Valentine Pontifex

That does not help. Treat the HIV deniers as you would an evolution denier. Most of them are merely misinformed and have put their faith in the words of those whose "science" cannot be trusted.

Dr.GH

An old schoolmate, Tom Morgan, called me one night nearly 15 years ago. His lab (then
U of Chicago IIRC) had just done a partial sequence of SIV and had compared it to some HIV strain and found a fairly good match. He wondered if I knew any literature about Africa monkey fucking, preferably anal.

Well, when I quit laughing, I asked why he would call me of all people, in the middle of the night, with such a question? We'll skip his answer.

I mentioned how popular poaching chimps, and other primates for food was, and he replied just as did rbochnermd. That is that cooking would have destroyed the virus.

This is when I realized that few to no laboratory biochemists have ever hunted, or
butchered their own meat. Running after game, before and after it is injured is rough
work. You will be cut and bruised when you are done. Field dressing game is a slippery,
bloody mess and you will cut your self more than once in the process. By the time you
get the damn carcass on the table there have been many exchanges of fresh blood.

I, like most anthropologists, find the references to fantastic scenarios like ritual blood injections or monkey fucking both funny, and sad.

(I am aware of a Guatemalan case of transmission of tetanus by a reused syringe by a “traditional” healer trying to modernize her practice. No telling what she had loaded the damn thing with. The solution to that particular problem was to train (and hire) her in the rural inoculation program that had threatened to put her out of business.)

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

This is a subject that very few people have any first hand knowledge about or even second hand knowledge about. It not a subject likely to been covered in even an avid reader's reading either. Thus is hardly that surprising that wide spread misconceptions exist. While I am sure it is funny to those who are knowledgable, I am not really sure "sad" really should apply. This is where anthropologists should take the time to make sure that non-anthropologist experts as well as the general public are given the appropriate information.

GeoTheo

So, why did they close down the bath houses?
You mean there is nothing unhealthful about having anonymous gay sex orgies with multiple partners in tepid, stagnant water?
I'm not saying I don't think HIV causes AIDS but I think there is good reason the gay community was such a serious vector in the US.
There are also plenty of left wingers who hold to the view that AIDS is not caused by HIV. I think linking it to a belief in YEC is a stretch.
I also don't see why we should spend more $$ on it than heart disease or cancer research.

Valentine Pontifex

Who here said that engaging in risky sexual behavior does not have consequences?

Valentine Pontifex

Well, I think that medical research on AIDS, heart disease, amd cancer are all underfunded.

Heart disease and cancer are the top two killers of Americans though AIDS is a greater problem in terms of potential years of life lost.

scigirl

I agree with LordValentine here, and I want to apologize for ranting earlier.

As a (future) medical professional, I become very sad when a disease such as AIDS is treated the way it is. . . for various reasons, this particular disease brings out our deepest-seated fears and prejudices - about gay sex, about race, about conspiracies, and of course. . .fear of death. However, from a medical prosepective, AIDS isn't really a "special case" - there are many other immunodeficiencies which are as devastating if not more, and there are plenty of other diseases you can contract from sex or dirty needles (hepatitis comes to mind). But AIDS gets all the 'glory.'

Paul - I did not mean to single you out - for all I know, you could know more about this virus than I do. However, the current world ignorance combined with the above listed fears and then combined with kooky non-scientific theories, is in my opinion, very dangerous. Thus, the anger.

scigirl

scigirl

GeoTheo,

I think you are changing the subject. No one here is saying that those types of behaviors are totally ok and fine. What we are arguing about is the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS at all, it is instead the specific action of homosexual sex or all those other alleged "immoral" behaviors.
It could have easily been a hetero vector too. I took a class on the history of HIV and AIDS, and the link to gay men was a rather strange coincidence. It could have easily been a frat party that caused the original AIDS explosion here. In fact, my class discussed at length how the views on AIDS would be different if it had been first found at the Sigma Chi house. (In fact, this class was all about how our perception of illnesses changes based on what we know about them, and based on our social constructs at the time - for example, tuberculosis pre- and post- microbe discovery. Fascinating topic, but I digress). . .

Lesbians very rarely get AIDS from each other - outside of people who don't have sex/drugs/transfusions, they are the lowest risk group. Much lower than heterosexuals - especially in Africa. Yet I don't hear anybody out there preaching that the "lesbian lifestyle is more moral because they rarely get AIDS."

I'm not convinced that we do spend more on AIDS than these two diseases. One thing to keep in mind - a lot of basic research goes into things like cell cycle control or viral pathogenesis. Discoveries in these basic areas would have potentials to cure many types of diseases.

GeoTheo - yes it is true that you are more likely to get AIDS if you participate in certain behaviors more than others. That is why we need to educate people, and fight those people who say, "shucks, it isn't a virus, it's caused by crossing your eyes funny" or whatever they think it is. But I would also like to point out - there are so many diseases out there - congenital, genetic, viral, bacterial, fungal, etc, etc. . . why the focus on HIV/AIDS? Like I said earlier, I think it's because it highlights our fears (mainly of homosexuality).

For my master's thesis, I studied a virus called Rotavirus. It kills about 1 million kids a year, especially in 3rd world countries. Every time a fundamentalist christian claims that AIDS is punishing gays, I point out to them that well, rotavirus is punishing innocent starving kids, so clearly God hates them too (being a young child and drinking contaminated water must be abhorent to God, since this still kills more kids a year than HIV!)

scigirl

scigirl

About the claim that we spend more money on AIDS research than we do on heart disease and lung cancer. . .

Here's the <a href="http://www.nih.gov/about/researchpriorities.htm" target="_blank">NIH</a> web site, which explains how they allocate money. Of course, there are a lot of research funding agencies, but the NIH is the major one. Here's some highlights:
and
I also found a page that talks about the budget:
<a href="http://www.nih.gov/news/budgetfy2003/2003NIHpresbudget.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nih.gov/news/budgetfy2003/2003NIHpresbudget.htm</a>

There's an interesting graph of the budget - go the above web site and scroll down a ways.

So the NIH is divided into several different agencies. Here's the acronyms of the major ones:
NCI = National Cancer Institute ($4.7 billion)
NHLBI = National Heart Lung and Blood institute (2.8 billion)
NIAID = National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (4 billion)

There is no agency ot of the 27 agencies of the NIH that is specifically dealing with HIV/AIDS. Most of the research on HIV/AIDS would fall under NIAID. However, this agency funds many other infectious diseases, as well as the study of allergy.

scigirl the consummate data-hunter

P.S. Of course there is always overlap when you talk about research. For instance, NCI will benefit AIDS patients, because many of them suffer from Kaposi's Sarcoma.

Edited to remove the graph because it was too big.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

GeoTheo

I think all the focus on AIDS is nothing more than a chest beating contest for how tolerant people can be. I'm a good person because I care about AIDs victoms unlike these evil Christians blah, blah blah,. What types of people spend they're lives in third world countries dispensing medical care? Would you say a large portion are Christian missionaries? This thread is thread IMO is just a typical "Christianity is the root of all evil" rant. To contend that it is the normal view of conservative Christianity that HIV does not cause AIDS is bogus. It's also bogus that it is related to a belief on Origins. But I guess you Guys come here to rant about stuff you agree on and that provides a kind of catharsis for you I suppose, so why should I rain on your parade?Rant away.
I may swoop down with facts that may burst your bubble on your belief that the sexual behaviors of a certian demographic of the US have no causal effect on their getting AIDS. But I may not have the time. I guess sorting out all these evolution/creation arguements has heightened my critical thinking skills and that caused me to be observant of non-sequitors in other areas like YEC=Belief that HIV does not cause AIDS (Though Phillip Johnson is not a YEC)
And perhaps the belief that AIDS is a judgement from God is an untennable position. I think a better way to phrase it is that abstinence leads to the blessing of avoiding STDs.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]</p>