Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!IPWP400%INDYCMS.BITNET@oac.ucla.edu
From: IPWP400%INDYCMS.BITNET@oac.ucla.edu (MacGyver)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: (2539) Magazine Query
Message-ID: <39399@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 27 Sep 90 13:57:37 GMT
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Lines: 52
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note:	Copyright 1990 by Daniel R. Greening.  Permission granted for
Note:	non-commercial reproduction.
Archive-number: 2543

On Thu, 27 Sep 90 03:34:01 pdt Support Account for SCI.MED.AIDS said:
>>From: gch@asgard.mlb.dmt.csiro.au (Gaylord Holder)

>I recently came across a magazine called "New Dimensions."
>The March issue had some pretty alarmist claims ... HIV+ New York waiters
>infecting restaurant patrons, etc.  Does anyone know more about
>this magazine?  It seemed deliberatly alarmist.
>
>-Gaylord
>

I have made mention of this magazine a number of times, on this list,
and others.  I understand the concern for calling it alarmist and it
could be perceived to be so by those factions not of a conservative
political bent.  Those magazines/media on the other end could just
as easily be considered alarmist by others.

I am not defending the magazine, just the principle.  I have questions
about many things stated in that magazine, particularly the issue
you mention.

Many of the things they allege and purport are contrary to what the
American public receives from the vanilla media.  The two most
inflammatory things they extend are 1) AIDS is easier to contract
and transmit than people are being led to believe and 2) there are
factions of the American media who "filter/censor" information
that would communicate this to the public; id est, a coverup.

This probably sounds far-fetched to some persons.  But what IF that
is true?  Is that any more implausible than some of the other discussions
posted: e.g. a coverup of a cure?  I am not homophobic or AIDS-phobic, just
trying to be reasonable and cautious.  I sympathize with those immediately
affected, but one must also understand that it is better to be cautiously
safe than dangerously ignorant.

If one examines history, there is precedent for caution.  During the
last episode of the bubonic plague (there were three, right?), people
began believing it was a scurge from God.  The Church(sic) tried everything
possible to figure out how to redirect the masses and release mankind from
this problem.  Social contact was almost completely stopped and if you
coughed or sneezed, you lost friends, who feared you were the next
person to get sick.  Doctors refused to treat patients.  The only ones
left to attempt to treat those ill were priests and nuns.  The Catholic
Church estimates that 51% of all priests and nuns were wiped out.  As
a last resort, the Pope declared a pilgrimage to Rome.  Those who were
sick went trying to get healed, those who were well went to avoid getting
sick.  Fully 90% of those starting the trek never returned...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Before acting, deliberate.  After deliberating, act speedily."
                                                       -Erasmus
------------------------------------------------------------------------