werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (07/03/85)
As those in net.med/net.motss know, I have been posting summaries of salient developments in the understanding of AIDS. Well, almost the entire June 21 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Assoc.) is devoted to AIDS. It would be too much to summarize all the articles (and they do cover almost all issues collectively), so I am just posting an edited version of one of the two editorials. I am also adding net.singles to the distribution for this time round because AIDS can no longer be considered a disease of male promiscuous homosexuals. (In fact, in my own limited clinical experience, the only AIDS patient I have actually had contact with was a young women.) -Craig Werner. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Age of AIDS A Great Time for defensive living. It was the age of overindulgence. It was the age of tolerance for anything in anyone. It was the age of fear of imposing one's own social values on someone else's. It was the age of the trivialization of sex. It was the age of anticelibacy. It was the age when early teenage sex was commonplace. It was the age when homosexuality came out of the closet and became almost acceptable to those who once found it intolerable. It was the age of easy, irresponsible oversex, abortion on demand, chlamydia, and genital herpes. And it was the age of AIDS. Not since Syphilis among the Spanish, plague among the French, tuberculosis among the Eskimos, and smallpox among the American Indians has there been a threat of such a scourge. Yet, the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is different from any disease previously seen clinically and epidemiologically. After the torrents of words that have been written and spoken about AIDS, pre-AIDS, and all the rest, is there anything else to say? Yes, a great deal. Thus, this is another JAMA theme issue on AIDS, with MEDICAL NEWS stories, MMWR, ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS, a brief report, a case report, a special communication, QUESTIONS & ANSWERS, LETTERS, and two editorials, all dealing with myriad aspects of this gargantuan problem. The Medical community has responded brilliantly to this new challenge with a rapid outpouring of correct new scientific information. The salient points are: 1. AIDS is caused by an infectious agent, which has been given three names but seems to be a single retrovirus. 2. Many (but not all) who are exposed to the virus become infected, but only some (perhaps 5% to 10% per year) who become infected ultimately demonstrate symptoms. 3. It is possible that cofactors may lower resistance to and promote infectivity of the virus. 4. The virus may be transmitted from an infected person many years before the onset of clinical manifestations. 5. Latency of many years may occur between transmission, infection, and clinically manifest disease. 6. Antibody testing of serum samples is a valuable method to determine who has been exposed to the virus but it does not make the diagnosis of AIDS. 7. A very high percentage of those who develop the full-blown disease die. 8. There is no known treatment for the immune deficiency, and the treatment for complications are variable and inconsistent. : [Two columns on 'The Dilemma of Serological Testing'] : [Header: 'The Virus must be contained', ending with:] : Given the small likelihood of the success of this proposal, it may behoove those people who do not wish to get AIDS to adjust their life style so as to practice living defensively -- particularly in the sexual arena. Individuals have the power to protect themselves more than science currently can. As far as we know, prevention is fairly simple. 1. We should not inject blood or blood products that are infected by the AIDS virus into another person. 2. We should not share injection needles with someone who is infected. 3. [Women] who are carrying the AIDS virus should not become pregnant. 4. We should not engage in sexual activity (oral, anal, or vaginal) with someone who has the AIDS virus. 5. We should consider instituting serological testing for HTLV-III before the issuing of marriage licenses. This is a great time to practice sexual monogamy. Editorial signed: George D. Lundberg, MD. JAMA (June 21, 1985) 253:3441. -------- I have no comment on the above. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "The world is just a straight man for you sometimes"
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/03/85)
But inevitably I have comments, but only 2 cents worth, to avoid embroilment in a net dispute. AIDS wasn't a "disease of male promiscuous homosexuals". Aside from striking IV drug users, Haitians, Central Africans & European hetero- sexuals, more than a few gay victims weren't promiscuous, unless Lundberg means by "promiscuity" anything but strict monogamy, not what most people mean by that term. Given the long latency of the virus (7 years in some cases of congenital AIDS), even stable sexual relation- ships don't entirely eliminate the risk of exposure, though they do greatly lower it: either partner may've been infected years ago. I've heard/read about gay victims who had been in stable relationships for years, some of whom died without ever being able to explain to them- selves how or why they got it. Some AIDS cases seemingly resulted from a single sexual contact, though heightened susceptibility of individuals may be involved here. This is NOT to criticize at all safe sex guidelines, perhaps even within a sexually exclusive relationship (Dr. Lundberg is advocating hetero- sexuality when he advises monogamy: it means "one woman" )=: ). Every- one, gay & straight, should also maintain their health & keep informed about AIDS. Making pregnancy or marriage depend on a negative test for HTLV-III is absurd & fascistic, but is not surprising coming from JAMA. Craig, why print an editorial, particularly that one, instead of a medical article or a simple pointer to the JAMA issue? Cheers, Ron Rizzo
jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (07/05/85)
>(Dr. Lundberg is advocating hetero- >sexuality when he advises monogamy: it means "one woman" )=: ). Every- >one, gay & straight, should also maintain their health & keep informed >about AIDS. Well, I hate to be boring.... but it really bores me when people assume a man when discussing a person. (I mean, if it's "one woman" and I'm a woman, that doesn't make me too heterosexual now, does it?) -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/06/85)
>(Dr. Lundberg is advocating hetero- >sexuality when he advises monogamy: it means "one woman" )=: ). Every- >one, gay & straight, should also maintain their health & keep informed >about AIDS. The root gamos meant marriage, and as a modern combining-stem it usually means mate or partner. (In some botanical terms it means joined.) For people who use it strictly to talk about literal marriage, I suppose it does imply heterosexuality, given the current laws about marriage. But for those who use it to refer to SO-ship or even to any sexual partnering, it doesn't seem to carry that implication. (Though I do take bigamy and polygamy to apply only to official marriage, and hence imply heterosexuality.) The modern combining-stems that are specifically male and female would be -andr- and -gyn-. They don't seem to combine with mono-, but note the full range of three with poly- : polygamist - person with more than one spouse polygynist - man with more than one wife polyandrist - woman with more than one husband (The last two formulations reflect what I think is the general use of these to refer only to official marriage.) -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (07/08/85)
In article <588@mtung.UUCP> jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) writes: >>(Dr. Lundberg is advocating hetero- >>sexuality when he advises monogamy: it means "one woman" )=: ). Every- >>one, gay & straight, should also maintain their health & keep informed >>about AIDS. > >Well, I hate to be boring.... but it really bores me when people >assume a man when discussing a person. (I mean, if it's "one woman" >and I'm a woman, that doesn't make me too heterosexual now, does it?) Furthermore, since when does 'monogamy' mean 'one woman'. It is not USED that way and its dictionary definition is not even that. I think you are confusing it with 'monogyny'. monogyny the having of one female spouse at the same time monoandry the having of one male spouse at the same time monogamy the having of one spouse at the same time polygyny the having of more than one female spouse at the same time polyandry the having of more than one male spouse at the same time polygamy the having of more than one spouse at the same time -- +--------------+-------------------------------+ | Rob Bernardo | Pacific Bell | +--------------+ 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4E700 | | 415-823-2417 | San Ramon, California 94583 | +--------------+-------------------------------+---------+ | ihnp4!ptsfa!rob | | {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob | +--------------------------------------------------------+