aids

It’s World AIDS Day; Is it the “Forgotten Epidemic”?

by Michael Fumento on December 1, 2010 · 1 comment

in Health and Illness

World AIDS Day has rolled around again, amid charges by C. Everett Koop that “HIV is no longer on the public’s radar screen, and the result is deadly serious.” So the 94-year-old former Surgeon General told the 2010 National Summit on HIV Diagnosis, Prevention and Access to Care in late November. The disease is becoming “the forgotten epidemic,” he claimed, causing a dangerous “growing sense of complacency.”

AIDS forgotten? Sure, like Sarah Palin is forgotten.

As I observe in my Forbes.com piece today, “On World AIDS Day, Let’s Remember the True Forgotten Victims,” the term “HIV” brings up over 100 million Google hits in just the past year. Nor is it even an epidemic. U.S. AIDS cases peaked 17 years ago, then plummeted to a steady “endemic” level within three years. Worldwide, a UNAIDS report released last week states the epidemic peaked 11 years ago in terms of cases,  with infections peaking much earlier.

Yet HIV/AIDS will receive over $3 billion in the 2011 federal research budget. That doesn’t include an entirely separately-funded “infectious disease” category.  Granted, it’s shy of the 100 billion gagillion that Dr. Evil wanted in order to ransom the earth, but:

  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis are the ninth leading cause of death in this country, causing three times as many deaths as AIDS. Compared to those 100 million Google hits for AIDS over the past year, “nephritis” got just 1.3 million. Far more importantly, the Medline database lists fewer than 2,000 total published medical papers on nephritis, compared to 21,000 on HIV/AIDS in just the past year.

Further, the vast majority of federal AIDS spending can’t possibly lead to a cure or vaccine or prevent a single new case. Of the approximately $26 billion budgeted this year for HIV/AIDS,  only 11 percent will go for research and 3 percent for prevention. The rest is care, cash, and housing assistance.

Federal non-research AIDS spending far exceeds the combined research grant budget for all diseases combined — including AIDS! This even as NIH has to turn away over three-fourth of grant applicants.

It’s Koop who’s worried about being forgotten. So let’s indulge him. Let’s recall that he was among the worst perpetrators of AIDS mass hysteria, which I first debunked in a 1987 article and then my 1990 book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, including popularizing the term “heterosexual AIDS explosion.” The lesson here, Koop said in his talk with no hint of irony, is “If you tell people the truth, in a very factual way, they will act.”

No, the lesson is you can indeed fool most of the people most of the time. And then become a hero for it — even as the entire nation pays a horrible price for it for perhaps generations to come.

Feminist Porn Director Supports Freedom of Individual Choice

by Michelle Minton on November 4, 2010

in Health and Illness, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

Porn actress, director, and self-described “kinky feminist,” Madison Young, spoke out in an interview with Salon.com about her feelings in the condom debate that has reemerged in the California adult film industry in the wake of recent news that an actor tested positive for HIV.

…I think [the push to mandate condom use in the industry] could be a mistake. Making condoms mandatory for all adult films is just as confining and dis-empowering as eliminating condoms as an option for performers.

While groups like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and arm-chair advocates want to refuse the choice of actors and directors about what is best for their own health and careers, Young is one of many industry insiders advocating for the rights of individual actors to choose whether or not to use condoms, another method of protection, or none at all.

As a director, I feel that creating a condom-optional policy for my talent works best. I shoot a lot of real-life couples that don’t use condoms in their personal life so they choose not to use them. Also sometimes women who have latex allergies or experience discomfort from using condoms opt not to use them in their scene. But they always have that choice.

Young joins the ranks of other directors and stars speaking out for freedom of choice in spite of the very real threat of sexually transmitted infection (STI). While disease is a frightening and dangerous possibility for those in the adult entertainment business (as well as anyone else engaging in sexual activities), Young and others seem to recognize that an even scary and harmful prospect is the infringement on the freedoms of speech, expression, and the elimination of personal choice.

My Role Model, Jenna Jameson

by Michelle Minton on October 27, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

As a self-made business mogul, a mother and wife, and a cancer survivor, there are many aspects of Jenna Jameson to admire and emulate. That said, I’m not looking to Jameson’s movies for advice on safe sex; just as I wouldn’t turn to Martin Scorcese for lessons on how to be a successful cab driver in New York City. Movies are works of art, fiction, and fantasy. The argument that condoms should be made mandatory in pornographic films due to viewers potentially imitating what they see on screen is logically indefensible and somewhat shocking, considering that it is written on a site that regularly publishes articles defending freedom of speech, free expression, and keeping government out of the bedroom.

Kellee Terrell’s article, posted on Huffington Post yesterday, gives us a glimpse into the type of thinking that leads many intellectuals to advocate at one time for social liberty while at the same time demanding that government intervene in the personal choices of others. It stems from a condescending disbelief in the ability and the right of the average individual to make choices about their own life.

Why the Porn Industry’s HIV Problem Is Our Problem, Too:

While it is obvious that not using condoms on porn sets is a safety hazard, I have often wondered: How much of a safety hazard is it for viewers to consume condomless porn? How much does watching bareback sex influence or reinforce our desire to mimic that same behavior in our own lives?

…I am not so naïve as to believe that if the porn industry were to make condom use mandatory, that act alone would completely revolutionize how Americans view safer sex or condoms. But it cannot be denied just how powerful media is …

Perhaps now is the time for the porn industry to make some changes in terms of safer sex practices — not just for the sake of their own employees, but for the sake of all of us.

It is not the porn industry’s responsibility to teach anything to anyone. They make films and money. We can call them artists, or business people, and though some may release instructional videos, it isn’t fair to label them as custodians of anyone’s sexual decisions.  It may be interesting to examine possible correlations between behavior and viewing habits, but even a evident connection would not make actors, directors, or producers culpable for that behavior.

Based on Terrell’s logic couldn’t the argument be made that we ought to ban films and TV shows that feature rebellious youth (i.e. My So Called Life), dangerous driving (Rebel Without a Cause) or victimization of women (everything on the Lifetime TV Network) lest someone takes them as guidance for their life choices?

Obviously, this isn’t the case. It may seem incomprehensible that the same people arguing for a condom mandate are the same people who would normally scream at the top of their lungs if the government tried to regulate bedroom activities. However, because pornography is an issue of capitalism, of “big business,” they look upon the actors as victims in need of protection-whether they want it or not.

It is not the government’s right to regulate how adults engage in sexual activity; we each can and should take responsibility for our own sexual safety. And, as Jenna Jameson has proven throughout her career, adult film actors also should be left free from government interference to make the decisions that affect their lives and career.

Note: Jenna Jameson appears to favor either a condom mandate or at least some stronger regulations on set.  That doesn’t affect her status as a sharp business lady, but, like I said, I’m not looking to her for safe sex advice–nor am I looking to her for regulatory analysis.

Porn Stars Get Behind Personal Choice by Opposing Condom Mandates

by Michelle Minton on October 25, 2010

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk

The most recent case of porn actor testing positive for HIV has renewed calls (or at least media attention to the calls) for a condom mandate in all adult films produced in Los Angeles County.

Last year, activists at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation petitioned California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health and unsuccessfully sued the county Department of Public Health to put a condom mandate in place claiming that it was an issue of worker safety.

However, the decision should be left up to the production companies and the actors themselves to determine the best way to protect themselves, their companies, and their reputations.

While this latest case has certainly caused some concern among adult performers in California, most of the calls for a condom mandate are coming from outside observers. Furthermore, many actors, such as the renowned adult actress Nina Hartley, have come out against taking away the choice from performers:

“As someone who is still working on the camera myself, I don’t feel any safer with condoms,” she said at a hearing in downtown Los Angeles in June.

Many of the actors in the business oppose the proposed mandate for condom usage. Some even claim that condoms make exposure to HIV and AIDS more likely due to “rubber rash” and friction burns, especially for female performers.

Ernest Greene, a longtime director and Hartley’s partner, explains on his blog:

[A single scene amounts to] over two hours of intercourse in various positions with constant stops and starts during which male performer’s erections rise and fall, condoms frequently tear or unravel and the degree of latex abrasion on the internal membranes of female performers’ vaginas lead to micro-abrasions that make them more vulnerable to all kinds of STIs. Most condom-only female performers eventually abandon condom use, not under pressure from producers, but rather because of the constant rawness and end-on-end bacterial infections produced by countless hours of latex drag.

In addition to problems with enforcement, there’s also the problem of personal choice and freedom of expression. In the end it is the individual actor’s choice to get into the adult entertainment industry and their choice whether or not they wear a condom.

At the same June hearing with Nina Hartley, an adult film actor who goes by the name Jeremy Steele, put it best when he said:

“There is no way to make the industry risk-free. Making things safer does not make it safe. If you’re worried or paranoid, you should not be in this industry.”

Obama Justice Department Uses Americans with Disabilities Act to Harm the Disabled, Risk Lives, and Undermine Safety

by Hans Bader on August 9, 2010 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Health and Illness, International, Labor, Legal, Mobility, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Privacy, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

“Amazon.com . . . tried to sell a talking Kindle reader, but” the Justice Department “said it couldn’t because the button to make the Kindle talk didn’t have braille.  Never mind that books neither talk nor have Braille buttons telling them to talk.”   Obama’s radical appointees at the Justice Department, like Tom Perez, think that it’s better to have NO accommodation for the disabled, then an imperfect accommodation.  The Obama Justice Department also used the threat of suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act to prevent colleges from using Kindle to lighten “the textbook load on their student body by moving to e-book formats.”  Blocking Kindle harms people with chronic back problems.

The Obama Justice Department is also threatening South Carolina with a lawsuit over an anti-AIDS program that saves lives in the state’s prisons.  South Carolina tests incoming inmates for AIDS, and “half of those tested never knew they were infected.  The testing policy saves lives because treatment starts immediately, at state expense.”  The Administration ridiculously claims this is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.  But the Supreme Court has made clear that prisons have broad powers to restricts’ inmates rights to  protect health or safety, or to promote any other legitimate correctional or penological purposes.  (Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decision in Beard v. Banks says that prisons can even restrict what inmates read.  South Carolina is not trying to do anything that extreme.)

The Obama administration also claims that the policy violates the disabled-rights laws, even though it saves lives, because it provides “separate living facilities” for prisoners with AIDS.  South Carolina’s program “has worked so well since 1998 that there has only been a single transmission of HIV/AIDS to a single prisoner.”  In other prison systems, many lives have been lost due to transmission of HIV to previously uninfected inmates.  The Obama Justice Department’s demand could thus result in many deaths.

The Obama Administration’s claim is flatly inconsistent with a federal appeals court ruling that held that even a tiny risk of HIV transmission can justify sweeping anti-AIDS measures like not employing a surgeon with AIDS, given the lethal nature of AIDS.  (See Doe v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 50 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir. 1995).)  That ruling is binding precedent in South Carolina, and it rejected challenges under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and its sister statute, the Rehabilitation Act.

Moreover, South Carolina is not trying to go nearly as far as the federal appeals court held was permissible, in its sensible measure to save lives–it is not firing anyone, just housing them separately.  Prison officials are given more leeway to take HIV-positive status into account than employers are, given the extra deference that courts give to prison administrators. Even the most liberal federal appeals court upheld a policy of denying inmates who tested positive for HIV access to food service jobs.  (See Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994).)

The Obama administration also wants to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to regulate the Internet.  It also has signed an international treaty on disabilities-rights that could undermine American sovereignty.

Deferring to the Justice Department, the most-liberal federal appeals court recently ruled against Chipotle in a lawsuit that will lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and attorney fees–and a catch-22 against the company, which must lower its employee counter tops to make them easier for disabled patrons to view (to satisfy the ADA), but must simultaneously keep them high to comply with worker-safety rules.  (Ironically, the court’s ruling in Antoninetti v. Chipotle conflicted with one of its own past rulings, violating the rule that a panel of an appeals court cannot contradict an earlier panel.  It also rewarded nuisance litigation.)

Human Achievement of the Day: Liquid Condoms

by Michelle Minton on March 8, 2010 · 1 comment

in Odds & Ends

To continue our daily series of human achievement highlighting, today’s post focuses on what could be the next great revolution in sexual health; the liquid condom.

In the US and much of the developed world sex is funny. And at first a new kind of condom might seem like a trivial advancement, especially considering the many diseases and conditions science has yet to address. However, the impact of this new innovation should not me overlooked. Since the dawn of human civilization pregnancy, childbearing, and sexually transmitted diseases have had been major contributing factors in the quality of life for human populations–especially the females in these populations. Preventing unwanted pregnancy and disease has, until now, largely been in the hands of men. This new technology may change that.

A group of researchers from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City have invented a vaginal liquid condom that is effective as both a contraceptive and in preventing the transmission of sexual disease including HIV, papilloma virus (HPV), chlamydia, and others.  What makes this “molecular condom” so revolutionary is the fact that it puts women in the driver’s seat. The liquid gel can be inserted into the vagina hours before intercourse and becomes a partial solid when it comes into contact with semen. The ramifications of this new device, which they hope to release in the next 5 years, will be huge.

March is Women’s History month: While I’m generally not a fan of damning or celebrating any grouping of individuals, I will point out that as a group the history of the female sex is one of marginalization, abuse, and disenfranchisement. To a large degree those abuses and lack basic freedoms persist in many cultures. In many countries women simply have no ownership of their lives or bodies–a fundamental principle to individual liberty. In addition to the benefits this liquid condom will provide to couples in developed countries, the new form of birth control and disease prevention has the potential to aid in the liberation and improve conditions of women in societies where their bodies aren’t their own and the risks are great.

Unfortunately for women in the countries with some of the highest rates of STD infection and least access to care, the decisions about sex are not often up to them. As this new technology becomes more available though, all of that may change.

Their goal was to protect women in countries with a high level of HIV-positive people by offering them a rather inexpensive way of contraception and protection when their partners do not wear a condom.

“We did it to develop technologies that can enable women to protect themselves against HIV without the approval of their partner,” says Kiser.

Not to be over-dramatic, but women around the world celebrating Women’s History Month should cheer the researchers behind this condom. They should credit human innovation and technology for helping women around the world take greater ownership of their bodies and their first steps toward freedom.

Regulation of the Day 123: Donating Blood

by Ryan Young on March 4, 2010 · 1 comment

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

If you’re gay, you can’t donate blood. It’s illegal. The ban was put in place in 1983, during the early days of the HIV/AIDS scare. It may have made some sense in those days, when HIV testing was less than trustworthy. But it sure doesn’t now, with modern screening technology.

Obviously, keeping HIV-positive blood out of circulation is a wise policy goal. But most gay people don’t have HIV/AIDS.  Rather than screening donors for sexual preference, they should be screened for blood-borne diseases. Straight people already are. And it works quite well. Current policies are keeping healthy, willing donors out of the system.

The outdated ban could soon be coming to an end. Sen. John Kerry and 15 of his colleagues, usually more prone to passing regulations than repealing them, are urging the FDA to repeal this one. You can read their letter here.

The one disconcerting thing about the letter is that every single one of the signees is Democratic. Not one Republican joined in. That could be because Sen. Kerry and the others deliberately excluded them for political reasons. But the GOP is famously behind the curve on gay rights issues. So maybe Republicans were asked, and said no. I don’t know.

Republicans should send their own letter supporting Sen. Kerry’s position. Enlarging the pool of eligible blood donors is an unabashed good. It’s a classic gay rights issue. It’s also a health issue. Blood would be more readily available for patients who need it. Economists would add that increasing the supply of blood will lower its price – a good thing in this age of rapidly rising health care costs.

Regulation of the Day 81: Porn

by Ryan Young on December 9, 2009

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

Marginal Revolution’s Alex Tabarrok points to a proposed rule in California that would reclassify adult film actors as being subject to certain employment regulations. The unintended consequences are potentially fatal:

California’s anti-discrimination laws prohibit requiring an HIV test as a condition of employment; therefore the adult film industry’s current testing process, in which every performer is tested for HIV monthly, would be illegal. Nor would adult film producers be allowed to “discriminate” by refusing employment to HIV-positive performers. As a result, untested and HIV-positive performers would be able to work in the industry, raising the risks of HIV outbreaks–particularly since condom breakage or slippage can occur.

Sounds like regulators and activists need to think that one through a little more carefully.