"Don Saklad" wrote in message ...
I predicted this several years ago. What's more, I'll bet anything
that the majority of new HIV infections among gays are all drug
resistant. I told you all that the only effect the new drug
cocktails would have would be to extend the lives of those with
HIV and allow them to infect ever-increasing numbers of people.
This is coupled with a sense of apathy among gays, despite being
bombarded day and night with safe-sex propaganda, they persist
in their usual behavior of picking up to a dozen random sex
partners a night and engaging in unprotected sex behind dumpsters.
The only surprising thing is that the cases only increased by 2.2%,
I suspect it is probably much higher and that the numbers are
being altered out of considerations for political correctness.

gmc0@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote in message news:<3f27b4e6.4689783@news.verizon.net>...
Firstly, if you'll re-read Saklad's post, the source material he used
combined an authentic report on HIV/AIDS surveillance with a slap at
slashdot.org.

But to answer your question, most of the reports I've seen from the
conference are accurately separating new HIV cases from new AIDS
cases.

[...]

I guess that depends on your definition of "stable". The CDC report
presented data from 25 states that have a long-standing system of
tracking new HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM). The
CDC claims the number of new MSM HIV infections increased 7.1%
compared to last year. Cumulatively, the data reflects a 17.7%
increase in new MSM HIV infections since 1999.

[... the rest was snipped...]

On 30 Jul 2003 20:23:36 -0700, italiangm@yahoo.com (Italian GM) wrote:

Thanks for the data. The CDC website that reflects these numbers is
reflected in an interesting article, below:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/aids_07-28-03.html

And that underscores our need to enhance prevention programs. Not
merely between two HIV+ individuals as the CDC seems to want to do.
Especially when the majority of those organizations address
populations of people of color. Not by threatening HIV and AIDS
Service Organizations with defunding. Not by the overwhelmingly racist
and homophobic policies that are arising in the CDC as the result of
the pernicious influence and meddling of George W. Bush by appointing
right-wing radicals. Not by perpetuating the failed, bloody war on
"some drugs" while doing nothing for treatment.

Of course, the part of my posting that you clipped was an opening
discussion of what should we do about this? "We" being individually of
course, but also on a public policy level. "Abstinence only"?
Ridiculous.

George M. Carter

****
http://www.aegis.com/todaysnews/du.asp
AIDS Activists 'Frustrated' with CDC's New HIV Prevention Efforts

Daniel Yee
Associated Press (07.29.03) - Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Tuesday in Atlanta, about 250 activists gathered after sessions at
CDC's National HIV Prevention Conference to criticize the agency's new
HIV prevention efforts. Some advocated talking to elected officials
and working with government agencies, such as CDC. Others, veterans of
protests at CDC headquarters in the 1980s, said they would return to
the agency's gates if they had to.

"The [AIDS] community feels that we have rolled back to the era of
Ronald Reagan when the government ignored this epidemic and did not
talk to the people most affected by this disease," said David Harvey
of the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families. Activists said
that, unlike in previous years, CDC did not seek the input of HIV/AIDS
groups in creating its new initiative. That effort, launched in April
by CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding, focuses on preventing HIV
patients from infecting others. Activists fear that money will be
taken from their programs for the new effort, which they think will
overlook many at risk of contracting HIV.

Activists also criticized the way they have been handled during the
conference, saying that police walked the aisles of plenary sessions
and that CDC did not provide microphones and limited activist comment
during a Monday session on the new initiative. Activists said the
federal plan retreats from counseling and risk-reduction services like
outreach and condom distribution.

But CDC is not abandoning high-risk areas, and all community groups
have had to compete for limited government funding, said Dr. Ronald
Valdiserri, a CDC deputy director. "We're asking them to put a much
stronger emphasis - not an exclusive emphasis - on getting people
diagnosed early, getting them into care and treatment and providing
ongoing care and support for those infected and those not infected.
What the 'Prevention for Positives' effort entails is a stronger focus
on ongoing lifelong prevention for individuals."

****
But ONE new case is too many as far as I'm concerned. It is
unrealistic to think we can stop new cases, but I think clearly we can
do more to improve access to safer sex information to high schools,
condom ads on TV, etc., as well as including the other options such as
abstinence. Fidelity is nice too but harder to manage because it
requires trust that may not exist. Testing (yes, Don) is another
option of limited utility. ALL options must be made available.

Importantly, we need to also address substance abuse (ALL drugs, not
just the ones the Feds arbitrarily decide should be illega.) There
needs to be much more comprehensive treatment plans. This is cheaper
than jail....and can ultimately lead to better control of HIV disease
as well. This goes beyond important needle access programs and brings
people into care.

Sex work should also be decriminalized.

But sadly, the current administration is far too corrupt and
interested in enriching the wealthy and murdering people for access to
oil.

"GMCarter" <gmc0@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3f28dc63.2995387@news.verizon.net...
What we need to do George is come up with talking points for all Activists
to use at the state level where the new CDC guidelines for prevention will
be implemented. If we can build up a grassroots resistance we might have a
chance in changing the policy.

The CDC point seems to be the simple logic that in order for transmission to
take place there must be an infected person involved, therefore they are
saying that prevention dollars must be focused on the infected in order to
change their behavior. On it's surface and to the HIV neg members of state
prevention planning groups it might even sound completely rational. We need
to develop a list of logical points that show the gaps in this type of
logic. Or we will have the Don Salkids of the world running the Prevention
programs......

Gary Stein

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:11:58 GMT, "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net>
wrote:
I think this is a great idea....has ATAC started this? Somehow, I'm
sure there may be some already prepared out there! Maybe Walt S would
know?

I think it is not merely a simple-minded idea, but a cover for
appearing to do something when they're being emasculated to promote
the Taliban-esque edicts of the Bush administration.

George M. Carter