AIDS History 101

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Really?

yeah

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Snoopy

Originally posted by snoopy369
MrFun, you are missing the point; at the time, very few people thought AIDS was infectious, or an epidemic. Hindsight is 20/20, and there will always be some people who think anything; quoting the people who had a financial or career incentive in finding it as an epidemic is not useful.

Good luck; he's been missing this point for the whole thread.

What we SHOULD do, and have, actually, is address the ways in which we identify a potential epidemic. AIDS was not obviously an epidemic. It did not have the characteristics of one, as they currently understood it; it was spread across the country, small amounts in any one place, and because it was spread among people who did not have just a single partner, but generally had casual sex with people they didn't necessarily see again, it was not easy to track the disease - as well when you consider that it was hard to identify WHO had the disease (where is that 634 number from - is it the estimate from the time, or is it an after the fact determined number?) and there was a long delay in finding the disease (tests were not that accuarte, and certainly took time). Further, finding AIDS was not the same as finding HIV (which is the 634 number, by the way?) and there is the additional delay in HIV not presenting immediately.

This is why the Legionaire's comparison is so obtuse, to use Mr. Fun's word. AIDS and Legionaire's appeared in the US in the same year. Legionaire's made over 200 people sick in one 2-day period, in one place, eventually killing 34 of them. AIDS, made 634 people, dispersed throughout the US, sick over the course of 7 years. Obviously Legionaire's was, structurally, the bigger news story.

It's a little like complaining that, over the next seven years, traffic accidents will kill 3 times as many people as Cyclone Nargis -- so wtf is Burma on the front page of the papers every day?! Blatant Motorphobia, clearly!

I would suggest, for example, that far more people died of pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer ... and the name 'sarcoma' indicates that is what they were concerned about - cancer. Cancer is, generally, not transmissible (only a few are contagious, ie HPV) and thus not considered to be a candidate for an epidemic (which REQUIRES transmissability).

This is the point I made in my first post; he still hasn't addressed it.

Point us to when AIDS was truly identified as a transmissible disease - and by the scientific community, not just a small group - and look at the funding from that point. Before that, it is a question of our study of epidimiology, which is certainly far superior to the science in 1982...

Exactly. That point is the early 1980s, and from that point until funding actually emerged, that is something to criticize the government for. But this criticism of the 1976-81/82 handling of the phenomenon (a better word that "epidemic" or "crisis" in that period) is absurd. And, again, surprisingly ahistoric for someone with an advanced degree in history.

[SlowwHand]

Using hindsight is always easy, I've said the same many times. In the early 80's, no one had a clue. I'm talking general public. Joe Blow, as it were.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


On the other hand, those gays who engaged in this behavior are no longer around today. So it was a self correcting problem.

Sadly, this is not the case. There's a fairly significant portion of the gay community that is self-loathing and self-hating to extreme degrees, such that they know the risks of infection and simply don't care.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher


Sadly, this is not the case. There's a fairly significant portion of the gay community that is self-loathing and self-hating to extreme degrees, such that they know the risks of infection and simply don't care.

Yep -- the gay men who are into barebacking are unfathomable to me.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

This is why the Legionaire's comparison is so obtuse, to use Mr. Fun's word. AIDS and Legionaire's appeared in the US in the same year. Legionaire's made over 200 people sick in one 2-day period, in one place, eventually killing 34 of them. AIDS, made 634 people, dispersed throughout the US, sick over the course of 7 years. Obviously Legionaire's was, structurally, the bigger news story.

It's a little like complaining that, over the next seven years, traffic accidents will kill 3 times as many people as Cyclone Nargis -- so wtf is Burma on the front page of the papers every day?! Blatant Motorphobia, clearly!

This is the point I made in my first post; he still hasn't addressed it.

Exactly. That point is the early 1980s, and from that point until funding actually emerged, that is something to criticize the government for. But this criticism of the 1976-81/82 handling of the phenomenon (a better word that "epidemic" or "crisis" in that period) is absurd. And, again, surprisingly ahistoric for someone with an advanced degree in history.

So, according to you then, homophobia and politics during the early AIDS epidemic were non-existent?

That the only reason they did not react to the large number of people afflicted by the new virus was that there was no scientific basis for an emergency plan?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Using hindsight is always easy, I've said the same many times. In the early 80's, no one had a clue. I'm talking general public. Joe Blow, as it were.

I understand that -- but my thread is not indicting Joe Blow, as such citizens were not in positions of power and responsbibility to do something about the epidemic.

What my thread indicts, are the Regan administration, signification portion of the gay community, the blood bank business, the media, and homophobic or extreme-egoistic scientists. These groups included people who had the resources but failed to use them.

The only exceptions were some in the gay community and some scientisits and politicians who risked villification and ostracization when they tried to organize a more responsible, and effective program against the early epidemic.

[SlowwHand]

That may be. As I say, I learned of it about 1983 or so. No, there wasn't nearly the awareness no publicity.
Lefionaire's Disease was just a strange, all at once, boom thing, yes it made news.
I agree with you that certain professions had the technology, my only question is if they realized the ramifications of what they were seeing.
We just don't know. We can read one publication or another about the would have and should have, but again, we don't really know.
Another question, is does it matter? It exists. It's definitely acknowledged now. Do you think enough funding is now being made available? I get the impression that it's a fairly pressing issue.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MrFun


So, according to you then, homophobia and politics during the early AIDS epidemic were non-existent?

How did you get through a masters program with these sorts of reading comprehension problems? I said nothing of the sort. I did say that homophobia had nothing to do with the relatively greater attention or greater funding that Legionaire's disease received prior to the discovery that AIDS was the result of a virus; that is more easily explained by the difference between the Legionaire's outbreak (sudden, isolated to a single area, conforming to known patterns of infectious diseases) and AIDS (diffuse, slow to emerge, not resembling known patterns of infectious diseases).

That the only reason they did not react to the large number of people afflicted by the new virus was that there was no scientific basis for an emergency plan?

1) What large number of people?
2) What virus?

In the period we're talking about, neither a large number of people nor a virus had been identified. Do try to keep up, will you? It's your thread, after all.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I did say that homophobia had nothing to do with the relatively greater attention or greater funding that Legionaire's disease received prior to the discovery that AIDS was the result of a virus; that is more easily explained by the difference between the Legionaire's outbreak (sudden, isolated to a single area, conforming to known patterns of infectious diseases) and AIDS (diffuse, slow to emerge, not resembling known patterns of infectious diseases).

1) What large number of people?
2) What virus?

In the period we're talking about, neither a large number of people nor a virus had been identified. Do try to keep up, will you? It's your thread, after all.

And the Band Played On (page 50)
The following excerpt talks about Dr. Donna Mildvan in New York City, and her own startling conclusion toward end of year 1980 after she and Dr. Dan William discussed patients who died from brutal diseases recently at that time.

"When the pathologist told Mildvan that an autospy had revealed widespread infection with cytomegalovirus, the physician's (Mildvan's) thinking crystalized quickly: There were too many coincidences. Two men had died of infections that should be mere nuisances, not brutal killers. Their immune systems had collapsed. This also explained why she had ten other patients, all gay men, who were suffering from a strange enlargement of their lymph nodes. Something was wrong with their immune systems too.

Mildvan quickly arranged a meeting with the city's best-known gay physician, Dan William.

'I'm very concerned too,' said William. 'I have lots of patients with lymphadenopathy.'

Mildvan went quickly to the point. This was all connected, she was convinced, and in the early weeks of 1981 she became one of the first doctors to begin conceiving a larger picture.

'Whatever that lymphadenopathy is, I think it's the same thing that just killed those two other guys,' Mildvan said. 'There is a new disease going around in homosexual men.'

While the above excerpt shows that no one certainly had identified any kind of virus through scientific investigation and studies, it does show that as early as beginning of 1981, a few doctors were already beginning to envision what was going to happen based on the patients they had already seen and interviewed. Without adequate funding, such early realizations would not be substantiated by thorough scientific lab studies until a few years later. But in spite of this, other doctors and scientists came to the same conclusion through other types of studies and investigations much earlier.


As for your question about the large numbers of victims. And the Band Played On (page 106) explained that by December 1981 official statistics reported 152 cases in fifteen states. Is this a large enough number for you?

Or, how about we look at 1982 (And the Band Played On, page 214). By December 1982, Centers for Disease Control reported that number of documented AIDS cases in United States had risen to nearly 900. That includes only the cases documented; not counting everyone afflicted with AIDS by this time.

So, from 1981 to 1982, the number of AIDS cases had multiplied by more than eight times over. Are these numbers large enough for you? Also, that same page about the 1982 number of cases pointed out that 1,000 to 2,000 doctors, scientists, and others clearly understood by then what was happening; that this was an infectious disease.

[Wezil]

What was the reaction (news coverage, government funding, etc) in other countries during the same period?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by MrFun


By 1983, hundreds of scientists, doctors, and community leaders were convinced that AIDS was an infectious disease. The research that would prove this beyond any doubt, with scientific evidence, came in 1984. Below is an excerpt from an online article by Dr. Gallo:

"To briefly revisit that period, some of the noteworthy advances are listed here. They include discovery of HIV (1983–84) [12-14]; convincing evidence that it was the cause of AIDS ('84) [15,18,19]; modes of transmission understood ('84–'85); genome sequenced ('85) [20-22]; most genes and proteins defined ('84–'85) though not all their functions[23-25]; main target cells CD4 T cells, macrophages, and brain microglial cells – elucidated [26,27]; key reagents produced and made available for involved scientists all over the world ('84–'85); genomic heterogeneity of HIV ('84) – including the innumerable microvariants within a single patient ('86–'88) [28,29], first practical life saving advance ('85); the blood test ('84)[30]; close monitoring of the epidemic for the first time, because of the wide availability of the blood test ('85); the SIV-monkey model ('85) [31,32]; the beginning of therapy – AZT ('85)[33]; and the beginning understanding of pathogenesis ('85)[34]."

Unless I'm mistakened, the research results in 1984 that revealed modes of transmissions of AIDS basically proved that it was an infectious disease.

Okay, sounds good. In 1984 they figured out what caused AIDS (after years of presuming it was a virus, but being unable to find any DNA; realize that HIV was one of the first retroviruses identified, and identifying a retrovirus is VERY difficult when you're looking for a regular virus, since retroviruses don't have DNA). In 1985 they developed an anti-HIV drug.

Sounds good to me ... one year from disease discovery to treatment. That's FAR faster than most new diseases (ones that are not simply small modifications of already known diseases).

I don't see your objections here, MrFun. I don't doubt that there was a small effect of homophobia, but frankly AIDS got, even then, quite a bit of press... I don't know how old you were during this time period, but even as an eight year old I knew about it (when I didn't know what sex, or gay, meant).

Any scientist will tell you that every scientist in the world wants his/her project funded, because it is THE most importart project in the world; and he/she never gets enough funding for it. What you've posted so far sounds to me like a combination of hindsight and scientists whining about funding... I could go to my GF's lab and get just as many stories about various different cancers that are killing off far more than AIDS ever will, not getting enough funding for this research that will CURE IT RIGHT NOW!!!!!1!

AIDS was such a strange disease, and in a lot of ways still is, even though we understand it a lot better now. Retroviruses are so rare, because your body is so carefully protected against foreign RNA entering the cell, that I don't blame them for not having a clue about it... and before you blame Reagan or the politicians, remember they don't know a **** thing about biology, don't have any meaningful control of the funding of these organizations except at the top level (Here is $150m, give it to a good cause), and wouldn't have understood the potential risks of AIDS even if the scientists at the time KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, which they didn't.

What you would have heard, if you listened into a conversation between these scientists and a congressman, would have been:

C: Okay, what are you asking for?
S: Funding to study this disease.
C: What disease?
S: It doesn't have a name yet.
C: Well, what does it do?
S: It makes people die of all sorts of other diseases.
C: sounds concerned How does it do that?
S: No idea whatsoever.
C: Well, do you know what causes this disease?
S: Well, a lot of gay people have it.
C: So you're saying you get this disease by being a homosexual, having sex with another man?
S: Um, well, not as far as we know.
C: So what does that have to do with anything?
S: No idea.
C: So what DOES cause this disease?
S: No idea. We're guessing a virus.
C: Well, we know how to find viruses.
S: Yeah, well, we don't actually see any DNA ...
C: So you're telling me you have a couple of dead people who died of different diseases, but they're all gay, and they do not have a virus as far as you can tell?
S: Pretty much, yes. So can I have some funding?
C walks out and slams the door in S's face.

Without a large number in one area, without a clear link between people, without a clear method of transmission or even something to be transmitted, what exactly do you think should have indicated to them that there was something significant going on?

1984 is clearly the point at which there was a logical basis for concern of the scope you are talking about. So, when exactly did AIDS begin to get funded?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wezil
What was the reaction (news coverage, government funding, etc) in other countries during the same period?

Apparently, the AIDS virus had roots in African countries at least since the 1960s. European countries got the AIDS virus sooner, before United States.

And the Band Played On gives some illustrative points on how scientists in Europe were reacting, but I'm sure there are other sources that cover more in-depth the European and African perspectives.

[Wezil]

If you want to accuse the Reagan admin you need to show a reaction markedly different than in other countries imho.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Okay, sounds good. In 1984 they figured out what caused AIDS (after years of presuming it was a virus, but being unable to find any DNA; realize that HIV was one of the first retroviruses identified, and identifying a retrovirus is VERY difficult when you're looking for a regular virus, since retroviruses don't have DNA). In 1985 they developed an anti-HIV drug.

Sounds good to me ... one year from disease discovery to treatment. That's FAR faster than most new diseases (ones that are not simply small modifications of already known diseases).

I don't see your objections here, MrFun. I don't doubt that there was a small effect of homophobia, but frankly AIDS got, even then, quite a bit of press... I don't know how old you were during this time period, but even as an eight year old I knew about it (when I didn't know what sex, or gay, meant).

Any scientist will tell you that every scientist in the world wants his/her project funded, because it is THE most importart project in the world; and he/she never gets enough funding for it. What you've posted so far sounds to me like a combination of hindsight and scientists whining about funding... I could go to my GF's lab and get just as many stories about various different cancers that are killing off far more than AIDS ever will, not getting enough funding for this research that will CURE IT RIGHT NOW!!!!!1!

AIDS was such a strange disease, and in a lot of ways still is, even though we understand it a lot better now. Retroviruses are so rare, because your body is so carefully protected against foreign RNA entering the cell, that I don't blame them for not having a clue about it... and before you blame Reagan or the politicians, remember they don't know a **** thing about biology, don't have any meaningful control of the funding of these organizations except at the top level (Here is $150m, give it to a good cause), and wouldn't have understood the potential risks of AIDS even if the scientists at the time KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, which they didn't.

What you would have heard, if you listened into a conversation between these scientists and a congressman, would have been:

C: Okay, what are you asking for?
S: Funding to study this disease.
C: What disease?
S: It doesn't have a name yet.
C: Well, what does it do?
S: It makes people die of all sorts of other diseases.
C: sounds concerned How does it do that?
S: No idea whatsoever.
C: Well, do you know what causes this disease?
S: Well, a lot of gay people have it.
C: So you're saying you get this disease by being a homosexual, having sex with another man?
S: Um, well, not as far as we know.
C: So what does that have to do with anything?
S: No idea.
C: So what DOES cause this disease?
S: No idea. We're guessing a virus.
C: Well, we know how to find viruses.
S: Yeah, well, we don't actually see any DNA ...
C: So you're telling me you have a couple of dead people who died of different diseases, but they're all gay, and they do not have a virus as far as you can tell?
S: Pretty much, yes. So can I have some funding?
C walks out and slams the door in S's face.

Without a large number in one area, without a clear link between people, without a clear method of transmission or even something to be transmitted, what exactly do you think should have indicated to them that there was something significant going on?

1984 is clearly the point at which there was a logical basis for concern of the scope you are talking about. So, when exactly did AIDS begin to get funded?

The scientist in your hypothetical dialogue could have pointed out to a congressperson that 900 PEOPLE WERE ALREADY AFFLICTED by this new virus in 1982.

Scientist: We don't know what this disease is, but we have 900 documented cases of people afflicted by this vicious disease, and we have come to stronger conclusion that this is an infectious virus.


So Snoopy, the way the system works then is that if there are hundreds of documented cases connected to a new disease, that you cannot ask for funding to find out what this new disease is, because we do not know what the disease is yet?? What constitutes a public health emergency then -- thousands of documented cases before funding can be acquired? What would be the threshold?