rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/06/84)
The following is a blatant attempt to influence how you vote on November
6th. It's addressed to all voters who think they may vote for Reagan,
but especially to closet Republicans, [Ll]ibertarians, and gay people.
(The views expressed herein are my own, & not those of my employer.)
PART SEVEN
[NYNative, 12/19/83-1/1/84, Randy Shilts, "Memos Show Administration Falsi-
fied AIDS Funding Needs, pp. 18-19,64]
At the end of 1983, the real story behind the Reagan administration's AIDS
effort (or, rather, lack of one) finally came out after literally years of
criticisms & fears. "Most of the darkest suspicions that scientists & gay
activists had long voiced about the lack of commitment to AIDS research by
the Reagan administration were confirmed....A stark portrait of government
duplicity which was quietly accepted by AIDS researchers in the CDC emerges
...."
This information had to be obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request
by Congress & from a 33-page report issued by Weiss' HSGOH. "CDC fiercely
opposed" the FIA request, & was FORCED to surrender the desired memoranda
when the CDC refusal was appealed & publication of some of the memos by
Weiss' HSGOH in their report seemed imminent.
The released information revealed:
1. "Some of the same officials who assured Congress that the federal gov't
had all the AIDS money it needed were privately pleading for more funds
from budget officials." CDC AIDS Task Force coord. Dr. James Curran notably
indulged in this form of prevarication, almost constantly claiming he had
or would soon receive funds that he knew didn't even exist!
2. "Within 5 months of its formation, the CDC's AIDS Task Force (ATF) was
vainly begging the agency management for more funds & shortages have seri-
ously retarded the CDC's efforts throughout the AIDS epidemic."
3. "Much of the money that the CDC did spend on AIDS was diverted from
other important health needs."
4. "The failure to expediate funds for AIDS research meant that no
significant outlay of funds reached researchers until March 1983--
almost two years after AIDS was first detected."
5. "Serious misunderstandings about which federal agencies would handle
various aspects of the AIDS epidemic also seriously delayed research."
CDC has received a "good press" from the media (excluding the gay press
which knew better, & was virtually alone in being critical & following
events closely), yet all during this period (1981-3) it was in fact
starved for funds.
Here's a closer history of events as revealed in internal HHS memos:
As early as June 1981 the CDC knew that AIDS was a serious epidemic:
they'd assigned staffers to it from its VD project. By December
"when the number of cases had soared", they were aware of the
magnitude of the task. But they severely lacked funds. Curran sub-
mitted a 6-months budget for a piddling $833,300. But HHS did not
respond. AT ALL. Finally, Congress allocated $500,000 in August,
8 months late. REAGAN VETOED THE APPROPRIATION.
Congress overturned the veto, & Curran finally received the money in
September. By that time, the number of cases had quintupled.
Funding for 1983 "fared little better". Administration budget cutters
forced CDC to recalculate its budget THREE TIMES, the final AIDS figure
being 60% below the original one. CDC Aids Task Force director Dr.
William Rushing included the following with his budget proposal: "As
you know, the attached budget is insufficient to adequately fund AIDS
surveillance & epidemiologic studies. However, we will continue with\the
highest priority activities until additional funds become available."
Finally Congress alllocated $2 million more for the CDC in December 1982;
"like other money that Congress would later appropriate, however, the
AIDS funding came in spite of the statements of federal health officials,
not because of them."
In August 1982 the CDC wanted to set up a national AIDS surveillance
system, but had no money for it. For the next 18 months, CDC "depended
on doctors & health officials to call them up & tell them about AIDS
cases...", an absurd situation for a federal health agency to be in
during a national epidemic.
"We lost all that data -- two years of cases are now irretrievable. All
that time I was saying we should do the work & Curran was telling us he
didn't have the money," said Dr. David Ostrow, an AIDS researcher at
Northwestern.
Researchers weho do get funds got inadequate ones: SF's Dr. Andrew Moss
received $30,000 to monitor AIDS epidemiology for the CDC. "They give
you $30,000 -- it;s such an interesting sum. It's too much to turn down,
but not enough to do anything meaningful. It's similar to everything
about AIDS."
The CDC AIDS Tsk Force's major piece of work, a case control study, was
published 18 months after it was finished; epidemiologists criticized
its findings as "sorely out of date".
The Reagan administration's AIDS effort continued to be "malnourished,
slipsod, disorganized, & bogged down by cumbersome bureaucracy" in
1983. By May, Brandt was alarmed & wrote to the HHS asst. sec. for
mamangement & budget: "It has now reached the point where important
AIDS work cannot be undertaken because of the lack of available re-
sources." Then CDC director Dr. William Foege added a long list of
projects "postponed, delayed, or seriously curtailed" because "money
was diverted to AIDS. These included studies on hepatitis, influ-
enza among the elderly, & rabies."
"Just two weeks later, however, Thomas Donelly, who is in charge of
budgets at HHS, wrote a senate staffer that `we are not in favor of
additional appropriations' for AIDS research."
"Brandt, Foege, & other health officials were also testifying before
Congress that they had enough funds for AIDS even while they were
privately begging for more money."
In late May the House was about to pass an appropriation of an extra
$12 million for AIDS; at this time Brandt wrote "that while the HHS
was not requesting more funds, they would `not oppose' having the
authority to transfer $12 million from other parts of the budget
into AIDS"!!
In September, HSGOH decided to add $22 million to the administration's
$17 million request ("only a 20 % increase over the previous year's
budget levels"). HSGOH "staffers think Republican committee members
leaked word to the administration because days later, Margaret Heckler.
secretary of HHS, made a highly-publicized announcement that the adminis-
tration would commit $40 million to AIDS research next year. Heckler's
announcement did not mention thatthis allocation was a FAIT ACCOMPLI
because of the secret House vote--and it did not mention that even the
$40 million was $10 million BELOW whatthe CDC requested for AIDS research."
"`Normally when you have an epidemic, the health people are begging you
for money', fumed Congresswoman Barbara Boxer of San Francisco, who co-
sponsored legislation for more AIDS funding. `Here we were begging them
for information on what they needed & they kept telling us that they didn't
need any money. It was unbelievable.'"
"In Washington, Dr. Edward Brandt, the administration's top health official,
brushed aside suggestions that he had been dishonest about the federal AIDS
effort. He didn't need to ask for money, he insisted, because Congress
gave it to him anyway.
`By the time I put in a request & it goes through all the processes,
Congress passes the money [indeed!],' Brandt told the Native. `It's
difficult to ever say you have enough money. In one sense, as long as
you have the disease, you could say we don't have enough money. All I
can say is that the money is there now.'"
"Though most scientists agree that the long-delayed money is now coming
from the federal government, some think that the government has irretriev-
ably lost its credibility with the scientific community."
"Weiss' report requests that the gov't institute policies to expedite
funding of research grants &, most significantly, establish an independent
[of CDC, HHS] commission to map an overall strategy to fight AIDS.... The
budget would THEN BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO CONGRESS, CIRCUMVENTING THE
REAGAN BUDGET SLASHERS [my italics]. The panel itself implicitly reflects
the most serious charge within just about every paragraph of [HSGOH's]
report: the Reagan administration has been lying through its teeth about
the adequacy of AIDS funding for 2 years."
There is much more information & events described in Shilts' article.
But the hour grows late, & my fingers are getting tired.
As some kind of a bench mark to make sense of the dollar amounts mentioned
above, a while ago HHS asked for funds merely to develop a few tests for
animal experiments preparatory to the real bulk of research; they asked for
at least $197 million. Also remember that Congressional appropriations
amounts are limited by a factor the administration isn't: the constant
obstacle of a Reagan veto.
[Gay Community News, 10/27/84, Jim Ryan, "Health Director Resigns", p. 1]
Ass't Sec. of HHS Dr. Edward Brandt, the nation's top physician, resigns
at the end of this year. For all his shortcomings in performance & his
prevaricating, Brandt is a competent professional who showed a willingness
to work with gay organizations and was free of political ideology, if not
influence.
"The direction & extent of the gov't's research [on AIDS] depends in no
small measure on who is appointed to replace Brandt.... Any decision on
a successor will emanate from the Oval Office." That is, on tomorrow's
election result.
"Many fear" Reagan will nominate C. Everett Koop, currently Surgeon Gene-
ral. He's been "widely criticized for his opposition to abortion, for
making numerous homophobic remarks, & for close ties to fundamentalist
Christian organizations.
Brandt was given credit for obtaining more AIDS funds at one point: he
leaked a letter he wrote to his boss, Margaret Heckler, forcing Heckler's
hand. Apparently Brandt thought there was good reason to believe Heckler
would deny or (more probably) ignore his request for more funds. Heckler
had previously sat on an urgent AIDS funds request for six months doing
nothing; in that period of time, 500 more people had died of AIDS.
________________________________________________________________________
SO, BE SURE TO VOTE ON TUESDAY, & VOTE YOUR HEALTH, YOUR RIGHTS, & YOUR
CONSCIENCE AS WELL AS YOUR POCKETBOOK!
Cheers,
Ron Rizzo
"Why, dahling! The Left is what's left over, the Right is what's
wrong, & the Middle-Of-The-Road is no place for a lady."
-- Electra Collage, Miss Ballot-box of 1947
Washington, AC/DCjhull@spp2.UUCP (11/17/84)
In article <266@uf-csg.UUCP> mark@uf-csg.UUCP (mark fishman [fac]) writes: >These tirades are a bit long-winded. I think it's inappropriate to >characterize Ronald Reagan as 'homophobic.' This is just a manifestation and >a side-effect. What he is primarily is, inimical to human life. >The fact that he's a jerk, a bigot, a racist, a sexist and a moron is scarcely >germane. > Noting the landslide victory (electoral votes) and large margin (popular vote) of Ronald Reagan in the recent election, I can only assume that US voters prefer Reagan to Mondale. If you truly believe the crap (excuse me, very negative ideas) you state above, perhaps you should be living in some other country. If you choose to live in the United States, which I believe to be the most desirable country in the world, despite her faults and shortcomings, perhaps you could talk about substantive issues and work in a positive way to promote alternative policies and points of view that improve life for all of us rather than indulge in profitless mud-slinging. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/27/84)
-- >> ...If you truly believe >> the crap (excuse me, very negative ideas) you state above, perhaps you >> should be living in some other country. If you choose to live in the >> United States, which I believe to be the most desirable country in the >> world, despite her faults and shortcomings... >> Jeff Hull Oh boy, America love it or leave it, eh? You know, it's not that easy. Most other countries aren't too keen on granting political asylum to yanks, and in general make it difficult to find steady employment. And they know when they've got a good thing. This "you choose to live here" business is nonsense. The fact that I am free to visit most any place in the world does not mean I can become a citizen there, let alone work. US is best? Most desirable? How do you know, not to mention rank order? The US is not best on most of the popular health statistics (like lifespan or infant mortality indices), nor per capita income, not to mention crime. There are many other democracies that appear to be about as politically and economically free as the US, and with a much better quality of life. Ah, but *we* can blow every one of 'em to kingdom come with the touch of a button. Lucky us. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 26 Nov 84 [6 Frimaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (11/27/84)
> > > Noting the landslide victory (electoral votes) and large margin > (popular vote) of Ronald Reagan in the recent election, I can only > assume that US voters prefer Reagan to Mondale. If you truly believe > the crap (excuse me, very negative ideas) you state above, perhaps you > should be living in some other country. If you choose to live in the > United States, which I believe to be the most desirable country in the > world, despite her faults and shortcomings, perhaps you could talk > about substantive issues and work in a positive way to promote > alternative policies and points of view that improve life for all of > us rather than indulge in profitless mud-slinging. > If you plan on bringing back "my country, right or wrong!" please bring back $2000 Chevrolets and a winning Boston baseball team too! *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) (11/28/84)
> If you truly believe > the crap (excuse me, very negative ideas) you state above, perhaps you > should be living in some other country. > Blessed Be, > > jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull > trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. > Hawthorne, CA 90250 Why do people always say this? Everyone has the freedom to think what they want. I, too, think this is at least one of the best (if not the best) countries in the world to live in. One of the things I don't think is so great about it is the fact that Ronald Reagan is president. I am not a 'political animal' and admittedly not very good at defending my beliefs (mainly because I don't like to argue with people). But this doesn't mean I'm wrong, and it also doesn't mean I have no right to live in this country. I don't think it's right of you to deny another citizen the right to complain. After all, if nobody ever complained, nothing would ever change, and we would still be toggling programs into our computers. Marie desJardins marie@harvard
geb@cadre.UUCP (11/30/84)
I agree with Marie that it is improper for some self-appointed guardians of patriotism to suggest that those who do not agree with the government here should "go live in another country". This was a favorite of the Viet-Nam era "Love it or Leave it" crowd. I would suggest that since dissent bothers them so much, they may wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to move to a country where such sentiments are enforced by law. If they are on the right, perhaps Chile or South Africa would be a good choice, if they are leftists, any of the communist countries would be good ones. If they can't decide left or right, then Iran or Libya has features of both. There they will find harmony on every side. As for me, I will continue to oppose the abuses of the state, and if they don't like it, they can leave...I'm staying right here.
jhull@spp2.UUCP (12/01/84)
>> me (Jeff Hull) > <172@harvard.ARPA> marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) The following is a typical reply to my earlier posting. Apparently, I didn't make the point I wanted to make. >> If you truly believe >> the crap (excuse me, very negative ideas) you state above, perhaps you >> should be living in some other country. > >Why do people always say this? Everyone has the freedom to think what >they want. I agree. >I, too, think this is at least one of the best (if not the >best) countries in the world to live in. One of the things I don't >think is so great about it is the fact that Ronald Reagan is president. >I am not a 'political animal' and admittedly not very good at defending >my beliefs (mainly because I don't like to argue with people). Then, thank you very much for replying here. I want to foster discussion without arguing or hurt feelings. >But this >doesn't mean I'm wrong, and it also doesn't mean I have no right to live >in this country. I didn't even say Ron has no right to live here. What I did say was, if he is not willing to make constructive suggestions, maybe he would do better somewhere else, somewhere he is willing to build instead of destroy. >I don't think it's right of you to deny another >citizen the right to complain. I completely agree with you here. >After all, if nobody ever complained, >nothing would ever change, and we would still be toggling programs into >our computers. I completely agree with you here, too. I believe that responsible disagreement is the source of all progress. I also believe that people who can, do, and people who can't try to tear down those who can. What I was trying to oppose was the gratuitious criticism in the absence of constructive alternatives. I even support criticism of the "I think something is wrong here, but I'm not sure what to do about it." variety. But it doesn't seem to me that Ron's comments fall into either category. And when, after the election, he posted that sour grapes article, I felt moved to reply. For those of you who might like to know, I think: - given the alternatives, US voters made the superior chioce. - neither party has a viable foreign policy, but I'm not sure exactly how I want it changed - the most pressing problem facing the US right now is government mismanagement of fiscal affairs - elimination of nuclear weapons is mandatory, the focus should be on getting both the US & the USSR to agree to ANY necessary technique for verifying compliance, treaties should include specific numbers of specific weapons and prohibition against ANY upgrade or enhancement or deployment of ANY new offensive weapon or system, defensive technology should be public knowledge; NOW WHO HAS ANY IDEAS ON HOW TO GET THE USSR TO AGREE? -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
sjk@aicchi.UUCP (Ksiazek) (12/02/84)
> >If you plan on bringing back "my country, right or wrong!" please bring >back $2000 Chevrolets and a winning Boston baseball team too! > I sure am glad they can't say that about Chicago teams anymore !!! Go Go Go Cubs, Bears, Black Hawks, Sting and Michael Jorden(i.e the Bulls franchise) !!!
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/03/84)
> (Jeff Hull) > > For those of you who might like to know, I think: > - elimination of nuclear weapons is mandatory, the focus should > be on getting both the US & the USSR to agree to ANY necessary > technique for verifying compliance, treaties should include > specific numbers of specific weapons and prohibition against > ANY upgrade or enhancement or deployment of ANY new offensive > weapon or system, defensive technology should be public knowledge; > NOW WHO HAS ANY IDEAS ON HOW TO GET THE USSR TO AGREE? > I do! I do! how about getting the US to agree first! Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley