# Why the liberal 'pooh-poohing' of the Ebola danger? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 4, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388 "2014-10-04T16:33:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/101 "2014-10-06T11:43:18Z")
There is of course the possibility that there is a good amount of data collected during, in particular this outbreak, that has not been published. The hubris might possibly be in assuming that you have access to all the test results and clinical data that the CDC and the WHO have access to in real time. In any case I can find on a _brief_ search several studies that are at least suggestive that sweat should be considered infectious, such as [this one](http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S36.short). > [@](#): > > abundant viral antigens and particles in the skin of EHF patients And scrolling down the search page to [this one](http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S28.full) about the lack of infectivitty during recovery. > [@](#): > > … Twenty-nine EHF convalescents and 152 HHCs were monitored for up to 21 months. … Evidence of Ebola virus was detected by reverse transcription—polymerase chain reaction in semen specimens up to 91 days after disease onset; however, these and all other non-blood body fluids tested negative by virus isolation. … No direct evidence of convalescent-to-HHC transmission of EHF was found, although the semen of convalescents may be infectious. … The primary public health issue addressed by this study was to assess whether convalescent EHF patients who had returned home posed any danger of transmitting EBO virus to their HHCs. On the basis of clinical and serologic criteria of a cohort followed for up to 21 months, we found no direct evidence of convalescent-to-HHC transmission of EBO-Z virus. However, for 4 of the 5 male convalescents from whom semen specimens were obtained, we demonstrated the presence of EBO virus RNA in the semen up to 91 days after illness onset. Furthermore, we have indirect evidence that 1 HHC may have been infected by exposure to semen. These findings are consistent with those in previous reports of EBO virus and Marburg virus being isolated from the semen of convalescents [2–4] and Marburg virus being implicated in a potentially sexually transmitted case [5]. … A comprehensive literature I have not done and an expert on this I aint. But you may want to consider that the experts have more data at their disposal and a better grasp of it than your review allows you. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/102 "2014-10-06T12:18:19Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > I’ve looked for actual studies backing up [statements](http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/index.html)such as: > > “Recovers” is a bit of an ambiguous term in this regard. There is science backing up the notion that ebola has been found in semen after a patient is asymptomatic. But, as far as I can tell, there is little study about how viral loads and/or infectiousness drop as a patient recovers. I could find data from precisely one study that looked at one patient and how his viral loads changed during the course of his disease. (He recovered). > > -OR- > > We actually don’t know if the virus is present in sweat. I [linked to a study previously](http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full) where sweat was tested for viral particles. That sample tested negative. One sample in one study. But not enough to say with certainty. It is certainly safer to assume that the virus could be present in sweat. > > Why don’t we have more details so we can say more definitively? The rarity of outbreaks and poor capabilities to safely gather samples in the field are likely factors contributing. And the niggling detail that medical professionals and researchers have been dying in the course of gathering the needed data has probably slowed things down a bit. > > So we are sometimes left to make inferences based upon animal studies. Such studies have been carried out under conditions much safer for the human researchers. And we’ve seen things that are worrisome, but again not definitive, such as likely infection via droplets expelled by a sneezing pig. And even if such transmission is confirmed in animals, that is no guarantee that it does (or does not) take place in humans. > > But in the Kikwit outbreak of Ebola in 1995 a rather [concerning incident](http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S259.full) occurred. A surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy on a patient who was subsequently determined to be ill with ebola. The entire surgical team fell ill [suggesting](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=9988168)spread of infectious agent via aerosolized blood entering unprotected respiratory systems of the medical team. The difference between ebola and early HIV is that we have nearly 40 years of experience with ebola. It’s patchy and infrequent experience, but at this point chances are that things really are what they seem. This isn’t a surprise to anyone. Public health systems in Africa were systematically dismantled in the 1980s in the name of fiscal austerity. This was a massive failure, and they are now slowly being rebuilt, but Liberia missed the boat due to protracted conflict. Public health experts have been warning of this exact scenario for decades-- a rare zoonotic disease hitting the big time in someplace with no health system. The US spends less than 1% of federal revenues on foreign aid. If the developed world have 3%, many experts believe this level of poverty would be eliminated. But, we decided we’d rather just take our chances. I am hoping we learn from the obvious public health implications of this-- the reality that even getting up to the level of Guinea (which is a train wreck) can avert thousands of deaths and likely billions of dollars. Hopefully the American public realizes that public health in developing countries actually is something worth investing in. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/103 "2014-10-07T00:03:16Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > I am hoping we learn from the obvious public health implications of this-- the reality that even getting up to the level of Guinea (which is a train wreck) can avert thousands of deaths and likely billions of dollars. Hopefully the American public realizes that public health in developing countries actually is something worth investing in. I hate to sound all Machiavellian on this - but the button to push here isn’t deaths in Africa. If we spent more on foreign aid there would be better health in third world countries. Better health - and health systems - would means more easily contained epidemics. It would also encourage those that currently don’t trust doctors and hospitals to start trusting - further containing epidemics. Fewer people with a disease like ebola means it spreads to fewer people, giving it fewer opportunities to end up on a plane to Dallas where OMG Americans!!! might have come in contact with the disease. We are a selfish people - and it is within our own best interests to make sure health care in Africa improves in quality. (And fewer deaths in Africa would be way cool, too - personally, we should provide aid to Africa because its the right thing to do. But I suspect if we increase aid, it will be because we are selfish gits looking after our own self interest) ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/104 "2014-10-07T00:54:35Z")
All the aid we provide is more or less selfish. My point is mostly that this isn’t a biological surprise. This is just a natural result of the world we have chosen to live in. ---
**Author:** ![GoodOmens](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@GoodOmens](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoodOmens)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/105 "2014-10-07T12:30:54Z")
This is simple. It’s not a liberal/conservative thing. It’s a facts thing. You won’t die of Ebola. You’ll die of heart disease at age 79. Just like me. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/106 "2014-10-07T12:43:44Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > All the aid we provide is more or less selfish. > > My point is mostly that this isn’t a biological surprise. This is just a natural result of the world we have chosen to live in. No, its certainly not a surprise. We’ve been being told this was going to happen for at least 30 years. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/107 "2014-10-07T18:19:03Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > See, the problem with answers that are “plain and simple” is that they’re pretty much always WRONG.\* Could you show your work, please? > > \*The most famous exception being: _Q: why are there so many worms on the sidewalk after it rains? A: because the worms crawl out of their holes to avoid drowning_ I may be being wooshed here, but [Cecil says otherwise](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/372/why-do-worms-crawl-on-the-sidewalk-after-it-rains). ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/108 "2014-10-07T21:23:01Z")
The LA Times has a decent [article explaining some of the concerns](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-questions-20141007-story.html#page=1) about the accuracy of information being put out about ebola. They cite reputable researchers in the field of virology who have years of experience working with ebola and other special pathogens. [C.J. Peters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._J._Peters), onetime medical division chief at USAMRIID, commented on the possiblity ebola is spread through the air in tight quarters saying “We just don’t have the data to exclude it.” [Philip Russell](http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=34160599&ticker=IBIO&previousCapId=33000&previousTitle=IBIO%20INC), former head of the U.S. Army’s Medical Research and Development Command, is quoted saying about the current ebola outbreak, “Being dogmatic is, I think, ill-advised, because there are too many unknowns here.” Russell is the man the House Armed Services Committee turned to to [brief them](http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS26/20131011/101394/HHRG-113-AS26-Wstate-RussellP-20131011.pdf) on bioweapons preparedness in 2013. He is no academic crackpot or fringe opinion. > [@](#): > > I see the reasons to dampen down public fears," Russell said. "But scientifically, we’re in the middle of the first experiment of multiple, serial passages of Ebola virus in man… God knows what this virus is going to look like. I don’t. Peters and Russell aren’t being alarmist. They are basically saying “Show me the data” before making absolutist statements. In SDMB parlance - Cite?? Other public health officials are cited in the article acknowledging that it is a fine line between symptomatic and asymptomatic and we don’t really know at what point a patient starts to shed virus and thus potentially become infective to others. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/109 "2014-10-07T21:48:47Z")
Actually, for all you young folks out there, in the 1980s, it was LIBERALS who were racing around like chickens with their heads cut off, insisting that AIDS was running rampant, and trying to scare the everyone into thinking that AIDS was on the verge of exploding into the heterosexual popuation. So, the notion that liberals are calm, scholarly and rational about diseases is not only false, it’s ridiculous. The difference is, those liberals were generally LIARS, rather than misinformed. Liberals lied, lied, and lied some more because they believed the American people are heartless cheapskates and would never cough up money for AIDS research unless they could be tricked into thinking they themselves were at risk. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/110 "2014-10-08T01:52:31Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Actually, for all you young folks out there, in the 1980s, it was LIBERALS who were racing around like chickens with their heads cut off, insisting that AIDS was running rampant, and trying to scare the everyone into thinking that AIDS was on the verge of exploding into the heterosexual popuation. Keep fucking that chicken. Because arguing that the government and medical community should stop ignoring an actual ongoing epidemic—regardless of the subset of the population being affective—is much, much worse than intentionally trying to incite panic for political purposes and advocating pointless and harmful policy reactions. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/111 "2014-10-08T02:17:25Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The LA Times has a decent [article explaining some of the concerns](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-questions-20141007-story.html#page=1) about the accuracy of information being put out about ebola. They cite reputable researchers in the field of virology who have years of experience working with ebola and other special pathogens. > > [C.J. Peters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._J._Peters), onetime medical division chief at USAMRIID, commented on the possiblity ebola is spread through the air in tight quarters saying “We just don’t have the data to exclude it.” > > [Philip Russell](http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=34160599&ticker=IBIO&previousCapId=33000&previousTitle=IBIO%20INC), former head of the U.S. Army’s Medical Research and Development Command, is quoted saying about the current ebola outbreak, “Being dogmatic is, I think, ill-advised, because there are too many unknowns here.” Russell is the man the House Armed Services Committee turned to to [brief them](http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS26/20131011/101394/HHRG-113-AS26-Wstate-RussellP-20131011.pdf) on bioweapons preparedness in 2013. He is no academic crackpot or fringe opinion. > > Peters and Russell aren’t being alarmist. They are basically saying “Show me the data” before making absolutist statements. In SDMB parlance - Cite?? > Other public health officials are cited in the article acknowledging that it is a fine line between symptomatic and asymptomatic and we don’t really know at what point a patient starts to shed virus and thus potentially become infective to others. I read this article earlier today, and I immediately felt vindicated. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/112 "2014-10-08T02:55:50Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Actually, for all you young folks out there, in the 1980s, it was LIBERALS who were racing around like chickens with their heads cut off, insisting that AIDS was running rampant, and trying to scare the everyone into thinking that AIDS was on the verge of exploding into the heterosexual popuation. > > So, the notion that liberals are calm, scholarly and rational about diseases is not only false, it’s ridiculous. > > The difference is, those liberals were generally LIARS, rather than misinformed. Liberals lied, lied, and lied some more because they believed the American people are heartless cheapskates and would never cough up money for AIDS research unless they could be tricked into thinking they themselves were at risk. So, why do you think AIDS didn’t explode into the heterosexual population in the US and Europe, but _did_ explode into the heterosexual population in Africa? Also, cite for these lies? Because I’m fairly certain that your misrepresenting the situation there. Also, free tip: HIV isn’t your best play, here, what with it being an actual health crisis and all. If you want to pull a tu quoque on liberal health scares, go after the anti-vaxxers, which is a field chock full of leftist dupes and liars. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/113 "2014-10-08T11:23:40Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Keep fucking that chicken. > > Because arguing that the government and medical community should stop ignoring an actual ongoing epidemic—regardless of the subset of the population being affective—is much, much worse than intentionally trying to incite panic for political purposes and advocating pointless and harmful policy reactions. Nota bene, Acsenray doesn’t even TRY to correct me. He doesn’t even try to say, “No, liberals DIDN’T engage in lying and scaremongering about AIDS.” Rather, he says lying and scaremongering are GOOD things if the cause is right. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/114 "2014-10-08T11:28:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, why do you think AIDS didn’t explode into the heterosexual population in the US and Europe, but _did_ explode into the heterosexual population in Africa? Also, cite for these lies? Because I’m fairly certain that your misrepresenting the situation there. > > Also, free tip: HIV isn’t your best play, here, what with it being an actual health crisis and all. If you want to pull a tu quoque on liberal health scares, go after the anti-vaxxers, which is a field chock full of leftist dupes and liars. You’re fairly certain, but you’re still wrong. From Day One, liberals in the media tried to portray AIDS as an equal opportunity killer, which is obviously WASN’T. In reality, if you’re neither a gay male nor an intravenous drug user, your chances of contracting AIDS are extremely low. That was obvious all along. The media nonetheless trumpeted every case of heterosexual AIDS, from Ryan White to Elizabeth Glaser to (ahem) Magic Johnson. Why? Again, because they believed ordinary straight American people were too heartless to help gays and junkies, and would only fork over money if they believed they themselves were at risk (which they clearly weren’t). You want a “cite”? Read Michael Fumento’s _ **The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS.** _ He had the story right 30 years ago, but nobody was listening to him (and the few that did called him a bigot or a self-loathing gay man). P.S. Why the “ahem”? Because Magic Johnson has LONG been rumored to swing both ways, and everybody in the sports world knows it. I firmly believe he will be officially outed after he dies and is no longer of any value as a symbol of “heterosexual” AIDS. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/115 "2014-10-08T11:40:45Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Nota bene, Acsenray doesn’t even TRY to correct me. Your characterization is so contrafactual, it doesn’t deserve a point-by-point refutation. Regardless, there was no “scaremongering.” There was a movement to heighten awareness, encourage research, encourage compassion, and advocate safe sex practices, which are effective for most major STDs. You think that awareness, education, and encouragement had nothing to do with the pattern of spread of the infection, which worldwide is spread mostly by heterosexual contact? There was an actual epidemic at the time and the government alternatively ignored it or took the attitude that because it’s mostly gay people, who cares, they deserve it. There was no wild-eyed panic and broad-based effort to scare people into thinking that entire continents should be quarantined. Or are you actually under the impression that straight people are immune? ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/116 "2014-10-08T11:41:28Z")
It is an equal opportunity killer. Gay or straight, you get infected, you die (back in the 80s, pre-current treatments). You engage in risky behavior, gay or straight, you’re at risk for getting it. When AIDS (or GRID) first came on the scene people thought being straight meant you couldn’t get it, either by “magical protection” or simply by the type of behavior straight folks engaged in. Straight folks needed to be educated that they were at risk, too. If that awareness help people realize this was a human disease and all humans ( not just gays) need to be careful and contribute to the search for treatments, that’s a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/117 "2014-10-08T14:10:11Z")
Why Americans Need to Calm the F#@% Down About Ebola > **[5 Reasons America Can Calm the F#@% Down About Ebola](https://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/why-americans-need-to-calm-f234025-down-about-ebola)** > > WARNING: ANY OF YOU COULD DIE, AT ANY MOMENT. That's because you're a mortal being; that's how it works. But you're not going to die from Ebola. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/118 "2014-10-08T14:25:56Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Your characterization is so contrafactual, it doesn’t deserve a point-by-point refutation. > > Regardless, there was no “scaremongering.” There was a movement to heighten awareness, encourage research, encourage compassion, and advocate safe sex practices, which are effective for most major STDs. > > You think that awareness, education, and encouragement had nothing to do with the pattern of spread of the infection, which worldwide is spread mostly by heterosexual contact? > > There was an actual epidemic at the time and the government alternatively ignored it or took the attitude that because it’s mostly gay people, who cares, they deserve it. > > There was no wild-eyed panic and broad-based effort to scare people into thinking that entire continents should be quarantined. > > Or are you actually under the impression that straight people are immune? Amazing. Thirty years later, you’re still pulling the same old tricks. No, straight people aren’t “immune” to AIDS- it’s just virtually impossible for straight men to contract AIDS via plain old vaginal intercourse with women. You KNOW that. It’s been well known for decades. But your side continually lied or exaggerated to make the threat appear infinitely greater than it was. All through the Eighties, AIDS activists and their allies i nthe media insisted “within five years, EVERYONE will know someone with AIDS.” Nope, not true. Newspapers constantly trumpeted misleading stories like, “Rate of AIDS increase now higher among heterosexuals.” Technically true but completely meaningless, and the writers KNEW that. The widely anticipated explosion of AIDS among hetrosexuals NEVER HAPPENED and was never GOING to happen. Which means that the medical community either misled us OR that they didn’t know what they were talking about. Neither possibility should be reassuring. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/119 "2014-10-08T15:09:59Z")
Uh, you might want to qualify your statements geographically. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/120 "2014-10-08T15:27:58Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Amazing. Thirty years later, you’re still pulling the same old tricks. > > No, straight people aren’t “immune” to AIDS- it’s just virtually impossible for straight men to contract AIDS via plain old vaginal intercourse with women. You KNOW that. It’s been well known for decades. But your side continually lied or exaggerated to make the threat appear infinitely greater than it was. > > All through the Eighties, AIDS activists and their allies i nthe media insisted “within five years, EVERYONE will know someone with AIDS.” Nope, not true. > > Newspapers constantly trumpeted misleading stories like, “Rate of AIDS increase now higher among heterosexuals.” Technically true but completely meaningless, and the writers KNEW that. > > The widely anticipated explosion of AIDS among hetrosexuals NEVER HAPPENED and was never GOING to happen. Which means that the medical community either misled us OR that they didn’t know what they were talking about. Neither possibility should be reassuring. Most new HIV cases in women in the USA are from heterosexual contact. Men, while at lower risk for contracting HIV from heterosexual sex are still at risk and are at risk from IV drug use. At the time AIDS appeared on the scene, people did not believe straight folks were at risk. Emphasizing the that everyone was at risk, even to varying degrees, helped get people willing to take protective measures and sparked universal interest in funding research. I’m not seeing lies. Men were encouraged to use condoms and not to engage in risky IV drug use. This protected them (straight or gay) and their female partners. The fact that men are at lower risk for contracting HIV from PIV sex doesn’t make it the whole story. Women are at much higher risk to contract HIV from PIV sex. So what’s the lie: Straight people are at risk. Men are at risk from either anal or PIV sex. Men are at risk from non-sexual behaviors such as IV drug use Women are at high risk from infected male partners There was limited interest in funding research and changing policy until it was proven that everyone was at potential risk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388.md?page=7)