A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevant

[clr2me]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by mostlyharmless:
And the AMA's recommended treatment for the disease happens to be free...Alcoholics Anonymous.

You need to go back and check your facts.

The AMA recommends self-help groups as an ADJUNCT to medical care, not as a substitute.

Posted by mostlyharmless:
The disease model for Alcholism dates back to Ancient Rome, actually, and is supported by the Worldwide Medical Community, not just America

Back to ancient Rome? I would like to see your source as I haven't heard that before.

Posted by mostlyharmless:
The AMA has not only recognized the disease model of Alcoholism, it also a recommends a treatment that doesn't make them any profit..Alchololics Anonymous.

Actually the AMA is the biggest cheerleader for the “disease model of Alcoholism”.
However their recommended treatment is not AA. The AMA’s position is that self-help groups should be utilized by physicians as an adjunct to a treatment plan. They have never recommended AA as a substitute or as the sole treatment regimen.

You should go to the AMA's website and check out their #1 Priority. I think that will clear up some of your confusion regarding the AMA's true mission.

Posted by mostlyharmless:
A.A. is a non-profit, self-supporting organization that is not aligned with nor endorses any other organization.

That is true.

Posted by mostlyharmless:
How, exactly, is the AMA profiting?

The AMA lists 690,000+ physicians in the United States and the Possessions. Regular annual membership is $420. Do the math.

Posted by mostlyharmless:
And is Clinical Depression also a figment of the AMA's imagination?

I never said it was.

Posted by mostlyharmless:
The bottom line is, self-destructive behavior is not always the product of moral weakness.

Again, I never said it was. Why are you trying to twist my words?

Why don't you start a new thread on alcoholism mostlyharmless and I will be glad to discuss the AMA's current efforts as well as the religious cult aspects of AA.

 

[where'sSaavik?]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Remember to keep this polite, kids.

 

[Peacemaker]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by clr2me:

Posted by peacemaker:
clr2me,

I'm interested in knowing what good you think might be accomplished by telling people that they are irresponsible if they have HIV. Who are you to make that judgment or simply add to that they have already experienced from themselves, their families, friends, and others?

To answer your first sentence: None.

Re your 2nd sentence: Never said anything about passing judgement on people with illnesses.

My message has been and still is, don't act irresponsibly or there could be negative consequences.

Posted by peacemaker:
There is a dichotomy btw. irresponsible acts and irresponsible persons. Many people assume that bec. somebody "in this day and age" tests positive that they are irresponsible. However, the only thing that might be true is that they committed one or more irresponsible ACTS. Responsible people can and do commit irresponsible acts all the time.

Hmm....."might be true", well that's an interesting way to put it. Let's look at the facts!

Here are the statistics as published by the CDC.

Cumulative number of AIDS cases reported to CDC is 816,149.

Categories of AIDS Cases
Men who have sex with men 368,971
Injecting Drug Use 201,326
Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293

In other words 76.16% of all AIDS cases fit into one of these three categories.

So, if someone "assumes" that a man with AIDS is either gay, a drug user, or both, then there is significant foundation for that assumption.

Posted by peacemaker:
Furthermore, the act of labeling somebody irresponsible begs the question, ...

I have not tried to "label somebody irresponsible".

I do label certain acts irresponsible.

Posted by peacemaker:
"Is it REALLY your business knowing exactly how any one person got HIV?" If you say it's not, then it's not your place to judge that persons actions, because you don't know them or how they got infected. They may have gotten it from their partner, husband, wife, a blood transfusion, or one stupid mistake with a needle, or any number of ways.

Any one person? No! Why would I care what they did?

A person within my circle of contacts? Yes, but only to the extent of natural curiosity. I have no grand scheme to mistreat persons with illnesses.

Posted by peacemaker:
If you say "Anybody that gets..." you've automatically assumed its your business to know and that if you do know that it's your perogative to pass judgment.

I was going to criticize your logic, but that's not why we are here.

The real question is why would someone make the statement you suggest?

You keep trying to get us to believe that if we express an opinion or make any inquiry whatsoever we are somehow bad.

Well, I would suggest a more mundane explanation, that being plain ignorance.

People are generally afraid of what they don't understand.

You said:

Posted by peacemaker:
The real kicker was when she finished with "I know how you get HIV, I was once a volunteer at a hospital." Of course, when I saw the note, I called her butt into my office and told her that my 3 years at the CDC National HIV/AIDS Hotline trumped her volunteer training at the local hospital and that she was abt. to get a real education).

Your bitterness and in particular your disdain for people less educated than yourself is apparent. This woman was simply ignorant. BTW: I don’t see the love and acceptance you want from others in your response to this woman, and I can guarantee you would not have “called my butt into your office” to give me a “real education”. Everyone has the right to a safe workplace. You can’t expect everyone to know everything you know or would like for them to know regarding HIV/AIDS. If I encountered someone like the woman you describe, then I would hand her a pamphlet from the CDC or try to arrange for some kind of “at work” speaker program, etc. Your solution smacks of arrogance to me and I doubt you accomplished very much.

Posted by peacemaker:
We know more about heart disease than any other illness. We still know more about cancer than any HIV. Some cancers are even curable. We know what causes diabetes and how to control it. Maybe you've forgotten that we didn't find out that HIV causes AIDS until the mid80's.

We do know more about the other illnesses and that's not likely to change any time soon. Maybe you've forgotten that before June 1981 the medical community had never heard of HIV. In fact prior to September 1982, it was known as (GRIDS) gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome. Frankly, I'm surprised by the amount of progress medicine has made.
Make no mistake, I do not profit off of people with illnesses and I would love to see a cure for Cancer, Leukemia, Heart Disease, MS, AIDS, and the myriad of other human illnesses.

Posted by peacemaker:
It's not your place to judge the lives of others, because you will be judged by the same standard by which you judge. If you send the signal that it is your perogative to know abt. those persons, then you had best be prepared to have the light turned on you too.

People make judgements based on their level of understanding every day. For you to ask us (people in the low risk group) to drop what we are doing and rush out and acquire the same level of sophistication you posses regarding HIV/AIDs is offensive.

Posted by peacemaker:
Most people with HIV have experienced the thought "What I did was stupid and irresponsible" more than once. Most think it to themselves every day. What good can you do by making such statements to them?

I’ve already anwered that question.

Posted by peacemaker:
I'm reminded of the preacher that preached a sermon on self-control one Sunday morning. He spoke on sexual immorality. After church, he and his wife ate Big Macs at McDonald's. He went home, and later that night went to the ER with a heart attack. His doctor was a former church member. He came to see him with his hospital and introduced him to his girlfriend, a nurse. "Aren't you married?" asked the preacher. "Yes," said the doctor, "but I don't think you need to preach sermons on selfcontrol when all those years of Big Macs put you in the hospital and made you my patient. Lose fifty pounds and we'll talk later."

Cute story!

I'm reminded of one where a man saw a snake on a cold winter day. The snake asked the man to pick him up and let him get warm in the man's pocket. The man said no way your a snake I don't want to get bit. The snake said well yes I am a snake, but I won't bite you. The man then placed the snake in his pocket. A few minutes later the snake bit him. The man pulled the snake out, threw him to the ground and said: "why did you bite me?" The snake replied: "You knew what I was when you picked me up".

Briefly,

Speechless claptrap. I've read your other posts in other threads about Stigma. Not one time have you distinguished btw. irresponsible acts and irresponsible people. Either way you go, you still end up begging the question that it's your business.

One more thing, don't go quoting CDC statistics on AIDS like you understand them. Note: From 1992 - 94, I was one of the people at the National AIDS Hotline that dealt with these on a daily basis. Then I went on to work for the CDC in other capacities with in the National AIDS Information Service. (The woman I had that little chat with: CDC EMPLOYEE!!! What I said to her was most appropriate and supported by my boss, since I was also in charge of HR for our area. Again, because you didn't know those particulars, you made a judgment about my actions that was not warranted. Btw. Morilla is no longer with them. It turns out she had quite the religious agenda against people with HIV and that was at the root of what she said...again, you didn't know that, so you quoted something on page three of this thread, meant to give as an example about workplace harassment that people with HIV still face based on the ignorance others...something not even made as a comment to you...and you made a judgment about something I did.)

Obviously, you don't, or you do enough to omit statistics about HIV infection. You also forget to distinguish btw. prevalence and incidence. Prevalence is the total number of cases of any disease since it was first tracked. Incidence has to do with the number of new cases. You also got your facts on HIV history wrong, like the discovery of HIV itself. (It was 1983, not 81). Let's look at the facts, by all means. You certainly misquoted them very well. Let's talk about HIV/AIDS incidence not AIDS prevalence. Let's start comparing THOSE statistics sometime, buddy. They present a very different picture. I think I'll start here: 70% of AIDS cases reported in 2002 in NC alone were male and African American. Less than 30 % of all AIDS cases were attributed to gay men. By your rationale that we should use statistics to determine who is "responsible" and "irresponsible" it looks like black men in NC are bad people. "By your fruits, you will know them." Every time you declare an act irresponsible, unless you know somebody, you declare that person irresponsible. If you use statistics alone and your attitude is yours, you can make some pretty broad statements. This one happens to be about race. This is using your own logic.

You made the comment "People make judgments based on their level of understanding every day." You're right, they do. That doesn't mean that those judgments are correct or right or even warranted. It is not offensive to point out that just because one has opportunity to make a judgment that one SHOULD do so.

Thus far you've made several judgments in this thread. One: About my actions with an employee. You didn't have all the information, yet you felt compelled to label what I did as judgmental and offensive. Why? What drove you to do that?

Two: AIDS prevalence is germaine to the issue. Here we have a judgment based on lack of information and understanding. Not only that, we have a judgment that, if correct information was used or certain types of information was used, any judgment made could be very poor, eg. 70% of new AIDS cases in NC being in black males who are not gay could lead to some racist statements.

Three: Your statements regarding alcoholism and the AMA (about which you failed to respond to mostlyharmless). You alleged that it is in the interests of the AMA to say that alcholism is a disease, insinuating that the AMA profits from it. However, as mostly pointed out. The treatment the AMA prescribes is a FREE service: AA, AlAnon, and other services. If they have a membership fee, it does not go to the doctors.

Four: That is offensive for me to ask others to somehow rise to my level of understanding. Why? How so? That' s like saying to an African-American in the 1960's that is wrong to speak out about racism by telling others what life is like for him or her. Do you find that offensive too? Do you think it was offensive for blacks and women to ask others to consider for a few moments what life is/was like in those days?

You are full of contradictions. On one hand you write "I do label certain acts irresponsible" Yet on the other you say that its not your business to know certain things. You can't label anything in a positive or negative manner unless you know what that thing is. You can't not say that something somebody has done is good or bad, right or wrong, responsible or irresponsible unless you first know what that thing is. I further submit that it is not your place to judge or label what they may or may not have done even if you do know of it, particularly when they have likely already done so themselves. It accomplishes no good for that person or for you. Its either your business or it is not. When you hear somebody has HIV it is not your place to label anything they did in any way. Just because you have the opportunity to do so and because others may do so does not give you license to do so. That goes for anything. You make yourself God over that person.
"Judge not, lest you be judged."

What you say and the spirit you say it is very important. What you've said in this thread and others regarding Stigma appears very mean spirited and judgmental.

 

[mostlyharmless]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by clr2me:
Why don't you start a new thread on alcoholism mostlyharmless and I will be glad to discuss the AMA's current efforts as well as the religious cult aspects of AA.

I am pretty knowledgable about the Recovery process and A.A.
What do you suggest as a topic?

 

[Guest]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by mostlyharmless:

Posted by clr2me:
Why don't you start a new thread on alcoholism mostlyharmless and I will be glad to discuss the AMA's current efforts as well as the religious cult aspects of AA.

I am pretty knowledgable about the Recovery process and A.A.
What do you suggest as a topic?

I'd like to be in on that one? I'm especially curious concerning the remark about "the religious cult aspects of AA."

 

[clr2me]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by peacemaker:
I've read your other posts in other threads about Stigma.
Not one time have you distinguished btw. irresponsible acts and irresponsible people. Either way you go, you still end up begging the question that it's your business.

I went back and read my other posts. Only one had anything to do with AIDS and it said:

“I hate to be so negative about an episode I haven't even seen, but when I read about the AIDS related storyline...well I'll watch it and try to be objective, but I have a really bad feeling about this one.”

Before you twist this to the point I can’t even recognize it, I’ll explain what I was thinking.

I did not expect B&B to produce an intelligent show regarding AIDs. It’s that simple.

Contrary to what I predicted, Stigma didn’t do any damage to the Star Trek franchise.

Judging by the posts, most people seem to have liked the episode.

The other 2 posts dealt with 1: The observation that Trip does not fool around with the wives of his friends. 2: My opinion on the “arrangement” Dr. Phlox and his wives
share.

So with that said, which “Stigma” post are you talking about?

Posted by peacemaker:
Either way you go, you still end up begging the question that it's your business.

Let me try it this way. It is not my business to know how any one person contracted HIV, unless THEY WANT to tell me how they got it. I have never appoached anyone with HIV/AIDS and inquired how they got the illness. You feel free to twist this around to further your agenda, but I can’t be any clearer and I have nothing else to say about this aspect.

Posted by peacemaker:
One more thing, don't go quoting CDC statistics on AIDS like you understand them.

WTF! You don’t know me, yet you claim “God like” knowledge about my understanding of the statistics on the CDC website. Sir your arrogance knows no bounds!

Posted by peacemaker:
Note: From 1992 - 94, I was one of the people at the National AIDS Hotline that dealt with these on a daily basis. Then I went on to work for the CDC in other capacities with in the National AIDS Information Service.

So, if I don’t work for the CDC I can’t possibly understand any of this?

Posted by peacemaker:
(The woman I had that little chat with: CDC EMPLOYEE!!! What I said to her was most appropriate and supported by my boss, since I was also in charge of HR for our area. Again, because you didn't know those particulars, you made a judgment about my actions that was not warranted. Btw. Morilla is no longer with them. It turns out she had quite the religious agenda against people with HIV and that was at the root of what she said...again, you didn't know that, so you quoted something on page three of this thread, meant to give as an example about workplace harassment that people with HIV still face based on the ignorance others...something not even made as a comment to you...and you made a judgment about something I did.)

I decided to comment based on the information YOU GAVE US! Now you want to retell the story and condem me in the process. Go right ahead I can take it. As for your revised version, it appears you did in fact act appropriately, however, I reserve the right to comment on what people actually post, not on what they wished they posted, not on what they intended, but on what they actually posted.

Posted by peacemaker:
Obviously, you don't, or you do enough to omit statistics about HIV infection. You also forget to distinguish btw. prevalence and incidence. Prevalence is the total number of cases of any disease since it was first tracked. Incidence has to do with the number of new cases. You also got your facts on HIV history wrong, like the discovery of HIV itself. (It was 1983, not 81).

I didn't forget anything, but thanks for the definitions, I’m sure there are people somewhere that don’t know the difference. Obviously I do as I did say “Cumulative number of AIDS cases reported to CDC is 816,149”. As for the history, I never said when HIV was discovered, go back and read it again. I’m going to stand by my post. Oh and yes, I am well aware that HIV was first isolated in France in 1983 by Francois-Barre Sinousi.

Posted by peacemaker:
Let's look at the facts, by all means. You certainly misquoted them very well.

I did no such thing. Here’s a link to the CDC so YOU can look it up.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

Posted by peacemaker:
Let's talk about HIV/AIDS incidence not AIDS prevalence. Let's start comparing THOSE statistics sometime, buddy. They present a very different picture. I think I'll start here: 70% of AIDS cases reported in 2002 in NC alone were male and African American. Less than 30 % of all AIDS cases were attributed to gay men. By your rationale that we should use statistics to determine who is "responsible" and "irresponsible" it looks like black men in NC are bad people. "By your fruits, you will know them." Every time you declare an act irresponsible, unless you know somebody, you declare that person irresponsible. If you use statistics alone and your attitude is yours, you can make some pretty broad statements. This one happens to be about race. This is using your own logic.

Are you trying to twist everything I say, if so to what end? I never said anyone SHOULD use statistics to determine who is “responsible”. I said that if someone looked at the CDC numbers, then they have a legitimate reason for believing that ¾ of the men WITH AIDS are gay, drug users, or both.

Now if you want to talk about the chances of a negative getting HIV, then yes you need to look at incidence and yes the picture is very different, but I was talking about people with AIDS.

BTW: If I declare an act irresponsible, whether I know anyone committing the act or not is irrelevant. Using drugs and operating a car is irresponsible. I don’t know anyone that uses drugs, but that in no way prevents me, the law, or anyone else from legitimately saying using drugs and driving is irresponsible. Again, I am calling the "act" irresponsible.

Posted by peacemaker:
You made the comment "People make judgments based on their level of understanding every day." You're right, they do. That doesn't mean that those judgments are correct or right or even warranted. It is not offensive to point out that just because one has opportunity to make a judgment that one SHOULD do so.

Again, your trying to twist my words. I never said that one SHOULD make a judgement just because one can. I’ll put it another way for you. Unless your a medical doctor or in a high risk group for HIV you do not need a physician’s level of understanding regarding HIV/AIDS.

Posted by peacemaker:
Thus far you've made several judgments in this thread. One: About my actions with an employee. You didn't have all the information, yet you felt compelled to label what I did as judgmental and offensive. Why? What drove you to do that?

As I have said, I commented on what you said, not what you thought, wished, or hoped you said.

Posted by peacemaker:
Two: AIDS prevalence is germaine to the issue. Here we have a judgment based on lack of information and understanding. Not only that, we have a judgment that, if correct information was used or certain types of information was used, any judgment made could be very poor, eg. 70% of new AIDS cases in NC being in black males who are not gay could lead to some racist statements.

Are you now calling me a racist? I think your just trolling now, but so be it.

BTW: AIDS prevalence is germane to understanding the average person’s understanding of AIDS inasmuch as the average person is scared to death to be around someone with HIV.

Posted by peacemaker:
Three: Your statements regarding alcoholism and the AMA (about which you failed to respond to mostlyharmless). You alleged that it is in the interests of the AMA to say that alcholism is a disease, insinuating that the AMA profits from it. However, as mostly pointed out. The treatment the AMA prescribes is a FREE service: AA, AlAnon, and other services. If they have a membership fee, it does not go to the doctors.

Well, you obviously didn’t see my 2nd post, no doubt you were working on your own post. You thought I was alleging? I'll flat out say it for you. The AMA profits by having alcoholism classified as a disease. I’m not going much further than that as I think mostlyharmless is going to start a thread and you can read about it there. And no AA does not have a membership fee.

Posted by peacemaker:
Four: That is offensive for me to ask others to somehow rise to my level of understanding. Why? How so? That' s like saying to an African-American in the 1960's that is wrong to speak out about racism by telling others what life is like for him or her. Do you find that offensive too? Do you think it was offensive for blacks and women to ask others to consider for a few moments what life is/was like in those days?

I’ll try to clear up this point. Most adult people have complex and busy lives. I wonder how many people that have posted in this thread (besides you and me) have actually visited the CDC HIV/AIDS website? You see my point?

Certainly everyone in the U.S. knows something about HIV/AIDS. Does everyone have your level of understanding? Of course not. I doubt you could find a single medical issue that even most of the population understands. What’s at issue here is whether everyone should be required to “rise” to your level of understanding.

You seem to believe we should.

I find “THAT” offensive.

If we happen to know as much or more than you, that’s great, but I don’t think you will find much support for making it compulsory. Our lives are busy enough.

Posted by peacemaker:
You are full of contradictions. On one hand you write "I do label certain acts irresponsible" Yet on the other you say that its not your business to know certain things. You can't label anything in a positive or negative manner unless you know what that thing is. You can't not say that something somebody has done is good or bad, right or wrong, responsible or irresponsible unless you first know what that thing is.

How do you know not to play in traffic? You don’t have to know someone that was hit by a car to know it’s not a good idea to play in traffic.

Posted by peacemaker:
I further submit that it is not your place to judge or label what they may or may not have done even if you do know of it, particularly when they have likely already done so themselves.

Again, your twisting my message. Maybe you just don’t want to hear it, I don’t know.

I’ll rephrase it. IF you do not have HIV, then you should find out how it is acquired and judge for yourself whether you are doing all that is possible to avoid acquiring HIV.

Obviously, if you already have HIV then you are no longer at risk for acquiring it.

Posted by peacemaker:
It accomplishes no good for that person or for you. Its either your business or it is not. When you hear somebody has HIV it is not your place to label anything they did in any way.

I never have nor have I suggested that anybody should.

Posted by peacemaker:
Just because you have the opportunity to do so and because others may do so does not give you license to do so. That goes for anything. You make yourself God over that person.

"Judge not, lest you be judged."

What you say and the spirit you say it is very important.

My message has not changed.

Posted by peacemaker:
What you've said in this thread and others regarding Stigma appears very mean spirited and judgmental.

Now your saying I have been mean spirited and judgemental in other Stigma threads. I addressed what I said in other threads at the beginning of this post.
I now ask you to either prove your case (a link and explanation will do) or stop spreading lies and innuendo about me.

 

[clr2me]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by mostlyharmless:
I am pretty knowledgable about the Recovery process and A.A.
What do you suggest as a topic?

Great! I will enjoy hearing your thoughts on the Recovery process.

Possible Topic
"Alcoholism - The Recovery Process Demystified"

You could then take us through it step by step.
Identifying the players, their motives, etc.

Posted by Farm Boy:
I'm especially curious concerning the remark about "the religious cult aspects of AA."

No problem. I'll float some ideas on it and we can see where it goes.

 

[Pavlova]

Peacemaker,

Although this response is 'late in the game,' thank you very much for your courage, honesty and insight in relating the issues raised in the episode 'Stigma' to the real-life issues of all who live with an HIV positive serotype. Your voice is much needed and much appreciated.

Abundant blessings on you.

 

[Twilight]

You have great courage, Peacemaker, and I hope only the best for you.

Stigma was a great episode--it was representative of Trek at its best: applicable to situations in everyday life--lessons to live by.

Thank you for your post.

-T.

 

[TorontoTrekker]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by clr2me:
I said that if someone looked at the CDC numbers, then they have a legitimate reason for believing that ¾ of the men WITH AIDS are gay, drug users, or both.

If you're talking about the current total, then yes. But a larger proportion of new cases these days are among self-identified heterosexual men, particularly black men. Some of the articles I've read suggest that they may actually have contracted it via same-sex relations, but they are not admitting to it because of homophobia in the black community. Also, not all men who have sex with men identify as gay or bisexual. (I refer to them as "deluding themselves", but that's another argument.)

The main reason for the slowing incidence in the gay community is, of course, because we have educated ourselves to a greater degree, on average, than the heterosexual population.

Now if you want to talk about the chances of a negative getting HIV, then yes you need to look at incidence and yes the picture is very different, but I was talking about people with AIDS.

Okay, I get you... you actually are referring to people living with the disease rather than the new cases. However, it is irresponsible not to point out that the incidence of HIV among gay men has decreased. (Leaving to one side the recent increase in barebacking, as I don't know the statistics there off the top of my head and I'm not sure where I might find them that you haven't already looked.)

My only real complaint with what you've said there, however, is that the chances of a negative person contracting HIV are not altered by the incidence of the illness; that's bad mathematics. It's still dependent upon a combination of prevalence and sexual practices. If I protect myself adequately, then assuming no accidents (condom breakage, leakage, what have you) I should be safe regardless of how many positive men I sleep with.

(Listen to me... you'd think I was a slut from the way I phrased that. Considering that at age 35, I can count all of the sexual partners I've had in my entire life on the fingers of my two hands... )

Unless your a medical doctor or in a high risk group for HIV you do not need a physician’s level of understanding regarding HIV/AIDS.

Personally, even though I am in a high-risk group, I don't think I need to have a physician's level of understanding; I just need to avoid high-risk behaviours, which I do. I don't need to know about protein sheaths, how a virus infiltrates a cell, or how it replicates, or even what constitutes a normal white cell count. (Or is that T-cells?) That's why I go to the doctor... it's his job to know those details, not mine.

Are you now calling me a racist? I think your just trolling now, but so be it.

I didn't get that from peacemaker's comments... admittedly, when this discussion started getting personal between the two of you, I started skimming.

BTW: AIDS prevalence is germane to understanding the average person’s understanding of AIDS inasmuch as the average person is scared to death to be around someone with HIV.

Yes and no. Understanding that you can't catch it from using the same water fountain is more important than knowing exactly how many people have it. Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

What’s at issue here is whether everyone should be required to “rise” to your level of understanding.

You seem to believe we should.

I find “THAT” offensive.

If we happen to know as much or more than you, that’s great, but I don’t think you will find much support for making it compulsory. Our lives are busy enough.

I don't think you need to take offense. It's true that people should know more - at least enough to know that we're not talking about the common cold here, that if an HIV-positive person sneezes in your vicinity you don't have to immediately run out and get tested. I think you both know plenty, you just know different things and can perhaps still learn from each other. Whether or not the rest of the world needs to know as much as you to do, well, that's up to the rest of the world. As long as they know enough to avoid contracting it and not panic when they learn somebody else has it.

I’ll rephrase it. IF you do not have HIV, then you should find out how it is acquired and judge for yourself whether you are doing all that is possible to avoid acquiring HIV.

Very true. People should educate themselves. Unfortunately there are a lot of ignorant people out there who think they already know enough. (Please note, I am not calling anyone in this thread ignorant. I am not referring to anyone in particular. I am speaking completely in generalities.)

(Phew! The things I do to avoid being flamed...)

Obviously, if you already have HIV then you are no longer at risk for acquiring it.

Not true, from what I have read. Apparently there are a few different strains, and it is possible for a person who has one strain to later become infected with a second. At least, according to the information I've read (mostly from "The Advocate", as medical journals make me queasy... I once fainted when a doctor asked me if I'd ever been tested for HIV).

 

[tal shiar]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

[as a side comment, i think "mitigating" is an interesting choice of words given the issue at hand, since in legal and colloquial usage it means "reduced accountability". i would use "contributing factors" to stress both (1) how the factors contribute but do not concretely determine behaviour; and (2) i'm not trying to either lay or reduce blame.]

people are using the words "irresponsible" and "responsible" as if they were black and white terms, when in fact there are varying degrees of responsiblity. it may be a steady progression from, say, a gay youth being thrown out of his home by parents, then living on the streets, being introduced to substance use, having sex while high, etc. etc. and it would be very very difficult to decide at what point the behaviour switches from "responsible" to "irresponsible".

so the decision by people of when it suddenly becomes "irresponsible" **often reflects the values of the speaker**.

AIDS has been called a microscope, or a magnifying mirror, and through it one can see all the inequalities of society. (bad paraphrase; if someone can link me to the original quote, it would be appreciated.) what a monumental, astronomical, star-crossed coincidence that the populations who suffer most from AIDS all happen to be marginalized for other reasons to begin with.

it's not a coincidence that AIDS runs into this problem so much more than other health issues. lung cancer comes up too. but what about bad diet (nutrient deficiency), lack of exercise (even slim people who do not exercise have increased health risks), excessive suntanning (skin cancer). do people who live in polluted cities give up their right to care for their asthma? hey - they chose it.

AIDS runs into so many moral barriers that one loses count. drug use, hatred of gays, immigrants who don't fully understand safer-sex information, religion, race, "uncivilized" africans, number of sex partners, type of sexual activity,... no wonder it attracts so much recrimination.

as an interesting related issue, where would the responsibility debate be in a country like the usa with private health care, where people have to pay for their treatments? aren't they already responsible in another way?

i'm not accusing anyone here of merely spewing their version of morality; in fact many of the comments here have thought behind them. but we need to recognize that value judgements are tightly bound with the decision to label a behaviour "irresponsible".

 

[Peacemaker]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by TorontoTrekker:

Posted by clr2me:
I said that if someone looked at the CDC numbers, then they have a legitimate reason for believing that ¾ of the men WITH AIDS are gay, drug users, or both.

If you're talking about the current total, then yes. But a larger proportion of new cases these days are among self-identified heterosexual men, particularly black men. Some of the articles I've read suggest that they may actually have contracted it via same-sex relations, but they are not admitting to it because of homophobia in the black community. Also, not all men who have sex with men identify as gay or bisexual. (I refer to them as "deluding themselves", but that's another argument.)

The main reason for the slowing incidence in the gay community is, of course, because we have educated ourselves to a greater degree, on average, than the heterosexual population.

Now if you want to talk about the chances of a negative getting HIV, then yes you need to look at incidence and yes the picture is very different, but I was talking about people with AIDS.

Okay, I get you... you actually are referring to people living with the disease rather than the new cases. However, it is irresponsible not to point out that the incidence of HIV among gay men has decreased. (Leaving to one side the recent increase in barebacking, as I don't know the statistics there off the top of my head and I'm not sure where I might find them that you haven't already looked.)

My only real complaint with what you've said there, however, is that the chances of a negative person contracting HIV are not altered by the incidence of the illness; that's bad mathematics. It's still dependent upon a combination of prevalence and sexual practices. If I protect myself adequately, then assuming no accidents (condom breakage, leakage, what have you) I should be safe regardless of how many positive men I sleep with.

(Listen to me... you'd think I was a slut from the way I phrased that. Considering that at age 35, I can count all of the sexual partners I've had in my entire life on the fingers of my two hands... )

Unless your a medical doctor or in a high risk group for HIV you do not need a physician’s level of understanding regarding HIV/AIDS.

Personally, even though I am in a high-risk group, I don't think I need to have a physician's level of understanding; I just need to avoid high-risk behaviours, which I do. I don't need to know about protein sheaths, how a virus infiltrates a cell, or how it replicates, or even what constitutes a normal white cell count. (Or is that T-cells?) That's why I go to the doctor... it's his job to know those details, not mine.

Are you now calling me a racist? I think your just trolling now, but so be it.

I didn't get that from peacemaker's comments... admittedly, when this discussion started getting personal between the two of you, I started skimming.

BTW: AIDS prevalence is germane to understanding the average person’s understanding of AIDS inasmuch as the average person is scared to death to be around someone with HIV.

Yes and no. Understanding that you can't catch it from using the same water fountain is more important than knowing exactly how many people have it. Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

What’s at issue here is whether everyone should be required to “rise” to your level of understanding.



If we happen to know as much or more than you, that’s great, but I don’t think you will find much support for making it compulsory. Our lives are busy enough.

I don't think you need to take offense. It's true that people should know more - at least enough to know that we're not talking about the common cold here, that if an HIV-positive person sneezes in your vicinity you don't have to immediately run out and get tested. I think you both know plenty, you just know different things and can perhaps still learn from each other. Whether or not the rest of the world needs to know as much as you to do, well, that's up to the rest of the world. As long as they know enough to avoid contracting it and not panic when they learn somebody else has it.

I’ll rephrase it. IF you do not have HIV, then you should find out how it is acquired and judge for yourself whether you are doing all that is possible to avoid acquiring HIV.

Very true. People should educate themselves. Unfortunately there are a lot of ignorant people out there who think they already know enough. (Please note, I am not calling anyone in this thread ignorant. I am not referring to anyone in particular. I am speaking completely in generalities.)

(Phew! The things I do to avoid being flamed...)

Obviously, if you already have HIV then you are no longer at risk for acquiring it.

Not true, from what I have read. Apparently there are a few different strains, and it is possible for a person who has one strain to later become infected with a second. At least, according to the information I've read (mostly from "The Advocate", as medical journals make me queasy... I once fainted when a doctor asked me if I'd ever been tested for HIV).

And this is exactly why clr2me displays only an armchair understanding of statistics. He quotes AIDS statistics about prevalence, which go back 20 years and uses them to paint a picture of HIV infection today. The first lesson the teach you in epidemiology class when you cover the topics "prevalence" and "incidence" is this: Incidence gives you a picture of CURRENT trends. Prevalence gives you a picture of historical trends only. Prevalence NEVER gives you a true picture of what something is like today.
So, when he writes that because 3/4 of persons in the US diagnosed with AIDS are IVDU or gay and thus, if someone says to you "I'm HIV positive," then you have "good reason" to assume they are gay or IVDU, he is completely offbase. You can't base a person's 2003 disclosure of his/her HIV status on information drawn from 20 years of AIDS diagnoses.

For one thing, AIDS is a diagnosis of diseases related to HIV infection. AIDS prevalence is not the same as HIV prevalence. He also forgets to deduct the number of deaths from AIDS from the total number of cases of AIDS diagnosed. To draw the conclusion that if a person with HIV tells you his/her HIV status based soley on the prevalence of AIDS (aside from the fact that AIDS cases are the wrong statistic to quote), you'd have to deduct total deaths from total cases then break down the difference that remains by transmission category. This is basic math that he does not do, and only one reason why he's so offbase.

So, what we have here is a person that uses the wrong statistic in the wrong way to draw conclusions about people with a disease. I even applied his same logic using a similar statistic from NC to show how it is wrong to take statisics like that and make completely wrong and offensive judgments about others. He took that to mean I was calling him a racist. No, I was simply using his own logic to show where it leads. That's all. Now THAT is offensive. Moreover, he says that he finds it offensive for somebody with an understanding of such things to expect others to rise to that level of understanding. Well, then, he shouldn't use the (wrong) statistics in the (wrong) way he does, acting as if he does possess some level of understanding he does not have. It's like trying to take an English class from a professor that misuses the words "take" and "bring." In short, don't say on one hand that it is wrong for me to expect others to rise to an extremely high level of clinical understanding and then try to demonstrate such a level yourself (and get it wrong to boot), and then get offended when challenged.


He acts as if I'm trying to get others to rise to some overarching level of expertise. Again, he's offbase. This time, it's not about misquoting something I've written, because it's not something I've said at all. Clr2me, did you bother to read the first post in this thread? This is simply about asking others to, for just a few moments, to try to put themselves in the shoes of somebody living with HIV at this very moment and understanding that the way that they are judged and treated today is not very different than it was in the mid80's. (In fact, IMO, the way you've come off in this thread alone if proof of that). It's not about trying to get others to rise to my level of clinical/medical understanding about HIV, and not one time have I made such a suggestion. If you find your life "too busy" to do that, then may I suggest using the time spent writing lengthy posts and digging two pages into threads at trekbbs.com to comment on things others have written that are not even addressed to you could be time better spent. I hope you do find that offensive, because I think perhaps you need to be offended at this moment.

BTW: AIDS prevalence is germane to understanding the average person’s understanding of AIDS inasmuch as the average person is scared to death to be around someone with HIV.

I'd like an explanation of this. How so? If the "average person" is "scared to death" to be around someone with HIV, then the "average people" that you hang around with must be pretty AIDSphobic, not to mention of a good reason why Stigma needed to be done and why the first post in this thread needed to be said. This is an unreasoning fear, because unless you think I'm sexually attracted to you (trust me, you flatter yourself) or I'm going to suddenly, in a blind rage, rush at you and bleed into your mouth or something, then there is no reason at all for this.

 

[clr2me]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by clr2me:

I said that if someone looked at the CDC numbers, then they have a legitimate reason for believing that ¾ of the men WITH AIDS are gay, drug users, or both.

Posted by TorontoTrekker:

If you're talking about the current total, then yes.

Posted by peacemaker:

He quotes AIDS statistics about prevalence, which go back 20 years and uses them to paint a picture of HIV infection today.

NO NO NO! I used AIDS prevalance to "paint a picture of the types of people that have and have had AIDS".

TorontoTrekker understood, why you don't is beyond me.

The whole point of posting the CDC numbers was to illustrate why someone (NOT ME) might reach the conclusion that AIDS is mostly about gay men.

The incidence or frequency of occurance of new HIV cases today "suggests" what the AIDS prevalence picture will look like in the future. Do you deny this?

Please don’t post 5 paragraphs of smoke to further confuse the issue.

 

[Peacemaker]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

Posted by clr2me:

Posted by clr2me:

I said that if someone looked at the CDC numbers, then they have a legitimate reason for believing that ¾ of the men WITH AIDS are gay, drug users, or both.

Posted by TorontoTrekker:

If you're talking about the current total, then yes.

Posted by peacemaker:

He quotes AIDS statistics about prevalence, which go back 20 years and uses them to paint a picture of HIV infection today.

NO NO NO! I used AIDS prevalance to "paint a picture of the types of people that have and have had AIDS.

TorontoTrekker understood, why you don't is beyond me.

The whole point of posting the CDC numbers was to illustrate why someone (NOT ME) might reach the conclusion that AIDS is mostly about gay men.

The incidence or frequency of occurance of new HIV cases today "suggests" what the AIDS prevalence picture will look like in the future. Do you deny this?

If that is what you meant, then you should have said so. You did not. You simply said that because those were the statistics that somebody would have good reason to draw that conclusion. TorontoTrekker did not agree with you. He noted that you ignored incidence statistics and he even said it was poor math for you not to do so. You should reread his post. You left the impression that what you wrote was also your view, eg. that "someone" was you. Perhaps you should stop walking the line and say what you mean and mean what you say.


Second, HIV incidence today will NOT give us a picture of AIDS prevalence in the future, because of two huge factors that are also related: access to health care and new treatments. The public health service has been saying that since 1996. This is because of the development of protease inhibitors and the more recent development of NNRTI's. Persons infected today are less likely to develop AIDS. You don't go into the AIDS incidence or prevalence statistics until you are diagnosed with it. Just today, I read an article in my local newspaper discussing this very issue.

Here's the deal. Since 96, new treatments have extended the lives of persons with HIV and new virus resistant strains of HIV have NOT evolved as was first believed. In 96, the fear was that HIV would eventually mutate inside somebody whose viral load decreased to "undetectable" levels in the bloodstream and the drugs would cease to be effective. Now, we're getting data in from the cohorts that started those treatments, and the data is showing that these persons' strains of HIV have NOT mutated and become resistant. HIV DOES mutate when persons do not take these drugs or do not take the correctly. The trick is first in finding the right combination of drugs via resistance testing (which is now a common practice), and then that person needs to simply stay on that regimen. Regimens today are much, much easier to use. I remember when I took Crixivan, Videx, Zerit, and Sustiva...a total of 17 pills/day on a really funky regimen. As I recall, it was 2 Videx in the am on an empty stomach; 2 Zerit anytime a day, as long as one was in the am and another in the pm, 3 Sustiva at night before bed, and the Crix. was divided into
2 doses...five in the am and five in the pm, both on an empty stomach. That's a real pain. However, now I take Trizivir and Kaletra. (I'm one of the few people left that can still use AZT and has no resistance to it at all). I take 8 pills a day...1Triz and 3 Kaletra each time and with food, so basically I take 4 pills w/breakfast and 4 with dinner (and since I go to the gym 5 to 6 days a week, I eat several small meals a day so I'm taking ea. dose 12 or so hours apart). That's MUCH easier. My viral load is undetectable and has been for some time.

In short, as treatments extend life, getting diagnosed with AIDS becomes less common. If you note the INCIDENCE stats for AIDS, they tend to go down.

However, all of the treatments are not useful if you don't have access to them. Here's a good example, drawn from the same statistics on AIDS from NC that I quoted earlier. (Here's WHY the conclusion that nonheterosexual black males in NC are getting HIV more than gays is wrong). Black males in NC that are diagnosed with AIDS are the same black males that do not have access to healthcare, and, in NC, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program is gone. There are NO new clients being accepted, and there is no waiting list. If you don't have insurance or money to pay for the care and the drugs, you plain don't get them here. Thus, you are more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS. Here then is a POSSIBLE scenario: Let's say we have 100 people that get HIV today. We'll say that 52 % are gay, 25% are IVDU, and the rest are heterosexual. This is for a single cohort, not for a state, so the baseline for incidence and prevalence is 0 at the start, 100 at the end of the reporting period. eg. We now have 100 cases of HIV, incidence and prevalence. (For ease we'll say they are all male). Now let's count down 10 years and look at AIDS incidence in that same cohort. We might find that 70 have been diagnosed with AIDS. Now we have a prevalence of 70. Now, let's break it down by transmission category. We may find that of those 70, 25 were heterosexual, 25 were IVDU, and 20 were gay. We could also investigate and learn who had access to care and who did not. You can get the idea from there. Basically, HIV incidence today might relate to AIDS prevalence tomorrow, but that figure is more a function of socio-economics affecting health care access and/or race and gender, depending on the geographical distribution. AIDS prevalence tomorrow is no longer completely dependent on HIV incidence today, and that is different than the AIDS prevalence up to around 96, which was wholely dependent on HIV incidence and prevalence. It might "suggest" AIDS prevalence a few years from now, but it's only a weak suggestion because of these other factors. The further we get from 96 and the more people have access to these drugs, the weaker that "suggestion" based on HIV incidence will give you.

That said, tho, let's stay on topic. The topic of this thread that I began did not, as you suggested a few posts back, have to do with others coming up to any clinical standard of knowledge. I never suggested that. (I believe your exact wording was "What’s at issue here is whether everyone should be required to “rise” to your level of understanding.") It has to do with considering what life is like for those of us living with HIV and that Stigma was relevant because of many of the reasons I wrote about in my initial post. It was posted because of two or three threads in this forum that essentially said Stigma's message would have been relevant in the 80's but not today. I began the thread particularly noting the relevance of T'Pol's refusal to tell the physicians how she got P'Narr's because she knew they would use that to fuel their bigotry and perhaps foster ignorance about the illness. We persons with HIV feel the same way for precisely the same reasons. This thread was an appeal for others to consider that Stigma is VERY relevant to the situation for persons living with HIV today because people, in multiple ways, turn our HIV status against us and sometimes use that knowledge as ammunition to fuel their feelings about other groups. That is not smoke it is not mirrors. It simply a fact. I, as the "owner" of the thread, suggest that we stay on THAT topic. If you'd like to take up other topics relating to HIV/AIDS, TNZ would be a more appropriate venue.

P.S...In a thread of my own making, I will darn well write at length if I feel the need. (That's like telling me what I can do in my own house.) If you want persons to write less volume, start your own thread

 

[clr2me]

Re: A person with HIV tells why Stigma was relevan

So it has come to this.

You call me judgemental, then you make the judgement that when I say "if someone...then there is significant foundation for that assumption", I must be talking about my own beliefs.

I told you specifically that I would comment on your posts based on what you wrote, not what you intended, not what you hoped, or wished you had written. Too bad you couldn't view mine without reading things into them.

Posted by peacemaker:
You left the impression that what you wrote was also your view, eg. that "someone" was you.

No, that was an incorrect judgement you made.

So, you have reached a conclusion about me based on your incorrect judgement. Oh but it's still my fault!

Posted by peacemaker:
Perhaps you should stop walking the line and say what you mean and mean what you say.

Well here's a news flash. I did say what I meant and if I thougt HIV/AIDS was a gay only disease I would have said so with no ambiguity.

Within the context of those posts I was simply trying to explain how some people reach the conclusions they reach.
I think you knew that, if you didn't......

As for your example on HIV incidence. Bravo! It was clear and you did answer my question. Granted I didn't write as much as you so you didn't get to read about my thoughts on current treatments and the effects they will have on future AIDS prevalence, nor did I mention or you for that matter the possible future significance of HIV-2. However, that not withstanding, it appears we have at least one thing we can agree on.

Regarding the length of your posts. I really could care less how much you write. I said what I said in the hope that you would respond this time with a real answer and not lash out with a series of judgements, innuendo, and obsfucation.

With that said, I will leave you to your thread.

Good Luck and Good Bye.

 

[ontrack]

I read this thread for the first time today and felt compelled to respond.

Thankyou peacemaker for sharing your view.

This is one of the reasons I have enjoyed Star Trek of the past. Season one and two of Enterprise held great promise of stimulating debate. Even if they got it wrong with such duds as Precious cargo.

Unfortately the moral episode of season three simatude totally missed the mark and chose a very wrong path. It is tragic to have such a good work as Stigma in the same series as the discraceful Simatude.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Peacemaker, beautiful post. I agree with your sentiments about how "Stigma" dealt with how people who contracted a particular disease "in a certain way" are stigmatized unfairly and treated without compassion. Stigma's airing signaled a welcome uptick in season two's quality with a wonderfully written episode.

 

[Paradon]

I think people who treat others badly will dwell in self-loathing stereotype.

 

[Cyrus]

Amazing that this thread survived and didn't get purged despite being inactive for almost a year. I thought threads in Enterprise forum got purged at much smaller intervals than that.