 323.340 by SNOFS1::DAVISM "And monkeys might fly outa my butt!" >>>


| meg, are you just being sarcastic with this note or do you mean it ??

	I can't speak for meg, but what she has said is absolutely true.


Glen

    Do you not think that the information Nancy had provided her children
    with was enough for one day ??? I mean talk about over load !!!!
    
    I do agree with what Meg has said regarding the additional information
    but think that what Nancy had discussed with her kiddies was quite 
    enough. Especially considering how old they are.

    Coming away from that discussion..... I read an extremely small
    articale in a Sydney newspaper the other day (less than 15 words) which
    announced that the Chinese had developed a cure/vacine for AIDs that
    had a 52% success rate. 
    
    Anyone know anymore information ??

    Vaccine..yes I know.

    Martin,you mean your Mum never showed you a book with a pop up
    bell-end?? A deprived child hood you must of had.
    
    
    

| <<< Note 323.342 by SNOFS1::DAVISM "And monkeys might fly outa my butt!" >>>


| Do you not think that the information Nancy had provided her children with was
| enough for one day ??? I mean talk about over load !!!!

	If you read my .336, you would see I made no mention of anything except
praise for the note. But when meg brought it up, I agreed that what she said
was 100% true. 

| but think that what Nancy had discussed with her kiddies was quite enough. 
| Especially considering how old they are.

	At one time age might have meant something. In todays world, does it
really? The younger a child can learn about life, the better prepared they will
be. Remember back when all you had to do was tell your kids don't talk to
strangers? Now you gotta tell them that and MUCH more. 


Glen

    No I wasn't being sarcastic.  The "or" has me concerned that these kids
    don't know about condoms, and their use in assisting in the prevention
    of disease, and I don't just mean AIDS.  There is another incurable
    disease which can be fatal which is transmitted with the same vectors
    as HIV.  fortunately there is now an immunization for it, and the same
    basic protection methods against it also work for HIV and a cousin of
    this one.  Can you say Hepatitis B, and Non-A Non-B hep?  Non-A nonB
    has now immunization is tranmitted sexually and goes choronic with
    major liver damage quite easily.  
    
    meg

    
    Just an aside and for FYI...
    
    I know someone who works for a plastics company and was related the
    following by the owner...
    
     It seems the owner was approached last year by a maker of latex gloves
    and asked if there was some substitute for those (latex) gloves that
    could be marketed and sold.
    
      It seems this latex glove maker found out that latex would not stop
    the HIV virus and was frantically searching for a substitute.
    
      The plastics company owner told them he knew of none that would be
    commercially viable for him to produce...
    
      There were never any follow-up conversations/calls by this glove
    maker...
    
    
      Wonder what happened?
    

I suspect you have the story wrong.  There are people who are severely allergic 
to latex.  Medical personnel need non-latex gloves to treat them.  There are
substitutes.  This was discussed in the MEDICAL notesfile a few months ago.

    
    No Gerald... I remember the allergic problem...
    
    This was entirely different...
    
    The owner was specifically told about the HIV problem verbally, and
    when he asked for them to send something written, they refused...

    I'd be amazed if the gloves did not filter a virus.
    
    It's probably more like they do not provide sufficient protection
    against needle pokes, scalpel cuts, or bites.

    <<< Note 323.335 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
    
>    What is safe sex?
>    
>    Their responses were unanimous.
>    
>    WAIT... be a virgin, marry a virgin  or HAVE blood tests.
    
	Pretty much anything you could put after the "or" jeopardizes 
    	what safe sex really is.    

| <<< Note 323.352 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| >    WAIT... be a virgin, marry a virgin  or HAVE blood tests.

| Pretty much anything you could put after the "or" jeopardizes
| what safe sex really is.


	I think the "or" already did that.


Glen

    Of course, if you take into consideration that people
    can and do lie.....nothing is really safe, is it?
    

    >        . Can you say Hepatitis B, and Non-A Non-B Hep?
    
    
    Errrr... yeah I can actually, you see I'm quite clever that way. Do I 
    get a medal now ?
    
    Anyway...
    
    Re: Your last note... That has nothing to do with the point I was
    trying to make.  How much information can children take on at any one
    time ??? I, for sure, would probably have been quite bored after a
    long discussion on something that really didn't interest me too much.
    
    There are loads of diseases which can be transmitted by un-protected
    sexual interaction (cool word, huh?). I mean VD didn't die out in the
    '60s. These deseases may be treatable but they can still cause a great
    deal of discomfort and quite a few problem.
    
    Herpes.. my dick is ruined.

    By the way I missed of a few :*) :*) by mistake in my last note.

    Good point Meg..
    
    We actually did discuss protection or condoms by my using a latex glove
    over my hand. :-)  The  1.5 hours wasn't my doing, it was their
    responses and desire to ask questions that led to the length of the
    discussion.  I was the one who said, ENOUGH! :-)
    
    BTW, I've heard reported that the HIV virus is .04 in size and that the
    pore size of most condoms are .06.  Anybody else  have information
    regarding this?
    
    Nancy

    I'll grab a snarf when it hits me in the eye!

RE: 323.357 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

> BTW, I've heard reported that the HIV virus is .04 in size and that the
> pore size of most condoms are .06.  Anybody else  have information
> regarding this?

Water is made of particles much much smaller than an HIV virus.  Fill your 
glove with water and see what happens.


Phil

| <<< Note 323.358 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| I'll grab a snarf when it hits me in the eye!


	Make sure that snarf is wearing a condom!

	Hey Nancy, is that a pop-up snarf??? :-)

    
      I put something about the miraculous self-cure being reported
     of an infant born HIV+ in the News Boxers note.  If there exists
     SOME means for a human body to eradicate the virus, even though
     we dunno what it is, how does this change things ?
    
      bb

    A. The child will be hunted down by AIDS research zealots and kept as an
    experiment in a secret lab in the bowels of Montana searching for the 
    cure.
    
    B. Neoconservatives will squeal with delight at the opportunity to
    reduce funding since a cure has been found.  
    
    C. The religious right will claim it is an act of God and point to it
    as a harbinger of His good grace and the last call for people to flock
    towards salvation.  
    
    D. The moral decay will decline as everyone sighs collectively in
    relief that the previous levels of debauching can now resume.  Look for
    swingers club franchise opportunities in a school district near you.   
    
    E. It will be poo-pooed by research funding recipients as a freak of
    nature and a funding feeding frenzy will ensue as we are on the
    threshold of major breakthrough, if we only had more money.  
    
    F. Paramount will make a movie of it.  	
    
    

    I pick C!   8^)

    In all seriousness, I hope this does accelerate the reasearch since
    there appears to be a naturally occuring mechanism to fight this. 
    Maybe a trigger can be found.  I hope this does not provide a
    relaxation on the education and awareness.  Even though there may be
    some hope however small, it will be years and many more victims dead
    before a cure/effective treatment is found.  
    
    Brian

    You and Andy already did Steve.  See, my prediction was right. :-) :-).  

    
     I woulda picked "A"...
    

    Actually, A & C could both be correct at the same time...

    I'm not sure why this particular child has been so newsworthy,
    there have been several "self cures" in HIV+ people. Actually,
    there's no "self cure" involved here or in the other cases,
    the antibodies to the virus (which is what they test for)
    simply "went away". Now the real question is, is the child
    (and the other people who were "cured") still carrying the
    virus?

    Most of the "cured" people are participating in a study
    to determine what is happening. Of course, there may be
    many "cured" people. It could turn out that most people
    that have been infected manage to overcome the virus,
    without wide-spread testing, it can't be determined.

    It's worth noting that one of those that were "cured"
    was a gay man who, prior to learning of his HIV+ status,
    was quite promiscuous. After learning he was HIV+, he
    joined a New Age religious group and took up holistic
    healing. You can deduce what you want with regard to
    "miracles" in this case... :-)

    I believe the real answer to the question, however, will
    be in some genetic variation in these individuals which
    thwarts the replication of the virus.

    -b

    
    See how the fates their gifts allot
    For "A" is happy, "B" is not
    But "B" is worthy, I dare say,
    Of more prosperity than "A".
    (Is "B" more worthy?)
    I should say he's worth a great deal more than "A".
    
    Yet "A" is happy
    Oh so happy
    Laughing, ha ha
    Chaffing, ha ha
    Nectar quaffing, ha ha ha!
    Ever joyous, ever gay
    Happy undeserving "A".
    Ever joyous, ever gay
    Happy undeserving "A".
    
    If I were Fortune, which I'm not
    "B" should enjoy "A"'s happy lot
    And "A" should die in misery
    That is, assuming I am "B".
    (But should "A" perish?)
    That should he
    Of course, assuming I am "B".
    
    "B" should be happy
    Oh so happy
    Laughing, ha ha
    Chaffing, ha ha
    Nectar quaffing, ha ha ha!
    But condemned to die is he
    Wretched, meritorious "B"
    But condemned to die is he
    Wretched, meritorious "B".
                  

    .371
    
    A way _cool_ G&S ditty that!
    
    -b

Was its inclusion inspired by the multiple choice question or by "ever gay?"

    
    {rolls eyes}
    
    8^)

	Deb, very nice..... how about gettin someone famous to sing with ya? A
duet of some sort. I would choose Bon Jovi, as at one time you had the same hair

    
      Well, I dunno the truth of the report.  But it demonstrates what
     is wrong with the "You reap what you sow" argument, for me anyway.
    
      It's not that I think highly of promiscuity.  It is no surprise to
     me that some people who do outlandish things end in misery.
    
      It's that disease-as-avenging-angel seems illogical.  Suppose there
     is a cure found ?  You reap something different ?  Recall they used
     to say the same thing about syphilis, until a cure was found.
    
      No, diseases are diseases.  All the politicians and theologians and
     victims and relatives can jump up and down and scream, "The problem
     is hate !!"  But they are wrong.
    
      And all the anti-gays and religious moralists and scared-speechless
     leper-stay-aways can scream, "The problem is immorality".  And they
     are just as wrong.
    
      The problem is a virus, a thing.  It is not immoral.  It hates
     nobody.  The solution will be found as usual, by looking closely,
     for a long time, figuring it out, and devising a counter.
    
      And in the meantime, we'll all get mad at each other, to no purpose.
    
      bb

                     <<< Note 323.376 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>      Well, I dunno the truth of the report.  But it demonstrates what
>     is wrong with the "You reap what you sow" argument, for me anyway.
    
    	How so?
    
>      It's that disease-as-avenging-angel seems illogical.  
    
    	That *IS* illogical.  Reap-what-you-sow is not the same
    	as disease-as-avenging-angel!
    
>      Suppose there
>     is a cure found ?  You reap something different ?  Recall they used
>     to say the same thing about syphilis, until a cure was found.
    
    	Cure or not, people still reap syphilis through many of the same 
    	behaviors that they can reap AIDS from.  Unwanted pregnancies are
    	also fruits of reap-what-you-sow.  So too many times are divorce,
    	broken homes, child and/or spouse abuse, bankruptcy, drug
    	dependence, and so many other things.  Reap-what-you-sow doesn't
    	have to end in death, nor does it have to be related to anything
    	sexual at all.  It just means that if you put yourself in harm's
    	way, you may end up harmed.
    
>      All the politicians and theologians and
>     victims and relatives can jump up and down and scream, "The problem
>     is hate !!"  But they are wrong.
    
    	Who is actually saying that?
    
>      And all the anti-gays and religious moralists and scared-speechless
>     leper-stay-aways can scream, "The problem is immorality".  And they
>     are just as wrong.
    
    	Many immoral things are precisely what put people "in harm's way."
    	you are correct, the immoral behavior doesn't cause AIDS.  A
    	biological process does.  The point about reap-what-you-sow is
    	that without those "harm's way" immoralities, that biological
    	process rarely gets started.  (And to limit that call to morality
    	as being merely directed at gay behavior is unfair.)

    <<< Note 323.370 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

-b,

From what I've read/heard, the reason this case is newsworthy is that it is 
the first and only instance of "cure" that is clinically demonstrated. 
There have been numerous other reports of once-positive people turning up 
negative, but these have all been rather loosely documented. Whereas this 
one was watched closely. The child was tested at birth (born of an AIDS 
mother). Tested again a few months later with the most sophisticated tests 
available, and still tested positive - not just to antibodies but to 
identify the actual virus, I believe. Then, at one year, it was tested 
again. All the the same tests. No virus. No antibodies. Now, at 5 years, 
still no sign of HIV. Never happened before. Other cases could be explained 
as false positive (or false negatives). No doubt on this one.

That's news.

 

    natural selection
    
    ric

    >mother). Tested again a few months later with the most sophisticated tests 
    >available, and still tested positive - not just to antibodies but to 
    >identify the actual virus, I believe. Then, at one year, it was tested 
    >again. All the the same tests. No virus. No antibodies. Now, at 5 years, 
    >still no sign of HIV. Never happened before. Other cases could be explained 

    Tom,

    My understanding is that no test which directly tests for HIV
    is available... that only indirect evidence -- the presence
    of antibodies -- can be tested for.

    However, using this indirect test they can infer the presence
    of HIV. They mix blood from an infected person with blood
    from someone who is known not to be infected; if antibodies
    appear in the mixed blood, the first person is still infected.

    -b

     Brian-
    
     I believe that the "HIV test" tests for antibodies as you stated.
    However, they are able to isolate the virus and check its DNA. So there
    is a method of finding the virus when it's present, it's just expensive
    so it isn't done as a test for HIV.

David Duke said in an interview that people with AIDS should be given
glow-in-the-dark tattoos.

    
    	Wherever they stand out best, of course.
    

    The right hand or the forehead.

    Stop making references to h e with double hockey sticks  :-o

| <<< Note 323.386 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Stop making references to h e with double hockey sticks  :-o

	But Jack, they had to mention who said it... :-)

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|              I N T E R O F F I C E  M E M O R A N D U M
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    TO:  Remote Addressee                        DATE:  May 12, 1995
                                                 FROM:  Glen Silva  @HLO
                                                        BIGQ::SILVA
                                                 EXT:   225-6306
                                                 LOC/MAIL STOP:  HLO2-1/C12


    SUBJECT:  Notice re:  AIDS Walks Pre-Registration


        Pre-Register for the Boston and/or Worcester AIDS Pledge Walks


   Employees taking part in either the, "From All Walks of Life" in Boston
   on Sunday June 4th, or the "Walk for Life" in Worcester on Sunday, June
   11th, can pre-register at the Digital HLO facility on Friday, June 2nd, 
   from 1:00 - 5:00pm for the Boston Walk, and on Friday, June 9th, from
   1:00 - 5:00pm for the Worcester Walk in the OLD HLO1 Lobby. Bring your 
   checks and/or cash along with your pledge sheets. (The OLD HLO1 lobby
   is on the right side of the facility if you are facing the front of it)

   All Digital walkers will receive any incentive prizes earned from both
   the Boston and/or Worcester organizers.

   For pledge sheets, directions, or more information, contact either Glen 
   Silva (BIGQ::SILVA or DTN 225-6306) or Chris Conran (BIGQ::CONRAN or DTN 
   225-4749). Also, check out the AIDS Walk notesfile for the latest 
   information about the Walks. You'll find it at  WECARE::AIDS_WALK

   Please remember that Digital Equipment Corporation will NOT be matching
   funds this year.

<----feel free to distribute if you would like

    I have a question !
    
    I forgot to post this...... I was  watching this program on TV a while 
    back and someone on this program (fiction) said "I'm HIV Positive, I was 
    involved in a bar fight and got bitten by this man" Now my question is
    how did he become HIV+ from a bite ? Would the guy who bit him have to 
    have had blood in the general area of his mouth for the virus to have
    transfered ?             
    

I don't know how the knowledge around this has changed recently, but I
recall as many as eight or nine years ago that HIV was found to be carried
in all bodily fluids, including saliva and tears. If that's still expected
to be true, saliva to the blood stream in an open wound seem to be a perfect
vector. The point of entry generally needs to be direct transmission to
the blood stream, as opposed to through intact mucous membranes.

Not in reference to the last question, but I had to put my two cents worth
    in on this topic......




    It doesn't matter how much information you have about AIDS, if you 
don't use that information, you could die.  It is not the lack of sexual
awareness, but the failure to live by that awareness, that is devastating
today's society.  Young adults hear the statistics relating to the dangers
of leading a promiscuous life.  They don't listen to the reality that it is
all too likely they will become part of the statistics themselves unless 
they change their ways.  This is an international problem which occurs in
all classes of society.  It needs to be dealt with on a grand scale.
    
    
    As Robert C. Noble points out in his essay, "There is No Safe Sex",
a recent study shows the percentage of sexually active college women who
use condoms rose from twelve percent in 1975 to forty one percent in 1989.
Though this is a large increase, it is still a minority.  These are intelligent
young women.  Yet fifty nine percent of these educated young people choose
to partake in threatening sexual activities.  They know the risks involved.
Still, they tell themselves 'it can't happen to me'.  In every case it can
happen to them, and in a growing number of those cases, it does happen.  They
put their lives on the line every time they have sex.

    
    In the book, Voices That Care, compiled by Neal Hitchens, there is an essay
by Jackie Iszard.  Ms. Iszard tells about how her brother Daniel contracted
the AIDS virus.  Daniel, a postal worker, was diagnosed with AIDS in 1986.
A woman he had dated on and off for several years had become pregnant from
another man.  She gave birth to the child then gave the baby up for adoption.
A short time later the baby was diagnosed with AIDS, and the adoptive parents
contacted the birth mother.  She was tested right away.  The tests came back
positive.  She then had the task of informing Daniel.  He was tested, and
found to have the AIDS virus also.  Because Daniel thought he was 'safe'
from this disease, he never used any type of protection. His girlfriend felt
the same about herself.  This irresponsible way of thinking led first to an
unwanted pregnancy, and ultimately to the deaths of three people.  They knew 
what the risks were, yet they chose to ignore the facts.


    The information contained in the book, Women In The World: An International
Atlas, is revolting.  Whole governments of countries ignore the fact that 
loose sex is deadly.  They have elected or hired officials that see the 
medical reports every day, yet they still choose to look the other way. Even
with the evidence stacking up daily about AIDS, these governments legalize
prostitution.  With or without their so-called government regulations,
legalized prostitution is a breeding ground for sexually transmitted diseases.
The devastation this could cause is far greater than another world war.  
Prostitution is legal and regulated in such countries as Canada, Australia,
India, Burma, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Greece, 
and Mexico, to name a few.  You can charter a 'Sex Tour' from the U.S.A.,
Japan, or the Netherlands.  These tours go to all the famous brothels in 
Thailand, Manila, and South Korea.  Before you go booking a trip on one of 
these excursions, remember that no government regulations can guarantee
you will be safe from AIDS.  These prostitutes have sex with literally 
hundreds of men and women each year.  This is potentially deadly activity.


    It only takes one indiscretion to ruin your entire life.  All of your goals
could be shattered in an instant for the benefit of an orgasm.  Young educated
people ignore these facts daily.  Entire nations condone activities that have
proven fatally harmful time and time again.  Someone dies from AIDS or AIDS 
Related Complex every twenty three minutes in this country.  Don't allow
yourself to be its next victim.  Listen to what you are hearing.  It may save
your life, or the life of someone you love.


    (You guessed it....this was my last essay assignment for school.)
    

    
    
    Good note, Terrie, thanks.
    
    
    Mike

Uh Terri, you left out one country...the U.S.

Bob

    If anybody has this, I would be interested in some sort of chart
    stating the current known numbers of HIV infected individuals
    throughout the country.  Anybody have this?
    
    Thanks.
    
    -Jack

    
    Senator Helms wants to cut federal funding for AIDS research
    and treatment because he says... 
    
    "AIDS patients engage in deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct"
    
    (Helms is really out of touch)
    
    Newt was asked about Helms comments and Newt suggested AIDS funding was too
    high.  He says "The amount we spend on AIDS compared to Alzheimer's is
    grotesquely out of proportion to the number of people affected by the
    research".  
    
    Newt feels the matter should be looked into by a scientific panel.

    
    The last time I looked, the two leading medical research areas were
    still heart disease and cancer (between 15-20 billion), just like
    they should be.  AIDS was third, like 8-9 billion, which is mildly
    overfunded compared to other second-tier diseases.  But is this
    really a good test - how many sufferers/deaths ?  I don't think so.
    I think that to do a real cost/benefit, you have to estimate the
    likelihood of success - which once again leads to cancer, the Big C,
    as number one priority.  So Newt is correct if you want the rational
    answer, scientists ought to be in on the decision, as at NASA.  But
    politically, of course, this is hopeless.
    
     As to Helms' remark - well, it's irrelevant.  We're not about to
    apportion medical care by some sort of moral calculus.  Of course,
    coming from a tobacco state, you can see where Helms might be coming
    from politically.  He's not as dumb as he tries to sound.
    
     bb

    
    
    is helms the person i heard quoted as saying something along the lines
    of "...people with aids only have themselves to blame..."???

    
    Probably.  He is known for saying such things.
    
    Mary
    

    Raq:
    
    AIDS propogated itself through illicit behavior.  Now I have no use for
    Mr. Helms methods and his way of communicating...but let's stop kidding
    ourselves.  Let's remove the PC hats we tend to put on from time to
    time.
    
    AIDS is mainly spread through activities that the right considers
    immoral.  One need not be a rocket scientist to avoid AIDS...it is
    quite easy to do.  You don't sleep around, and you don't do drugs.
    Heck, even the AIDS activists recognize this by promoting the myth 
    of Safe Sex.  Now I agree that there are many victims of AIDS who 
    contracted it through no fault of their own.  Babies born with it,
    blood transfusions, etc.  But let's focus on the majority...the ones
    who contracted it through their behavior.  Now I ask you, if they don't
    have themselves to blame, then whose fault is it?!
    
    -Jack

    <--- Good point. Very good.

    
    > who contracted it through their behavior.  Now I ask you, if they don't
    > have themselves to blame, then whose fault is it?!

    The Republicans ?

    But seriously, very few people will EVER admit that they are wrong.  I
    believe Al Capone referred to himself as "misunderstood."  He believed
    that he was a philanthropist.
    
    Dan

    ZZ      By Jack Martin's logic, we should also cut spending for lung
    ZZ       cancer and heart disease -- those smokers and overweight people
    ZZ       have only their behavior to blame.
    
    Topes...my old friend!!!  How was your weekend??  How are your
    hemmerhoids doing these days??
    
    No, actually I didn't say whether or not we should cut spending.  I was
    simply addressing the issue of personal responsibility and that nobody
    wants to take ownership for their own mistakes these days!  Incidently,
    sure...why not???!  Smokers and people who don't take care of
    themselves have nobody else to blame!  My dad had two massive heart
    attacks in the early 80's.  Now I love my father and always looked up
    to him...but the man was 70 lbs overweight and he liked his beer when
    the Bruins were on.  It was HIS fault kimosabe!
    
    -Jack

    hemorrhoids.

    
    WHERE?!?!
    

    Helms is, was, and will continue to be a narrow minded, spiteful
    buffoon.  Along with suing tobacco companies, folks should sue him as
    well for lobbying in their favor.  After all, he is promoting
    irresponsible behavior.  IMO etc.  
    
    Jack, please readdress your statement that AIDS victims are such because
    of their irresponsibility.  I'm sure you meant some victims now didn't
    you.  You are also aware that some drug use exposes one to the
    possibility of contracting AIDS aren't you?  

>          You are also aware that some drug use exposes one to the
>    possibility of contracting AIDS aren't you?  

Are you talking about hemophiliacs or junkies?

    Brian:
    
    I can walk along the side of Rt. 128 and there is the possibility that
    while attempting to hitchhike, I will be struck by a car and die.  If I
    get drunk and walk along Rt. 128 in a stupor...wallowing in the
    pleasure of being drunk...and I stagger over the white line, then the
    chances of getting killed have risen exponentially higher...and I will
    most likely die.
    
    I wanted to address the MAJORITY of people dying from AIDS...because
    the MAJORITY are appropo to my second example.  People don't think,
    they succumb to their instinct, dark side, whatever you want to call
    it.  They screw around or they shoot up...then they get AIDS and wonder
    why.  Those are the ones I am addressing here, not the incidental
    victims of the disease who acted with a sense of propriety.  
    
    I find Helms generalizations equally repugnant but what I find to be
    worse is societies hell bent on having a good opinion of
    themselves...and will lie through their teeth to keep feeling good
    about themselves.  So let's spell it out.
    
    - AIDS is propogated through illicit behaivior.
    - Anybody can avoid AIDS if they try.
    - Most people can live a long life in general if they try.
    - Most HIV infected individuals throughout the world contracted AIDS
      by sleeping around and doing drugs.
    - Chastity and monogamy are the best ways to avoid the disease.
    - Human beings don't have to succumb to peer pressure and current
      social trends.
    
    Conclusion:  Don't screw around and keep away from drugs and you won't 
    have to blame yourself for anything.
    
    -Jack

    Minor nit.

    >     - Anybody can avoid AIDS if they try.

    Almost anybody, remember hemophiliacs

    hemophiliacs can avoid AIDS if they die.

    Correct.  I am speaking of people who are at risk because they choose
    to be!
    
    -Jack

    
    Driving is risky.  I just say no.
    

>    I am speaking of people who are at risk because they choose to be!

"Hey man, let's exchange bodily fluids with potentially HIV+ strangers."
"But we could get AIDS!"
"Whatsa madda, wimp?  Afraid of AIDS?  I _choose_ to take the risk."

    	Hemophiliacs are less likely to get AIDS than ever before.  Most
    	of the cases among hemophiliacs were contracted before there was
    	decent blood supply testing.
    
    --------
    
    	Recently it was reported that junior high students are most
    	concerned about getting AIDS from unsterile medical practices
    	(such as the 6 cases contracted from a dentist.)  They estimate
    	that upwards of 10% of all AIDS cases are contracted this way,
    	and this vector is the one over which they have the least 
    	control.  In reality only a miniscule proportion of AIDS
    	cases are contracted this way.
    
    	I contend that this misconception is propogated by the politically
    	correct and virtueless way that AIDS education is handled.

    The truth is, there are _thousands_ of sexually transmitted
    viruses, most of which have only _suspected_ links to other
    health problems, and most of which are undetectable given
    present technology. Among the viruses in this class are one
    or more which are suspected of causing cervical cancer.
    Some of these viruses are believed to cause genetic damage
    which may take generations to actually manifest.

    Thus, the idea of "safe sex" is of equal mythology when
    applied to AIDS _and_ marriage. Sorry to burst your bubble
    binky, but there's no such thing as "safe sex" under any
    conditions.

    On the other hand, AIDS is now identifiable, has a fairly
    well-understood (and detectable) genetic mutation process,
    and a significant enough population upon which to experiment.
    The understanding that scientists are gaining relative to
    HIV will have profound effect on cancer and other disease
    research. HIV is the perfect "laboratory" for really getting
    down to the nitty gritty of virology, and every penny we
    put into it as _science_ will benefit us immeasurably.
    On the other hand, money spent on rubbers for school kids
    is wasted...

    -b

>    	Hemophiliacs are less likely to get AIDS than ever before.  Most
>    	of the cases among hemophiliacs were contracted before there was
>    	decent blood supply testing.

Of course, there aren't all that many uninfected hemophiliacs out there.

>    Thus, the idea of "safe sex" is of equal mythology when
>    applied to AIDS _and_ marriage. Sorry to burst your bubble
>    binky, but there's no such thing as "safe sex" under any
>    conditions.

Since you have to have sex with an infected partner to get an STD, the more
partners the greater your chances of getting infected.  Do you agree that
married people tend to have fewer sexual partners that unmarried sexually
active people?

    
      "Than ever before" ?  Um, wasn't there a time when the chance
     was zero ?  AIDS wasn't reported in humans till the seventies.
    
      bb

 >Since you have to have sex with an infected partner to get an STD, the more
 >partners the greater your chances of getting infected.  Do you agree that
 >married people tend to have fewer sexual partners that unmarried sexually
 >active people?

    I agree that there is "safer" sex... but there is no such thing
    as a risk-free roll in the hay. On the other hand (pun intended)
    the risks of a good wank are greatly exaggerated! :-)

    -b

    	Lifelong-monogamous women even get fewer yeast infections
    	than multiple-partnered women.

Z    "Hey man, let's exchange bodily fluids with potentially HIV+
Z    strangers."
Z    "But we could get AIDS!"
Z    "Whatsa madda, wimp?  Afraid of AIDS?  I _choose_ to take the risk."
    
    That's it in a nutshell.  Alot of teenagers anyway!
    
    -Jack

re:      <<< Note 323.410 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

Ok, Jack, so let's assume for a moment that we're willing to buy into
your summary on the MAJORITY of AIDS victims. The issue at hand is
Helm's claim that we should drastically cut AIDS research funding
because MOST of the AIDS sufferers are lowlife scum. Do you feel that
that approach is appropriate? If we drastically cut the funding - say
by 90% - leaving enough with which to do virtually nothing of any import,
what do you expect is to be gained for the MINORITY of AIDS sufferers who
contracted it through no fault of their own? Do we just sit back  and tell
these people "Tough noogies - eat feces and die" and then go spend the remaining
10% on National AIDS Research Foundation office parties? You don't somehow
feel that we'll still have enough left to save "just the good folks" do you?
(I ask the last only because I believe Helms to be braindead enough to
 have reached that conclusion.)

    
    Helms statement doesn't seem to leave any thought for those who
    contracted AIDS under different circumstances.  He just throws everyone 
    with AIDS into his narrow minded opinion of how it is their fault, so 
    tough on them.
    
    Mary
    

    Yes, exactly.  Some AIDS victims have only their own actions to blame,
    others do not.  Not all AIDS sufferers are guilty of irresponsible
    behavior.  To broad brush them in that fashion is ignorant at best.  
    
    Brian

    
    
    Funny how slick scumbag felt he had to respond to Helms assinine
    comment.
    
    

    Joe,
    
    Hospice, etc care is covered by medicare/medicaid when the person is
    too disabled to manage to work and/or their insurance company, (if they
    were insured) drops the person.
    
    The money being spent that Helms is up in arms about is for research
    and prevention efforts.  Obviously from the sounds of the survey you
    cited, we need to work harder on getting the message of how AIDS is
    spread out to kids.  Considering that there are rarer viruses that also
    kill people after years of quiet growth, the research could save
    others' lives as well as those "undeserving" HIV + people.
    
    meg

    Jack:
    
    I think Helms made a generalization and I don't think his communication
    was well thought out at all.  
    
    I believe that AIDS in todays society is mainly propogated through acts
    of free choice.  I find the political correctness surrounding the
    disease as deplorable as any put foot in mouth politician...EQUALLY
    Deplorable.  Putting our heads in the sand is criminal in my book.  
    
    I would be interested in knowing the exact figures amongst AIDS victims
    as to who contracted the disease through drugs or promiscuous sex...and
    who got it through no act of their own free volition.  Anybody have
    this?
    
    -Jack

    	Jack --
    
    	That is a politically impolite question to ask.

    Duuuhhhhhhhhh, I tink he ment does amybuddy got da numbaas, of who
    gots da sickness, an' hows dey got its......
    
    8_)
    

Interesting commentary (partially) heard on Howie Carr this evening.
The caller was an MD involved in research (though not on AIDS). He
pointed out that medical research for viral diseases have three main
areas of concentration -
	Epidemiology - the ecology of the disease, how it's transmitted,
			how it functions, etc.
	Cure - Very rarely found for most viral infections
	Prevention - vaccine development

He then went on to point out that since AIDS is known to be a disease
with practically 100% mortality (unlike polio, measles, influenza, etc.)
and since a typical characteristic of vaccines is that they present a risk
of actually inducing the disease in some small percentage of treated
cases, how many people who are HIV negative do you think would be willing
to roll up their sleeve for the vaccine if it were discovered tomorrow?

Gingrich says scientific panel should decide AIDS funding


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Jul 6, 1995 - 12:12 EDT) -- House Speaker Newt
Gingrich says scientists, not politicians, should decide how much money
the government spends fighting AIDS and other diseases.

Responding to a suggestion by Sen. Jesse Helms that the government
should spend less on AIDS, the speaker said Wednesday in an interview
with The Associated Press that a scientific panel should make that
decision based on where medical advances are most likely to be made.

"It's got to be done by scientists," Gingrich said.

Gingrich said such a panel might say: "Here are the next seven major
breakthroughs -- we ought to make sure we have the money going into
these places. If AIDS is one of the seven, then it ought to go into AIDS.
But I think I'd like to de-politicize research decisions about biology as
much as we can."

Helms' comments in an interview with The New York Times prompted
outrage from AIDS activists.

"I think the majority of the American people want to help people who are
sick -- whether they're sick with cancer or with AIDS, said Mark Barnes,
executive director of the AIDS Action Council. "What he said was
un-American."

Helms suggested the government should think about spending so much
money fighting a disease brought on by "deliberate, disgusting, revolting
conduct," the Times reported.

"We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by
people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," Helms said.

Gingrich, asked whether he agreed with Helms, said: "In the first place
it's clear that there's a lot of people with AIDS for whom that's not true,
and secondly, I'm not going to get involved in an argument with Jesse
Helms."

In a broadcast interview Wednesday night, Gingrich described himself as
"a strong supporter of the Ryan White Act."

"I think that the example of Ryan is one we can all identify with," Gingrich
said on Mutual Radio's "Jim Bohannon Show," simulcast on the C-SPAN
cable TV network. "He was a young person who through no fault of his
own ended up contracting AIDS. And many hemophiliacs have AIDS."

The Senate soon will consider reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE
Act, named after an Indiana teen-ager who died after contracting AIDS in
a blood transfusion.

The act, for which Congress authorized $633 million this year, provides
grants to communities to help people with AIDS. It expires in September.

Reauthorizing legislation was approved unanimously by the Senate Labor
and Human Resources Committee in March, and has 61 Senate sponsors,
including Majority Leader Bob Dole. The House Commerce Committee
plans to take up similar legislation soon.

Since 1993, AIDS has been the leading cause of death among both men
and women age 24 to 44, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.



    	I wouldn't personally.  However if I lived a lifestyle that
    	is apt to expose me to the disease, I probably would consider 
    	it.

Joe Oppelt:

	Curiosity is driving me nuts.  I must know what is "to blave".

Tanx
Mikey

re: .435, Joe

I tend to agree with you, Joe. (Again???? :^)

The interesting aspect is with regard to society in general, and kids in
particular. I suspect that there's a whole lot more known about the
epidemiology of AIDS in 1995 than was known about the epidemiology of
polio in the '50s. While I think it's relatively well known that there
weren't necessarily suspect vectors of Poliomyelitis/infantile paralysis
which centered on the transmission of bodily fluids, and that certainly
does appear to be the characteristic with AIDS, I wonder if that was the
possible difference in impetus for parents of the '50s and '60s (and since)
to ensure that they adhered to vaccination guidelines for their kids?
(Ditto smallpox, etc.)

And, perhaps more interestingly, since polio has virtually been eradicated,
would we be willing to bite the bullet and take the risk if an AIDS vaccine
were available?

The hypothesis is, if you get the innoculation while HIV negative, there's
a 99.999% probability that you can never be affected by the virus. This leaves
a .001% chance that you will get it from the innoculation itself, be capable
of transmitting it to others susceptible to it (presuming you don't die before
having said opportunity), and that you will eventually succomb to it.

What's the best solution for society if that happens to be among the options?

I believe there are currently laws regarding what vaccinations children in
'Murrica and other countries must receive. If there were an AIDS vaccine,
with the associated risk, should there be such laws regarding same?

| <<< Note 323.410 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>



| - AIDS is propogated through illicit behaivior.

	It can be if one does not be careful. And I mean more than safe sex.
Not sharing needles, KNOWING your partners status. 

| - Anybody can avoid AIDS if they try.

	That applies to the above.

| - Most HIV infected individuals throughout the world contracted AIDS
| by sleeping around and doing drugs.

	True.

| - Chastity and monogamy are the best ways to avoid the disease.

	True.

| - Human beings don't have to succumb to peer pressure and current
| social trends.

	True

| Conclusion:  Don't screw around and keep away from drugs and you won't
| have to blame yourself for anything.

	If by don't screw around means having one night stands with one you
don't know, I agree. If you include pre-marital sex, I disagree. See my reply
to your 1st statement.



Glen

| <<< Note 323.430 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| I would be interested in knowing the exact figures amongst AIDS victims as to 
| who contracted the disease through drugs or promiscuous sex...and who got it 
| through no act of their own free volition.  Anybody have this?

	Jack, I could give this to you, but I won't. What I will do is tell you
where you can find it. The CDC has this information. You can get it from them.
The reason why I asked you to find out the information is because I'd like to
see you personally get involved in this, and not just look at a bunch of
numbers. 


Glen

| <<< Note 323.431 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| That is a politically impolite question to ask.

	Actually, it is not. A little less of the stuff above, and a little
more fact, and we might be able to do away with people who think like Helms.


Glen

| <<< Note 323.435 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| I wouldn't personally. However if I lived a lifestyle that is apt to expose me
| to the disease, I probably would consider it.

	Well lets hope that you never get it any of the other ways that you and
Helms seem to be forgetting about.


Glen

Haemophiliacs have a somewhat more difficult time - they can't really ASK who 
the donors are, and theirs is NOT a lifestyle choice (apart from choosing to 
live). There has been a case reported in Australia whereby a number of 
patients attending the same doctors' surgery were infected with HIV. Theirs 
was not a lifestyle choice either.

Finger pointing doesn't help - education of those who _do_ have choices, 
patience, tolerance, research and $$$$ WILL help.

Chele

    
    I think we're probably overspending on AIDS research too, given the
    actual numbers of people infected/dying, and the costs of all that
    treatment and care.
    
    But it's not an issue I'd take with me into the ballet box; maybe there
    are social benefits from the expenditure that provide sufficient
    payback.

                  <<< Note 323.440 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| That is a politically impolite question to ask.
>
>	Actually, it is not. A little less of the stuff above, and a little
> more fact, and we might be able to do away with people who think like Helms.

    	Actually, Helms was pretty close in his statement.  He just said
    	it in a politically impolite way.
    
    	Behavior choice **IS** the primary reason for the spread of the
    	disease -- and not just for a simple majority of cases.  Those
    	who want to continue to encourage, support and participate in
    	those behavior choices need the exception cases to legitimize
    	their behavior choices.  Nobody -- even Helms I'd wager -- 
    	believes the exception cases don't exist.  Not paying homage to 
    	them is the political impoliteness, and the speaker is then
    	demonized as not having "all the facts."  
    
    	I believe that emphasizing the extreme cases is what leads
    	junior high students to believe things like 10% of all AIDS
    	cases are a result of unsterile medical practices, and fearing
    	such things more than the real primary vectors.  But at least
    	they have "all the facts"!
    
Note 323.441                     

>| I wouldn't personally. However if I lived a lifestyle that is apt to expose me
>| to the disease, I probably would consider it.
>
>	Well lets hope that you never get it any of the other ways that you and
> Helms seem to be forgetting about.
    
    	Any of the other ways are statistically insignificant when compared
    	to the lifestyle choices that ARE the primary vectors.  Any of the
    	other ways are not **APT** (that means likely) to expose me to
    	AIDS.  Yet.
    
    	Let's hope that NOBODY gets AIDS.  Through any vector.  How do
    	we achieve that dream?  Many people will say "education", but I
    	suspect that the only education that will work for most people
    	is seeing a loved one die of it.  By then it is often too late.
    	I say abstinence and morality (if perfectly adhered to I know 
    	that the disease will be wiped out within a generation) but
    	the modern world will not allow that solution to take hold.

                 <<< Note 323.442 by GIDDAY::BURT "DPD (tm)" >>>

>Finger pointing doesn't help - education of those who _do_ have choices, 
>patience, tolerance, research and $$$$ WILL help.

	Recognizing that the fault for the spread lies squarely on the
    	shoulders of those who do have choices is an important step.
    	Being able to say it without being villified would be good.
    	(Being able to articulate it without putting one's foot in
    	one's mouth as Helms did would help one not be so readily
    	villified...)
    
    	Let me ask you.  What should we be patient and tolerant of to
    	help eliminate AIDS?

    Considering that left unchecked, HIV *ultimately* might well produce a
    "Masque of the Red Death" scenario for Homo Sapiens in its entirety, 
    I don't begrudge a penny of the R&D $$s being spent on it.  Not to
    mention the CURRENT humanitarian tragedy that AIDS represents.  Imho.
    

    
    Billets-doux and Masque of the Red Death -- The Jane Asher fan club
    speaks.

re <<< Note 323.445 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	Let me ask you.  What should we be patient and tolerant of to
>    	help eliminate AIDS?

OK, let me modify and expand:
 love
 joy
 peace
 patience
 kindness
 goodness
 gentleness
 faithfulness
 self-control


Chele

    For once I am semi-impressed by Newt's apparent level headedness
    regarding funding levels.  I also do not believe Helms' statement to be
    a mere lapse of political courtesy.  It would not surprise me to hear
    him expound upon his ignorance by proclaiming it to be God's will that
    low lifes should die a horrible death because they sinned.  The fact of
    the matter is that the disease is here, among us, right now, maybe in
    the next cube.  We either deal with it and all the attendant
    unpleasantries or risk as Dr. Dan suggests a far more serious threat to
    humanity.  Education and prevention go hand in hand with searching for
    a cure or preventative vaccine.  Pontificating about the immorality of
    the majority of the current victims is a waste of time, at best.  
    
    Brian

  .446  ah, the level-headed Dan'l comes through again.  i am wichoo,
	o sagacious one.

    .449  Well said!!
    
    

    
    All the guys complain about "shock jocks".  Someone should start
    watching out for these "shock senators".  Sometimes I would if Helms
    just says these idiotic things for shock value.
    
    Keeps him in the press now doesn't it??
    
    Mary
    

    I think Helms says things like that because he believes them. The media
    enjoy the shock value, so they love to publicize such gems.

 ZZ   >       Let me ask you.  What should we be patient and tolerant of to
 ZZ   >       help eliminate AIDS?
    
    Followed by the Fruit of the Spirit.
    
    Chele, I'm sorry but I also believe there is a place in the Christian
    community for righteous indignation...and Jesus was a user of this.  I
    believe that the AIDS community would be an excellent outreach for
    ministering to people with AIDS...and I also believe it is being sorely
    neglected.
    
    However, I find compassion with the political process to be abhorrant.  
    I see alot of irresponsibility and promoting the wrong message. 
    Planned Parenthoods pamphlets with diagrams attached are a very good
    example .
    
    "Intercourse isn't the only way.  Kissing, hugging, touching,
    masturbating, oral sex, are often very exciting and stimulating."
    
    SEX, THE FIRST TIME OR ANY TIME.  Pamphlet distributed by Planned
    Parenthood.
    
    "Safer sex for lesbians includes: Use of a dental dam for oral-vaginal
    and oral-anal stimulation...use of surgical gloves when sticking your
    fingers into your partners vagina or ass...and all other wonderful
    things that lesbians do together."
    
    From Planned Parenthoods Brochure, "I THINK I MIGHT BE A LESBIAN...
    NOW WHAT DO I DO?"
    
    As Planned Parenthood's so called "Safety Dance" program designed to
    raise the awareness of AIDS among 13-18 year olds, the teacher
    instructs the kids to tape signs on the wall listing various possible
    sexual activities.  The kids are asked to rank these activities from
    least risky to most risky for contracting HIV infection.  Activities
    on the list include massage, french kissing, phone sex, sex toys,
    erotic films and magazines, showering together, masturbation, mutual
    masturbation, oral sex, intercourse with a condom, oral/anal contact,
    and anal intercourse without a condom.
    
    Finally, there is a booklet called "The Problem with Puberty",
    distributed by Planned Parenthood to teenage boys.  A picture appears 
    with a man in a bathtub with two women, a man and woman putting in a
    dental dam, and for some reason there is a dog in the picture and I
    don't even want to know what the dog is doing there.
    ---------------------------------------
    
    Okay Chele, you still think we should exercise the Fruit of the Spirit
    with these people?  Let me tell you something sobering, YOUR TAX
    DOLLARS are paying for this Chele, and what's more, our teenage
    children are the target audience.  I find posting this sort of stuff
    distasteful at best and disgusting at worst...and yet I keep hearing
    societies still somber voice in the wind saying..."Be tolerant, display
    love and random acts of kindness, don't be a bigot"  
    
    Well, that's fine and good Chele but the sobering reality, your
    children and mine are being propogandized.  
    
    -Jack

    Whatsis "Fruit of the Spirit" then?
    

    a close relative of Fruit of the Loom

    
    The grape ?
    
      bb

| <<< Note 323.444 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| Actually, Helms was pretty close in his statement. He just said it in a 
| politically impolite way.

	If you believe that Joe, then you must believe the man is a hypocrite
as well. How can he say what he did, when he has been lobbying for the tabbacco
industry all these years? Do you think he is a hypocrite Joe?

| Behavior choice **IS** the primary reason for the spread of the disease 

	Agreed.

| and not just for a simple majority of cases. Those who want to continue to 
| encourage, support and participate in those behavior choices need the 
| exception cases to legitimize their behavior choices.  

	I actually agree with the above. Anybody who wants to continue and or
support unsafe sex without knowing (as in test) their partner's status should
be included in the behavior group. They may not have it yet, but they are
risking theirs, and others lives. Two people who are hiv- can have sex with
each other without spreading the disease, and would not fit into your grouping.
That is regardless of the genders.

| Nobody -- even Helms I'd wager -- believes the exception cases don't exist.  

	It's just easier for him to push his hate onto homosexuals, who he
despises.

| >	Well lets hope that you never get it any of the other ways that you and
| > Helms seem to be forgetting about.

| Any of the other ways are statistically insignificant when compared to the 
| lifestyle choices that ARE the primary vectors.  

	Yeah, Ryan White was just an insignifigant statistic. Anyone who
contracts the disease is not an insignifigant statistic. Regardless of how they
get it.

| Let's hope that NOBODY gets AIDS. Through any vector. How do we achieve that 
| dream? Many people will say "education", but I suspect that the only education
| that will work for most people is seeing a loved one die of it.  

	I agree and disagree. I agree there will be people that will have to go
to that length before they get the message. I also think that won't stop all
people. I disagree with that because it did not take a loved one dieing to make
me change. Throughout the gay community the change has been made. Some due to
deaths, and some through the education. I think the education works because
with the education, you have involvement. From making a poster, to addressing
an audience, to getting out into the streets. Involvement is was makes
education work. 

| I say abstinence and morality (if perfectly adhered to I know that the 
| disease will be wiped out within a generation) but the modern world will 
| not allow that solution to take hold.

	Joe, if person A & person B want to have sex, they will have it. If
they do not do anything dangerous (vaginal/anal sex), they will be fine. If
they get to that point, they had better be prepared. Getting tested together is
the best way to go, as you find out right then and there, together, what the
status of each person is. If each person is HIV-, then there is no problem. The
key word here is monogomy. One night stands should be a thing of the past.



Glen

| <<< Note 323.455 by LJSRV2::KALIKOW "Buddy, can youse paradigm?" >>>

| Whatsis "Fruit of the Spirit" then?

	It might be me cuz I believe in the Holy Spirit..... :-)

    I was listening to Peter Meade the other night on the Brudnoy show.  As
    a guest, he had the AIDS Action Committee Chairman on who was taking
    calls.  He frequently mentioned that Helms message was a message of
    hate.
    
    One of the callers was up in Provincetown last week.  There was a sign
    being held up by a gay individual which said, "Oral Sex is Safer". 
    This caller thought this message was wonderful.  That the AIDS message
    of days past was one of total abstinence, i.e. if you have HIV, then
    you can do nothing.  This sign was a beacon of hope that HIV infected
    individuals can now indulge in something...
    
    Well here's my message.  Society speaks of hatemongers and the
    like...particularly Jesse Helms.  If you partake in sexual intercourse
    and in any way open up the possibility of infecting your partner...even
    if you are both informed of the situation, then I submit to you that
    this is one of the most debased forms of hate.  It is an act of
    selfishness and unconditional love is removed from the picture.  The
    word "Safer" to me means that it is still unsafe so if you really want
    to show love to your fellow man, abstain and don't share your "love
    with anybody who isn't infected.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 323.460 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| I was listening to Peter Meade the other night on the Brudnoy show. As a 
| guest, he had the AIDS Action Committee Chairman on who was taking calls. He 
| frequently mentioned that Helms message was a message of hate.

	He was correct.

| Well here's my message. Society speaks of hatemongers and the like...
| particularly Jesse Helms.  

	Well, he IS one of the more vocal ones. :-)

| If you partake in sexual intercourse and in any way open up the possibility of
| infecting your partner...even if you are both informed of the situation, then 
| I submit to you that this is one of the most debased forms of hate.  

	Wrong. It's called stupidity, selfishness, not hate. 

| It is an act of selfishness and unconditional love is removed from the 
| picture.  

	Now you have it right with the selfishness part. If the other person is
willing to partake, that is her/his decision. If the infected partner told them
up front, I'm sorry, it can not be warped into hate. I think you need to look
up what the word means.

| The word "Safer" to me means that it is still unsafe so if you really want
| to show love to your fellow man, abstain and don't share your "love with 
| anybody who isn't infected.

	I would agree with the above if they do not tell the partner. I would
not agree with the above if they did tell the partner. 


Glen

    ZZ        Wrong. It's called stupidity, selfishness, not hate. 
    
    Then Jesse Helms is not showing hate.  He's just showing his
    stupidity...stemming from his homophobia which is born of fear.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 323.462 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZ        Wrong. It's called stupidity, selfishness, not hate.

| Then Jesse Helms is not showing hate.  

	He is allowing his hate for homosexuals to cloud the issue of AIDS. It
is hate based.

| He's just showing his stupidity...

	That too.

| stemming from his homophobia which is born of fear.

	One can be a homophobe AND hate gays. Homophobia can be the reason for
the hate to develop. 

	I asked Joe this Jack, but I guess he isn't noting yet. So I will ask
you. Do you feel Jessie Helms is ALSO being a hypocrite with this?



Glen

Z    I asked Joe this Jack, but I guess he isn't noting yet. So I
Z    will ask you. Do you feel Jessie Helms is ALSO being a hypocrite with this?
    
    To a point, yes...I do. 
    
    The bottom line here is the almighty dollar Glen.  Cigarette sales may
    go down and the Clinton Administration et al may seem to really care
    for the health and welfare of Americans and particularly teenagers by
    taking a stance on cigarette smoking.  However, nations in Asia are
    importing American cigarettes in droves and Corporate America is
    profiting from them.  I find this hypocritical for government to do
    this...both democrats and republicans.
    
    Now the almighty buck part.  Our government propogates the sale of
    cigarettes and people contract lung cancer.  However, irresponsible sex
    brings NO money into the economy and hence AIDS is the great evil
    because it offers no return for it's ravage over society.  Hence, the
    irresponsible members of society are adding no value by their actions. 
    At least people who smoke themselves to the grave buy cigarettes.
    
    So yes, I do think it's hypocritcal!
    
    -Jack

    
    <-----  I'm speechless.
    

Jesse.  NNTTM.

    How's that for logic???

                  <<< Note 323.458 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	If you believe that Joe, then you must believe the man is a hypocrite
>as well. How can he say what he did, when he has been lobbying for the tabbacco
>industry all these years? Do you think he is a hypocrite Joe?
    
    	From his standpoint on his support of Tobacco, absolutely.
    
    	Personally I'd prefer to see tobacco subsidies cut before
    	anything else in the federal budget.  And yes, I believe
    	that cancers and other diseases brought on by tobacco use
    	are equally at-fault as most AIDS cases.

> | Behavior choice **IS** the primary reason for the spread of the disease 
>
>	Agreed.
    
    	Then you also agree with Helms on that point too.

>	Yeah, Ryan White was just an insignifigant statistic. Anyone who
> contracts the disease is not an insignifigant statistic. Regardless of how they
> get it.
    
    	As an individual human being, and to his family and friends, he
    	was far from insignificant.  As a matter of statistics his case
    	and his vector are STATISTICALLY not significant when compared
    	to those of sex- and drug-behavior cases.  There is a diference
    	between "statistically insignificant" from an actuarial point
    	of view (from which I was speaking) and being "an insignificant
    	statistic" from a human point of view.  I find it somewhat
    	cruel for behavior-related cases to prey upon the statistically 
    	few cases like Ryan White's.
    
    	I wonder how much support the Ryan White Bill would have received
    	had it been called the Rock Hudson Bill....

> Throughout the gay community the change has been made. 
    
    	Perhaps throughout your limited circles of the gay community.
    
    	Safe sex is NOT practiced "throughout the gay community" any
    	more than it is outside the gay community.
    
>	Joe, if person A & person B want to have sex, they will have it. 
    
    	I disagree.  Maybe you think we are unable to control ourselves,
    	but I still have hope for humankind.
    
> The key word here is monogomy. 
    
    	We've already discussed this before, Glen.  I do not agree with
    	your use of the term "monogamy".  What you have supported in the
    	past is nothing better than serial monogamy, and that will not
    	protect you from HIV as real monogamy will.

| If you partake in sexual intercourse and in any way open up the possibility of
| infecting your partner...even if you are both informed of the situation, then 
| I submit to you that this is one of the most debased forms of hate.  

	Wrong. It's called stupidity, selfishness, not hate. 

| It is an act of selfishness and unconditional love is removed from the 
| picture.  

	Now you have it right with the selfishness part. If the other person is
willing to partake, that is her/his decision. If the infected partner told them
up front, I'm sorry, it can not be warped into hate. I think you need to look
up what the word means.

	Wrong, both of you.  It's called negligent homicide!

/mtp

    Well, I find lack of caring and indifference to the life and welfare of
    another a form of hate.  That's just me though!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 323.464 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| The bottom line here is the almighty dollar Glen. Cigarette sales may go down 
| and the Clinton Administration et al may seem to really care for the health 
| and welfare of Americans and particularly teenagers by taking a stance on 
| cigarette smoking. However, nations in Asia are importing American cigarettes 
| in droves and Corporate America is profiting from them.  

	What the heck does this have to do with whether or not Helms is being
hypocritical or not? Helms was the one who stated because of their actions, the
nation should not fund their hospital bills. Yet he has been lobbying for
something that has a warning right on the side of the package. Now you said he
is a little bit hypocritical, and I would like you to explain how HE, not
anyone else now, JUST HELMS, is only a little hypocritical. Just stick with him
right now Jack, as we are discussing what he said. I asked the question about
him. Thanks you.



Glen

| <<< Note 323.468 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| > | Behavior choice **IS** the primary reason for the spread of the disease
| >
| >	Agreed.

| Then you also agree with Helms on that point too.

	No, Helms tried to get away with saying all cases were that way. So I
do not agree with him.

| I wonder how much support the Ryan White Bill would have received had it been 
| called the Rock Hudson Bill....

	I read something today that was similar to what you wrote. The article
asked why do you think it was called the Ryan White Bill, and not the Robert
Maplethorpe? 

| Safe sex is NOT practiced "throughout the gay community" any more than it is 
| outside the gay community.

	How can you make the above statement? You don't even know what is going
on throughout the gay community, do you? 

Glen

| <<< Note 323.470 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Well, I find lack of caring and indifference to the life and welfare of
| another a form of hate.  That's just me though!

	Jack, if the person has said nothing, yes. If they have told the
partner, no.


Glen

    .472 Glen, you would agree with that statement if a word like
         "generally" practiced (safe sex)?
    
         Statistically, the gay community numbers as the highest category.
    
         A recent program researched "the" community. There was an alarming
         fear that there was a digression toward more casual (unprotected)
         sex than there was just 5 years ago.
    
         You're right, I know I don't know exactly what goes on with the
         exception of the information I'm exposed to...

>| Safe sex is NOT practiced "throughout the gay community" any more than it is 
>| outside the gay community.
>
>	How can you make the above statement? You don't even know what is going
>on throughout the gay community, do you? 

According to the organization Gay Men's Health Crisis, 50% of homosexual men
who are 20 years old today will contract HIV.

| <<< Note 323.474 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>


| .472 Glen, you would agree with that statement if a word like "generally" 
| practiced (safe sex)?

	Yes. 

| Statistically, the gay community numbers as the highest category.

	Of total numbers, yes. Of new comers, no. 

| A recent program researched "the" community. There was an alarming fear that 
| there was a digression toward more casual (unprotected) sex than there was 
| just 5 years ago.

	They have started combatting that a while ago. They are becoming even
more specific in their education. I saw one sign over a urinal that said
something to the effect that you should not have unprotected sex with a
stranger, and it went into more detail that a lover is not someone you have
known for 2 weeks. Being tested before you try anything without a condom is
being stressed more and more, and it is working. 



Glen

| <<< Note 323.475 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>


| According to the organization Gay Men's Health Crisis, 50% of homosexual men
| who are 20 years old today will contract HIV.


	I must be getting old.... I never heard of that group I'm sorry to say.
Gerald, did they go into the "why" they would contract the disease?



Glen

I'm surprised you've never heard of them.  They've been around for years --
I think since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.

I just the figures in passing in a recent issue of the Globe -- probably within
the past week.  I don't think I read the whole article.

	Bummer Gerald. It would have been nice to know why they thought they
would have such a high %. A guess would be the invincable thing, but I can't be
sure about that. Knowing what they based it on too would be cool.



Glen

    
    
    The problem is, that a disproportionate amount of money is going into
    AIDS research/funding...
    
     The fact and figures do not warrant it. The political correctness of
    the situation does...

    > The problem is, that a disproportionate amount of money is going into
    > AIDS research/funding...
    
    >  The fact and figures do not warrant it. The political correctness of
    > the situation does...
    
    I disagree Andy. Check out .417 for my reasoning...
    
    -b

    
    re: .481
    
    Brian,
    
     That's why I stated "research/funding"...
    
    The Ryan White Care Act of 1990 has nothing to do with research, but
    with care...
    
     Now, I'm not denying that people with AIDS should not receive the best
    of care...
    
    
      What bothers me is that there's no Lou Gehrig Care Act for those with
    that disease (just an "off the top of my head" example..)
    
      What is the figure involved here... 3 point something billion over 5
    years? For care of no one other than an AIDS victim?? Seems kind of...
    unfair... doesn't it?
    

    AIDS is communicable, incurable, and 100% fatal.  While in the US, it
    may have started in the gay and IV drug using sectors, it is spreading
    and is now the leading cause of non-violent death of women of
    childbearing age in several large cities on the eastern seaboard.  
    
    To me a communicable disease needs money for research, prevention
    programs, and treatment.  
    
    meg

    
    re: .483
    
    Pretty general there meg...
    
    Just as if I generally stated that these women could be (mostly) drug
    users or sexual partners of drug users (which AIDS seems to be [mostly]
    confined to, along with homosexuals).

	Andy, look at the world wide numbers for the last 10 years. Look at the
various groups infected. Look at the genders of those infected. You will be
amazed how the US differs from the rest of the world. It's very interesting
reading. The CDC has all the info you want. You could also try the AIDS Action
Committee in Boston. I'm sure they have the CDC stats as well. 

	And speaking of the AAC, Gerald, I found out the Gay Mens Health Crisis
group is the NY version of the AAC. 



Glen

    
    I think GMHC predates AAC, and started in SF, not NY. But that's
    MHO and of course subject to CRI. :-)
    
    

    Helms will always continually amaze me with the depths he is
    willing to sink to in order to make a point.
    
    But aside from that, his remarks have an interest for
    fueling a fire which many polititians feel the American
    voting public has lit:  "personal responsibility".  I predict
    in about 10 years time we will learn to love this phrase 
    as much as we do "politically correct" now.  "Personal reponsibility"
    isn't about compassion, or empathy, or sympathy or even
    fairness or equity.  It's about mean-spirited thrift,
    miserliness, and ethinic and cultural hatred all wrapped up
    in a overwhelming fear of difference.  People seem to love
    this term.  They spit it at welfare mothers, homosexuals,
    AIDS victims and people who smoke in public.  In fact, people
    use it to describe most people's behavior, with, or course,
    the exception of their own.  Yeah, sure, some people never
    grow up.  Hey that's life.  But now, all of a sudden, we
    as a nation have taken a perverse delight in taking all these
    people and rubbing their noses in what is considered their
    "lack of personal responsibilty".  This is not only not 
    compassionate, it is not what I would consider Christian
    behavior from people who consider themselves Christians.
    
    Sure, lifestyle choices cause AIDS.  Lifestyle choices
    also cause emphasema (sp?), lung cancer (smoking, working
    in mines, handling asbestos), psorosis of the liver in some
    cases (alcohol),  amputation (working with dangerous
    machinery), and premature death or paralysis (bungee jumping, 
    race car driving, etc.).  You want to stop paying for these too?
    Ok how about people with "bad genes"?  We are getting to 
    the point where we can pinpoint genes which cause birth
    defects.  Should people with bad genes reproduce?  If they
    choose to, should we pay for it?  
    
    It never stops with one thing.  And before you choose to
    pursue that one thing, think about that real hard.  Once
    someone's got their foot stuck in the door, it gets a lot
    harder to shut it again.
    
    Mary-Michael

Emphysema.
Cirrhosis.
NNTTM.

                  <<< Note 323.485 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Andy, look at the world wide numbers for the last 10 years. Look at the
>various groups infected. Look at the genders of those infected. You will be
>amazed how the US differs from the rest of the world. 
    
    	If you look at what is culturally acceptable among the African
    	peoples most affected by AIDS (many destined for decimation)
    	you can see why it has spread so readily there among all sexual
    	orientations.
    
    	Consider that the same permissive promiscuity was a characteristic
    	of the gay community of the late 1970s and early 1980s, and you
    	don't have to wonder why it spread like wildfire there and not
    	among the (by comparison) puritanical heterosexual community.
    
    	Now consider that liberalism aims to lead this culture down the 
    	same path of permissive promiscuity.  I am not amazed that this
    	country has fared differently so far, and I am also not amazed
    	that AIDS is only now showing up more and more in the general 
    	population.

    Okay Glen...Jesse Helms is very hypocritical and he makes stupid
    generalizations...and he doesn't present himself as an intellectual
    source of information for the right.  I don't condemn what he stands
    for but I don't think his method of communicating is prudent!
    
    -Jack

    re: .488
    
    Ah, thank you.  I think I was confusing it with psoriasis, which, while
    it is a heartbreak, is really nobody's fault.... :-)
    
    

    re: .487
    
    I think you are politicising "personal responsibility" a bit much.
    When I think of personal responsibility, I think of accepting the
    consequences for ones actions without doing any finger pointing or
    whining, or asking the government to bail them out of a problem they
    brough upon themselves.
    
    It has nothing to do with miserliness or hate, but has a
    lot to do with common sense- something that has long gone out of style
    in this nation.
    
    
    -steve

re .487

Mary-Michael Writes:
>"Personal reponsibility" isn't about compassion, or empathy, or sympathy
>or even fairness or equity.

	You are correct.  Personal responsibility has very little to do with
	these matters.  But what does that matter?  Nuclear physics, or the 
	sex-life of hamsters are similarly irrelevant.  Nevertheless, the 
	rhetoric sounds cool, tho'.

Similarly, she contends that...
>[personal responsibility is] about mean-spirited thrift, miserliness, and
>ethinic and cultural hatred all wrapped up in a overwhelming fear of
>difference.

	Accepting personal responsibility has little to do with these issues, as 
	well.

Fortunately, she then says...
>Sure, lifestyle choices cause AIDS.  Lifestyle choices also cause emphasema
>(sp?), lung cancer (smoking, working in mines, handling asbestos), psorosis of
>the liver in some cases (alcohol),  amputation (working with dangerous
>machinery), and premature death or paralysis (bungee jumping, 
>race car driving, etc.).

	Well, we're cool again.  I thought for a moment that we were going to
	continue to argue but luckily we're on the same page here.  Whew!

Always on point, Mary-Michael gets to the heart of the matter...
>You want to stop paying for these too?


	Not sure to whom the "You" in your question is referring.  I guess my
	answer is that people in dire distress, whether by their own hand or 
	not, merit society's consideration.  On the extent to which that 
	consideration should amelioriate their misfortune is where the
	argument lies.  Personally, I believe that there exists the concept of 
	the "deserving" and the "undeserving". If resources are limited, my 
	inclination would be to allocate my care to the "deserving" first, then 
	only see what can be done for the "undeserving".

	If you disagree with this principal, I would consider it a favor if
	you would provide an answer to the scenerio I posed earlier about
	the Doctor, his two aids patients, and the desert island (#453.203).

Regards,

/mtp

	

                <<< Note 323.492 by CSOA1::LEECH "dia dhuit" >>>

>    It has nothing to do with miserliness or hate, but has a
>    lot to do with common sense- something that has long gone out of style
>    in this nation.
 
	Then you believe that all the money spent on cancer research, 
	research into heart disease, research into lung/heart/liver/kidney
	transplants was all spent unwisely.

	Right?

Jim

    re: .492
    
    First I do not believe that there is a person in this country
    who could not benefit from some help from the government at
    some point or another in their lives for something they
    allegedly brought upon themselves.
    
    Remember, help from the government isn't limited to
    welfare.  Help is also Medicaid, student loans, government
    grants, Head Start programs and the like.  The governemnt
    provides many services and subsidizes many more.  All the 
    people lining up to use them are not "bad people" with no
    sense of "personal responsibility" (whatever the heck that
    may be).
    
    Second what is personal responsibility anyway?  I'd be 
    willing to bet two people couldn't agree on a definition,
    but I'd also be willing to bet that the same two people each had
    an intensely personal idea of what "personal responsibilty"
    was as well as a list as long as your arm of types of people
    who didn't have it.  It's really nothing more than a
    catch phrase which polititians love, since everyone knows what
    it "should" mean, and no one will ever agree on it enough to
    bring it to law.
    
    This country is devoid of compassion and empathy.  We can't
    contribute to charity unless we get a tax deduction.  We'd
    rather write a sterile check than roll up our sleeves and
    actively participate in making this world a better place.
    We look down long noses at people who don't hold up under
    the scrutiny of our "values", blithely ignoring the fact
    that our "values" say we shouldn't be the ones doing the
    judging.  Some even comb the Bible looking for justification
    of "righteous anger."  There is no justification for anger,
    I don't care what the book says.  This country is really in
    a pathetic state of affairs, and not because of welfare
    mothers.  This country is looking for scapegoats, people to
    blame for the confusion we find ourselves in.  And people
    are pointing fingers at those who do not live as they live,
    believe as they believe, and quite honestly, vote as they vote.
    
    Finally, what is the difference between a drug addict and an
    alcoholic?  An alcoholic and a smoker?  A smoker and an
    overweight person with a heart condition who refuses to eat
    sensibly?  Nothing really.  Each person made lifestyle choices
    that affected their health and the overall quality of their life.
    But to society, there is a big difference.  Society nods to
    the overweight person, yes we all overeat, we understand.  Until
    very recently society accepted the smoker and turned their head
    the other way for the alcoholic.  Some may say the person who
    contracted AIDS through drug use "deserved it."  But some of these 
    same people might feel a pang of empathy for the alcoholic who 
    "got caught" (hey, people sometimes drink a little too much).  
    The behaviors are no different. They only difference is perception.  
    So, what does the Bible say about perception, Mr. Helms? Are we
    to pass our our help and compassion only to those who strive for
    perfection?  That's a real feel-good piece of fluff, isn't it?
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    Tuesday's Globe ran a column by Jeff Jacoby on AIDS spending. It had
    some interesting numbers within.
    
    Further back in the same issue was an article about gay bodybuilders.
    The article mentioned, but did not explain, the claim that 50% of
    young gay men will get AIDS. 
                

    
    re:.495
    Minor Nit:

    > welfare.  Help is also Medicaid, student loans, government
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I thought that these were provided by banks,..... I got mine from a
    bank, and paid back a bank.....

    > This country is devoid of compassion and empathy.

    I don't think so, I think that we're just compassioned out.  The 1st,
    2nd, and 3rd time you see someone in need, you might help.  The 4th,
    5th, and 6th times you see them, you feel bad.  But after number 12 or
    13 you just don't really care much anymore.  You have become
    desensitized to the suffering of others.

    > We can't contribute to charity unless we get a tax deduction.

    I believe that that is because people have come to believe (mistakenly
    IMO) that it's the governments responsibility to take care of people.

    > We'd rather write a sterile check than roll up our sleeves and
    > actively participate in making this world a better place.

    I believe that this is partially a result of the previous comment...
    The government has provided more and more services to more and more
    people.  To do this they have taxed and taxed us to the poor house. 
    "Take an active role in making the world a better place, are you
    kidding, I'm working X number of jobs just to put food one the table
    and have someplace to live!"  This is the feeling I keep getting from
    the people that I talk to.  The government take between 30% to 40% of
    my income for run their foolish (IMO) programs, give me 25% of it back,
    and I'll be able to give 10% of my income to charity and still be 15%
    ahead!

    > There is no justification for anger,

    You forgot the IMO.....

    > But some of these same people might feel a pang of empathy for the
    > alcoholic who  "got caught" (hey, people sometimes drink a little too
    > much).  

    Please clarify this for me, are you implying that people who sometimes
    drink too much are alcoholics?

    Dan

    
    Heard on CNN last night about a letter carrier in Charleston (?)
    who was refusing to deliver mail to the house of a couple with
    AIDS.
    
    He claims he might get the disease from their mail slot (if he cuts
    himself), or from an envelope they may have licked.
    

    real bright sort, he.

    
    Did I hear right that he is considering running for the US Senate?
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .494
    
    How did you get that from my note?
    
    -steve

    Sounds like Jesse Helms is contagious :-(
    

| <<< Note 323.489 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| If you look at what is culturally acceptable among the African peoples most 
| affected by AIDS (many destined for decimation) you can see why it has 
| spread so readily there among all sexual orientations.

	Joe, the people of Africa are a part of the world. The people of North
America are a part of the world. Combined they are still only a part of the
world. I believe I said look at the world numbers, not part.



Glen

| <<< Note 323.490 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Okay Glen...Jesse Helms is very hypocritical and he makes stupid
| generalizations...and he doesn't present himself as an intellectual
| source of information for the right.  I don't condemn what he stands
| for but I don't think his method of communicating is prudent!

	Thanks for speaking up Jack.


Glen

    Dan:
    
    Your bank collected the student loan from you and then they forwarded
    it to ELSI (Education Loan Services Inc.)  I think they're government!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 323.496 by WECARE::GRIFFIN "John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159" >>>


| Further back in the same issue was an article about gay bodybuilders.
| The article mentioned, but did not explain, the claim that 50% of
| young gay men will get AIDS.

	It said based on current numbers, 50% of the men in their 20's now,
will contract AIDS when they are 50. With the new education that's out there,
the numbers will drop.

    
    re: .485
    
    What are you trying to tell me vis. my reply about selective funding
    (which I believe Helms is addressing)??
    

    Ok, where did .509 go?  Here I was composing this brilliant,
    eye-opening rebuttal, and Steve deletes his reply!  Now my
    paragraph by paragraph analysis will go unread.... :-(
    
    Stop applauding.....
    

    
    > Your bank collected the student loan from you and then they forwarded
    > it to ELSI (Education Loan Services Inc.)  I think they're government!
    
    Jack, are you telling me that ALL student loan are funded by the
    Federal Government ???
    
    Dan
    

    I dunno.

The student loans are GUARANTEED by the government.  That means the
banks lend the money to you but if you don't pay they assign the loans
to the government and then THEY come after you.  The banks are willing
to lend money since now there is little risk.

This is just like the so-called Chrysler bailout, the US never lent
a dime to Chrysler, they just guaranteed the loans to those who did.

The government might pay the difference between the going rate and
the student loan interest rate, I'm unsure.
The loans also tend to be resold to a quasi-government agency
(Sallie Mae) just like most home mortgages are.

>This is just like the so-called Chrysler bailout, the US never lent
>a dime to Chrysler, they just guaranteed the loans to those who did.

It's not _just_ like the Chrysler bailout.  The gummint's paid out plenty
because of student loan deadbeats.

| <<< Note 323.508 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease!" >>>


| What are you trying to tell me vis. my reply about selective funding
| (which I believe Helms is addressing)??

	I thought it would make interesting reading for you. I wasn't
addressing the selective funding issue. World wide numbers would be useless for
an issue that deals with the US.


Glen

| <<< Note 323.513 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>


| It's not _just_ like the Chrysler bailout.  The gummint's paid out plenty
| because of student loan deadbeats.


	Lee Iacoca was no deadbeat, that's for sure!

    re: .509
    
    Sorry about that.  There were a few areas of my long diatribe that I
    simply couldn't parse on a re-reading.  I've extracted it for
    correction, but haven't gotten around to de-bugging it yet.  That's
    what happens when I note on an empty stomach.  8^)  
    
    I'm now well fed and should have that note posted in no time.
    Keep your rebuttle handy.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

  <<< Note 323.495 by SMURF::MSCANLON "alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether" >>>

>    Second what is personal responsibility anyway?  I'd be 
>    willing to bet two people couldn't agree on a definition,
>    but I'd also be willing to bet that the same two people each had
>    an intensely personal idea of what "personal responsibilty"
>    was as well as a list as long as your arm of types of people
>    who didn't have it.  

	How much you wanna bet?  I'll bet you that there are quite
	a few "two people"s who read this reply today who could so
	agree.

>    This country is devoid of compassion and empathy.  We can't
>    contribute to charity unless we get a tax deduction.  We'd
>    rather write a sterile check than roll up our sleeves and
>    actively participate in making this world a better place.

	Though I see nothing wrong with giving money as opposed to
	time (what many here can earn in an hour -- were we to donate
	it -- would hire multiple hours of others' labor) in general
	I agree with what you wrote.  Oh, I don't fully accept the
	extremes that you portray, for then they would include you
	and me, but yes, we as a society are less giving than we
	used to be.  Less compassionate.  Less concerned.  An example
	of this is a radio commercial I heard for "The Club" (auto
	security device.)  In the ad they mentioned how often we hear
	a car alarm going off in a parking lot, but nobody does anything
	to attend to it.  And yes, while not all of us structure our
	charity giving around tax implications, it is certainly a
	consideration for far too many people.

>    that our "values" say we shouldn't be the ones doing the
>    judging.  

	Where do our values say that?

>    And people
>    are pointing fingers at those who do not live as they live,
>    believe as they believe, and quite honestly, vote as they vote.

	One must wonder here if you are pointing fingers, and if so
	at whom.

                  <<< Note 323.503 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

> I believe I said look at the world numbers, not part.

    	I believe you know that I don't often obey your commands.
    
    	I notice you could not argue with what I did say in .489.
    
    	I also believe that you'll find that what I said in .489 also
    	applies to AIDS spread (in general) anywhere in the world.

    re: .495  
    
    This was not directed towards me, but that's never stopped me
    from responding  before.  8^)  
    
    Mary-Michael, the following comments are not directed at you
    personally, but at the mindset I see within this particular note.  You
    are a compassionate person, from what I've read of your notes, and I
    respect that, so don't take this personally.
    
>    First I do not believe that there is a person in this country
>    who could not benefit from some help from the government at
>    some point or another in their lives for something they
>    allegedly brought upon themselves.
 
    Probably right for the most part, with a few exceptions.  The problem lies 
    in the fact that the government should not be in the business of bailing 
    people out of their misfortune- whether brought about by their own 
    actions or not.
    
    New Deal, the forefather of all our entitlement programs, was economic
    suicide, and many of those who opposed these programs
    quite loudly warned about 'opening up the federal coffers' in such a
    way.  Once opened, they said, it would be impossible to close them
    again.  What was not known at the time was the cumulative affects these
    programs had on society in other areas (including the 'personal 
    responsibility' term in question).
    
    We are just now beginning to realize just how far down the wrong path we 
    have gone.  The November election, IMO, seemed to show that Americans are 
    beginning to realize this en mass, and are trying to force correction 
    (smaller government).  If we do nothing, we WILL run out of credit
    eventually.  Our debt is already costing us $260B/year to finance.
    
    Of course, what the GOP is doing is using a bandaid where a tournaquet
    is more appropriate.  They simply don't have the political nads to do
    what they KNOW has to be done (i.e. massively reform all entitlements,
    including SS, medicare & medicade).  
       
>    Remember, help from the government isn't limited to
>    welfare.  Help is also Medicaid, student loans, government
>    grants, Head Start programs and the like.  The governemnt
>    provides many services and subsidizes many more.  All the 
>    people lining up to use them are not "bad people" with no
>    sense of "personal responsibility" (whatever the heck that
>    may be).
 
    The whole point, to me, is that the government should not be in the
    business of subsidizing any particular group of people.  It is not the
    government's job to coddle citizens in every way.  It is the ridiculous
    amounts of taxation that is at FAULT for many people not being able to
    afford college, insurance, etc.  Unfortunately, Congress doesn't seem
    to look at this part of the equation of 'cause and effect' and neither
    do most Americans.  They see people who cannot afford to get ahead and
    say  that something aught to be done!  
    
    Guess what?  When something else is done to help these people, WE pay
    for it.  This causes increased amounts of taxation which only spreads
    the original problem out to more people (the problem being insufficient
    funds for necessities/education/whatever).  The more everyone pays in
    taxes, the worse off this nation will be in regards to most any
    variable you can come up with: economy, standards of living, poverty,
    etc.  You cannot help the poor by bringing everyone else down the the
    least common denominator.  
    
    Without the heavy taxation to support these programs, we wouldn't NEED
    these programs to begin with, at least not in the form of government
    subsidies.   
    
    The entire problem revolves around personal responsibility.  You are
    responsible for your own finances, your own retirement, your own
    medical insurance, your own housing and your own family.  This should
    be the law, but it isn't.  The current law says it matters not what you
    do because you will be taken care of regardless.  This promotes
    irresponsibility and the wrong mindset for getting ahead in this world.
    
    Any subsidizing should come from the private sector, not by government
    tax-nabbing and redistribution.  It is the only fair way to do it.
    
    [Charity is another topic.  I'm only mentioning what I see as a problem
    with current mindset- a minset that has gotten us into bad financial
    straits as a nation.]
    
>    Second what is personal responsibility anyway?  I'd be 
>    willing to bet two people couldn't agree on a definition,
>    but I'd also be willing to bet that the same two people each had
>    an intensely personal idea of what "personal responsibilty"
>    was as well as a list as long as your arm of types of people
>    who didn't have it.  
    
    You are responsible for yourself and your actions.  This is the essense
    of "personal responsibility".  You own up to your failures without
    blaming your hardship on others.
    
>    It's really nothing more than a
>    catch phrase which polititians love, since everyone knows what
>    it "should" mean, and no one will ever agree on it enough to
>    bring it to law.
 
    This is what the left would like us to believe.  Reduce it to a catch
    phrase, rather than putting it into policy. 
       
>    This country is devoid of compassion and empathy.  We can't
>    contribute to charity unless we get a tax deduction.  
    
    Oh, this is utter nonsense.  I give to my church and to other
    organizations.  I do not file for the tax deduction for it.  My
    rationale for giving has never included tax deduction considerations.
    
    The problem is, modern mentality says that compassion comes in the form
    of a government bail-out/subsidy program, rather that in any personal
    way.  I can't even begin to address the ramifications this attitude has
    had on our nation (it would be a good subject for a book, though).  
    
    Tell me, how is it compassionate or fair to subsidize, via LAW, certain
    groups of citizens at the expense of others?  How is it compassionate to
    continue with programs that only exasparate the problems they are meant
    to solve (at the expense of taxpayers)?  
    
    From my personal perspective, I could not only live better, but I could 
    give a lot more money to charity if the government would just get off my 
    back (and out of my paycheck).  I would also be planning on giving more 
    of my time to worthwhile organizations, rather than contemplating a second
    job.
    
    Let ME decide where my money (over x% for constitutional government
    expenses) goes!  Let me decide for myself what programs (via charity)
    warrent my money.  Let me decide who to help and for how long.  Let me
    help in a way I feel is moral and ethical and effective (no to mention
    cost effective and efficient).
    
    Oh, but we can't have that.  We have to have daddy government take care
    of everyone.  We all know that unless tax $$ are ripped from the
    wallets of us immoral, stingy taxpayers, that people would be dying in
    the streets of starvation (of course, they do anyway WITH daddy
    government taking care of the situation, but of course that matters not
    in the collective mind of the left).  We are an uncaring lot, we
    are, only concerned with our spending money.
    
>    We'd
>    rather write a sterile check than roll up our sleeves and
>    actively participate in making this world a better place.
    
    Well, since all we have to do is vote for tax-and-spend dims, rather
    than be personally resposible for our community, I'm not surprised that
    this mindset is so prevalent.  We need not take responsibility, only
    delegate our obligations to daddy fedgov via more doomed-to-fail
    federal programs.  We don't care that they don't work, as long as we
    feel that we did something.  We also don't care about the damage the
    increased tax burden will do directly and indirectly to the rest of the
    nation. 
    
    I find nothing wrong with writing a "sterile" check to a charity
    agency in need of funds to help people.  Nothing wrong at all.
    I do agree that more people should give their time to a cause they
    believe in, though.  It helps the community as well as the individual
    who donates their time.  I find the "sterile" check scenario much more
    compassionate than supporting failed programs that expound the misery.
    
>    We look down long noses at people who don't hold up under
>    the scrutiny of our "values", blithely ignoring the fact
>    that our "values" say we shouldn't be the ones doing the
>    judging.  
    
    Wrong.  As a matter of course, we ARE to judge behaviors.  If someone
    is very promiscuous, we SHOULD tell them that this is wrong and
    dangerous behavior.  If someone murders their neighbor, we certainly tell 
    them (via death penalty or life imprisonment) that this behavior is 
    unacceptable. 
    
    The problem is, we are too permissive as a society.  We stopped
    condemning behaviors and began rationalizing them, accepting them. 
    Why?  Because if society begins to accept them, we begin to feel better
    about those things/behaviors in our own life that we know deep down
    are wrong.  With a society that accepts most any behavior with a wink
    and a nudge, we can rationalize most anything we do, taking away and
    guilt we may have.
    
    The envelope gets pushed farther and farther every year, too.  It is now
    frowned upon to even suggest that certain behaviors are wrong.  How
    dare we make such 'judgements'!  How dare we call something that we
    know to be wrong, wrong!  No wonder we are in such bad shape.
    
>    Some even comb the Bible looking for justification
>    of "righteous anger."  There is no justification for anger,
>    I don't care what the book says.  
    
    But there *is* justification for anger.  What there is no
    justification for is hatred (of people).  You can be angry without hating,
    something that the government and all too many people seem not to
    understand.  Even God hates things (not people), and is angered when
    His word is ignored.  Israel found this out on several occations, if
    the OT is to be believed. 
    
>    This country is really in
>    a pathetic state of affairs, and not because of welfare
>    mothers.  This country is looking for scapegoats, people to
>    blame for the confusion we find ourselves in.  And people
>    are pointing fingers at those who do not live as they live,
>    believe as they believe, and quite honestly, vote as they vote.
 
    No, the welfare mothers (even those having additional children while on
    welfare) are not the problem.  They are a symptom of a much larger
    problem.  The problem is spiritual, as well mental (attitudes and
    philosophies). 
    
    By looking at all the current symptoms, we can see that the disease is 
    well advanced today.  Unfortunately, our doctors' recommendations are 
    analogous to taking a couple of aspirin for a large, malignant tumor,
    rather than surgically removing it.  Some doctors don't even recognize 
    the huge, discolored lump as a tumor- whether purposefully so or not,
    I do not know.  They try to ignore it, suggesting that if we treat it 
    with the very same ointment that caused it to form in the first place, it
    will magically disappear.
    
>    So, what does the Bible say about perception, Mr. Helms? Are we
>    to pass our our help and compassion only to those who strive for
>    perfection?  That's a real feel-good piece of fluff, isn't it?
 
    Actually, the Bible says to love and to help one another.  I, of
    course, agree with the Bible.  8^)  We should help those in need.
    
    However, you have to remember where this ideal comes from.  The Bible
    does not say "force your neighbor to love his neighbor" or "force your
    neighbor to help others", it speaks to the individual only.  You have to 
    decide if you are going to help, and if so, how you are going to help 
    your neighbor.  
    
    The Bible, as many have pointed out (unnecessarily), is NOT the law of the
    land, the Constitution is.  Though much of our law was originally based
    upon Biblical precepts, we are not a theocracy, therefore the Bible has
    no sway in public law (and has recently had less sway in personal
    behavior, as well).
    
    We both agree that we should help others.  What we disagree on is HOW
    that help should be applied.  I personally think it is immoral to force
    someone to give money to a charity.  This is no different than being
    forced to pay for a massive number of federal 'entitlement' (I hate
    that word) programs, IMO.  
    
    To add to the questionable morality of said federal programs, they are 
    rife with waste, corruption (which includes theft of monies through 
    defrauding the government) and are becoming a more and more burdomsome
    load to carry.  Not one entitlement program has solved any problem in 
    America, even though we've spend in the neighborhood of $3 trillion
    on them since New Deal.  In fact, most have added to the very
    problems they were created to solve (sometimes magnifying the problem
    so badly as to spawn huge infusions of tax $$ to keep up with it).  
    It simply makes no sense to continue on our current path.
    
    I still laugh when I read FDR's outcry for his welfare programs:  "They
    will end poverty within ten years!" (paraphrased from memory).
    
    Today, as we try and undo the damage done, I find comment as to the
    'miserliness' and 'lack of compassion' that those who oppose entitlement
    programs, as disengenuous.  We have been anything but miserly, as a nation, 
    if you look at how much of our tax $$ goes into entitlment programs
    each year (some 1/4 or so of our national budget, currently, if not more). 
    How about having some compassion for the working stiffs who are finding
    it harder and harder to make ends meet since it takes them from January
    through mid July just to pay their tax burden.  Imagine what just three
    months of this tax money, on a broad scale, could do for the economy
    and private charity!
    
    Enough is enough already.  It is time to admit that our social 
    engineering, though perhaps well intentioned originally,
    has failed miserably.  We now need to work to intellegently reduce
    entitlement spending and change our mental image of what compassion
    really is.  Compassion is not a government subsidy to make us feel
    like we've done something to help.
    
    
    
    -steve (who's somewhat long-winded today) 8^)

Helms says he's been incorrectly characterized in AIDS
funding debate


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

CHARLOTTE (Jul 12, 1995 - 18:12 EDT) -- Sen. Jesse Helms stands
by his comment that gay sexual conduct is "revolting" but says he is
being misrepresented on why he opposes an AIDS funding bill.

Helms, R-N.C., said his aversion to the homosexual lifestyle is not
keeping him from backing the Ryan White Care Act of 1990, which
would provide $633 million for federal care and treatment of people with
AIDS over the next five years.

He said he is against the measure because it grants gays and AIDS
victims better treatment than patients with other diseases.

"I have not fought homosexual rights. They have the same rights any
other American has," he said. "What I have fought and oppose with all
my being is giving them special rights."

Last week, Helms, was quoted as saying AIDS is spread through
"disgusting, revolting conduct."

"We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by
people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," Helms said.

Helms is not sorry about those statements, The Charlotte Observer
reported Wednesday.

"I meant it. It is disgusting," he told the paper.

People who suffer from heart disease, cancer and other maladies do not
have special legislation giving them financial assistance, Helms said.

Helms said gay lobbyists are trying to discredit him.

"I would not have to say these things if they would keep their mouths
shut and their bedrooms closed," he said. "No, they parade, naked. They
commit sodomy on the streets of San Francisco."

Mark Barnes, executive director of the AIDS Action Council, said
Helms is wrong to contend that the AIDS relief gives HIV-infected
patients special treatment. Many AIDS sufferers are prevented from
qualifying for existing government relief programs and usually are not old
enough to obtain Medicare.

"This isn't special rights -- this is taking care of people who wouldn't
otherwise get treatment," he said.

The AIDS law, named after an Indiana teen-ager who died after getting
the AIDS virus from a blood transfusion, expires at the end of
September. North Carolina has received $10.8 million through the act.

Helms acknowleged that people other than gays contract Aids. But he
said the bill still is primarily for homosexuals because "every case of
AIDS in the United States had its origin with homosexual contact,"
Helms said.

    
    
    I think using Ryan White's name for this is in bad taste.  The reason
    being is that it is using one of the (comparatively) few cases of
    contraction of the disease to whitewash the fact that a change in
    behavior could all but eliminate the spread of this terrible virus.
    
    Mike

    Mr. Helms  has a point about the special treatment for those who
    contract AIDS.  I don't see any government relief bills for cancer
    patients or the like.
    
    
    -steve

    
    
    And here I thought people were paying attention!!!
    

    Gabh mo leithsce'al.

>             <<< Note 323.524 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>
>    Gabh mo leithsce'al.

Speaking in tongues again, Steve? Which deli did you find them at?

    <---  Ni' cheapaim e'.   

Latka Gravis?

    <--- Cad e' seo?

| <<< Note 323.518 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| <<< Note 323.503 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

| > I believe I said look at the world numbers, not part.

| I believe you know that I don't often obey your commands.

	And I believe I didn't even ask you to. I believe I was making a
suggestion to Andy before you popped in. You remind me of Endora sometimes. :-)

| I notice you could not argue with what I did say in .489.

	Not that I couldn't argue, but that I don't need to waste my time on
you.



Glen

| <<< Note 323.520 by SUBPAC::SADIN "We the people?" >>>


| Helms acknowleged that people other than gays contract Aids. But he said the 
| bill still is primarily for homosexuals because "every case of AIDS in the 
| United States had its origin with homosexual contact," Helms said.

	A man who is not playing with a full deck...... 

I think a lot of people are either misunderstanding ol' Jesse or
seriously underrating him.

Jesse didn't get to his position of power, both real and influential,
because he's as stupid as he sounds or as dumb as he looks. He strikes a
chord in a large number of people and plays them like a master.

While no fan of the man, his spell over North Carolinians and much of the
conservative persuasion is overpowering. You can bet you hat, ass and
overcoat that he will successfully (on his terms) complete this term and
be re-elected to another. Only his failing health will end his stay in
the Senate.

TTom

    The Ballad of Jesse Helms.
    
    Jesse Helms is a man,
    (Or so we understand),
    His mouth it can't be trained.
    Thus it came to pass
    He talked out through his *ss,
    Said "AID$ i$ $uch a drain!"
    
     Oh Jesse get a life.
     What if it was your wife?
     Or children that were ill?
     But, Jesse does deny:
     "Good people they won't die,
     Jes' those I'd like to kill."
    
    Now Jesse likes tobacco,
    Says the F-D-A are wacko,
    For causing such a scare,
    "It brings the body ease,
    Don't cause heart disease,
    And buys mah congress chair."
    
     With Jesse at the helm,
     Then right would overwhelm,
     The nasty, ee-vyl and gay.
     When Jesse smokes a fag,
     I don't mean "takes a drag",
     He blows them all a-wayyyyy.
    [

re: .532

Goodun there!

You might wanna something about sugar cause ol' Jesse makes more money
from them then he ever got from tobacco. You don't think that he
advocates boycotting sugar from countries that deal with Cuba cause he
don't like Fidel, now do you?

And of course, the sugar industry in NC is very big, NOT. It definitely
lags way behind tobacco, reefer and manure, a major source of income to
his cause as well.

TTom

	Didn't Helms win by a small margin in the last election?

Jesse challenged by the former Mayor of Charlotte, Harvey Gannt who was
thought to be close because of some of the polls before the election.
Either these polls were in error or they motivated Jesse's fans, cause he
won fairly handily, something like 58%-42% of votes cast.

The onliest ray of hope is that Jesse and The Congressional Club, his
PAC, have parted company and are suing each other. This may not bring
Jesse down but it bodes poorly for his clone, Lauch Faircloth, pig farmer
and junior senator. Faircloth, who won mainly because his democratic
opponent, the then Senator Terry Sanford, nearly died afore the election,
is gonna face a very tough primary from another former Charlotte mayor,
Sue Myrick. The Congressional Club spent more money defeating her in the
primary than it did to defeat Sanford. It's pretty hard to actively
campaign from the ICU.

TTom

    Didn`t Andy Griffith (sp) think about running against Helms a couple of
    years ago?

I hadn't heard about ol' Andy.

The one "celebrity" that's going into politics is Richard Petty. He's
currently a county commissioner, having positioned himself far to the
right, somewhere near Jesse and the very senior senator from south o' the
border, Strom "Red" Thurmon.

    
    Well... I'd like to take the focus of the messenger for a minute and
    focus on the message...
    
     
     Is he right to pursue cutting the funding for the reasons stated...??
    

Thurmond.  Who's Richard Petty?

    Richard Petty, stock car driver/owner/sponsor, good ol' boy.  He is now
    vying for poll position.  

>    Richard Petty, stock car driver/owner/sponsor, good ol' boy.  He is now
>    vying for poll position.  
	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

good 'un.

King Richard Petty of NASCAR fame.

TTom

>King Richard Petty of NASCAR fame.

     No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person 
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of 
the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind 
watever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Actually, this is a title shared by Petty and Elvis.

And shouldn't that be Nobility formerly called Prince?

TTom

Early treatment for HIV doesn't prolong survival,
study finds


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

WASHINGTON (Jul 15, 1995 - 15:06 EDT) -- Treatment of HIV
infection before it causes symptoms may delay progression to AIDS
but does not prolong survival, a new study has found.

The study, reported Saturday in the British Medical Journal, supports
findings from the Concorde study in Europe that in 1993 called into
question a standard practice of prescribing the drug AZT for people
infected with HIV, or human immunodeficiency virus, which causes
AIDS.

The British study involved 436 AIDS patients at St. Mary's Hospital
Medical School in London. Its authors said they hoped it would raise
more discussion about the relative merits of treating HIV early or
after symptoms develop and stimulate scientists to focus more
studies on the quality of life among those treated for HIV-infection.

"We are hoping to move the debate on about what we are actually
doing for patients" such as whether benefits of early treatment
outweigh adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting and bleeding, Dr.
Mark Poznansky, a co-author of the study, said in a telephone
interview.

Although the study is not definitive, the findings have "a sobering
effect," said Dr. James W. Curran, a top AIDS official at the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Another top AIDS expert at the centers, Dr. Harold W. Jaffe, said
"we are starting to get a fairly consistent message" from studies
that anti-HIV drugs and antibiotics against AIDS-related infections
"have a benefit, but survival is not prolonged depending on whether
they are given early or late."

The report comes at a time when growing competition from managed
care is increasing pressure on American health care providers to
justify costs for many standard treatments.

The findings also highlight cultural differences between many
American and European patients and doctors over the optimal time
to begin treatment of AIDS. Doctors in the United States, acting on
studies conducted by American scientists, tend to start treating
HIV-infection earlier in the course of the disease than European
doctors. Also, European AIDS patients have generally clamored less
for early treatment than American patients.

Proponents believe early treatment improves the quality of life by
reducing hospitalizations for the potentially fatal AIDS-related
illnesses like pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. But others say
treatment with AZT or similar anti-HIV drugs makes some users
sick.

Poznansky's team in London studied 436 AIDS patients who
developed AIDS from 1991 through 1993. Of these, 97, or 22 percent,
learned they were infected with HIV when they developed their first
AIDS illness and had no previous treatment for HIV or
AIDS-related illness. The remaining 339 patients were followed in
clinics after they tested positive for HIV during the preceding eight
years.

A comparison showed that those who received early treatment
suffered fewer AIDS-related infections. Yet once they became ill
they died, on average, a year sooner than those who were not treated
until severe symptoms began. The overall time from acquiring
infection to death was similar and the later diagnosis of AIDS "did
not have a detrimental effect on survival," the British authors said.

Dr. Merle Sande, an AIDS expert who is chief physician at San
Francisco General Hospital, said he was not surprised by the
findings. He headed an independent panel of experts created by the
government that in 1993 said AZT was no longer necessarily
recommended for early treatment of uncomplicated HIV-infection.

"Most doctors feel when they are giving AZT early, they are
increasing the asymptomatic period, but again and again they have
learned that survival is the same," Sande said. "Nothing that has
delayed progression to AIDS has ever been shown to alter survival."

There are many aspects to HIV treatment, such as presumed
differences in the virulence of different strains of the virus. But the
British study was not designed to determine whether such viral
differences existed among the participants.

Despite public education programs aimed at encouraging people to
get a blood test to learn whether or not they have HIV, many
Americans first learn they are infected when they go to the hospital
for a serious AIDS illness.

Dr. Jonathan Weber, a co-author of the British study, said his team
realized that the findings raised questions about the benefit of early
diagnosis and having medical checkups every few months. But
Weber and other experts said early diagnosis of HIV had important
public health benefits because it helped infected individuals prevent
transmitting the virus to their sex partners.

    Easy solution to this one...

    
       So, don't hold them in jail. Put them in concrete.

This is Italy, where a pornstar can become an elected member of parliament and 
where an entire island is run by criminals.

Please do not disparage the people of Italy.

Your next personality could be Vincenzo.

    Hmmmm, sounds like NYC too.

Ah! You gotta a gooda pointa there Jack!

Omigawd! It's Father Guido Sarducci!

    
    Yo, Vinnie!  Vinnie Vega!  Vinnie Barbarino!
    

    oh dear.  does that mean he'll have, like, lotsa chest hair; mega
    gold chains, shiny polyester shirt unbuttoned to his navel?????

    And what pray tell is wrong with lotsa chest hair?  Hmmm? Hmmmm? Hmmm?
    
    I'll skip the Mr. T starter set and polyester shirt though.

    Nothing, Brian, nada, zip, zilch.  Actually, it's one of my
    requirements :-))).  Agreed, tho, on the Mr. T starter set 
    and shirt :-))))))

    
    Ba ba ba, ba Barbarino....
    
    :-)
    Dan

    Hey, youa guysa better cutta that out!

    
    Geyser?
    

    <--- Youa unafaithful guy!

    The Don Ricardoson has spoken.

    Whata youa meana buya that?

    
    Great!! Give him (them) fuel for another personna!!!
    

    Whatta you meana?

    WHO chief warns of women's vulnerability to HIV 


    (c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

    Reuter

    BEIJING (9:02 a.m.) - Women face the bleak reality of being infected by
    the deadly HIV virus more quickly than men, due in part to their
    economic dependence on men, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said on
    Tuesday.

    "The number of infected women with HIV is increasing more rapidly than
    men in Africa, in southern Asia," Hiroshi Nakajima, WHO's
    director-general, told a news conference.

    "The bleak reality is that the sexual and economic subordination of
    women fuels the HIV/AIDS pandemic," WHO said in its position paper at
    the Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing.

    "Women's vulnerability...is linked to their low status in society, and
    their economic, cultural and social dependence on their male partners,"
    it said.

    Women were almost absent from the pandemic in 1980 of the HIV virus
    that can cause Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), but now
    total as many as eight million.

    Some one million more are infected each year, mainly through
    unprotected sexual intercourse, WHO said.

    Every minute, two women are infected with HIV, it said

    And every two minutes, a woman dies of AIDS.

    WHO said the number of women infected with HIV will have reached 14
    million by the year 2000, and about four million will have died.

    Studies in some countries show that up to 30 percent of HIV infections
    are occurring in women whose only risk behaviour is sexual intercourse
    with a single male partner who in turn has had or continued to have
    unprotected sex with other partners, it said.

    WHO said providing women, especially young women, with the personal
    skills and confidence to refuse sex when they do not want it was
    essential to battling the pandemic.

    "This will be possible, however, only when women have sufficient status
    and economic opportunities to reduce their dependence on men for
    survival and relative wellbeing," WHO said.

    However, women at a grassroots forum on the outskirts of Beijing that
    is running parallel to the U.N. conference said WHO was following the
    wrong policies to combat the disease.

    They called for rapid development of microbicides that women could use
    to combat the deadly HIV virus, instead of relying on male partners
    often reluctant to use condoms.

    "The strategy of the WHO against AIDS is not working and is irrelevant
    to the women of Africa," said Priscilla Misihairabwi, co-ordinator of
    the Women and AIDS support network of Harare, Zimbabwe.

    One in four sexually active women in Zimbabwe is HIV-infected, she
    said. "The situation is catastrophic. It is a life and death issue.
    African women want to try microbicides."

    Microbicides are inserted into the vagina like spermicides and would be
    able to kill the HIV virus carried in the sperm of their male partner.

    Lori Heise, of WHAM, Women's Health Advocates on Microbicides, told the
    seminar that 10 different microbicides were in the development stage
    and that it would take a further five years before they became
    commercial products.

    But major pharmaceutical companies were not interested in developing
    these microbicides since they do not believe they are commercial
    products and fear litigation if they do not have the promised results,
    Heise said.
     

    Unless it has changed in the past two years, women are the group being
    infected with AIDS fastest right here in the gold ol' US.

   <<< Note 323.567 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>

>    BEIJING (9:02 a.m.) - Women face the bleak reality of being infected by
>    the deadly HIV virus more quickly than men, due in part to their
>    economic dependence on men, 
>    "Women's vulnerability...is linked to their low status in society, and
>    their economic, cultural and social dependence on their male partners,"
>    it said.
    
    	I think it has more to do with them being the catcher rather
    	than the pitcher.

>    Women were almost absent from the pandemic in 1980 of the HIV virus
>    that can cause Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), but now
>    total as many as eight million.
    
    	If the cause in the statement quoted at the top of this reply
    	is truly the reason for the spread of AIDS among women today, 
    	then should we assume that those conditions for women didn't 
    	exist in 1980 and earlier?  What really changed that made women
    	absent in 1980 but so vulnerable now?

	Joe, I hadn't realized we were talking baseball. :-)

    
    >What really changed that made women
    >absent in 1980 but so vulnerable now?
    
    It was much more a disease of homosexual men in 1980, and they weren't
    pitching to women.
    
    Once it spread to the intravenous drug user sorts, women became
    involved.
    
    

    That's right.  And no matter how women's involvement got its start, it
    is now spreading by normal sexual contact, from men to women and from
    women to men.  Especially tragic among young people, especially when
    its spread could be prevented by use of condoms.
    
    In parts of Africa where the total infection rate is very high, and
    where homosexuality is virtually unknown, women are at just as high 
    a percentage infection rate as men.
    
    It's everybody's disease now.

	And to add one more thing, with the exception of North America, it has
always been heterosexuals that were in the majority of those who got the
disease. Might be why they took the disease so seriously from the beginning.

    > ...  especially when its spread could be prevented by the use of
    > condoms.
    
    Not exactly true.  The effectiveness of condoms is still in question
    with regards to AIDS.  Though they can't hurt, they may not be nearly
    as helpful as everyone likes to think. 
    
    -steve

    so Steve,
    
     Are you saying people shouldn't bother with same?  "Gee kids, you are
    going to die and go to hell for your actions anyway, so don't bother
    with the condom, and hurry it up so moralistic dweebs can feel better
    about your deaths." is not exactly what I consider a good message
    either.  
    
    I do look  forward to the development of microbicides.  
    
    Joe the only difference from 1980 is that the women getting infected at
    that point were all in the 3rd world, and the media and many churches
    failed to take notice.  However a friend did bring back a t-shirt from
    some place in Africa in 1985 that referred to AIDS as the white races'
    great hope.  There are really sick humans out there.
    
    meg

    > Not exactly true.  The effectiveness of condoms is still in question
    > with regards to AIDS.  Though they can't hurt, they may not be nearly
    > as helpful as everyone likes to think.
    
    The only people who are questioning it these days are the religious
    right who want there to be only one way to prevent the spread of 
    HIV -- their way.
    
    Since the democrats gained control of the executive branch, under which
    the Centers for Disease Control operate, the CDC has said that condoms 
    definitely DO work.  During the Bush era they simply refused to say
    anything one way or the other.
    

    
    The FDA tests every batch.  What sort of qualifications do you think
    that job requires?
    

    Urges in your areas?

    Stamina.

nymphos

    horny bastiges.

    re: .575
    
    I never said they shouldn't bother, that's your twist.  I said what I
    said.  If you feel that the information I posted is incorrect, please
    post your reasoning.  
    
    Society pushes condoms as THE answer.  I merely state that they are a
    bandaid solution at best, and at worst is a false sense of security.
    
    
    -steve 

    re: .576 
        
>    The only people who are questioning it these days are the religious
>   right who want there to be only one way to prevent the spread of 
>   HIV -- their way.
    
    Nonsense.  Condoms are not even proof against pregnancy, much less
    against a virus much smaller than sperm.  There are plenty of
    scientific studies out there, if you wish to find out for yourself the
    truth.  Don't take my word for it.
    
    As far as preventing the spread of HIV, there IS only one way that is
    100% effective.  Why is it so bad to state this? Because it also
    happens to coinicide with moral doctrine?  
    
    It would seem to me that if this moral doctrine makes specific mention
    of sexual ethics that could have prevented the epidemic of AIDS,
    perhaps society should give it a second look- especially since ignoring 
    these ethics seems to be the main problem (moving away from our
    historical ethics on sex, which were Biblically-based). 
    
    The only answers society gives is a cover up for the behavior that
    spawns the problems to begin with.  If everyone would follow *just* the
    sexual moral code of the Bible, AIDS would virtually disappear over a
    generation or two.  Is this such a big price to pay for future
    generations?  Judgeing by what I hear, it would seem so.
    
    
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    Since you are admitadly not participating in anything which should
    require a condom I would expect such ignorance from you.  The "studies"
    from the national latex institute or some such thing?  Seems this
    "institute" showed up about the same time certain people began fighting
    condom information in the high-schools.  The message from them is
    exactly what I put in my earlier note.  
    
    The Alan Guttmaker institute, the CDC, and many reproductive health
    agencies have found condoms to be safe, and effective BC, as well as a
    protection against STD's when used correctly.  The instructions are
    simple enough for any-one who can read at a third grade level to
    understand, and most packages now come with visual drawings on the
    instructions as well.  The problem with condoms is that not enough
    people use them consistantly, not that they are being used.  
    
    Giving women another avenue in microbicides, as well as spermicides to
    protect their health, and those of offspring would at least help
    mitigate the fact that far too many "men" are resistant to the one
    non-permanent method of BC and disease protection available to them at
    this time.   
    
    meg

RE: 323.583 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha."

> Condoms are not even proof against pregnancy, 

Condoms vastly reduce the rate of pregnancy,  even in the presence of many
thousands of times more sperm than virus.  


> As far as preventing the spread of HIV, there IS only one way that is
> 100% effective.  ... If everyone would follow *just* the sexual moral 
> code of the Bible, AIDS would virtually disappear over a generation or 
> two.  

Ignoring IV drug usage,  if _everyone_ would follow any of a multitude of 
sexual moral codes,  then HIV would completely disappear over time.  Of
course,  NO sexual code is 100% protection for an individual:  There is, 
after all,  no such thing as complete safety.  Most of the possible sexual 
moral codes that would eliminate HIV are non bible based.


Phil

	Steve, there is NOTHING wrong with saying that the only way that has a
100% rate of noninfection is to abstain from sex. Except that is not a correct
statement. One can have sex with an uninfected partner, and not get any
diseases. 

	I believe what was being talked about, and Mr. Goodwin can correct me
if I am wrong, is that the RR ONLY want the message of abstaining from sex to be
out there. They do NOT want a message that having sex with an uninfected partner
will not cause any diseases from happening. The do NOT want to have a message 
that using condoms will cut the risk of contracting the disease greatly. They 
ONLY ONLY want one message out there. That message deals with their religious
convictions (not having sex before marriage), not with the reality of what is 
going on in the world today. 



Glen

    Steve,
    
    Would you want someone in an emergency room treating you who didn't
    glove up?  Do you know that the first training in ANY first aid course
    regarding bleeding is to put your LATEX gloves on first?  Given the
    choice of the information from the "latex institute" and that of
    physicians, EMT's, and others involved in universal infection
    procedures, who are at far more risk of contracting a blood-and fluid
    borne infection than I, I will take the advice of the latter.
    
    Of course an alternative for some of us would be never to be in a
    monogomous relationship with a health-care worker.  They are, in fact
    an at-risk group, however low the chances are.
    
    meg

    re:.586
    
    You are speaking individually, I am speaking generically.  How many
    people really know if their partner is infected?  How many people just
    met their partner that day/week?  How many actually wait until they are
    tested before having sex? 
    
    Though having sex with an uninfected partner will obviously NOT spread
    the disease, it is a strawman argument when applying to the general
    sexual habits of this society.  Once again, you would have to change
    behavior patterns in sexual encounters to insure you do not
    spread/become infected with this disease.  As I've said many times
    before, people do not WISH to change their behaviors, and all will
    suffer for it in one way or another (physically or financially).
    
    I would be happy to see even the change you suggest (insuring that your
    partner is not infected), it is the intelligent thing to do if you are
    going to have sex with them.  And by all means, even if they are not
    tested positive, wear a condom anyway.  You can't be too safe.
    
    Abstinance is still the only 100% way, as tests CAN be wrong.  It is
    possible to be a carrier and not yet test positive (unless you have a
    very expensive test done that actually tests for HIV, rather than the
    inexpensive test that only tests for antibodies).
    
    
    -steve

    Look Meg (and others),
    
    I did not say condoms did not help at all.  I merely state that they
    are not 100%.  I think society relies too heavily on a bandaid
    solution, rather than addressing the main problem.
    
    ymmv.
    
    -steve

    >Society pushes condoms as THE answer.  I merely state that they are a
    >bandaid solution at best, and at worst is a false sense of security.
    
    How do you know what society says?  You are too busy with your own
    abstinence-is-the-only-way rhetoric to listen to anyone else.
    
    Condoms are not THE answer, and nobody has ever said they were.
    
    Condoms can help, and are better than having unprotected sex.  What is
    so awfully difficult for you to understand about that?
    
    And by the way, bandaids work very well.  Don't you use them?

    >I did not say condoms did not help at all.  I merely state that they
    >are not 100%.  I think society relies too heavily on a bandaid
    >solution, rather than addressing the main problem.
    
    Well then, since abstinence from sex isn't 100% guaranteed to keep you
    alive either (needles, tainted blood, dentists, getting run over by a
    truck, etc. etc. etc.) then I guess it's no use bothering with
    abstinence either, by your reasoning.
    
    

    Actually, AIDS has me so scared, when I have sex I use two condoms,
    rubber gloves, and a surgical mask.  And that's when I'm by myself!
    
    						- Rodney Dangerfield

| <<< Note 323.588 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| You are speaking individually, I am speaking generically.  

	Then state it as such when ya write! :-)

| How many people really know if their partner is infected? How many people just
| met their partner that day/week? How many actually wait until they are tested 
| before having sex?

	You can write all that above, but then can say no to condoms? The above
is true. Many don't know about their partner if they just met them. Yet knowing
that, you feel condoms should not be talked about, or handed out in schools? I
know the claim to fame is if you talk about the condoms they will think sex is
ok. Yet you know the above, know that people are going to anyway, but want to
do nothing to help the situation. Astinance will help. It is far from 100%
effective because it is only as effective as the amount of people who use it.
You know the above is still going to be there, so why not mention condoms as
well?

| Though having sex with an uninfected partner will obviously NOT spread the 
| disease, it is a strawman argument when applying to the general sexual habits 
| of this society.  

	I never said anything like that. I was applying it to your comment that
abstinance is the only thing that is 100% effective. It is not. At the top of
this note you did explain what you meant though, but that wasn't listed until
after my note.

| Once again, you would have to change behavior patterns in sexual encounters 
| to insure you do not spread/become infected with this disease.  

	Your way seems to be that they just stop. The perfect way yes, but
unrealistic. Wearing a condom would be changing lots of people's behaviours.

| I would be happy to see even the change you suggest (insuring that your 
| partner is not infected), it is the intelligent thing to do if you are going 
| to have sex with them.  

	I agree with you 100%.

| Abstinance is still the only 100% way, as tests CAN be wrong.  

	Steve, you don't go with one test......

| It is possible to be a carrier and not yet test positive (unless you have a
| very expensive test done that actually tests for HIV, rather than the
| inexpensive test that only tests for antibodies).

	Steve, don't know which test the Fenway or my Doctor uses. All I know
is if I were to have had sex with someone, I would know within 3 months time if
I became HIV+.


Glen

     re: .590
    
>    >Society pushes condoms as THE answer.  I merely state that they are a
>    >bandaid solution at best, and at worst is a false sense of security.
        
>    How do you know what society says?  You are too busy with your own
>    abstinence-is-the-only-way rhetoric to listen to anyone else.
 
    You seem to be taking offense to my view, to the point of not reading
    what I've said very well.  Perhaps it is the way that I said it? 
    In any case, nothing I wrote above is dishonest, nor misleading. 
    If you have watched any program, any commercial (public health service
    types), seen the adds in magazines, etc.; you will see the main thrust
    of the anti-AIDS campaign is condoms.  For every time I've seen/hear
    the word "abstinance", I've seen/heard "condom" 50 times.
    
    I believe the condom message is self-defeating in the long run.  It's
    not that it can't or won't HELP, it's just that the message itself
    tends to give folks a "carry on" attitude in their sex lives, which
    will, IMO, come back to haunt many.
       
>    Condoms can help, and are better than having unprotected sex.  What is
>    so awfully difficult for you to understand about that?
 
    Nothing at all.  I have even said as much.  You have obviously missed
    the point in your tirade against my view.
       
    
    -steve

    re: .593
    
    Glen,
    
    Why is "the perfect way" (in your own words) not realistic?  If society
    were really interested in doing away with AIDS (and other dibilitating
    STDs), why is abstinance too much to ask? (outside marriage)  Do we
    really want to do EVERYTHING we can to stop AIDS, or don't we?  If we
    do, how can we no concentrate on "the perfect way"?
    
    I guess I have a different perspective than most.
    
    
    -steve

    I wonder if there were people during the black plague or other major
    plagues in the history of humankind, who thought that attempts by
    doctors or scientists to find cures or preventions were the devil's
    work, and that if only people would listen to their religious leaders,
    then they would find safety.
    
    I wonder where we would be today if everyone had listened to them.