I can’t believe nobody has called you on this. No. HIV in the 80s was primarily spread through intravenous drug use and unprotected sex. Reagan didn’t lift a finger to promote safe sex. He swept any hint of anything having to do with a proactive approach to reducing the spread of AIDS completely under the carpet and into the closet. This is the guy one of whose aides said, “We have to stop this disease to keep it from spreading to the general population” (as if it would be perfectly OK if it would stick to gay people, IV drug users and Haitians).
You know, even though this is the Pit. . .hope it comes out negative, 'sprix.
As for the deniers… :mad:. Way to make a bad situation more volatile.
Pish tosh, me darlin’ - safe sex is fun. 
Esprix
To be completely fair and accurate (in a Pit thread, no less!) Reagan did mention AIDS in at least two speeches, but not until well into the epidemic, and well into his second term. Late 1986 or early 1987 was the first mention, and it was certainly not a ringing endorsement of safe sex and a policy of anti-discrimination for HIV+ people. His administration really FUBARed AIDS policy in the early days when swift, from-the-top, governmental action could’ve made a lot of difference, especially in funding for epidemiology and public awareness.
Most of Bush pere’s administration’s efforts were foundering, at best. Clinton did a little better, and by his second term, governmental policy was about where it ought to be.
It still takes altogether too long to get funding passed through the house. They’re are notorious about sitting on Ryan White Fund appropriations, leaving kids with HIV/AIDS without care, and that’s just absolutely unconscionable. There is much to answer for.
Part of the whole AIDS deniers thing is that the HIV tests, don’t test for the virus, they test for the anitbodies or somesuch. So some fee they can say they don’t have the virus because all they were tested was for the antibodies. I have read articles that advocate people denying they have the virus because of this technicality.
Also some tout that AIDS is caused by drugs that treat AIDS symptoms and advocate stopping all treatment as a cure for AIDS.
My contempt for these people grows with every article i read.
I beg your parden, I forgot this was the pit: “Go and fuck yourself, with bells on, with a goat.”
Especially with the right combination.
Just for shits and giggles, since matt_mcl has already done some challenging of this:
I want to see cites for the assertions, and a definition from december or from Reagan for “gay lifestyle” – in my experience, a term with more flexibility than an elastic dictionary.
I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about immunology.
I recall reading an article in a magazine on this topic, and it will have been 10 years ago this summer. Keeping in mind my disclaimer made at the beginning of the post, it was somewhat convincing. The assertion was that HIV was in most cases coincidental with AIDS but not the cause of it.
Now, Esprix, I must ask this: I can fully understand why you would be bent out of shape at the morons suggestion that no one get AIDS tests, but it is them specifically, or the larger group who subscribe to/pass along this theory that you are so angry with as well? It occurs to me that it is possible to think that this idea might hold some water while still being responsible about your sexual decisions, and encouraging others to do the same.
Note – I have not read enough about this idea to believe it or prove it wrong. I am saying that, having read only that one article many years ago, I can see how some people might buy into it.
Esprix, check out this mind-blowing post on Fathom. The OPer is a vehement denier, even after getting his arguments torn to shreds by an M.D.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, to be sure.
Some moron is suggesting that people who test postive say they don’t have HIV, because it is an anti-body test??!!!
Looks like we can expect the Names Project to be ramping back up…
And, as a side Q - where are we with the DNA-based test for HIV?
Last I heard, it existed, but was so expensive that it was used only for organ transplants. Still true?
mouthbreather, it is the larger theory, for two reasons: One, most of the people I have seen so far supporting this “theory” are doing so in order justify having unsafe sex (for whatever reasons - “condoms don’t feel natural,” “no one is going to define my sexuality,” or whatever bullshit they come up with); and two, ignorance is ignorance - it cannot go unanswered. The moon hoaxers don’t harm anyone, but we don’t let them go unchallenged do we? By spreading misinformation, lies and this fucking bullshit “you don’t really need a condom” mindset, they can get people killed. No dice.
bordelond, that thread makes me cry.
Esprix
Actually, that “information” that he linked to was straight off Maggiore’s website that I linked to earlier in this thread. If you REALLY wanna be disturbed, read it a little bit. (I did, out of some kind of morbid curiousity, and regret the loss of precious seconds I could have contemplated the walls.)