Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 151 posts

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#11

Post by lawn »

enraged_camel wrote: post #6

In the movie Forrest Gump, there is a scene taking place in the late 70s or early 80s where Jenny is explaining to Forrest that she is ill and the doctors do not know what it is. She dies a few years later. It is never stated explicitly, but the idea is that she was suffering from AIDS, which she contacted during her years as a promiscuous drug addict groupie. In my opinion it is one of the most powerful scenes in th…

Wow! I love Forrest Gump and I've seen it a few times at least, but I never realized the connection to AIDS. Thanks.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#12

Post by milhous »

enraged_camel wrote: post #6

In the movie Forrest Gump, there is a scene taking place in the late 70s or early 80s where Jenny is explaining to Forrest that she is ill and the doctors do not know what it is. She dies a few years later. It is never stated explicitly, but the idea is that she was suffering from AIDS, which she contacted during her years as a promiscuous drug addict groupie. In my opinion it is one of the most powerful scenes in th…

I remember this too and will never forget it. So sad.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#13

Post by pqqqqq »

tptacek wrote: post #5
res0nat0r wrote: post #4

I'm currently reading And The Band Played On which is a detailed account of the rise of the AIDS epidemic and how it was ignored and mishandled back in the 80s. Definitely check it out if this subject interests you.

Curious: if we call t_0 1981, the Kaposi's Sarcoma article, and t_x 1996, the advent of HAART, and consider (t_x - t_0) "the AIDS epidemic" --- ignoring the ongoing epidemics in Sub-Saharan African and India, which are enormous problems but somewhat orthogonal to the problem described by your book --- what comparably lethal disease in human history was more effectively addressed by the medical establishment? How can…

Just to give you an idea, the FDA didn't start screening its blood until 1985 after several documented cases where patients received AIDS from blood transfusions.

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/

Reagan has been criticized for his complete non-response to AIDS as well. He mentioned it in passing in 1985, and didn't actually address the issue until 1987. Since AIDS mostly affected homosexuals and drug users, AIDS wasn't exactly a high priority for the Reagan administration in light of the Religious Right's massive power at the time. The popular rhetoric of the era was more akin to "AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality" than compassion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/politics/09policy.html

To quote Reagan's biographer: "Reagan's response to this epidemic was halting and ineffective."

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#14

Post by tptacek »

cdcox wrote: post #9
tptacek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious: if we call t_0 1981, the Kaposi's Sarcoma article, and t_x 1996, the advent of HAART, and consider (t_x - t_0) "the AIDS epidemic" --- ignoring the ongoing epidemics in Sub-Saharan African and India, which are enormous problems but somewhat orthogonal to the problem described by your book --- what comparably lethal disease in human history was more effectively addressed by the medical establishment? How can…

It's not a direct comparison, but consider the handling of Ebola, where due to simple epidemiological interventions spread has basically been localized and stopped and no outbreak has killed more than 1000 people. Or consider the regular emergence of new flu strains which are far more contagious and are quickly and effectively contained. Though that comparison isn't great because we have a lot of knowledge when it co…

In a sense this is a way of saying that in epidemiology, the failures are noisy and successes are silent, so comparing large epidemics across history might be misleading.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#17

Post by tptacek »

pqqqqq wrote: post #13
tptacek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious: if we call t_0 1981, the Kaposi's Sarcoma article, and t_x 1996, the advent of HAART, and consider (t_x - t_0) "the AIDS epidemic" --- ignoring the ongoing epidemics in Sub-Saharan African and India, which are enormous problems but somewhat orthogonal to the problem described by your book --- what comparably lethal disease in human history was more effectively addressed by the medical establishment? How can…

Just to give you an idea, the FDA didn't start screening its blood until 1985 after several documented cases where patients received AIDS from blood transfusions. http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/ Reagan has been criticized for his complete non-response to AIDS as well. He mentioned it in passing in 1985, and didn't actually address the issue until 1987. Since AIDS mostly affected homosexual…

I believe that AIDS wasn't a high priority for Reagan, but from my vantage point it looks like HIV is an instance of an enormously complicated biological challenge being addressed with extraordinary effectiveness and rapidity by the medical establishment.

I take your point (and the sibling commenter's point) about the epidemiologic response to AIDS; I may be over-fixated on the research and development side of the issue.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#18

Post by kmfrk »

patdennis wrote: post #2

This is the first New York Times article reporting on what would later be known as the AIDS epidemic. Edit: Here's the takeaway quote, in my opinion: "Cancer is not believed to be contagious, but conditions that might precipitate it, such as particular viruses or environmental factors, might account for an outbreak among a single group." Edit2: "Dr. Curran said there was no apparent danger to nonhomosexuals from cont…

Even today, people have a very poor understanding on how you can - rather can't - contract it from HIV+ people, alas. (Not saying that HIV==AIDS.)

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/how-you-get-hiv...

If an HIV+ person sneezes in an elevator, some will have a panic attack, I reckon.

Not to mention the travel bans some countries impose.

1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/hiv-travel-ban-lift...

2) http://plwha.org/

3) http://www.unaids.org/en/targetsandcommitments/eliminatingtr...

Still much work to be done in informing people, so let this be an opportunity to ask your friends and family whether they know their facts on the matter, as HIV+ people are treated like lepers oftentimes.

Bonus trivia for reading along this far: Andrew Sullivan is HIV+.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan#Personal_life

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#19

Post by patrickg_zill »

I cannot find the article by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, which describes how the public health officials in San Francisco bowed to political pressure and did not do the typical contact-tracing, public announcements, etc. that would normally be done - because they feared getting in trouble if they pointed out that the carriers were almost all gays. But it makes an interesting counterpoint to the idea that there was a lack of concern about it.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#20

Post by seiji »

kmfrk wrote: post #18
patdennis wrote: post #2

This is the first New York Times article reporting on what would later be known as the AIDS epidemic. Edit: Here's the takeaway quote, in my opinion: "Cancer is not believed to be contagious, but conditions that might precipitate it, such as particular viruses or environmental factors, might account for an outbreak among a single group." Edit2: "Dr. Curran said there was no apparent danger to nonhomosexuals from cont…

Even today, people have a very poor understanding on how you can - rather can't - contract it from HIV+ people, alas. (Not saying that HIV==AIDS.) http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/how-you-get-hiv... If an HIV+ person sneezes in an elevator, some will have a panic attack, I reckon. Not to mention the travel bans some countries impose. 1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/hiv-travel-ban-lift... 2) ht…

(Not saying that HIV==AIDS.)

Why make that disclaimer?

Post reply on HN