AIDS Daily Summary, November 2, 1994

National AIDS Info Clearinghouse
Copyright 1994, Information, Inc., Bethesda, MD

AIDS Daily Summary
November 2, 1994

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National AIDS
Clearinghouse makes available the following information as a public
service only. Providing this information does not constitute endorsement
by the CDC, the CDC Clearinghouse, or any other organization. Reproduction
of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the CDC
Clearinghouse should be cited as the source of this information.
Copyright 1994, Information, Inc., Bethesda, MD

************************************************************
“‘Doe’ Case Is Warning, Experts Say”
“Across the USA: Tennessee”
“Killer T Cells Reported as a Potential Gene Therapy for Viral
Diseases and Cancer”
“Indonesia Says It Has 1,420 Confirmed HIV Cases”
“Zimbabwe Rejects Blanket AIDS Tests for Insurance”
“New England News Briefs: Needle-Wielding Man is Arrested”
“Heimlich Maneuvers to Cure AIDS”
“Red Cross Official Seen in Conflict”
“Again, Army Shuns AIDS Peer Review”
“Grassroots Organizing: Communication Groups”
************************************************************

“‘Doe’ Case Is Warning, Experts Say”
Philadelphia Inquirer (11/02/94) P. B1; Slobodzian, Joseph A.;
Collins, Huntly
While many lawyers had hoped that the verdict in the “Scott Doe”
AIDS-discrimination case would provide a more definitive decision
on whether the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
protects those with HIV or AIDS, legal experts say the case sends
a clear warning to employers that if they discriminate, they will
have to pay. The settlement has not been disclosed, but most
observers expect that Doe will receive at least $1 million. The
case was closely watched because it was the first suit involving
AIDS to be filed under the ADA and come to trial. One guidepost
for future AIDS-discrimination cases was Kohn Nast’s attempts to
have the case dismissed, contending that the ADA does not cover
people such as Doe, who are HIV-infected but not seriously ill.
In rejecting the arguments that Doe could work and was not
disabled, Judge Robert S. Gawthrop 3d wrote that the law defined
a disability as a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits a person in one or more “major life
activities,” such as caring for oneself or working. Scott
Burris, an assistant professor at Temple University Law School
and counsel to the ACLU’s AIDS and Civil Liberties Project said
the case has deterrent value because it “reminds employers of the
pain and agony that they may be exposed to if they are accused of
discrimination.”

“Across the USA: Tennessee”
USA Today (11/02/94) P. 4A
The Dean of Vanderbilt University, K.C. Potter, has refused to
permit a campus group to distribute free condoms door-to-door in
dorms. The AIDS awareness plan, he said, would “invade the
private spaces of residents.” The Vanderbilt health department
supplies condoms free of charge.

“Killer T Cells Reported as a Potential Gene Therapy for Viral
Diseases and Cancer”
PRNewswire (11/01/94)
A team of researchers lead by Margo R. Roberts–director of cell
biology and immunology for Cell Genesys, Inc.–has developed
anti-HIV T cells that specifically and efficiently kill
HIV-infected cells in laboratory experiments. The findings,
which are reported in the Nov. 1 issue of the journal Blood,
describe the first successful laboratory experiments that
resulted in permanent genetic modification of killer T cells
specific for HIV. Killer T cells, or CD8+ lymphocytes–a
significant component of the immune system that is normally
responsible for eliminating virus-infected and tumor cells–were
engineered to produce the anti-HIV T cells. The National
Institutes of Health began the first human test of genetically
altered HIV-specific killer T cells in September in a Phase I/II
trial of anti-HIV T cell therapy for AIDS. Phase I safety
results are expected in late 1995. Previous studies have shown
that, in people with AIDS, the level of HIV-specific killer T
cells–which kill HIV-infected cells–decreases as they progress
to later phases of AIDS.

“Indonesia Says It Has 1,420 Confirmed HIV Cases”
Reuters (11/01/94)
Although the World Health Organization estimates that Indonesia
has 50,000 people who are HIV-infected, the country’s official
count of those who are infected as of Sept. 30 is 1,420. Cases
of HIV have been reported in all provinces of Indonesia except
the sparsely populated islands of East Nusa Tenggara. The ratio
of HIV cases was six men to one woman, while the ratio of AIDS
cases was 41 men to one woman. Women’s Affairs Minister Mien
Sugandhi reported in September that as of June there were 216
HIV-positive people, 56 of whom had developed AIDS.

“Zimbabwe Rejects Blanket AIDS Tests for Insurance”
Reuters (11/01/94)
The Zimbabwean government has rejected insurance companies’
recommendations that compulsory AIDS tests be given to people
taking life insurance policies of at least Z$50,000 (US $6,250).
“Compulsory testing would cause undue discrimination against
people infected with HIV,” said Health Minister Timothy Stamps.
The insurance industry had wanted to expand an existing law that
permits HIV testing for those buying life policies worth
Z$100,000.

“New England News Briefs: Needle-Wielding Man is Arrested”
Boston Globe (10/31/94) P. 41
Providence, R.I., police arrested a man last Thursday who
threatened to stab two women with a needle if they did not give
him their purses. The man claimed to have AIDS and pointed the
needle at the women after approaching them in a hotel parking
lot. It is not known whether the man had the disease.

“Heimlich Maneuvers to Cure AIDS”
Los Angeles Times (10/30/94) P. A1; Warrick, Pamela
Fueled by hundreds of thousands of dollars in celebrity
donations, Dr. Henry Heimlich–the inventor of the anti-choking
maneuver–is proposing to cure AIDS with “Induced Malaria
Therapy” (IMT). A similar therapy was used in the treatment of
neurosyphilis during the 1920s. IMT consists of inoculating
patients with blood that contains malaria parasites and then,
after 10 to 14 fevers spiking 106 degrees over three to four
weeks, administering anti-malaria medications. Heimlich’s
researchers have begun IMT on a small group of HIV-infected men
in China. The scientist generally uses humans in his trials
because he is philosophically opposed to animal research. Many
doubt the doctor’s work and note how over the last decade he has
proposed treatments for AIDS, cancer, Lyme disease, asthma, and
war. Out of concern for human subjects, a group of 20 scientists
and physicians from the United States and Mexico have petitioned
the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the
Internal Revenue Service to investigate Heimlich’s fund-raising
in Hollywood and his treatment of HIV. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention has issued a four-page public health alert
warning against the Heimlich Foundation’s proposal to use malaria
therapy on HIV.

“Red Cross Official Seen in Conflict”
Toronto Globe and Mail (10/29/94) P. A5; Coutts, Jane
Commission counsel Marlys Edwardh suggested Friday that there was
a potential conflict of interest when the medical director of the
Toronto blood bank also served as an advisor to the Canadian
Hemophilia Society. Documents submitted at the tainted-blood
inquiry show that in 1983, Dr. Roslyn Herst, as chairwoman of the
Hemophilia Society’s medical and scientific advisory committee,
was asked to write a letter to hemophiliacs about AIDS. At the
time, the Red Cross and the society disagreed on the safety of
cryoprecipitate and Factor VIII–two products used to help clot
blood. Dr. Herst sided with the Red Cross and told the
hemophiliacs that she preferred Factor VIII over cryoprecipitate,
which during the 1980s was considered safer. Factor VIII is made
by pooling thousands of blood donations–compared to only one or
two for cryoprecipitate–and is more likely to contain HIV. It
is now considered the safer product because it can be heat
treated to kill HIV. In response to the allegations, Dr. Herst
said that at the time a variety of products were available and
that it had been her job to inform hemophiliacs about them.

“Again, Army Shuns AIDS Peer Review”
Science (10/14/94) Vol. 266, No. 5183, P. 207
Last year, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) criticized the Department of
Defense’s (DOD) plan to spend $20 million to test a therapeutic
AIDS vaccine manufactured by MicroGenesys Inc. instead of
peer-review research. DOD bowed to the pressure and promised to
spend the money on peer-review research. A total of $9.6 million
will fund AIDS vaccine research conducted by five research teams
whose proposals passed the Army’s peer review. Recently,
however, Army officials said that DOD would award $10.3 million
to the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of
Military Medicine, a private contractor in Maryland. Biochemist
John Moore of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center and chair of
the Army’s peer-review committee said, “What the DOD does not
seem to have understood is that the fuss over the original $20
million was largely about an abuse of the peer-review system.”
The deputy director of the military’s AIDS research program said
that his command works well with the Jackson Foundation and that
the funds were awarded to prevent a potential shortfall in DOD’s
AIDS research budget for in the coming year.

“Grassroots Organizing: Communication Groups”
AIDS Treatment News (10/07/94) No. 208, P. 6; James, John S.
AIDS Treatment News proposes developing “communication
groups”–small, personal groups of friend who meet for social
activities that revolve around writing and calling public
officials to advance AIDS causes. The individual groups would
also work with other AIDS organizations to generate public
response on their issues. The social factor in the groups would
ensure that the groups work for the people, as well as a cause.
A five-page expanded proposal on “communication groups” is
available from AIDS Treatment News.

Joe Queenan Takes on Tinseltown

by Manuela Hoelterhoff
Wall Street Journal

“Do you think Joe Queenan could NOT review my book?” We hear that
request now and again at the Journal. But we do our best to keep Joe
busy, though that still leaves him plenty of time to write for other
publications, on any number of subjects from the guitar to the slow
death of the Democratic Party. (I’m told he once totted up the
largest number of articles written by a human in one year. I don’t
doubt it. Writer’s block doesn’t afflict him.)
“If You’re Talking to Me, Your Career Must Be in Trouble: Movies,
Mayhem, and Malice” (Hyperion, 267 pages, $22.95) pulls together his
free-lance Hollywood pieces, mostly from that raffish upstart
magazine Movieline, in which he, among other things, identifies “an
obsession with head trauma as a principal theme in the work of
Oliver Stone” and endures an agonizing algebra lesson with an aging
child star.
Here are some excerpts:
Please describe yourself: “Basically, I was a journalist who only
dealt in troubled merchandise, who only got to meet movie stars when
they themselves had a gun cocked to their heads by their studios and
were literally forced to go out and do interviews with unpleasant
people. They were forced to do interviews with people like me
because they had megaduds in the can.”
Name One: Beastmaster III. “Not until we pass through the Pearly
Gates and meet our Maker will any of us ever know why God created
Ryan O’Neal, what pivotal role Mariel Hemingway is playing in the
Almighty’s master plan, and to what extent Satan himself was
involved in the final editing of Beastmaster III.”
Why do you often repeat unkind remarks about people who never
harmed you? Say the casting of Charlotte Rampling as an intellectual
marine biologist or Kathleen Turner’s weight (problem)?: “This is
not the result of an editing oversight. Rather, this repetition of
certain pejorative remarks stems from my personal belief that it is
impossible to remind the public too often that Diane Keaton is a
really awful actress, just as it is impossible to make too many
nasty remarks about short, bad actors related to Martin Sheen.”
Inspired by Woody Allen and his love for a nymph, you assembled
the “Home Nymphet Video Collection,” containing “Sunset,” “Sabrina,”
“Lolita” and “Voyager” — which starred Sam Shepherd as a
hydroelectrical engineer. Who should buy this collection?: “Despite
their absurd plots, their horrible scripts, their eighth-rate
acting, and Vincent Spano, these films, viewed as a unit, provide an
indispensable moral compass that horny, middle-aged men everywhere
can use when reaching a decision about preying on women who are old
enough to be their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, or
nieces once removed by marriage. Had Woody Allen looked at these
films, or looked at them more carefully, he would have been less
reckless in making the decision to abandon Ms. Farrow and take up
with one of her numerous United Colors of Benetton daughters.”
What can you tell us about Susan Sarandon’s beliefs?: “…like
many people who have villas in Italy, apartments in New York, and
good jobs in Hollywood, Sarandon espouses innumerable political
causes. These include women, homeless women, homeless people in
general, victims of Central American political repression, AIDS
victims, Nicaraguan mothers, the poor, and various combinations
thereof. Environmentally sensitive readers, or manatee buffs ired by
the immense amount of press coverage more colorful aquatic species
seem to get, will be heartened to know that at no point during the
interview did Sarandon express any concern about the whales.”
Is Tom Cruise growing, as they say, as an actor?: “Cruise started
out as a generic heartthrob in All the Right Moves, Risky Business,
and Top Gun, but has since profited from the widely held notion that
appearing in Rain Man and Born on the Fourth of July demonstrated a
willingness to stretch. It is a measure of how spectacularly
infantile the movie industry has become to suggest that making a
film with either Oliver Stone or Barry Levinson constitutes a
stretch, since all we are talking about is Of Mice and Men Goes to
Vegas and a wheelchair Platoon. Still, it’s a start.”
For one of your articles you tried to re-create famous scenes
from movies, including the Julia Roberts character in “Pretty Woman”
getting picked up by Richard Gere as a business companion. What
happened?: “…none of the women I saw on Eighth Avenue bore even
a remote physical resemblance to Julia Roberts. Or, for that matter,
to Eric Roberts. If anyone had made a movie about any of these
tragic individuals, it would have been called Pretty Ugly Woman.
Moreover, it wasn’t always easy to establish whether the woman I was
talking to was actually a woman. Or a human.”
Is there anything we can learn from the movies?: “Music Box is a
brutal, disturbing film about an unendurable truth: that some of us
are the parents of fiends, that some of us are the children of
monsters.”

Ms. Hoelterhoff is the Journal’s books editor.

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the
personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the
hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering
from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]

AIDS Daily Summary, May 26, 1993

National AIDS Info Clearinghouse
Copyright 1993, Information, Inc., Bethesda, MD

AIDS Daily Summary
May 26, 1993

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National AIDS
Clearinghouse makes available the following information as a public
service only. Providing this information does not constitute endorsement
by the CDC, the CDC Clearinghouse, or any other organization. Reproduction
of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold.
Copyright 1993, Information, Inc., Bethesda, MD

“FDA Issues Warning About AIDS Drugs From ‘Buyers Clubs'”
Washington Post (05/26/93), P. A3 (Schwartz, John)
Some AIDS drugs not approved by the Food and Drug Administration
and sold through “buyers’ clubs” may be unsafe, the FDA wrote in
a letter sent yesterday to about a dozen of the clubs. The
agency has long permitted HIV-positive persons to import
unapproved treatments under a “personal use” policy.
Consequently, the underground buyers clubs have emerged to
satisfy that demand and to act as information clearinghouses for
treatment alternatives. Drugs available in the buyers clubs are
usually obtained from foreign countries. These drugs include
DDC, Immunex, and hard-to-find herbal medicines such as Chinese
bitter melon. The FDA’s letter did not specify drugs or
treatments that the agency believes are hazardous, but outlined
three areas of concern: the lack of physician’s involvement in
some of the groups; “the sale of injectable products of unknown
purity, sterility, and strength”; and the promotion and
commercialization of “unproven and potentially dangerous
products.” The letter did not impose regulatory action on the
clubs but noted that “illegal importations are subject to
enforcement action under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. FDA will continue to evaluate closely the activities of
‘buyers’ clubs’ and others who import drug products.” Since the
buyers’ clubs first started selling imported treatments from
Israel more than 10 years ago, the FDA and the underground
operations have maintained a civil relationship. But last year
the federal agency began investigating the clubs as a result of
concerns about unfounded product claims, promotion, and drug
bootlegging.
Related Stories: New York Times (05/26) P. A18; Los Angeles Times–Washington Edition
(05/26) P. A5.

“U.S. Blacks, Africans Cite Grim AIDS Data”
Philadelphia Inquirer (05/26/93), P. A10 (Fritz, Mark)
A summit of black Americans and Africans was held yesterday in
Libreville, Gabon, where stories of AIDS ravaging through
communities were told. At the summit, AIDS was cited as the
leading killer of New York women between the ages of 14 and 55,
and Africa was identified as the world’s leader in the number of
HIV-positive people. Debra Fraser-Howze, director of New York’s
Black Leadership Commission on AIDS, said, “Multiple generations
are being simultaneously wiped out by AIDS on two continents. We
have a lot in common with our brothers and sisters here on the
continent.” Fraser-Howze said she had to fight to get a special
workshop to be conducted at the conference, even though she told
of the alarming statistic of AIDS among New York women.
According to Betty Adams, a member of the commission, many black
men still consider AIDS a disease of homosexuals. But even
American AIDS activists were surprised at the poor health profile
in Africa, which has an estimated 8 million of the world’s 13
million people with HIV. Experts at the summit said that the
Uganda railroad has a 15 percent annual turnover in employees
because of death and sickness caused by AIDS. AIDS patients
account for 70 percent of the hospital beds in the Tanzanian city
of Bujumbura, and some villages have a 90 percent infection rate.
The focus on the devastation by AIDS in Africa has largely
overshadowed the extensive spread of tuberculosis, to which AIDS
patients are especially susceptible.

“House Passes Research Bill That Bans Immigrants With HIV”
Philadelphia Inquirer (05/26/93), P. A11 (Ball, Karen)
The House of Representatives yesterday approved a medical
research bill that bans HIV-positive foreigners and permits fetal
tissue research. With a 290-130 vote, the House returned to the
Senate a bill that authorizes $6 billion for the National
Institutes of Health and directs new research money for breast
and ovarian cancer, contraception, and fertility. Some of the
legislators who opposed the AIDS ban ended up voting for the
bill, claiming women’s health research was too important to be
neglected any longer. Although President Clinton promised to
lift the ban on HIV-infected foreigners in his campaign, he is
likely to sign the measure. The Senate is expected to send it to
him later this week. The original bill was sidetracked in the
Senate in February, when legislators upset with Clinton’s plans
to lift the immigration ban tacked the ban onto the fetal tissue
research bill. The House overwhelmingly voted to accept the
Senate language when the bill went to conference before the
House-Senate team that works out differences between the two
chambers. The vote yesterday was on the negotiated version of
the bill. The HIV-positive ban was the only significant
difference. Legislators who supported the ban on HIV-positive
immigrants noted that it could cost $100,000 a year to care for
an AIDS patient, and that America’s health care system is already
overwhelmed.
Related Story: Washington Post (05/26) P. A3; Baltimore Sun (05/26) P. 16A.

“Peace Corps Workers Are Infected With AIDS Virus Abroad”
New York Times (05/26/93), P. A13 (Holmes, Steven A.)
An increasing number of Peace Corps volunteers have been found to
have contracted HIV during their tours of duty even though they
received thorough AIDS education, according to a study released
at a Paris conference sponsored by the Society for International
Travel Medicine. The study, conducted for the Peace Corps by Dr.
Thomas Eng, an epidemiologist from the Centers for Disease
Control, indicated that 29 volunteers had been found to be
infected with HIV since 1987, when the Corps began testing
applicants for the virus and turning away applicants who were
HIV-positive. The report said that among the 29, eight had
definitely become infected while volunteering in the Corps, and
four of them within the last year. A total of seven of the eight
had been assigned to Africa, which has the highest rate of HIV
infection in the world–estimated at 14 million HIV-positive
people. Six of the eight infected volunteers were in their
mid-20s, the study said. It also said the volunteers “indicated
that they were most likely infected as a result of having
unprotected sex with host-country nationals and did not perceive
themselves to be at risk.” Although the number of people who
became infected is a small percentage of the nearly 6,000 current
volunteers and the more than 18,000 people who have entered the
Corps since 1987, some Peace Corps officials say they were
surprised that four volunteers were found to have become infected
last year. What was most alarming to Peace Corps officials was
the low rate of condom use among volunteers even in countries
where the prevalence of AIDS is high.

“AIDS Quilt Ceremony to Recall, Honor 3”
Boston Globe (05/25/93), P. 22 (Kong, Dolores)
Three employees of the Massachusetts Department of Health who
died of AIDS were expected to be honored this week at an AIDS
quilt ceremony. The three employees are Sidney W. Borum Jr., an
AIDS educator who died last year of the disease; Duane Draper,
director of the state’s AIDS bureau, who died in 1991; and Phil
Carrozza, who worked with the state bureau of substance abuse
services. Because of the three employees’ commitment to AIDS
when they were living, scores of co-workers, Lt. Gov. Paul
Cellucci, Secretary of Health and Human Services Charles Baker,
friends, and family members are expected to attend a ceremony at
the department to remember the contributions of the three men.
Two AIDS quilts in memory of Borum and Draper will be revealed
and displayed alongside a quilt that already stands in the lobby
of the department in memory of Carroza. The quilts will serve as
a reminder of the men’s dedication to AIDS issues and the work
that remains to be done, according to organizers of the ceremony.

“Canada Recommends Inquiry Into Blood System”
Reuters (05/25/93)

Ottawa, Canada–The Canadian government requested Tuesday that
its provinces examine their blood supply procedures, after
discovering that more than 1,000 Canadians contracted HIV through
tainted blood transfusions. A parliamentary subcommittee
previously issued a report calling for an investigation into the
country’s blood supply system after finding that more than 1,000
people contracted HIV in the 1980s after receiving blood
transfusions and blood products. In 1990, the federal government
began compensating each of the 1,000 infected Canadians with
about $95,000, said Janice Hopkins of Health and Welfare Canada.
However, hemophiliacs and others are pressing for an inquiry into
the extent of infection among recipients of blood and blood
products, and for additional compensation from the provinces,
which share with Ottawa the responsibility of ensuring a safe
blood supply. Health Minister Benoit Bouchard said provincial
health ministers must be consulted before a public inquiry is
implemented, but once specifics are determined it should take
about six to nine months. The country’s blood distribution
system is funded by the provinces, regulated by the federal
government, and managed by the Canadian Red Cross Society.

“Va. Student Hands Out 300 Condoms: Safe-Sex Crusade Draws a
Suspension”
Washington Post (05/25/93), P. C5 (Brown, DeNeen L.)
A student from a Fairfax County, Va., high school who distributed
more than 300 condoms to fellow students was suspended last week
as a result. Nathan Hurto, a junior at Edison High School, said
he handed out the condoms during school last Thursday “to let
people know if they are going to do something that puts them at
risk, they need to minimize that risk.” Hurto said he was not a
member of any AIDS service organization. He said that at the end
of the day on Thursday he was told that he was suspended for five
days for “disrupting the educational process.” Under school
regulations, no student is permitted to distribute anything that
is not first approved by the principal. Hurto said he believed
he would be punished for deviating from school norms, but could
not understand why he was suspended for five days. “Five days is
what you get for having drugs at school. Whether you agree with
me or not for handing them out, they are equating something
potentially lifesaving, in the instance of HIV, to something that
could destroy your life, like alcohol or another drug.” The only
school systems throughout the Washington, D.C., area that allow
the distribution of condoms are those within the city limits. In
Fairfax County, condoms are addressed in sex education classes in
grades seven through 12. Hurto said he did not force anyone to
take the condoms, “I just said, ‘Here’s a condom; do you want
it?” He added, “Most people just said thanks and just took them
and put them in their pocket.”

“CDC Chokes on AIDS Treatment Proposal”
Science (05/14/93) Vol. 260, No. 5110, P. 883 (Stone, Richard)
Although celebrated physician Henry Heimlich claims that malaria
may be a potential treatment for AIDS, the Centers for Disease
Control strongly disagrees. Dr. Heimlich, inventor of the
lifesaving Heimlich maneuver, has been giving malaria therapy to
sufferers of cancer and Lyme disease for years. Patients are
injected with the malaria parasite which is intended to stimulate
an immune reaction that kills other foreign organisms. However,
Heimlich’s findings on the malaria treatment remain unpublished.
On April 29, the CDC responded to several inquiries from the
scientific community and the media regarding Heimlich’s work.
The agency criticized Heimlich’s proposal to inject malaria
parasites into 10 HIV-positive volunteers. The CDC said that
“the use of induced malaria infection in HIV-1 infected
individuals cannot be justified.” Heimlich said that his
proposal was an “inhouse draft” that “by no means was to be
circulated.” Heimlich also said that the CDC reneged on an
agreement to assist his work. Heimlich mentioned a September
1986 letter from Robert Kaiser, head of CDC’s parasitic diseases
division, who wrote that CDC “would make available certain
strains” of malaria parasite for use in Heimlich’s malaria
therapy for cancer. But Kieser referred inquiries to Carlos
Campbell, head of the CDC’s malaria branch, who rejected
Heimlich’s claims. “We weren’t prepared to offer him parasites
until we saw some evidence that there was an approved protocol,”
said Campbell. Heimlich says he has no established timetable for
proceeding with the research.

“WHO: Combined Forces Against AIDS”
Lancet (05/22/93) Vol. 341, No. 8856, P. 1336 (McGregor, Alan)
United Nations agencies will coordinate efforts in a more
aggressive global fight against AIDS to be headed by the World
Health Organization. The move stems from a resolution sponsored
by some 40 countries and adopted unanimously by the World Health
Assembly at the end of its two-week session in Geneva. Under the
auspices of the Inter-Agency Advisory Group on AIDS and the Task
Force on AIDS Coordination–whose leaders are based within
WHO–the first goal is to have a study ready for the January
meeting of WHO’s executive board. It will concentrate on
expected growth and consequences of the epidemic over the next
two decades. The study will highlight the potential level of
available resources in the next 10 years, and how the new program
will be organized and managed. Moreover, it will focus on “the
need to have global leadership for a coordinated international
response to the pandemic.” At a recent newsconference, Dr.
Michael Merson, director of the WHO AIDS division, dispelled the
published contentions that the spread of HIV in Africa was to
some extent a myth. “This is a terrible epidemic, no myth. No
one country is spared,” Merson said. He added that about $2.9
billion a year will be needed for all possible preventive
measures proposed. However, WHO’s budget for 1994-95 is only
$1.8 billion.

Clinton Health Plan Hurts Biotech Firms

by Udayan Gupta, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

If uncertainty about President Clinton’s health-care plan is
denting big drug companies’ stocks, it is helping to wreak havoc at
small biotechnology companies.
Ever since the administration started talking about health-care
changes, the fear of price and cost controls has hurt the biotech
business. On Wall Street, stock prices of biotech companies have
plummeted. Financing has dried up. And plans for expansion,
including hiring, new construction and new projects, have been put
on hold.
The entire biotechnology industry is under a cloud. But small
biotechnology companies are the hardest hit. With no products and no
revenue, they need steady access to the capital markets. The drought
they now face threatens their plans for research and
commercialization — and, for some, their very existence.
Of course, the industry hasn’t helped its own cause. Problems
with some highly publicized drugs and the industry’s inability to
come up with new blockbusters have tarnished its image. And a slew
of me-too companies backed by venture capitalists have further
clouded the competitive picture.
Initial public offerings in the first four months of this year
fell 63% from the 1992 period to $119.7 million, according to In
Vivo, a Norwalk, Conn., industry newsletter. More than a dozen
companies, including Triplex Pharmaceutical Corp., GenPharm
International Inc. and Tanox Biosystems Inc., have put their stock
offerings on hold. Others, such as Viagene Inc., which had postponed
previous offerings following other industry setbacks, have simply
canceled public financing plans altogether.
“There’s no question in my mind that the Hillary effect has put a
nail in the coffin on our ability to raise money,” says Robert
Abbott, chief executive officer of Viagene in San Diego, referring
to the first lady’s role as head of the Clinton administration’s
health-care task force.
Relatively more mature companies have fared little better.
Secondary stock offerings declined 11% to $245.7 million. But the
biggest casualty was a package of convertible debt that had been
expected to bring more than $200 million into the coffers of seven
small companies, including Celtrix Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
CytoTherapeutics Inc., Liposome Technology Inc., Neurogen Corp. and
Repligen Corp.
“The uncertainty and speculation surrounding price controls
killed the bio-bundle. We hit the market at the wrong time,” says
Misha Petkevich, a managing director at Robertson Stephens & Co.,
the San Francisco investment bank that put together the convertible
debt package.
Strategic alliances with big companies have also been affected.
Such partnerships, a source of capital and resources such as
technology and marketing for smaller companies, dropped to 19 in the
first four months of this year from 26 a year earlier, says In Vivo.
“The large companies are hunkering down because of the uncertainty.
They want to know what’s going to happen to the overall environment
before they do more outside collaborations,” says Ron Henricksen,
chief executive of Khepri Pharmaceuticals Inc., Alameda, Calif., and
former head of U. S. business development at Eli Lilly & Co.
“Investors already have been disappointed by the poor clinical
results of some high-profile companies such as Synergen, Centocor
and U. S. Bioscience,” says Roger Longman, editor of In Vivo. Now, “a
host of disparate and confusing reform proposals, ranging from price
controls to a national list of reimbursable drugs, has thrown them
for a loop.”
“The biggest concern is price controls for new products,” says
John Kaweske, a Denver manager of Global Health Sciences Fund and
Financial Strategic Health Sciences Portfolio. “If price controls
are put in place you will not see any further financing of these
biotech companies.”
The Food and Drug Administration is also contributing to the
industry’s quandary. “The big FDA signals are that the threshold for
approval has changed from safety and efficacy to safety, efficacy”
and cost effectiveness, says Steven Burrill, head of Ernst & Young’s
international high technology practice. For most young companies,
unfamiliar with the regulatory process, the confusion only adds to
the already prohibitively expensive cost of clinical trials, he
adds.
But at Viagene, which in March abandoned its $30 million initial
public offering, the implication is clear. The company has frozen
hiring and drastically slowed its plans for development and
diversification.
Five years ago, Viagene received $20 million from venture
capitalists to develop drugs based on gene therapy. Last year, it
decided to raise $30 million in an initial public offering to
accelerate the clinical trials of its most promising drug: a
treatment that enhances a patient’s “killer T-cell” response to
fight viral infections, including the HIV, the virus that causes
AIDS.
The company filed to go public on April 15, 1992, the same day
that Centocor’s announcement of problems with its septicshock drug
sent the entire biotech market into a freefall. Viagene tried again
to raise money in January, just weeks before Synergen announced that
its septic-shock drug Antril performed poorly in clinical tests. The
company kept its offering on the backburner, hoping that news and
market conditions would improve. But in March, “I reluctantly
terminated Viagene’s efforts to raise capital through a public
offering,” Dr. Abbott wrote U. S. Rep. Pete Stark, a California
Democrat.
As a result, instead of accelerated testing or diversifying to
other diseases, Viagene is cutting back on its clinical trials. In
its first study it will work with only four patients instead of 12.
It will also cut out a “quick peek” test that helps ascertain the
potential impact of the clinical trials. The revised strategy will
reduce costs but it will also add six months to the trials.
Viagene has also stopped hiring. Between January 1991 and October
1992, the company increased its staff to 107 from 40. But now, with
only about $8 million left, it wants to conserve that cash.
The company is discovering that there is no U. S. corporate
interest in its activities. A major U. S. vaccine producer cut off
talks about a product-development alliance because of the fiscal
uncertainty associated with President Clinton’s reform, says Dr.
Abbott. Viagene still has five collaboration candidates, but three
are Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the other two are German.
Other companies are also scrambling for new partners to make up
for the paucity of public capital. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. last
month signed a collaboration agreement with Japan’s Kissei
Pharmaceutical Co. to develop the Cambridge company’s anti-AIDS
compounds. As part of the deal, Kissei will invest $20 million in
Vertex’s HIV program.
Another Cambridge, Mass., biotech company, Procept Inc., was
counting heavily on a $20 million initial public offering to finance
clinical tests for its AIDS therapeutic drug. But it has had to put
off the offering, says Stanley Erck, chief executive officer. Now it
is scrambling to put together an $11 million private financing to
stay on course.
But even these private equity markets, traditionally less
sensitive to industry upheaval, have become wary. Mr. Kaweske, for
example, invested $1 million in Incyte Pharmaceuticals, a Palo Alto,
Calif., start-up, at a price “at least 50% lower than six to 12
months ago.”
Other venture investors simply won’t invest. “We’re rejecting
deals that three or four years ago we would very seriously
consider,” says Barry Weinberg, managing partner of CW Ventures, a
New York venture-capital firm. No more start-ups with products that
are only incrementally different from others, he says. “For
companies that don’t offer cost-effective solutions, there simply
isn’t any money.”

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the
personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the
hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering
from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]

Burying Tradition, More People Opt For ‘Fun’ Funerals

For Some, New Rites of Passage
Include Parties, Boat Rides
And Psychedelic Caskets


by Carrie Dolan, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In a hotel ballroom here, about 3,000
revelers float among bouquets of balloons and mingle around a trio
of bars. An ice sculpture drips over the buffet. A seven-piece band,
led by a vocalist in a black lace dress, blares out James Brown’s “I
Feel Good.” In the midst of the action is the party’s host — lying
in a flag-draped coffin.
He was B. T. Collins, a popular California state legislator, who
died of a heart attack in March at age 52. A former Green Beret who
lost an arm and a leg in the Vietnam War, he was fond of
unconventional tributes. He marked his 50th birthday with a
parachute jump and once donated a urinal to Santa Clara University’s
school of law, his alma mater. Known for his disdain for protocol
and his love of a good time, he had set aside funds to celebrate his
passing. As for his attendance at the festivities, Nora Romero, his
longtime administrative assistant, asks: “You don’t think B. T. would
miss his own party, do you?”
These days, a small but growing number of people are choosing to
be remembered in an upbeat — and sometimes bizarre — fashion. By
planning their own send-offs, these forward-looking folks ensure a
memorable goodbye to loved ones. “It’s a way of saying, `Hey world,
I may be dead, but I’m not gone,'” says Steve Skiles, who has been a
funeral director in Belmont, Calif., for three years.
A fun funeral is “a very healthy idea,” says Richard Steffen, a
friend who helped plan the final party for Mr. Collins, who had a
history of coronary trouble. “I was raised Polish Catholic and
services would always end with a blowout party with a polka band,
kielbasa and vodka …Everyone would cry in the morning, but by
midnight there was no pain.”
“There’s definitely a trend,” toward people planning creative
funerals, says Bill Vlcek of the California Funeral Directors
Association, which represents about 560 members. Many funerals
“still have a somewhat traditional format, but with a personalized
spin on it,” he says. About 40,000 people have prearranged and
prepaid for their services since California’s funeral homes began a
special program in 1985. Mr. Vlcek estimates that in the San
Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas as many as 20% of funerals are
nontraditional. “Less than a half percent” of services are
unconventional elsewhere in the state, he says.
“Whatever has meaning to the family and friends is appropriate,
even if it may seem outrageous to others,” says a spokesman for the
Frank E. Campbell Funeral Chapel in New York, which has a “very
religious clientele.”
Nationally, too, there has been an increase in “preneed” funeral
planning, and in efforts to “put more of the personality of the
deceased into the funeral,” says a spokeswoman for the National
Funeral Directors Association in Milwaukee.
Some take a serious interest in their future funerals to leave
less work — and a message — for their survivors. Phillip
Quattrociocchi, who is dying of AIDS, has planned two services. One,
to be held in Sacramento, Calif., where he grew up, will be a
traditional, religious service. The other, in San Francisco, where
he now lives, will feature a video of himself urging others “to do
some volunteer work.”
He says he has “picked some excellent speakers” for the
obsequies, handled the catering arrangements and hired a graphic
artist to design the invitations. “I wanted to get on with living,
and not keep worrying about dying,” he says.
Jack Smith, 55, a popular San Francisco bar owner, planned a less
sober service. After learning that he had terminal cancer, he
planned a yacht cruise for 100 friends, set to sail the Saturday
after his death. Dave Rose, a friend, recalls that Mr. Smith “handed
me an invitation, and said, `I’m having a party. I just don’t have a
date on it yet.'”
The cruise featured a jazz band and a blues group, plenty of
refreshments and a scattering of the deceased’s ashes to the playing
of “I’ll Be Seeing You.” Friends have been talking about it ever
since.
When Connie Scramlin, 58, a fan of baseball’s Detroit Tigers,
learned she had cancer, she arranged to be buried in a club uniform,
in a coffin with the team’s colors of orange, navy blue and white.
“Take Me Out to the Ballgame” was played at her service last June.
“I knew that some people might think it was almost sacrilegious,”
says Mrs. Scramlin’s daughter Debbie Pillsbury, “but most guests
were really moved.”
Not everyone approves of excessive merrymaking. Deacon Bill
Mitchell, of the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco, says the
emphasis “should be on prayer for the dead, and on …consolation
for those going through the mourning process. I’m not sure if a
great big party does a lot to really help.”
Ron Roy, of Woods Glendale Mortuary in Glendale, Calif., with
more than 30 years in the funeral business, has met many creative
requests, including one from a woman who asked to be interred with a
portable TV tuned to her favorite soap operas. Friends of a Hell’s
Angel placed switchblade knives, brass knuckles and marijuana
cigarettes beside the biker’s body, which was to be cremated. One
couple brought in a parakeet for Mr. Roy to embalm, stipulating that
the bird be entombed with the spouse who died first. “That was about
12 years ago, and we’re still diligently holding on to Tweety Bird,”
he says.
Some requests require special effort. Last summer, Mr. Skiles,
the Belmont mortician, fulfilled a woman’s wish to be buried at sea
in a hand-carved canoe. Full-body burial isn’t legal off
California’s coast, so he and a colleague “put her in the back of a
U-Haul truck and drove to Oregon,” he says. They rented a fishing
boat, went 15 miles offshore, and pushed the canoe overboard.
The price? About $4,000. That can be considerably less than the
cost of a traditional funeral-parlor service and burial in certain
areas of the country.
Those with more conventional tastes for funerals can still
request a bit of flair. San Francisco’s Ghia Gallery, for instance,
has decorated caskets with graffiti and psychedelic art, and it is
developing a line of coffins, each carved from an individual tree.
Loretto Casket Co. in Tennessee sells coffins emblazoned with the
logos of major universities. At a columbarium in San Francisco,
people have found their final resting places in tobacco humidors,
cameras and cookie jars, while patrons of other vaults have asked to
be stored in a favorite hunting decoy or bowling pin. Hunters can
arrange to have Iowa-based Canuck’s Sportsman’s Memorials Inc. place
their ashes into shotgun shells and fire them into the woods.
A venture once proposed by a Florida group to launch cremated
remains into space never got off the ground, however.
And some wishes just can’t be honored. Kevin Minke, a counselor
at the Telophase Society, a San Diego cremation concern, says he has
had customers who “say they want their ashes thrown out with the
garbage or flushed down the toilet.” Both methods are illegal.
Still, those in the industry appreciate the importance of making
a special exit. Mr. Roy arranged to be buried off Canada’s coast in
fishing gear. “I love to fish and I want them to put me out there
with the fish,” he says. Mr. Skiles, a self-described “big-breakfast
man,” has planned a morning cruise for his friends with a menu of
pork chops and eggs to accompany a scattering of his ashes.
His wife wants her ashes tossed from a hot-air balloon. “She’s
always wanted to take one of those balloon trips,” he says, “but
she’s afraid of heights.”

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the
personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the
hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering
from the HIV/AIDS disease and others who are seeking to help them.]

Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy

By J. Gordon Muir, Wall Street Journal.

How many Americans are homosexual?

For years, conventional wisdom has said that 10% or more of the
population is gay. Derived from surveys in the 1940s by pioneer sex
researcher Alfred C. Kinsey, the one-in-10 figure is routinely cited
in academic works, sex education materials, government reports and
the media. The 10% estimate also has been used extensively by
activists lobbying for gay-affirmation programs and extensions of
family benefits to homosexual employees of major corporations, as
well as seen as evidence of gays’ voting clout.
But there long has been much evidence that the 10% estimate is
far too high. Surveys with large samples from the U. S., Canada,
Britain, France, Norway, Denmark and other nations give a picture of
homosexuality experience rates of 6% or less, with an exclusive
homosexuality prevalence of 1% or less.
The most comprehensive example is the continuing survey conducted
by the U. S. Census Bureau since 1988 for the National Center for
Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control. The survey,
which polls about 10,000 subjects quarterly on “AIDS Knowledge and
Attitudes,” asks confidentially if any of several statements is
true, including this one: “you are a man who has had sex with
another man at some time since 1977, even one time.” No more than 2%
to 3% of the more than 50,000 men surveyed have answered “yes to at
least one statement.” Since some yes answers were given to the four
other questions (blood transfusions, intravenous drug use, etc.),
the data strongly suggest that the prevalence of even incidental
homosexual behavior is less than 2% for men. Most studies report
that women have about half of the male prevalence rate, so a general
population estimate for homosexuality would fall below 1.5%. A
national poll showed that 2.4% of voters in the 1992 presidential
election described themselves as homosexual.
Numerous other surveys reveal similar percentages. Father-son
researchers Paul and Kirk Cameron have compiled a new report, “The
Prevalence of Homosexuality” (scheduled to be published in
Psychological Reports), that summarizes more than 30 surveys with
“large, plausibly unbiased samples.” Here are a few of them:
— France: A 1991-92 government survey of 20,055 adults reports
that 1.4% of men and 0.4% of women had had homosexual intercourse in
the five years preceding the survey. The exclusive lifetime
homosexual rates were 0.7% for men and 0.6% for women; lifetime
homosexuality experience was 4.1% for men and 2.6% for women.
— Britain: A 1990-91 nation-wide survey of 18,876 adults aged 16
to 59 reports that 1.4% of men had had homosexual contact in the
five years preceding the survey. Only 6.1% of men had any lifetime
homosexual experience.
— U. S.: A nation-wide 1989 household sample of 1,537 adults
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University
of Chicago finds that of sexually active adults over 18, 1.2% of
males and 1.2% of females reported homosexual activity in the year
preceding the survey; 4.9% to 5.6% of both sexes reported since age
18 having had partners of both genders, and 0.6% to 0.7% exclusively
homosexual partners.
— U. S.: A stratified cluster sample from the Minnesota
Adolescent Health Survey (1986-87) of 36,741 public school students
in seventh through 12th grade found that 0.6% of the boys and 0.2%
of the girls identified themselves as “most or 100% homosexual”;
0.7% of the boys and 0.8% of the girls identified themselves as
“bisexual”; and 10.1% of males and 11.3% of females were “unsure.”
— Canada: A nation-wide cluster random sample of 5,514
first-year college students under age 25 finds 98% heterosexual, 1%
bisexual, 1% homosexual.
— Norway: A 1987 nation-wide random mail sample of 6,155 adults
age 18-60 finds that 0.9% of males and 0.9% of females had
homosexual experiences within three years of the survey, and 3.5% of
males and 3% of females had ever had any homosexual experience.
— Denmark: A 1989 stratified random sample of 3,178 adults age
18-59 finds homosexual intercourse reported by 2.7% of sexually
experienced males. Less than 1% of men were exclusively homosexual.
Many other studies also vary greatly from the Kinsey research, which
in retrospect has little validity. (The widely publicized new “Janus
Report” — “9% of men and 5% of women may be considered homosexuals”
— was based on a nonrandom sample, among other problems.
Methodological flaws are likely to have contributed to its
out-of-step results.)
Among Kinsey’s most serious flaws:
— About 25% of Kinsey’s 5,300 male subjects were former or
present prisoners; a high percentage were sex offenders (he had the
histories of about 1,400). Many respondents were recruited from sex
lectures, where they had gone to get the answer to sex problems;
others were recruited by underworld figures and leaders of
homosexual groups. At least 200 male prostitutes were among his
interviewees, and could have amounted to as much as 4% of his
sample. Some groups were underrepresented, such as church attenders;
others were missing entirely. Kinsey represented this as a
“carefully planned population survey.” His alleged mirror of what
the nation was doing sexually kicked off the sexual revolution.
Even Kinsey never said that 10% of the population was homosexual,
only that 10% of men over age 16 are more or less exclusively
homosexual for periods of up to three years. (By defining adult as
age 16 and over, Kinsey misrepresented as adult behavior homosexual
play among heterosexual adolescents that may have occurred only
once.) For women, the figure was about half of the male prevalence.
As for lifelong, exclusive homosexuality, Kinsey placed the figure
at 4%, and as for any overt homosexual experience, 37%.
Kinsey’s failings aside, sex surveys should never be considered
as singularly definitive, because of the problem of volunteer bias;
many people don’t want to discuss their most intimate sexual natures
with a clipboard-bearing stranger or an anonymous telephone
interviewer. The refusal rate for sex surveys ranges widely, with
some reporting rejections of more than 50%. Although homosexuals
contend that social stigma prevents them from full representation in
surveys, researchers have found that the sexually unconventional are
more eager to discuss sex than people are generally.
Although Kinsey had been criticized early on by other scientists,
including psychologist Abraham Maslow (whose advice he ignored), the
10% fallacy was revealed in the mid-1980s when statisticians began
tracking AIDS cases. Adapting the 10% estimate and known rates of
infection with HIV among gay men, New York City’s department of
health grossly overestimated the size of the city’s HIV-infected gay
population as 250,000 (indirectly placing the total number of
homosexual-bisexual men at 400,000 to 500,000). In 1988, these
figures had to be revised down to 50,000 and 100,000, respectively.
The Centers for Disease Control has also stopped using the Kinsey
data for national projections.
It was no accident that the 10% figure became engraved in stone.
In their 1989 book, “After the Ball,” a blueprint for gay political
activism, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen boast that “when straights
are asked by pollsters for a formal estimate, the figure played back
most often is the `10% gay’ statistic which our propagandists have
been drilling into their heads for years.”
Now that the mythology surrounding Kinsey’s homosexuality
statistics is being laid to rest, perhaps it’s time to examine some
other Kinsey conclusions. A good place to start would be his
findings on childhood sexuality.
Kinsey’s research contains the only body of experimental data
purporting to demonstrate that children from a very young age are
sexual and have sexual needs. This wisdom is part of the
“scientific” foundation of modern sex education, allowing Lester
Kirkendall, a sex education pioneer and Kinsey colleague, to predict
in a professional journal in 1985 that once our sense of guilt
diminishes, cross-generational (adult-child) sex and other forms of
sexual expression “will become legitimate.”
But the Kinsey “findings” are based on criminal experiments
conducted by pedophiles who sexually stimulated infants (as young as
two months) and children against their will, without parental
consent (obviously), for up to 24 hours at a time. Kinsey compiled
these data in a series of tables illustrating normal childhood
sexual response and orgasmic capacity. A Lancet reviewer has called
for an explanation from Kinsey’s surviving co-workers. (None has
been offered.) The National Institutes of Health’s fraud specialist
Walter Stewart has called for an investigation. It’s about time.

Dr. Muir, a physician and former medical researcher, is
contributing author, editor and co-publisher of “Kinsey, Sex and
Fraud” (Huntington House Publishers, 1990). Robert H. Knight of the
Family Research Council contributed to this article.

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the
personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the
hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering
from the HIV/AIDS disease and others who are seeking to help them.]

Detroit TV Anchor Is Quite Outrageous, And Quite Popular

Bill Bonds Is No Tom Brokaw, And He’s Proud of It; A ‘Metaphor’ for the City

by Neal Templin, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

DETROIT — A few years ago, the lead anchor man for
television station WXYZ here reported that some homosexuals
were “groin terrorists” who were purposely trying to spread
AIDS through “zipper warfare.” Later, in 1989, during a
rambling monologue on the air, he challenged the mayor to a
boxing match.

In a lot of cities, that anchor would have been aweigh
long ago. But the outrageous and often offensive Bill Bonds
is the most popular local TV personality in Detroit. He is
Detroit’s own version of newsman Howard Beale of the movie
“Network,” who was mad as hell and wouldn’t take it any more.
How popular is he? After his challenge to the mayor, he
disappeared from the airwaves for five weeks during alcohol
treatment; when he returned, nearly a million viewers — more
Detroiters than watched Game 1 of the World Series that year
— tuned into the ABC affiliate to see the dried-out Mr.
Bonds.

At 5 p.m., when many viewers are blue-collar workers home
from the early shift, Mr. Bonds’s newscast draws twice as
many viewers as the next most popular newscast. At 11 p.m.,
he runs neck-and-neck for the No. 1 spot. The 59-year-old Mr.
Bonds recently signed a lifetime contract with WXYZ that will
pay him more than $1 million a year as anchor for up to seven
more years, a big figure for a local anchor. Then he’ll
continue as a commentator, which he really is already.

Mr. Bonds’s newscasts are a world away from the blow-dried
news of most markets. They’re less traditional reporting than
a kind of “here’s what happened in the world today and what I
think about it.” The earthy Mr. Bonds doesn’t think much of
some of his fancy TV colleagues; in private, he does an
unprintable impression of an uptight Dan Rather during an
intimate moment.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Bonds failed in efforts to make
it big in Los Angeles and New York because he didn’t fit in
either city. But his success in Motown shows that he’s “a
metaphor for Detroit,” says Richard Campbell, a University of
Michigan expert on broadcast news. Just as Detroit’s economy
endures wild cyclical swings, Mr. Campbell says, Mr. Bonds
“captures the contradictory nature of the city. He gets in
trouble a lot, and gets back up.”

When Mr. Bonds returned to the air in 1989, he told
viewers: “Booze, very frankly, had taken over my life. I was
a man out of control, headed for, I’m sure, death, insanity
or perhaps even prison.” He refuses now to say if he drinks
at all. But since his treatment, he has gotten into at least
one bar scuffle, which was frontpage news here. “The
newspapers get on Bill for getting into bar fights, but what
the hell is wrong with that? ” asks Erik Smith, a veteran
reporter at WXYZ. “That’s what Detroit is about. This is a
tough town.”

This is the city where a giant sculpture of a fist — that
of Joe Louis, boxing legend and native son — adorns a
downtown street. The pro basketball Pistons take pride in
being called the “Bad Boys.” Detroit Monthly magazine
recently devoted a cover story to the Detroit Attitude, as
exemplified by Madonna, a local product, and the late Ty
Cobb, the Detroit Tigers’ Hall of Famer who used to slide
into second base with the sharpened spikes of his shoes aimed
high. Local shops carry a T-shirt that brags: “Detroit —
where the weak are killed and eaten.”

“A lot of people look to Bill as the guy who thumbs his
nose at authority and acts as their surrogate,” says Mort
Crim, the anchor on the NBC affiliate in Detroit and Mr.
Bonds’s chief competitor. “That’s why it works here for him
and didn’t work for him in Los Angeles and New York.”

Part of the Bonds appeal is that he was born and raised in
working-class Detroit. He grew up in the city’s 12th Street
area populated chiefly by Irish and Jewish families. He left
one high school by “mutual consent,” he says, was kicked out
of another and dropped out of his final stop. He eventually
joined the Air Force and there passed his high school
equivalency test.

After his stint in the military, Mr. Bonds earned a
political science degree at the University of Detroit. His
first professional broadcast job, as he still reminds
viewers, was working for “a buck an hour” at a tiny radio
station in Albion, Mich., where he even swept the floors. In
1964, he broke into television by joining WXYZ. Back then,
the station’s local newcasts were weak in content and
ratings. Detroit’s 1967 riot changed that.

The riot began only a few blocks from where Mr. Bonds grew
up. Forty-three people were killed, making it the nation’s
worst civil disturbance of a turbulent decade. Mayor Coleman
Young now refuses to be interviewed by Mr. Bonds — “I don’t
care to be interviewed by unstable characters,” he says —
but he recently told the Detroit News that the newsman’s
coverage of the riot was full of compassion, unlike other TV
accounts. “I was watching something I loved die,” Mr. Bonds
says today.

His performance attracted national attention, and a year
later Mr. Bonds left to be the anchor at the ABC affiliate in
Los Angeles. His ratings were good, but he quarreled with the
station’s management and returned to Detroit in 1971. Mr.
Bonds left again in 1975 for New York but had trouble
breaking into an established lineup. The next year, he
returned to Detroit, this time for good.

Or for bad. Mr. Bonds offends just about everyone
periodically — including his own employer. After WKBD,
Channel 50, the major local independent station, aired a
recent Pistons playoff game that went down to the wire, Mr.
Bonds told his viewers: “Channel 50, God bless them, must
have had a 90 rating tonight.” The people in WXYZ’s control
room tend to groan when Mr. Bonds says such things.
Many people in Detroit’s gay community still won’t talk to
Mr. Bonds because of his “special report” on AIDS in 1985,
says Craig Covey, a longtime local advocate for homosexuals
and AIDS victims. “It made us lose a year or two about
educating people about the disease,” says Mr. Covey. But Mr.
Bonds makes no apologies for saying that some gays were
purposely trying to spread the disease. “It didn’t get me in
a lot of trouble with the heterosexuals in town who don’t
want to get AIDS,” he says.

At a Pistons basketball game last year, when Mr. Bonds
appeared at half time to shoot free throws for charity, the
crowd booed him. Mr. Bonds, dressed in an electric pink
shirt, responded by blowing kisses to the crowd and then
sinking three straight free throws.

Fans only boo if they love you, he explains later. “I’ve
had people come up to me and say, `Bonds, you’re the most
opinionated, arrogant SOB I’ve ever seen,'” he says. And
then, he says, they ask for his autograph.

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the
personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the
hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering
from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]

Understanding AIDS, a message from the Surgeon General

by U.S. Surgeon General

This brochure has been sent to you by the government of the
United States. In preparing it, we have consulted with the top
health experts in the country.

I feel it is important that you have the best information now
available for fighting the AIDS virus, a health problem that the
president has called “Public Enemy No. 1.”

Stopping AIDS is up to you, your family and your loved ones.

Some of the issues involved in this brochure may not be things
you are used to discussing openly. I can easily understand that.
But now you must discuss them. We all must know about AIDS.
Read this brochure and talk about it with those you love. Get
involved. Many schools, churches, synagogues, and community
groups offer AIDS education activities.

I encourage you to practice responsible behavior based on
understanding and strong personal values. This is what you can
do to stop AIDS.

— C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D., Surgeon General.

What AIDS Means to You

AIDS is one of the most serious health problems that has ever
faced the American public. It is important that we all, regard-
less of who we are,understand this disease.

AIDS stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. It is a
disease caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV — the
AIDS virus.

The AIDS virus may live in the human body for years before
actual symptoms appear. It primarily affects you by making you
unable to fight other diseases. These other diseases can kill
you.

Many people feel that only certain “high risk groups” of people
are infected by the AIDS virus. This is untrue. Who you are has
nothing to do with whether you are in danger of being infected
with the AIDS virus. What matters is what you do.

People are worried about getting AIDS. Some should be worried
and need to take some serious precautions. But many are not in
danger of contracting AIDS.

The purpose of this brochure is to tell you how you can, and
just as important, how you can’t become infected with the AIDS
virus.

Your children need to know about AIDS. Discuss it with them as
you would any health concern.

How Do You Get AIDS?

There are two main ways you can get AIDS. First, you can
become infected by having sex — oral, anal or vaginal — with
someone who is infected with the AIDS virus.

Second, you can be infected by sharing drug needles and
syringes with an infected person.

Babies of women who have been infected with the AIDS virus may
be born with the infection becuse it can be transmitted from the
mother to the baby before or during birth.

In addition, some persons with hemophilia and others have been
infected by receiving blood.

The Difference Between Giving and Receiving Blood

1. Giving blood. You are not now, nor have you ever been in
danger of getting AIDS from giving blood at a blood bank. The
needles that are used for blood donations are brand-new. Once
they are used, they are destroyed. There is no way you can come
into contact with the AIDS virus by donating blood.

2. Receiving blood. The risk of getting AIDS from a blood
transfusion has been greatly reduced. In the interest of making
the blood supply as safe as possible, donors are screened for
risk factors and donated blood is tested for the AIDS antibody.
Call your local blood bank if you have questions.

Can You Become Infected?

Yes, if you engage in risky behavior.

The male homosexual population was the first in this country to
feel the effects of the disease. But in spite of what you may
have heard, the number of heterosexual cases is growing.

People who have died of AIDS in the U.S. have been male and
female, rich and poor, white, Black, Hispanic, Asian and American
Indian.

How Do You Get AIDS from Sex?

The AIDS virus can be spread by sexual intercourse whether you
are male or female, heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual.

This happens because a person infected with the AIDS virus may
have the virus in semen or vaginal fluids. The virus can enter
the body through the vagina, penis, rectum or mouth.

Anal intercourse, with or without a condom, is risky. The rec-
tum is easily injured during anal intercourse.

Remember, AIDS is sexually transmitted, and the AIDS virus is
not the only infection that is passed through intimate sexual
contact.

Other sexual transmitted diseases, such as gonorrhea, syphilis,
herpes and chlamydia, can also be contracted through oral, anal
and vaginal intercourse. If you are infected with one of these
diseases and engage in risky behavior you are at greater risk of
getting AIDS.

You Won’t Get AIDS From Insects — Or A Kiss

No matter what you may have heard, the AIDS virus is hard to
get and is easily avoided.

You won’t just “catch” AIDS like a cold or flu because the
virus is a different type. The AIDS virus is transmitted through
sexual intercourse, the sharing of drug needles, or to babies of
infected mothers before or during birth.

You won’t get the AIDS virus through everyday contact with the
people around you in school, in the workplace, at parties, child
care centers, or stores. You won’t get it by swimming in a pool,
even if someone in the pool is infected with the AIDS virus. Stu-
dents attending school with someone infected with the AIDS virus
are not in danger from casual contact.

You won’t get AIDS from a mosquito bite. The AIDS virus is not
transmitted through a mosquito’s salivary glands like other
diseases such as malaria or yellow fever. You won’t get it from
bed bugs, lice, flies or other insects, either.

You won’t get AIDS from saliva, sweat, tears, urine or a bowel
movement.

You won’t get AIDS from a kiss.

You won’t get AIDS from clothes, a telephone, or from a toilet
seat. It can’t be passed by using a glass or eating utensils
that someone else has used. You won’t get the virus by being on
a bus, train or crowded elevator with a person who is infected
with the virus, or who has AIDS.

What Behavior Puts You At Risk?

You are at risk of being infected with the AIDS virus if you
have sex with someone who is infected, or if you share drug nee-
dles and syringes with someone who is infected.

Since you can’t be sure who is infected, your chances of coming
into contact with the virus increase with the number of sex
partners you have. Any exchange of infected blood, semen or
vaginal fluids can spread the virus and place you at great risk.

The following behaviors are risky when performed with an
infected person. You can’t tell by looking if a person is
infected.

Risky Behavior

Sharing drug needles and syringes.

Anal sex, with or without a condom.

Vaginal or oral sex with someone who shoots drugs or engages in
anal sex.

Sex with someone you don’t know well (a pickup or prostitute)
or with someone you know has several sex partners.

Unprotected sex (without a condom) with an infected person.

Safe Behavior

Not having sex.

Sex with one mutually faithful, uninfected partner.

Not shooting drugs.

What About Dating?

Dating and getting to know other people is a normal part of
life. Dating doesn’t mean the same thing as having sex. Sexual
intercourse as a part of dating can be risky. One of the risks
is AIDS.

How can you tell if someone you’re dating or would like to date
has been exposed to the AIDS virus? The bad news is, you can’t.
But the good news is, as long as sexual activity and sharing drug
needles are avoided, it doesn’t matter.

You are going to have to be careful about the person you become
sexually involved with, making your own decision based on your
own best judgment. That can be difficult.

Has this person had any sexually transmitted diseases? How many
people have they been to bed with? Have they experimented with
drugs? All these are sensitive, but important, questions. But
you have a personal responsibility to ask.

Think of it this way. If you know someone well enough to have
sex, then you should be able to talk about AIDS. If someone is
unwilling to talk, you shouldn’t have sex.

Do Married People Get AIDS?

Married people who are uninfected, faithful and don’t shoot
drugs are not at risk. But if they engage in risky behavior,
they can become infected with the AIDS virus and infect their
partners. If you feel your spouse may be putting you at risk,
talk to him or her. It’s your life.

What Is All The Talk About Condoms?

Not so very long ago, condoms (rubbers or prophylactics) were
things we didn’t talk about very much.

Now, they’re discussed on the evening news and on the front
page of your newspaper, and displayed out in the open in your
local drug store, grocery and convenience store.

For those who are sexually active and not limiting their sexual
activity to one partner, condoms have been shown to help prevent
the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. That is why the use
of condoms is recommended to help reduce the spread of AIDS.

Condoms are the best preventive measure against AIDS besides
not having sex and practicing safe behavior.

But condoms are far from being foolproof. You have to use them
properly. And you have to use them every time you have sex, from
start to finish. If you use a condom, you should remember these
guidelines:

(1) Use condoms made of latex rubber. Latex serves as a bar-
rier to the virus. “Lambskin” or “natural membrane” condoms are
not as good because of the pores in the material. Look for the
word “latex” on the package.

(2) A condom with a spermicide may provide additional protec-
tion. Spermicides have been shown in laboratory tests to kill
the virus. Use the spermicide in the tip and outside the condom.

(3) Condom use is safer with a lubricant. Check the list of
ingredients on the back of the lubricant package to make sure the
lubricant is water-based. Do not use petroleum-based jelly, cold
cream, baby oil or cooking shortening. These can weaken the con-
dom and cause it to break.

What Does Someone With AIDS Look Like?

It is very important that everyone understands that a person
can be infected with the AIDS virus without showing any symptoms
at all.

It is possible to be infected for years, feel fine, look fine
and have no way of knowing you are infected unless you have a
test for the AIDS virus.

During this period, however, people infected with the AIDS
virus can pass the virus to sexual partners, to people with whom
drug needles are shared, and to children before or during birth.
That is one of the most disturbing things about AIDS.

Once symptoms do appear, they are similar to the symptoms of
some other diseases. As the disease progresses, they become more
serious. That is because the AIDS virus keeps your body’s
natural defenses from operating correctly.

If you are concerned whether you might be infected, consider
your own behavior and its effects on others. If you feel you
need to be tested for the AIDS virus, talk to a doctor or an AIDS
counselor for more information. (See below.)

Is There A Cure For AIDS?

There is presently no cure for AIDS.

Medicines such as AZT have prolonged the lives of some people
with AIDS. There is hope that additional treatments will be
found.

There is also no vaccine to prevent uninfected people from get-
ting the infection. Researchers believe it may take years for an
effective, safe vaccine to be found.

The most effective way to prevent AIDS is avoiding exposure to
the virus, which you can control by your own behavior.

Should you Get An AIDS Test?

You have probably heard about the “AIDS Test.” the test doesn’t
actually tell you if you have AIDS. It shows if you have been
infected with the virus. It looks for changes in blood that
occur after you have been infected.

The Public Health Service recommends you be confidentially
counseled and tested if you have had any sexually transmitted
disease or shared needles; if you are a man who has had sex with
another man; or if you have had sex with a prostitute, male or
female. You should be tested if you have had sex with anyone who
has done any of these things.

If you are a woman who has been engaging in risky behavior and
you plan to have a baby or are not using birth control, you
should be tested.

Your doctor may advise you to be counseled and tested if you
are a hemophiliac, or have received a blood transfusion between
1978 and 1985.

If you test positive, and find you have been infected with the
AIDS virus, you must take steps to protect your partner.

People who have always practiced safe behavior do not need to
be tested.

There’s been a great deal in the press about problems with the
test. It is very reliable if it is done by a good laboratory and
the results are checked by a physician or counselor.

If you have engaged in risky behavior, speak frankly to a doc-
tor who understands the AIDS problem, or to an AIDS counselor.

For more information, call your local public health agency.
They’re listed in the government section of your phone book. Or,
call your local AIDS hotline. If you can’t find the number, call
1-800-342-AIDS.

The Problem Of Drugs And AIDS

Today, in some cities, the sharing of drug needles and syringes
by those who shoot drugs is the fastest growing way that the
virus is being spread.

No one should shoot drugs. It can result in addiction, poor
health, family disruption, emotional disturbances and death.
Many drug users are addicted and need to enter a drug treatment
program as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, these people must avoid AIDS by not sharing
any of the equipment used to prepare and inject illegal drugs.

Sharing drug needles, even once, is an extremely easy way to be
infected with the AIDS virus. Blood from an infected person can
be trapped in the needle or syringe, and then injected directly
into the bloodstream of the next person who uses the needle.

Other kinds of drugs, including alcohol, can also cause prob-
lems. Under their influence, your judgment becomes impaired. You
could be exposed to the AIDS virus while doing things you
wouldn’t otherwise do.

Teen-agers are at an age when trying different things is espe-
cially inviting. They must understand how serious the drug prob-
lem is and how to avoid it.

Drugs are also one of the main ways in which prostitutes become
infected. They may share needles themselves or have sex with
people who do. They then can pass the AIDS virus to others.

For information about drug abuse treatment programs, contact
your physician, local public health agency or community AIDS or
drug assistance group.

AIDS And Babies

An infected woman can give the AIDS virus to her baby before it
is born, or during birth. If a woman is infected, her child has
about one chance in two of being born with the virus.

If you are considering having a baby, and think you might have
been at risk of being infected with the AIDS virus, even if it
was years ago, you should receive counseling and be tested before
you get pregnant.

You must have a long talk with the person with whom you’re
planning to have a child. Even if you have known this person for
a long time, there’s no way to be sure he or she hasn’t been
infected in the past, possibly without realizing it. That person
needs to think hard and decide if an AIDS test might be a good
idea. So should you.

Talking With Kids About AIDS

Children hear about AIDS, just as we all do. But they don’t
understand it, so they become frightened. They are worried they
or their friends might get sick and die.

Children need to be told they can’t get AIDS from everyday con-
tact in the classroom, cafeteria or bathrooms. They don’t have
to worry about getting AIDS even if one of their school-mates is
infected.

Basic health education should be started as early as possible,
in keeping with parental and community standards. Local schools
have the responsibility to see that their students know the facts
about AIDS. It is very important that middle school students —
those entering their teens — learn to protect themselves from
the AIDS virus.

Children must also be taught values and responsibility, as well
as skills to help them resist peer pressure that might lead to
risky behavior. These skills can be reinforced by religious and
community groups. However, final responsibility rests with the
parents. As a parent, you should read and discuss this brochure
with your children.

Helping A Person With AIDS

If you are one of the growing number of people who know someone
who is infected, you need to have a special understanding of the
problem.

No one will require more support and more love than your friend
with AIDS. Feel free to offer what you can, without fear of
becoming infected.

Don’t worry about getting AIDS from everyday contact with a
person with AIDS. You need to take precautions such as wearing
rubber gloves only when blood is present.

If you don’t know anyone with AIDS, but you’d still like to
offer a helping hand, become a volunteer. You can be sure your
help will be appreciated by a person with AIDS.

This might mean dropping by the supermarket to pick up gro-
ceries, sitting with the person a while, or just being there to
talk. You may even want to enroll in a support group for care-
givers. These are available around the country. If you are
interested, contact any local AIDS-related organization.

Above all, keep an upbeat attitude. It will help you and
everyone face the disease more comfortably.

Do You Know Enough to Talk About AIDS? Try This Quiz

It’s important for each of us to share what we know about AIDS
with family members and others we love. Knowledge and under-
standing are the best weapons we have against the disease. Check
the boxes. Answers below.

1. If you are not in a “high risk group,” you still need to be
concerned about AIDS. True or False

2. The AIDS virus is not spread through: A. insect bites. B.
casual contact. C. sharing drug needles. D. sexual intercourse.

3. Condoms are an effective, but not foolproof, way to prevent
the spread of the AIDS virus. True or False

4. You can’t tell by looking that someone has the AIDS virus.
True or False

5. If you think you’ve been exposed to the AIDS virus, you
should get an AIDS test. True or False

6. People who provide help for someone with AIDS are not per-
sonally at risk for getting the disease. True or False

—— ANSWERS
1. True. It is risky behavior that puts you at risk for AIDS,
regardless of any “group” you belong to.

2. A & B. The AIDS virus is not spread by insects, kissing,
tears or casual contact.

3. True. However, the most effective preventive measure
against AIDS is not having sex or shooting drugs.

4. True. You cannot tell by looking if someone is infected.
The virus by itself is completely invisible. Symptoms may first
appear years after you have been infected.

5. True. You should be counseled about getting an AIDS test
if you have been engaging in risky behavior or think you have
been exposed to the virus. There is no reason to be tested if
you don’t engage in this behavior.

6. True. You won’t get AIDS by helping someone who has the
disease.

AIDS and genes – Part 1 of 3

by Charley Shively

The Centers for Disease Control would have us believe that
AIDS was first spread in this country by homosexual and junkie
behaviors. Yet, while these groups are disproportionately
stricken by the disease, their “behaviors” haven’t changed appre-
ciably in the last half century. One would therefore expect
the CDC to look for some new factors common among members of
these groups. Similarly, the presence and spread of AIDS in
Africa and Haiti have been explained by factors which are not
new, but which indicate the racism of scientists posing the
theories. Evidence is mounting that the skewed spread of AIDS in
both the Third World and U.S. originated not in “behaviors” or
“cultural” factors, but in new vaccination programs of the
drug/hospital establishment.

In Africa, the one new factor is the recent smallpox immuni-
zation program. The London Times ran a front page story (May
11, 1987) linking the spread of AIDS to the World Health
Organization’s thirteen-year campaign to eradicate smallpox.
WHO’s recent vaccinations parallel reported AIDS cases. In Zaire
36 million people have received smallpox vaccinations; that coun-
try has the highest reported rate of AIDS in Africa. And in
Latin America, Brazil, “the only South American country covered
in the [smallpox] eradication campaign, has the highest incidence
of AIDS in that region.” (NY Native, #219).

Among gay men, the Hepatitis-B vaccination program almost
exactly parallels the spread of AIDS. New York City and San
Francisco (with 38 percent of all AIDS cases) were two centers of
the Hepatitis-B experiments. The experiments ended in 1980;
AIDS began in the gay community; mass vaccinations were begun;
AIDS cases ballooned.

The experiment included IV drug users and homosexuals, both
groups who had high rates of Hepatitis-B. Paul O’Malley at the
San Francisco City Clinic explained, “Basically what the Hepa-
titis study was about, was the screening of nearly 7,000 gay men
between January 1978 and January 1980 for Hepatitis-B (Bay Area
Reporter, September 5, 1985).” Experimenters distinguished three
sub-groups: those who had Hepatitis-B but had not developed
immunity; and those who had no evidence of either the virus or
antibodies. Those with antibodies were eliminated from the
test group since they were already immune. Those who had active
Hepatitis-B virus had their blood drawn and the virus was then
isolated and used to manufacture a vaccine. That vaccine was
then injected into those who had neither the virus nor antibo-
dies.

One thousand and eighty-three male homosexuals who had no
evidence of Hepatitis-B were chosen to test the new vaccine.
They were chosen from Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, St. Louis,
San Francisco and New York City. Half were given placeboes and
half were given the experimental vaccine. When it was deter-
mined that the vaccine was nearly 100 percent effective, the
results were announced and a rapid campaign was launched pushing
homosexuals and other at-risk groups to obtain Hepatitis-B
immunizations. (NE Journal of Medicine, 9 Oct 1980)

Elaborate reassurances have been given that the vaccine was
not contaminated with AIDS material; however, when the experi-
ment began in 1978, researchers were unaware of AIDS. Raw
plasma was taken from IV drug users and homosexuals with active
Hepatitis-B infections, often in massive amounts; one man made
$7,000 selling his Hepatitis-B active blood plasma. The plasma
was taken to a New Jersey drug company, where the vaccine was
manufactured and then injected into the Hepatitis-B free sub-
jects. In San Francisco, of the 24 cases of AIDS reported in
1981, 11 had been involved in the Hepatitis experiment (NY
Native, June 22, 1987). There is no report of a follow-up in New
York City, the epicenter of the epidemic.

The medico/hospital/government complex first spread AIDS,
but where did the disease itself originate? Today there is great
uncertainty about its cause. That AIDS is blood borne seems to
be the only incontrovertible fact; everything else is specula-
tive. AIDS becomes manifest when the immune system breaks down
and the ratio between the T-cells goes awry. Perhaps the most
remarkable fact is that the T-cell test kit came on the market
before the disease itself was identified. In the entire his-
tory of disease, this may be the first instance where the
specific test for the disease preceded the outbreak of the
disease. Many have speculated that the disease was manufactured.
What was new was the knowledge of the T-cell immunity system.
With that knowledge, targeted genocide was possible. The argu-
ments of the counter-establishment are currently split over
whether the AIDS agent is biological or chemical.

Currently there is a medical dogma that AIDS is caused by a
virus (now called the Human Immunodeficiency Virus — “HIV”).
While HIV may be the cause or at least a marker of the disease,
alternative explanations have not only been examined but they
have been ridiculed. Liberals even within the gay community
have denounced and lumped alternative explanations (“those
ultra-leftists”) with Moral Majority theories. Between the far
right and the far left theories — “the wrath of God or the work-
ings of the CIA” — stands the reasonable centrist explanation,
the human immunodeficiency virus (Dennis Altman, AIDS in the Mind
of America, 1986, 10-11).

The HIV virus was first identified by a group of French
scientists at the Louis Pasteur Institute, who published their
findings in Science and supplied samples of the virus to Dr.
Robert Gallo in the United States. Gallo was booed at a meeting
of cancer researchers when he refused to give any details of his
own research. In April 1984, he appeared with the United States
Secretary of Health and Human Services, who was sadly drunken
and nearly fell from the podium. The Secretary announced that
the doctor had discovered the AIDS virus. She said, “Today we
add another miracle to the long honor roll of American medicine
and science.”

Peter H. Duesberg has challenged the HIV theory. In Cancer
Research (March 1, 1987) and in an interview by John Lauritsen
(NY Native, #219) Duesberg explains that the virus itself can-
not cause AIDS. (Indeed, he argues that no retrovirus can cause
cancer). Many people who have AIDS do not have the HIV virus.
If HIV causes AIDS, then everyone who has AIDS must have the
virus. At first this deficiency in the HIV explanation was
answered by saying that the tests were inadequate. This argument
is embarrassing to the test manufacturers and others who want
to believe in the test as much as they want to believe in HIV.
As tests have become more and more sophisticated, HIV apolo-
gists have claimed that the virus hits and runs. But that argu-
ment is so patently absurd that few try to use it except for
public relations propaganda. As the HIV dogma disintegrates, the
biological and chemical warfare theories become more important.
They have been combined with Psychological Warfare.

During the uprisings of the 1960s, the lid of secrecy was
lifted from some of the government crimes against humanity. Many
agents like Philip Agee or Daniel Ellsburg simply defected and
told everything they knew. And researchers have since found
that great chunks of material are constantly leaking to the
public from unexpected sources. Thus magazines such as Covert
Action, Information Bulletin serve a great public need by gath-
ering up and remembering. The current issue (#28, Summer 1987)
contains three thorough articles on AIDS; two by Robert
Lederer, an activist in the gay and Puerto Rico solidarity move-
ments.

The earliest links to AIDS were implicitly suggested in
Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman, A Higher Form of Killing, The
Secret Story of Chemical and Biological Warfare (1982). They
quote 1969 military testimony before the House Committee on
Appropriations:

“Within the next 5 or 10 years, it would probably be
possible to make a new infective micro-organism which
could differ in certain important aspects from any known
disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is
that it might be refractory to the immunological and
therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain
our relative freedom from infectious disease.”

And a 1975 military manual promises forthcoming

“ethnic chemical weapons … designed to exploit naturally
occurring differences in vulnerability among specific
population groups.”
(240-41)

Requests for more details on these efforts under the Freedom
of Information Act have all been denied to the Gay Community News.

Jane Teas provided an early hypothesis on the origin of
AIDS. She observed that pigs with African Swine Fever
displayed symptoms similar to those of humans with AIDS (Lancet,
April 23, 1983). Since smallpox has been controlled by vac-
cinating (vaccinus = Latin for cow) humans with live cowpox vi-
rus, scientists should have rushed to their labs to examine the
Swine Fever Virus. Instead HIV virus was purportedly tested in
Belgium against a twenty-year-old Swine Fever Virus sample from
Spain and found to be distinct. Teas wonders, “How had the Bel-
gians managed to set up a new experiment with an animal virus,
perform the test, write the results, and get them all published
in just three weeks.” (NY Native, December 17-30, 1984)

Dr. Gallo controls all work with the human immunodeficiency
virus and the Department of Agriculture controls all research
with the African Swine Fever Virus. Both sources have sabotaged
research (either dependent or independent) on the African Swine
Fever Virus. In Haiti the United States government provided
millions of dollars to exterminate all the pigs on the island;
Teas speculates that the US Department of Agriculture had
spread the pig virus with contaminated vaccine.

Parts of the secrecy surrounding African Swine Fever Virus
arises from the CIA’s use of animal diseases against Cuba,
Nicaragua and elsewhere. Viruses for use in biological warfare
have been manufactured at Fort Detrick (located near Frederick,
Maryland). A Newsday article reprinted in the Boston Globe
(1/9/77) reports that CIA operatives received the virus at a CIA
biological warfare training station in Panama and traveled to
Navassa (a U.S. controlled island just off the coast of Cuba)
— where the virus was spread to Cuban pigs. (The United States
maintains a naval base on Cuba itself; Guantanamo was origi-
nally founded by French slaveowners fleeing the revolution in
Haiti). From Cuba the disease spread to the Dominican Republic
(1978), to Haiti (1979) and reappeared in Cuba in 1980. In July
1981, Fidel Castro reported that the CIA had spread dengue — a
tropical disease — killing 113 and infecting 270,000 Cubans; the
United States denied the charge but admitted that they had
prepared special poisons for Castro himself.

Doctors Lilli and Jacob Segal argue that the HIV virus is
genetically engineered, AIDS: USA — home made evil; NOT
imported from Africa (Zimbabwe, 1986, 2nd ed.) The Segals con-
tend that the human immunodeficiency virus originated from a
splice between a recently identified human leukemia virus and a
sheep maedi-visna virus. The Human T-Cell lymphotropic virus
type I (HTLV-1) was first identified in 1980 as the cause of
leukemia among groups in Japan and the Caribbean. Gallo led the
effort to isolate and identify this virus; his research exactly
corresponds with the appearance of the AIDS virus. The Segals’
pamphlet would lead one to ask whether he had first manufactured
the virus he later claimed to have discovered.

The maedi-visna virus is a retrovirus of the subfamily len-
tivirinae, which includes infectious anaemia in horses and
encephalitis-arthritis in goats. These viruses are lens-shaped
(lenti); and ordinarily they develop slowly over a number of
years. John Seale in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medi-
cine (August 1985) lists many of the similarities between AIDS
and lentivirus infections in animals. The Segals summarize
their findings:

“we can exclude the possibility that the AIDS virus had
naturally evolved from a HTLV virus — of man or monkeys.
Nor could the AIDS virus have naturally evolved from the
Visna virus by way of a series of mutations. The AIDS
virus contains a proportion of HTLV and a proportion of
lentivirus, which, according to our present standards of
knowledge, could only have been combined by means of gene
surgery.”

Dr. Robert Strecker, in the British newspaper Sunday
Express, Oct. 26, 1986, suggested yet another splice: “There is
no known animal virus with all the symptoms of AIDS. It must
have been genetically engineered from different viruses. The two
viruses which were used, according to all my research and
studies, are Maedi-visna and Bovine Leukemia. It almost cer-
tainly happened in a research laboratory in the United States.”

While the argument for genetic engineering is very strong
indeed, important links are quite speculative. Microbiology
has made many discoveries and perfected many techniques in the
last decade; however, their forms of identification are still
quite primitive. Thus two teams argue that HIV is a splice
between visna and either a human or a cow leukemia virus. The
Segals speculate that the virus was manufactured at Ft.
Detrick; Dr. Seale argues that the splice was inadvertent. He
thinks “a scientist in a laboratory somewhere in the United
States and doing cancer research with the two viruses, acciden-
tally spliced elements of both together — and created AIDS…the
scientist would be totally unaware that anything was wrong.” Dr.
Seale had first hand knowledge of the British Porton Down Micro-
biological Research Establishment (which works in tandem with
Fort Detrick).

Gene splicing itself is now almost routine. Paul Berg in
1971 linked a simian (or monkey) virus (SV40) with a part of a
bacteria common in the human colon (Escherichia coli). In 1978,
his team made headlines when they linked rabbit genes for hemo-
globin with SV40, which they then used to infect an African
green monkey. (Berg received the Nobel prize for his work in
1980). Berg himself joined a voluntary moratorium on recombinant
DNA experiments. He found that “in his own P3 facility…almost
everyone who entered that lab acquired substantial antibody
titres to SV40 (a sign of infection) after one half to a full
year (Science for the People, 17:3, 40).” A P3 facility is the
most secure outside the P4 facilities at Fort Detrick and the
army’s Dugway lab near Salt Lake City.

After a few years debate on the dangers of genetic engineer-
ing, scientists have returned to their splicing. Richard Mul-
ligan at MIT’s Whitehead Institute has inserted a bacterial gene
into the germ line of mice by retroviral infection with thymus
tumor cells. The human thymus generates T-cells, whose collapse
signals AIDS. Monkey kidney cells were implicated in a 1967
experiment in Marburg, West Germany. Twenty-five workers who had
handled green-monkey kidney cells came down with a mysterious
disease, of which six died. “Virologists identified a new agent
now known as the Marburg virus among the human victims and the
monkeys.”

Further questions can be raised about genetic engineering
and AIDS. Some children are born without any immune capacities
(the Bubble kid) and organ transplant patients are given drugs
which suppress their usual immune responses and make them sus-
ceptible to the opportunistic diseases common to AIDS. The
Chemical/Biological Warfare scientists haves studied such
responses carefully. Genetic researchers postulate that each
individual mammal has specific human leukocyte antigens (HLA).
“The HLA markers are products of a cluster of genes on chromosome
6 known as the major histocompatibility complex (histo means tis-
sue).” MHC (Major HistoCompatibility) “is the master control
region for the immune system, our internal security agency that
recognizes and defends us against viruses, bacteria, and other
disease-causing agents.” (Baskin, The Gene Doctors, 49)
English researchers have found that people with AIDS all share a
protein in common and they argue that the difference between
responses to the virus are genetic (Nature, 16 July 1987).

Robert Lederer suggests that the CBW people are less com-
petent than many theories would suggest. In the most comprehen-
sive and thorough review of current theories, Lederer has
tracked down a Fort Detrick official reference to AIDS research.
The Philadelphia Daily News (February 18, 1987) quoted a colo-
nel who said that “studies at the Army laboratories have shown
that the AIDS virus would be an extremely poor biological warfare
agent.” (Covert Action, Summer 87) (See also Lederer in GCN,
Vol. 14, No. 40). The colonel later repudiated the quotation;
however, his words demonstrate that the Army if it did not invent
AIDS has contemplated using it as an agent of war.

—————————————————————
End of Part I, which is from Vol. 15, No. 12. Parts II And III
will discuss chemical and psychological warfare.

Koop’s Stand on AIDS Turns Allies Into Critics, Foes Into Followers

Surgeon General’s Stand on AIDS Turns Allies Into Critics, Foes Into Followers

by Albert R. Hunt, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON — C. Everett Koop has aroused both passionate
support and passionate opposition ever since he was named
surgeon general of the U. S. almost seven years ago.
That isn’t unusual in Washington. What is unusual is that
his original passionate supporters — mainly conservatives —
now are the vehement critics, while he has won over some of
his most ardent liberal foes.
This says something both about the independent-minded Dr.
Koop and the changing social agenda in the country. When he
came into office, abortion was the major social issue; Dr.
Koop is a dedicated right-to-lifer. Today, AIDS is the top
social concern, and his advocacy of sex education, the use of
condoms and his refusal to bash the homosexual life style
have made him a darling of the public-health community and
many liberals.

Whether or not one likes his views, Dr. Koop has done more
than anyone else in government to try to mobilize Washington
and the nation on the AIDS issue. “He has been very effective
in bringing attention to the AIDS issue in a very sensitive
and thoughtful way,” says Harvey Feinberg, dean of Harvard
University’s School of Public Health.

Dr. Koop turned out a 36-page booklet on AIDS last year
that surprised many of his earlier champions and critics. He
insists that AIDS is a deadly epidemic and that radical
measures must be taken to combat it. While he advocates
sexual abstinence and marital monogamy, he says that the real
world demands other measures. Thus, he supports sex education
in elementary schools, and has called on physicians to
recommend condom use for sexually active people, homosexual
and heterosexual. He also has blasted physicians who refuse
to treat AIDS patients for engaging in “unprofessional
conduct.”

Dr. Koop has been decidedly cool toward calls for
widespread mandatory testing to uncover possible AIDS
carriers. He argues that such testing would serve mostly to
drive underground victims who need treatment. These stands
have endeared him to many public-health and medical
professionals as well as to homosexuals and political
liberals; at the international conference on AIDS last June,
while other administration officials were greeted with
hostility, the 71-year-old Dr. Koop was welcomed as a hero.

But this has infuriated many of the conservatives who once
viewed him as one of their own. Last spring, a number of
politicians seeking conservative approbation — including
presidential contenders Robert Dole and Jack Kemp — withdrew
at the last minute as sponsors of a dinner honoring the
surgeon general. California Rep. William Dannemeyer, a
conservative Republican, charges that Dr. Koop “has abrogated
his responsibilities on this issue.”

Few medical experts share that view. But most do recognize
that there are real institutional limits on how far a surgeon
general can go and how effective one can be: The job involves
less policy setting and more of a bully pulpit. “His handicap
is that he’s a general with no troops,” observes Harvard’s
Dr. Feinberg.

That’s especially true given the administration’s deep
divisions over AIDS issues. While the surgeon general
generally gets backing from his boss, Health and Human
Services Secretary Otis Bowen, he is fiercely opposed by such
ranking conservatives as Education Secretary William Bennett,
who feels the Koop approach ignores the moral dimension of
the AIDS issue, and Gary Bauer, the hard-liner who heads the
White House domestic policy council.

The anger of some conservatives is doubtlessly amplified
by their earlier admiration for Dr. Koop. Besides his
anti-abortion stand, he once labeled amniocentesis, a medical
test that spots birth defects, as a “search and destroy
mission.” He also pushed regulations that would force
hospitals and doctors to treat severely handicapped newborns
even over the objections of their parents.

Dr. Koop apparently hasn’t changed any of these views —
the idiosyncratic surgeon general says he’s too busy for an
interview with The Wall Street Journal — but the agenda has
shifted. He insists that, despite his high political profile
these days, his “is a health message, not a political
message.”

[This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the
personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the
hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering
from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]