Dear Friends:

When you have yours truly, a proud Nader voter in 2000 and a Birkenstock-wearing antiwar queer radical, and Andrew Sullivan, a Bush supporter who backed the Iraqi war, agreeing on something as important as questions about current HIV stats in San Francisco, it says a lot about how we can put aside differences to examine Department of Public Health allegations about HIV rates surging here.

My thanks go out to Andrew for calling attention to the zero recent HIV infections recorded in April at the city's STD clinic, where the bulk of HIV antibody tests are conducted, after reading an email from me about the lack of recent HIV infections detected by DPH.

So when are reporters, especially the ones who didn't believe the outrageous claims by DPH HIV epidemiologists back in 2000 that San Francisco was experiencing sub-Saharan levels of new HIV transmissions, going to revisit the issue of HIV stats here? How much evidence do reporters need before they pay attention to the fact that a queer radical and a gay conservative are saying the same thing about HIV stats in San Francisco?

I can't fathom why the press is seemingly unwilling to look at HIV in San Francisco and inform readers if the stats are surging, dramatically dropping or remaining stable.

It's also beyond my comprehension why HIV prevention groups, the DPH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention haven't said a word about the good news: Zero recent HIV infections documented in San Francisco during June. Maybe the last thing these entities want is to provide the gay community and general public with any positive development about HIV numbers here.

The AIDS industry, particularly the San Francisco division, should be ashamed about their silence regarding the mounting evidence that HIV rates in Gay Mecca are _not_ on the upswing.

MPetrelis
- - -


www.andrewsullivan.com

June 13, 2003


HIV IN SAN FRANCISCO: You may recall the hysterical headlines of a couple of years ago about a surge in new HIV infections among gay men in San Francisco. Here's a reminder of the rhetoric used from the San Francisco Chronicle:

San Francisco's long-feared and often predicted new wave of HIV infection is here. After years of stability - wrought by strong prevention programs, a safer-sex ethic and powerful drugs - city health experts now estimate that the number of new infections by the virus that causes AIDS nearly doubled, to 900, in the past year. "This is a harbinger of what is going to happen all over the country," warned Tom Coates, director of the University of California at San Francisco AIDS Research Institute. "What happens in the HIV epidemic usually happens here first."

I was skeptical of the data and was pilloried by the usual suspects for being so. So was veteran AIDS activist Michael Petrelis. So it's worth taking another look at what the stats now show. In April of this year, there wasn't a single case of recent HIV infection found in city HIV testing sites, out of 843 tests. That was also true in February, March and June 2002. Total HIV infections seem completely stable from the data. There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever of a surge in HIV infection rates among gay men in San Francisco. None. Rates of gonorrhea have actually fallen. Rectal gonorrhea, a key correlate of HIV infection, is also stable. The stories were bogus. But they haven't been refuted.
- 12:17:24 AM
- - -

After I posted that message, I realized there was a minor mistake in what Andrew wrote, so I sent him the following email.

-
www.mpetrelis.blogspot.com

June 13, 2003


Hey Andrew:

You've made a minor mistake in your item today on recent HIV stats and number of HIV antibody administered by the Department of Public Health.

You wrote: "In April of this year, there wasn't a single case of recent HIV infection found in city HIV testing sites, out of 843 tests."

However, as I wrote in my blog entry about this matter, which called attention to a new HIV/STD report for the city, "the new monthly sexually transmitted disease report from the San Francisco Department of Public Health was released two weeks ago and it shows that for the month of April, out of 183 HIV antibody tests performed, not a single recent HIV infection was detected. [1]"

There were only 183 HIV antibody tests performed in April, not the 843 figure you cite. You've taken the number of HIV antibody tests for the first four months of this year and said it's the figure for tests given in April. It isn't, and I hope you'll make the necessary correction on your blog.

In any case, the central matter, that there were no recent HIV infections detected in San Francisco during April, still stands.

Michael

Source:

1. http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/Reports/STD/STDMONTH.pdf

[ June 12, 2003, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: MPetrelis ]

This is very encouraging -- tremendous news! I am also at a loss as to why this hasn't received broad media coverage. I will note generally that Sullivan appears to have lost a great deal of credibility in the gay and mainstream media and that may be one possible explanation. As a subscriber to The New Republic I have followed his morphing with some interest. I do believe that people can change and usually find change refreshing -- his change to be just seems to lack authenticity but that is my personal opinion.

Anyway, thanks for the great information!

Okay, MPetrelis, this is your second post that has critiqued AIDS service and provider organizations. I agree the press should post the newest stats, and I agree that fundraisers should make every effort to give as much of the donated funds to the designated recipients. But do you have another agenda? I'm just wondering, because part of the reason that the HIV seroconversation rate may have dropped is as a result of these same, critiqued AIDS service and provider orgs. I don't know enough about them or the health care system in SF, but I am always suspicious of anything that comes off Andrew Sullivan's fingertips.

Sure, be suspicious of conservative Sullivan, but I am on the queer left and agree with him on the good news in the STD/HIV report. In order words, from opposite ends of the gay political spectrum, we are calling attention to SF's latest HIV stats.

I think there may be a worry that if the low numbers become SO visible, people get complacent and careless. I'm thrilled to hear the numbers are going down, but didn't they spike up for younger people when this has happened in the past?

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, it's just a question I have about publishing the numbers. I don't think they should be kept secret, but there can be some harm in flooding the media with it. Twentysomethings already think they are immortal.

Most newspapers post health dept stats weekly. Maybe your SF newspapers should look into that. But why does it matter if your HIV stats are not front page news every week?
Newspapers have to talk about the rising SARS epidemic, war in Iraq, death in Afghanistan, homicidal Israelis, tornados killing people in the heartland, etc etc etc etc.
If a newspaper had nothing but big bold letters reading H I V on their front page every day, dont you think itd get old?
Youre right, HIV is stable. Its stable in many places. But its not stable among young black men. Its not stable among minority females. Its not stable in Russia. Its not stable in China. Its sure as hell not stable in Africa. So why should San Francisco be the golden child of woe?

I'm not suggesting the papers here have to always put HIV or HIV stats on the front pages, but when a new monthly report is released, yes, I do think they have an obligation to report on it, especially if the HIV stats are down.

We've had so much bad news about AIDS and losing so many friends and lovers before their time, when there is legitimate good developments, I believe the HIV and AIDS groups have duty to inform the community about the developments.

OK, I understand the issue better now and agree with you.

Is my question about complacency and the immortal attitude valid?

Your question may be valid, but how does one measure complacency?

Sure, the AIDS Inc groups have been screaming about alleged complacency, but I'm not so sure that many AIDS activists and patients are exactly complacent.

I think many of us are happy to be alive and no longer see the need to get angry and fill the streets demanding more money for AIDS executive salaries.

We need HIV prevention messages and programs that aren't full of fear and alarm because those factors no longer connect to at-risk people.

Let's have HIV prevention efforts talk about the need for safe sex, without resorting to scare tactics.

To the contrary, I think the scare tactics are exactly what got the infection rates to drop and stay stable. And just because new infections are decreasing, it's not some great thing there are just few newer people getting infected, there are still new people getting infected. That's like in Washington when they talk about cutting spending when they are really spending more, just not quite as much more. Semantics.

And again, every time you write these posts Petrelis it's inevitable that someone questions your motivation or brings up your arrests over stalking people or threatening these directors of these AIDS organization or reporters and then you disappear for a while and never address and then reappear with another similar thread. If you are going to keep posting stuff like this I think it would make sense to address all the stuff that is very relevant to your discussions on here. Otherwise, it doesn't mean much to me. It'd be like if I said I though that babies weren't born but rather found in cabbage patches and then I wanted to comment on a pregnancy thread. I'm sorry it's just annoying to see all the stuff you've said about how AIDS is transmitted and your tactics. I just think you need to be called on it.

As for Sullivan, I think he is a smart guy and has said some really brilliant things in the past, but he seems to be getting really bitter lately. That book he wrote about not believing in love or relationships was just sort of sad. He was very pro-friendships, but anti-lover relationships. But whatever. Smart guy, just seems to have a little chip on his shoulder. It's nice to have some variety in viewpoints out there though. Like to see the conservative side of gay perspective espoused. Even if I don't agree with it much of the time.

MPetrelis:

How unusual is it for you to be aligned with a conservative when you have seemingly joined hands again with the Bush Administration and its right wing backers to to curtail or eliminate the Stop Aids Project in SF? Am I missing something?

Don't hold your breath for a direct answer.

I'm referring to the complacency of those young or uneducated people out there who are NOT infected with HIV and get complacent about safe sex decisions. You start putting 3-inch headlines on the front page about NO infections and rates going WAY down (which turns into a soundbite) and these kids are going to get infected, IMHO.

While it's good news (infection rates), I'm not ready to saturate the media just yet that might encourage an "immortal mindset" in young people where AIDS is concerned. I'm in my early 40's and saw WAY too many friends become infected and die because of this type of thinking 20 years ago. I was lucky enough to be scared shitless about getting AIDS in my younger days. I'm not trying to be judgemental, just rational on a life and death issue.

Matt:

>I think the scare tactics are exactly what got the infection rates to drop and stay stable

Anyone who thinks fear and scare-mongering led to reduced HIV infection rates is probably admitting it wasn't the HIV prevention messages and workshops of AIDS groups that brought about the reduction.

A sad commentary on HIV prevention groups.

>I'm sorry it's just annoying to see all the stuff you've said about how AIDS is transmitted and your tactics. I just think you need to be called on it.

If my posts are so annoying to you, you should learn to just pass 'em on by. No one is making you read my posts.

And I don't think I've posted anything about how HIV and STDs are transmitted, other than through unsafe sex. What's wrong with that?

[ June 16, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: MPetrelis ]

Hello sjtexasex:

There is nothing wrong with putting the Stop AIDS Project under scrutiny and demanding proof, verifiable evidence, that the group is effective at stopping new HIV infections.

They should welcome the attention and show the world how effective they are, if they can prove effectiveness.

Petrelis, I agree. Sunset provisions, and the like, for spending programs are important to be sure that the money (taxpayer money) is being used to some good effect other than lining the wallets of the program administrators. Observing the Stop Aids project from a distance (the South Bay)), it just seemed seemed that there was pretty wide-spread support for the program within SF and the statistics that you cited in the first post in this thread might support its effectiveness.

Thanks for your reply, by the way.

sjtexasex:

Since you're in the Bay Area, you should pick up a copy of the latest BAR newspaper and check out the letters page.

There's a letter from a gay elder, John Cailleau, taking the Stop AIDS Project to task for what he believes is their dissing of gay seniors with their annual Geezer's Ball.

Cailleau calls the project's workers "smart-ass agency people in need of a reason for their existence."

Unfortunately, the BAR does not have a web site, so I can't point you to Cailleau's excellent letter on the net.

If you find a copy of the BAR and read this letter, I'd love to know what you think of it.