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

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#41

Post by pqqqqq »

tptacek wrote: post #17
pqqqqq wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is…

What about SARS back in 2003? China first observed SARS in Nov 2002 but didn't report it until February 2003. The responsible virus was identified by April 2003 and the whole disease contained by July. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndro...

I'm not an epidemiologist so I can't compare the relative complexity of the SARS virus to HIV. But I'm skeptical that HIV presented a massive and insurmountable biologic challenge compared to other viruses.

I also encourage you to look into the epidemiological and sociological aspects of AIDS. It's horrifying, and it colors my above skepticism. The gay community referred to AIDS as a holocaust back in the early 80s, and I would encourage you to read this article at your leisure to see why: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/23/books/l-aids-and-the-holoc...

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#42

Post by afterburner »

asveikau wrote: post #22
lawn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wonder if it's the younger YN crowd that is not seeing the connection? I was pretty young when I saw that movie in 1994, but it never occurred to me that it could be anything other than AIDS; the reference was completely unambiguous. I guess things had changed in the 12 years between the coinage of "AIDS" and that movie, but it still resembled the way people talked about it, and I think the memory of not knowing wh…

It's probably easier to spot if you're older because absolutely everything in that movie screams reference to past cultural artifact. So you'd be looking for that in every detail. A younger person would be more likely to take the plot elements at "face value", as original or as standard story tropes.

That said I was around 15 at the time I saw it so recent history probably had a lot to do with it. AIDS was in the news a lot more in the 90s.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#43

Post by michael_nielsen »

asveikau wrote: post #22
lawn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wonder if it's the younger YN crowd that is not seeing the connection? I was pretty young when I saw that movie in 1994, but it never occurred to me that it could be anything other than AIDS; the reference was completely unambiguous. I guess things had changed in the 12 years between the coinage of "AIDS" and that movie, but it still resembled the way people talked about it, and I think the memory of not knowing wh…

Nice catch. Additional data point: I saw it when it came out, and it was obvious it was AIDS. I guess that's a piece of history that's gradually fading now.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#44

Post by rdl »

"There is no national registry of cancer victims, but the nationwide incidence of Kaposi's Sarcoma in the past had been estimated by the Centers for Disease Control to be less than six-one-hundredths of a case per 100,000 people annually, or about two cases in every three million people. However, the disease accounts for up to 9 percent of all cancers in a belt across equatorial Africa, where it commonly affects children and young adults."

Is that because GRID already was occurring in Africa, and people getting KS and dying of it, or was it just a common cancer in Africa for unrelated reasons?

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#45

Post by jcheng »

tptacek wrote: post #17
pqqqqq wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is…

It's been a while since I've read the book but "And the Band Played On" paints a pretty sad picture about all the missed opportunities to save lives in the early years of the epidemic, due to (admittedly complicated) politics. And not just among politicians and government agencies, but among medical doctors and researchers and leaders of the gay community. You can feel rage and frustration coming through the pages--and it's an incredibly heartbreaking book as you see many of the main personalities involved in the fight against AIDS succumb to it themselves. Including the author himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On#Subject

That's specific to the early years though, pre-Rock Hudson. Obviously a lot's changed since then.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#46

Post by xauronx »

varjag wrote: post #40
bruceb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was pretty obvious. Was also a tad annoying as because she was liberal and anti war and was a sexually liberated woman...well then she is a whore that will get her payback by being given aids. I thought it was a good movie but it had touches of right-wing propaganda.

STDs are hardly propaganda, and promiscuity does indeed increase the risk. Besides she was clearly a troubled youth, with sexual abuse home and her further abusive relationships conveyed early in the movie.

Aids was invented by the right wing propaganda machine to punish homosexuals though, so tomato tomato.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#47

Post by scrumper »

asveikau wrote: post #22
lawn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wonder if it's the younger YN crowd that is not seeing the connection? I was pretty young when I saw that movie in 1994, but it never occurred to me that it could be anything other than AIDS; the reference was completely unambiguous. I guess things had changed in the 12 years between the coinage of "AIDS" and that movie, but it still resembled the way people talked about it, and I think the memory of not knowing wh…

It was very obvious to me too, a teenager back then. The thing is, the entire film puts Forrest in the middle of countless major historical and cultural events. He serves in the Vietnam War. He phones in the Watergate Hotel break in. He speaks at the giant peace rally on the Mall. He co-founds the Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. He even invests in Apple ("some fruit company.") Having him witness the early rumblings of the AIDS epidemic is just one more example.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#48

Post by lupatus »

xauronx wrote: post #46
varjag wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

STDs are hardly propaganda, and promiscuity does indeed increase the risk. Besides she was clearly a troubled youth, with sexual abuse home and her further abusive relationships conveyed early in the movie.

Aids was invented by the right wing propaganda machine to punish homosexuals though, so tomato tomato.

What? Occam's razor says that's preposterous.

Source, please?

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#49

Post by zachlatta »

bajsejohannes wrote: post #8

I recommend the movie How To Survive a Plague, which also shows the beginnings of AIDS in New York. Must have been a frightening time. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2124803

Just saw that documentary the other night. It really gives a personal edge to the AIDs epidemic.

Re: Rare Cancer Seen In 41 Homosexuals (1981)

#50

Post by encoderer »

samspot wrote: post #30

My vote for the key quote (from the bottom of the article): "Dr. Friedman-Kien said he had tested nine of the victims and found severe defects in their immunological systems. The patients had serious malfunctions of two types of cells called T and B cell lymphocytes, which have important roles in fighting infections and cancer. But Dr. Friedman-Kien emphasized that the researchers did not know whether the immunologic…

And I love that this was at the very bottom of the article! Inverted pyramid... clearly the author thought this to be a somewhat irrelevant aside.
Post reply on HN