AIDS History 101

[MrFun]

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

Um, no because two wrongs do not make a right. Just because other governments in other nations may have had the same wrong motivation for their indifference does not make it right for the Reagan adminstration to have behaved the same way.

[Patroklos]

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.

Scientist Next In Line Talking Over the Sholder of Scientist: 900? 900! With no link between the patients whatsoever and no pathogen?!?! Congressmen, I am studying Heart Disease that killed 400,000 people last year.

Congressmen: You win.

Um, no because two wrongs do not make a right. Just because other governments in other nations may have had the same wrong motivation for their indifference does not make it right for the Reagan adminstration to have behaved the same way.

Did his point REALLY go that far over your head?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Scientist Next In Line Talking Over the Sholder of Scientist: 900? 900! With no link between the patients whatsoever and no pathogen?!?! Congressmen, I am studying Heart Disease that killed 400,000 people last year.

Congressmen: You win.

Right, because we all know that even though the United States had some of the most advanced, sosphisticated resources in science and health care available, and that had Reagan not reversed the higher level of funding of such institutions, that United States was oh-so poor that they could not afford funding of both, AIDS and heart disease.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MrFun


Um, no because two wrongs do not make a right. Just because other governments in other nations may have had the same wrong motivation for their indifference does not make it right for the Reagan adminstration to have behaved the same way.

So you are saying it was a world wide conspiracy to ignore the disease?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wezil


So you are saying it was a world wide conspiracy to ignore the disease?

I don't want to call it a deliberate conspiracy in which the leaders of the nations met together and deliberately and consciously agreed that they would all ignore the new AIDS epidemic - that would be ridiculous. Maybe as ridiculous as Wright's assertion that AIDS was a deliberate invention of the federal government in United States. Instead of a conspiracy though, what happened in countries such as United States was willful neglect and stonewalling through combination of homophobia, nature of research grant applications, bureacratic operations of large publich health institutions, and other factors.

If I read sources that have in-depth information, maybe we could find countries that reacted more vigorously with their respective AIDS epidemic. Or, maybe their reactions were similar along lines of willful neglect and stonewalling.

My thread focuses on what I am more knowledgeable about - the early AIDS epidemic in United States.

[SpencerH]

Your "knowledge" appears based on a single source. What kind of historian uses a single source?

BTW: Gallo's timeline has holes big enough to get his enormously inflated ego through.

[Wezil]

What I do believe though, is that Reagan administration, scientists, the media, and parts of gay community during that time included people who made the epidemic much worse by their inaction, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance.

And the indifference was apparently worldwide. So why single out Reagan?

Sorry, but Rufus has shot your argument down quite convincingly.

[MrFun]

Not really, Wezil -- I'm still waiting for Rufus to reply to my answer to his question about "what large number of AIDS victims?"

[Monk]

I knew a dude who was back in the day a young co-worker of a doctor who died already in the seventies from what was much later revealed to be AIDS.

Ironically, she was a lesbian and as such in the low-risk group of ever getting the disease through 'usual' means. Presumably she was infected engaging in medical care in Africa under circumstances that were much less than optimal.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MrFun
Not really, Wezil -- I'm still waiting for Rufus to reply to my answer to his question about "what large number of AIDS victims?"

I didn't bother to answer because Snoopy was already doing such a good job of it, but ok:

You yourself gave the number 634 in 1982. 634 cases, spread among patients who seem to have nothing in common and around a a country of 200 million people, is simply not a very large number -- certainly not an epidemic. That number of cases, in fact, does not even suggest a virus. For continued pwnage on this point, I refer you back to Snoopy and Patroklos.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by MrFun


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.

How? In 1982, they didn't know that it was a virus. Even if they did know a virus could cause AIDS, how did they know that all 900 of those people were infected by that virus? There are other ways of losing immune defense.

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.

And shortly after: "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]."

What was your point again?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry MrFun:

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Ok, you can refer to DaShi for continued pwnage, too.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I didn't bother to answer because Snoopy was already doing such a good job of it, but ok:

You yourself gave the number 634 in 1982. 634 cases, spread among patients who seem to have nothing in common and around a a country of 200 million people, is simply not a very large number -- certainly not an epidemic. That number of cases, in fact, does not even suggest a virus. For continued pwnage on this point, I refer you back to Snoopy and Patroklos.

I will have to try and relocate the information in And the Band Played On, but a scientist was noted as having gone over the basic definition of an epidemic -- something along the lines that only a very small number of people needed to be afflicted in order to define an epidemic, and then you can project exponential increases in numbers from there.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DaShi


How? In 1982, they didn't know that it was a virus. Even if they did know a virus could cause AIDS, how did they know that all 900 of those people were infected by that virus? There are other ways of losing immune defense.

So we need to accept this quandary then: When hundreds of people are dying of a new, unknown disease, you do not do anything about it, because there would be no justification for funding, because it is an unknown disease?