ABOUT THE AIDS PROGRAM This program is provided for use as: 1. a planning program for business and governmental functions. It is especially valuable for consideration in health reform and for planning the medical resources that will be needed to combat this epidemic.2. a learning program for the study of the mechanics of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. HIV/AIDS is a life style disease, itis therefore a matter of choice. Cultural changes will be needed. 3. a sex education tool which supplies motivation as well as knowledge. It should be criminal to teach 'safesex' as being safe sex. It is little more than training children on how to commit suicide. Responsible sex should first be taught. Abortion and condoms should be taught only as crutches for those with defective control of their instincts. All versions of this program and allsupporting files and programs are copyrighted. This particular version was copyrighted in 1994. This program is distributed as shareware. Copies areavailable for anyone to evaluate beforepurchasing the right to use them permanently. Updated versions of this program will be available annually. Copies of this program for evaluation purposes are encouraged. They may be given to anyone. All such copies are for the purpose of evaluation only until they are registered. The evaluation period is limited to 30 daysafter receipt. Use of unregistered copies of the program after the expiration date is prohibited by software piracy law. User has both a legal and ethical requirement to abide by these terms. END CDC SUMMARY DATA FOR 1992 The data within this report is all taken from the year-end edition of the HIV/AIDS Surveillance issued by CDC in February 1993. Diagnosed Cases year within year total <1981 81 1981 295 376 1982 1,093 1,469 1983 2,935 4,404 1984 5,956 10,360 1985 11,227 21,587 1986 18,267 39,854 1987 27,313 67,167 1988 33,480 100,647 1989 38,678 139,225 1990 40,298 179,523 1991 41,871* 221,394 1992 27,805* 249,199 * reports are incomplete for about 3 years due to lag in the reporting system. NOTE - Although AIDS is terminal, CDC reports case-fatality rates of from 90%in the early 80s to less than 50% in the early 90s. DIAGNOSED AIDS BY SEX/AGE THROUGH 1992 age male female total <5 1,754 1,678 3,432 5-12 503 314 817 13-19 671 275 946 20-24 7,820 1,762 9,582 25-29 33,503 5,210 38,713 30-34 52,809 7,056 59,865 35-39 50,309 5,744 56,053 40-44 34,047 3,169 37,216 45-49 19,303 1,468 20,771 50-54 10,547 903 11,450 55-59 6,251 640 6,891 60-64 3,553 444 3,997 >64 2,901 814 3,715 NOTE - HIV infection is about 10 years before AIDS diagnosis in adults. Children develop AIDS quicker. A third of all infections are before age 20. AIDS CASES BY CAUSE, THROUGH 1992 men having sex with men 142,626 gay activity and drugs 15,899 traced to drug use 57,412 hemophilia/coagulation 2,026 heterosexual 16,254 from blood and tissue transpl 4,980 pediatric (<13 years of age) 4,249 undetermined 10,002 Among the adults, 218,234 were infected from single modes of infectionas listed above. 30,965 were infected from more than one mode of infection. Among the children, 3,665 received the infection from their mothers. 21 people developed AIDS from blood that had been screened for HIV. 5 people developed AIDS from tissue or organs from a donor who was negativeat the time of the donation. 7 health-care workers and 2 patientsbecame infected in the health-care setting. 10,002 cases are unknown in origin. AIDS-INDICATOR DISEASES DURING 1992 Bacterial infection 100 Candidiasis of esophagus 7,111 Coccidioidomycosis 123 Cryptococcosis, extra pulmonary 2,550 Cryptosporidiosis, intestinal 1,005 Cytomegagalovirus, not retinitis 2,189 Cytomegagalovirus retinitis 2,143 HIV encephalopathy (dementia) 3,055 Herpes simplex 2,199 Histaplasmosis 446 Isosporiasas 141 Kaposi's sarcoma 4,554 Lymphoma, Burkitt's 368 Lymphoma, immunoblastic 914 Lymphoma, primary in brain 302 Mycobacterium avium 3,213 M. tuberculosis 1,197 Mycobacterial disease 763 Pneumocystis carinii 19,740 Progressive leukoencephalopathy 420 Taxoplasmosis of brain 2,343 HIV wasting syndrome 9,240 END HOW ACCURATE ARE THE FORECASTS? How accurate is a mathematical modelof a complex problem, such as the spread of AIDS, in forecasting future events? We must admit that it is, in all probability, not very accurate. Will it be 20% accurate for instance inpredicting the number of years before the US population will begin its decline due to the ravages of HIV/AIDS?Probably not. Will it tell us how much time we have before our medical facilities will be too dangerous for the noninfected to use? Probably not. Will it tell us when our economic system will fail as the result of sickness, death, and dying? Probably not. Will it tell us the year when the rampaging secondary epidemics will start sweeping the nation? Probably not. BUT!!! the important questions are not with when these things will happen.The important questions that we must ask ourselves are - WILL THEY HAPPEN? If there is danger that they will happen, whether it is 10 years from nowor 30 years from now makes no difference. We must take immediate action to avoid them. We don't even need to know positively that they will happen to become deeply concerned. If there is a good probability, then we must move. There is an example of this practicein the field of meteorology, another very complex function. There are so many variables in the weather equation that it is extremely hard to predict with any certainty. Even whether it will rain or shine one week away is almost a toss of the coin, even though the meteorologist is well trained in his field and well experienced in the area that he is forecasting. But there is one place where the meteorologist is extremely valuable - early warning about hurricanes. A meteorologist notices that a tropical depression is developing in the south Atlantic. Its wind is already high. It is deepening in intensity. He notes that its movement is toward the west and he measures its velocity. Simple calculations show that if it keeps deepening and keeps moving in the same direction and speed that it will hit Raleigh headon with 150 mph winds in about 10 days. But he knows that there are many factors which will effect the course and strength of the storm. It may intensify more rapidly than expected, causing it to slow in its movement and veer to the left. It may weaken and veer to the right. Knowing that any forecast that he might make will probably be wrong in detail, should he keep his mouth shut? Or should he raise a loud alarm? Neither course is advisable. So he issues a lowgrade warning. Does he issue the warning only to Raleigh? No, of course not. He knows that within his margin oferror, the storm could hit Miami or Washington DC. So he includes them in his early warning. He then continues towatch the developing storm, issuing reports at shorter and shorter time intervals while narrowing the scope of his forecast. The meteorologist will never know the exact time, place or fury until it happens. But his warnings will have served their purpose. People who would have otherwise been caught unwary, and possibly suffered death, have had a chance to protect themselves. The HIV/AIDS hurricane gave its early warning 20 years ago. The gays heard that warning and started combat. The public at large, and its government, ignored it. The danger was finally recognized by the government 10years ago and they established a formalstorm progress reporting system in CDC.That storm is already half-way here. Its course, speed and strength are measurable. Unlike the weather, this storm is well defined. We know how manypeople are being diagnosed with AIDS each year. We know how long the averageincubation period is. We can see its sweep across the gay population pool and the beginnings of its sweep across the heterosexual pool. We know the costs in terms of human suffering as well as economic. The clouds are billowing to the east.The wind is gusty. The first patter of rain is on our face. We see the white caps beginning to form on the ocean waves. The birds are flocking away to the west. The cattle in the lot are becoming restless. The dog is whining and uneasy. The cat is already hidden away. And we stand here fat, dumb and happy. Waiting for an axe to fall. Not even knowing that there is one. The people at CDC have the information, skill, and knowledge to let us know. Unlike our meteorologists,who place the public welfare above their own egos, CDC refuses to issue anearly warning, on the grounds that things are too 'iffy' to allow an accurate forecast. "To say anything might create unwarranted public hysteria" they say. And they are free with their criticism of this program. But I say: ACCURACY BE DAMNED!! HYSTERIA BE DAMNED!! Our people need to know that this monster is coming. The AIDS program is admittedly 'iffy' but it is a needed early warning. It says "If we continue on the path we are now on, this is whatwill happen." Within that restriction, it is absolutely accurate. END NINE WAYS TO AVOID HIV INFECTION Back in the 60s and 70s, everything was safe. Venereal diseases responded to antibiotics. Abortion took care of unwanted pregnancies. Promiscuity became the norm. Sexual gratification became a personal right. Any sexual practice became normal and acceptable. But now in the early 90s, HIV concentrations are approaching 10% in many areas, even higher in some. HIV gives no second chance. Infection becomes a death sentence. It ends all long-term hopes. No need for college for a much-shortened work career. No planning for a family where the child would be born condemned to death or to life without a parent. No need for planning a life that includes retirement plans and class reunions. Behavior that was once safe is becoming more and more dangerous, as the infection becomes more and more widespread. 1. Practice abstinence/monogamy. Make no exceptions. Sex is a strong instinctive drive. When any instinct is given free reign, addiction results (in the sense that sexual habits, once formed, are extremely hard to control). Sexual discipline is best initiated early in life. A cocaine habit would be easier to break than sexual habits, once they are practiced. And, no cocaine is easier than trying to ration it. Abstinence is easier than a series of 'just one more won't hurt's. HIV/AIDS is a disaster and strong measures are called for. AIDS deaths are not pretty,the exact opposite of a long, healthy and happy life. The choice is yours. Remember: 'AIDS cures promiscuity'. 2. Pick your spouse carefully, then mate for life. It is a modern tragedy that this statement needs defense. Too often in today's world, a commitment is merely an agreement to temporarily share the rent, the health insurance, and the household chores. What you get from not following thisrule is a lifetime emotional roller coaster ride plus the ever-increasing danger of having all of your problems solved by AIDS. What you gain from following this rule is a deep and priceless love, companionship, and friendship that is available no other way. Plus a good chance of living long enough to enjoy it. 3. Be faithful to your spouse. Be a role model for your entire family. You can't expect any behavior from your kids (or your spouse) that you arenot willing to display. Only a real sleazeball would take a chance on bringing HIV home to the family. 4. Do not tolerate infidelity. Make that understood from the beginning. It doesn't do much good to develop and practice strong sexual disciplines in order to avoid HIV/AIDS, then have your spouse bring it home to you. Infidelity means immediate termination of the commitment, period. No excuses allowed. 5. Build a strong partnership, one that is dedicated to protecting thefamily from HIV infection. For the next 100 years or so (does that sound like a long time? HIV/AIDS has been in the US for over 30 years already) avoiding HIV will be a necessary and major part of family life. The parents have solved their problem by following the rules above, but the children need education (not 'safe sex') and support to protect them. And they need constant supervision until their own protective habits are well established. 6. Keep your family healthy. Avoid doctors, dentists, and hospitals. As the epidemic deepens, medical facilities will become saturated with the infected. Although rare in the pastdue to the low infection rate of the population, infection of patients from other patients and from medical personnel is now occurring and will become more and more frequent. Follow a healthy life style. Study nutrition. Work at physical fitness. Stress wholesome living. 7. Avoid crowded public gatherings, restaurants and public rest-rooms. The medical community keeps insisting that casual contact will not pass the virus, yet they admit that thevirus is present in saliva and sweat. They also admit that the virus can liveoutside of the body and that the only safe sterilization is autoclaving. Theyalso admit that they don't understand how many of those with AIDS became infected in the first place. It is difficult to autoclave a rest-room, restaurant, or football stadium. Restaurants are not allowed to screen their employees for HIV. More and more cases that dispute the medical claims arise every day. And as the infection rate of the public expands, so will these 'unusual' infections. 8. Live and work carefully. Avoid accidents and injury. Avoid contact sports. In addition to the ever-increasing danger of infection from being treated by the medical community, there is always the danger of being 'helped' by an infected good Samaritan. Any open wound is vulnerable to the virus. A minor scratch during contact sports canbecome infected from the saliva or sweat of another player. 9. Avoid temptation. Sexual disciplines are fragile, theymust be constantly reinforced. Group reinforcement helps. Associate only with disciplined and dedicated people who think and act as you do. Avoid situations where sexual disciplines aretested. When temptations do occur, run,don't walk, to the nearest exit. "Hey wait a minute", you say, "What about safe sex?" Read the two topics on'safe sex'. You'll find that I have described herein the only safe sex available. But if you are so sexually driven that you have no control over your actions, then by all means insist on the use of a condom. And for those of you who will consistently argue that you 'have a right' and, despite the known risk, continue to practice dangerous sexual freedom, I have only one message: RIP END 13 NON-SEX WAYS TO GET HIV/AIDS 1. At birth, from an infected mother. 2. From a blood transfusion or tissue transplant - from tainted materials. 3. From surgery or dentistry - from an infected doctor or staff, or from contaminated equipment or supplies. 4. From a hospital or rest care facility - from other patients, they are required by law to treat infected people in the same facility. 5. From living in close relationship with an infected person. 6. From sharing a razor, or toothbrush with an infected person. 7. From acupuncture - from the practitioner or contaminated needles. 8. From manicures or pedicures - from the practitioner or contaminated instruments. 9. From ear piercing - from the operator or contaminated needles. 10. From contact sports where a small scrape or abrasion can allow exposure to sweat, saliva, or blood. 11. In an accident or any emergency where you are wounded and are being handled along with someone who is infected. 12. From being injured involving a breach of your skin, then being helped by a well meaning but infected person. 13. Helping someone who is hurt, but who also is infected. END SAFE-SEX - AMONG THE GAYS It was about 1960 when the HIV/AIDS virus entered the American gay community. In the beginning it effectedfew, but as the epidemic began to take root it became more and more noticeable. By 1975 the gay community was well aware that something terrible was happening to them. The medical community was yet to fully recognize the disease. The gays believed that it was gay specific at the time because heterosexual cases were still almost unknown. It became apparent to them that it was a disease associated with their life style. Since their lives were focused on sexual activity, they correctly came to the conclusion that the disease, whatever it was and however it worked, was sexually transmitted. It was not understood yet that the disease had an incubation period of almost ten years. This feature of the disease causes it to be widely misunderstood in scope. Using 1992 as an example, there were about 50,000 AIDS cases diagnosed in the US, but theactual scope of the infection was well over 1,000,000 people, still mostly gays. People see the 50,000 cases but the 1,000,000 is unseen. In the next 10years (by 2003) that 1,000,000 people will be dead or dying, having been replaced by 20,000,000 or so infected. And so the epidemic grows by leaps and bounds. So, by 1975, the disease was already widespread within the gay population (also getting its roots wellestablished in the heterosexual community). It was also widespread geographically. The gay community began a campaign for condom use in the mid 70s. They worked hard at it. They were persistent. They developed other condom-like devices. They were very successful in their 'safe sex' education campaign. Their entire community cooperated. From an initial transfer ratio of about 1.7, they were able to reduce it to about 0.7 over a period of about 15 years, a reduction of virus transfer of about 60%. Then they hit the limit of the process. 'Safe sex' purists will object, saying the condom is theoretically capable of total protection, and that all that is needed is more education. But there is more to the sexual processthan the condom. It is possible that, under laboratory conditions, one could fill a condom to the brim with HIV and nary a one would escape. You will notice, however, that the doctors don'twear gloves as thin as condoms, not by a long shot, even when not sticking those fingers where the HIV population would be its thickest. Also, unfortunately, sex is not a clinical function, especially sex in satisfying lust. It's a wrestling match with no holds barred. It's an extremely unsanitary act. Scratches on the back from the partners fingernails are common, as are toenail scratches on thelegs, hickeys on the neck, and split lips from passionate kissing. Add to that the contusions from rolling off the bed, or hitting a bed post with thehead, or the abrasive nature of many zippers. It's a jungle (the home of allbasic instincts). All of these common mishaps can be lethal. Since the virus is present in sweat and saliva, it would require a hermetically sealed body condom for complete safety. And with the vigorous activity involved, itwould need to be made by Goodyear. Also, contrary to liberal dogma, education will not provide uniformly perfect 'safe sex' practice. There are wide differences in intelligence in thepublic. Some are too thick witted to perform their part of the bargain effectively. There are wide differencesin compassion in the public. Some won'tgive a damn if the other party contracts the disease. There is also another problem. 'Safe sex' requires the full cooperation of both parties. Aperson who is already infected, and knows it, has little incentive to hold up his end of the bargain. Only half of'safe sex' is kin to being only half pregnant. For whatever the reasons, the gay community 'safe sex' process bottomed out at about 60% effectiveness. In the meantime the epidemic continues to grow. Under the original transfer ratioof 1.7, the average carrier infected about 17 others during his infected lifetime. Under the new 0.7 value, he infects only 7. But the continuing spread of the disease overshadows this gain. For example, if there were 100 people infected who did not practice 'safe sex', they would infect 1700 others. But 1000 infected people all practicing 'safe sex' would infect 7000others. And this is what is happening in the gay community. 'Safe sex' slows the process. 'Safe sex' delays the process. But with 'safe sex' the end isstill inevitable. 'Safe sex' appears to be safe sex inthe heterosexual population today only because the infection is not widespread. If only 10% of a group is infected, then 'safe sex' will appear to be ten times as effective as it actually is. The 'safe sex' theory is being tested, in this case, under conditions which will give it a falsely'good' grade. Under a 50% infected population condition, the 'safe sex' idea proves to be one-fifth as good. Asthe epidemic grows in the heterosexual population, 'safe sex' will become increasingly unsafe. This has happened in the gay community. Their population is approaching HIV virus saturation. 'Safesex' is no longer working. And more andmore gays are seeing the futility. Theyare turning away in droves from 'safe sex' as not worth the bother. Under a choice of death or disciplined sex, many are now opting for 10 years of undisciplined sex - and death. END SAFE-SEX - THE UT STORY Dr. Susan Weller, at the University of Texas, conducted a study of 600 heterosexual couples. All of the couples consisted of one infected and one not infected. About half of the couples did not wish to avoid passing the infection and agreed to make no effort at 'safe sex'. The other half wanted to avoid passing the infection and agreed to consistently practice 'safe sex'. At the conclusion of the test period, Dr. Weller recorded the number in each group that had become infected.Her conclusion was that condoms did notprevent the transfer of aids. She foundthat condoms failed in from 46% to 82% of the cases. Russian roulette is a gambling game played with a revolver. There are six chambers in a revolver. A bullet is loaded into only one. The cylinder is spun so that there is an equal chance for any one of the chambers to come to rest under the firing pin. The revolveris then pointed at the temple and the trigger pulled. There is a 17% chance that the loaded chamber will be selected and an instant death will follow. There is also an 83% chance that an empty chamber will come to restand the player lives to gamble again. Those are better odds than 'safe sex'. And HIV/AIDS does not provide a quick and merciful death. In either case, and no matter the odds, if habitually played, either gamewill end in death. Liberal dogma states that a multicultural society can't exist unless all cultures (except the heinouswestern culture) are honored (along with the customs within each culture). Since many male blacks claim that, being warm-blooded, they can't abstain and the gay culture is based on promiscuity and high sexual activity, one must therefore not speak of sexual discipline (abstinence) since it would show bigotry, would possibly offend, and might hurt the self-esteem of the gay and/or black male. Since abstinenceis, therefore, no longer an option, there must be another way to control pregnancy and disease. The politically correct way then is planned parenthood (abortion) and 'safe sex' (condoms). There are many studies that show that condoms do not protect from HIV. There are no studies that show that condoms will protect from HIV. But truth is notrelevant in liberal dogma, only politics are relevant. So, since, in their view, 'safe sex' is the only politically acceptable way to control venereal disease, then any word about condoms not being safe is immediately branded as being religious propaganda and is considered homopathic and racially bigoted. And it will be shouted down. And so our public schools are teaching our teenagers that promiscuityis ok, as long as they are careful and practice 'safe sex'. They are teaching our children how to commit politically correct suicide. No one in his right mind would go to bed with someone he knew was HIV infected and rely on a condom for protection. Yet that is exactly what we teach our children is proper and reasonable. END THE ARITHMETIC BEHIND THE AIDS PROGRAM AIDS/HIV is a politically correct disease. Unlike other infectious diseases, it is institutionalized and protected. AIDS is not handled in our modern society as an avoidable, deadly,sexually transmitted disease. It is instead perceived as a cultural problem, one in which personal liberty and freedom (as opposed to public safety and well-being) are the paramount considerations. Public acceptance of the disease and its carriers is demanded. The free movementof the infected through the public is actively enforced by law. Much as we now blame the gun rather than the criminal, we deplore the disease but hold those who spread it blameless. Indeed, their sufferings are exalted. Other people get sick. HIV infected people are victims, almost martyrs. Others suffer, they bravely endure. Each HIV carrier will infect seven others, on the average, during the balance of his life. Each of those willdie of the disease or directly related complications, a death which is lingering and painful. At the least, this action is deadly negligence, showing total disregard for the safety and comfort of others. At the most, it is no different from any other murder committed in passion. We would not tolerate a serial killer, but we stoutly defend the HIV carriers right to his deadly action. In fact, we devote huge sums of money into medical and psychological research and service to relieve the agony of the infected, to soothe their spirits during their ordeal, and to lengthen their active life. Each such action extends their deadly sexual activity, thereby adding to the spread of the disease. Those who place individual rights above the rights of society, stoutly defend this course of action. Others, feeling that the survival of mankind isparamount, take the opposite view. The rest, their feelings at all stages in between, are no less adamant in arguingtheir views. As a consequence, everyoneis an activist from one viewpoint of the problem or the other. And they all manipulate what little knowledge we have, distorting it first one way then the other in order to make their point. CDC is our governmental authority on all information concerning AIDS. They publish monthly and annual reportsthat are very detailed. These reports are free to the public and CDC is prompt in answering requests for them. But CDC is politically motivated. It isas guilty as any other activist group, in the 'let's bend things our way' sense. They have huge computers and a giant staff of statisticians. They havethe best access to all valid data surrounding this epidemic. But all you will get out of them are statistics which have been heavily screened for their own political protection and a carefully hedged end-of-the year forecast. They all know the holocaust is coming, but they refuse to talk about it. They are also extremely conservative (in the sense that they don't want to tell you all of it) with their data. For example, they will tellyou that AIDS is the fourth killer of women in the 25-44 age group, but theirAIDS numbers don't show a tenth of the size necessary to make that statement credible. They play games with us. Although AIDS is terminal, they will report an AIDS victim suicide as such, not as an AIDS death. If you take theirtotal AIDS cases to date and subtract their total AIDS deaths, you'd think there were a couple of hundred thousandAIDS cases in the public. Not so. Theirtotal and deliberate disregard for the principle of full disclosure makes one suspect every figure they give out. Newpublic activist groups, such as AAAA (American Aids Alert Association) directly accuse the CDC, and the federal government, with deliberate andfraudulent AIDS statistics. And there is no other source of data with any credibility at all. AIDS activists for the public interest as opposed to AIDS activists for furthering the cause of the AIDS 'victims' are something new. All of this is by way of introducing the problems in trying to model this epidemic. Every function andoperating parameter concerning the epidemic that one might consider, is contradicted somewhere in the literature. So, don't look for anythingsophisticated in the model used in the AIDS program. The beauty of a computer is that some jobs are easier solved with brute force. It's like trying to dig a ditch in quicksand. It can be done, but it takessome doing. And we must solve it well enough to glimpse what's in store for us. So one must take a stand. One must make assumptions. One must connive dataand function. The first assumption is that within a given population pool (presumably with fairly uniform cultural characteristics), there is an average rate of HIV transfer from an infected person to another person, whether the second person is infected or not. If the second person is alreadyinfected, the HIV transfer is not significant. At the beginning, when there was only one infectious carrier within the pool, that transfer rate wasalso the infection rate within the pool. As the infection grows in the pool, the overall infection rate is thetransfer rate of each carrier multiplied by the number of carriers, modified by the effects of the growing percentage of the pool which is infected. Where R is the infection rateat any given moment, T is the HIV transfer rate, P is the size of the pool at that same moment, and I is the number of infected within that pool at that same moment; then: R = TI((P-I)/P) This equation would be easy to work with if we knew the size of the pool, the number of infected, and the transfer rate. None of these are known,nor do we have any way of measuring them. In fact, we have no clear or consistent measure of any of the terms in that equation. A mathematical model of a function does not use data. It generates data. It must stand alone. It is an entity separate from reality. When supplied with the parameter values which establish the basis for its operation, the data that it generates must show high correlation with historical data before it can be expected to provide forecasts. ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS A SERIES OF NUMBERS FROM CDC, consisting of reported diagnosed AIDS, stretching from 1983 to 1993, and more detailed tables derived from those numbers. But, not only is the truthfulness of CDC data politically suspect, the basis for those numbers was often redefined during that period.And during that same period the medicalknowledge, on which the figures were based, was changing drastically and rapidly. A reported AIDS case in 1993 does not have the same bounds as a reported AIDS case in 1983. We could not have a more confused situation if someone had carefully designed it to beso, as indeed many of us believe is theactual case. But a good engineer works with what he's got and does the best hecan to solve his problem. So we will look at this data and see what we can derive. Plotting the data by year provides a peculiar curve. It shows an increasing slope, as would be expected with growth within a population not yetapproaching saturation, but with a leveling off and a lot of zig-zagging on the top (1990-1992). When working with large populations, one would expect smooth curves. With annually reported new cases in the 40-50,000 range, one would expect individual variations to be quite small. Such is not the case, further adding fuel to suspicions about the data itself. The disease, in effect, was not formally recognized until 1980. It was known before then, but not universally diagnosed or reported. To a much lesserextent, this is still true today, even though CDC asserts that they are now within 5%. After studying the data and reading reports from other sources (along with my suspicions about CDC) I suspect that doubling all of their figures would be closer to the truth. It could be that tripling them would beeven closer. The true lower end of the curve (prior to 1980) depends on when the epidemic started. The curve is now truncated at 1980 on the lower end. Theearliest case in the US, that I could find in the literature, concerned a young gay prostitute in St.Louis who died of AIDS in 1969, or of a quite similar disease. If it was AIDS, he obviously became infected much earlier,probably about 1960. (There is evidencein the Type II HIV that the disease is much older in other parts of the world). Using a figure of one AIDS casefor 1969 in each of the two major at- risk pools (heterosexual and gay) and extending the curve described above back to that time shows a fairly good fit. The leveling off of the ever- increasing infection rate in the later years (if true), along with the very troublesome zig-zag in the curve (also if true), remains to be explained before the data can be used to verify the operation of the model. There are five possibilities: 1. there has been acultural shift in sexual behavior, 2. 'safe sex' is working, 3. there is morethan one pool being reported and the one which has the highest transfer rateis now approaching saturation, 4. somebody is massaging the information, or 5. all of the above. There has been some shift in sexual behavior in the culture, but it has been in both directions. Many people, both gay and heterosexual, fearful of the consequences of promiscuity, have opted for monogamous (or small group) relationships as a solution that provides both sexual gratification and safety. On the other hand, under the guise of developing safety from unwanted diseases and pregnancy through education, our sexually addicted public school teachers are cranking out sexually addicted teenagers by the millions. Its like having drug addicts teach our children how to handle their drugs, or alcoholics teaching them how to handle booze. As a result, both teen-age pregnancies and HIV infections are epidemic. My personal opinion is that the latter far overshadows the former, which makes the slowdown even harder toexplain. 'Safe sex' (safety in promiscuity byusing condoms) is a big lie. It is truethat they provide a small amount of safety, but on the order of a bandaid for a compound fracture. Liberal zealots, in their anxiety to promote cultural equality, may have (with all of the best intentions) found a way to end all cultures. Condoms are far more effective in preventing pregnancy than in stopping virus passage. And they fail miserably even there. Rigid adherence to 'safe sex' practices (can you imagine a teenager rigidly adheringto anything?) reduces the risk by 80% at the very most. It is more likely less than 60%. It's a bucket of water on a five-alarm fire. "Go ahead," we say, "start the fire. The bucket of water will take care of you." A case ofsymbolism rather than substance. And itentices more to join in the at-risk pool. The gays were the first to tout, and practice, 'safe sex' in the early 80s. They generated the same educational course now used in the public schools. They were good at it. Their transfer ratio shifted almost 80%(showing up in the late 80s in the number of AIDS cases). That's one of the peculiarities of this disease, the incubation period is so long that one must look back ten years from an effectto find the cause. But 'safe sex' fallsfar short of safe sex. If the product of the transfer ratio and the length ofthe infectious period is greater than one, the epidemic will grow. The current product is greater than seven. Even if everyone was consistently careful in practicing 'safe sex' (an impossible dream), the product would still be greater than two. That productwill destroy mankind as surely as a product of seven, it only takes a little while longer. The gays have recently shifted their course concerning 'safe sex'. Since their population has become so HIV saturated,their infection rate has grown to the point that even 'safe sex' adds only a year or so to their life span. A recenttelevision report concerning the resurgence of both bath houses and sex clubs noted that although bowls of condoms were provided conveniently in both environments, few used them. The possibility of more than one at-risk pool, with differing transfer ratios and pool sizes, bears more fruitin explaining the leveling off at the top end of the curve. The disease is more rampant in the gay community. Mostof the cases of AIDS have been gay. Thegay population pool size is much smaller than the heterosexual. The transfer rate is obviously much larger.Could it be possible that we are witnessing the near saturation of the gay population? That its transfer ratiowas so high and its pool so small that what we see is the results of an epidemic running into pool saturation? Whether that is true or not, judging from the available data, depends entirely on the size of the gay pool. And no one knows what that is. As for data manipulation and suppression, my only question is in howbad it is. We no longer face the truth in ourselves, how can we expect truth from others? DATA WHICH IS SENSITIVE, DOES NOT OFFEND, WILL NOT CREATE PUBLICHYSTERIA, AND WILL CAUSE NO ONE ANY LOSS OF SELF-ESTEEM IS ALL WE HAVE. It is all that CDC will provide. It will have to do. So, finally, we can make some decisions about the data that we are touse to verify the operation of our model. The only credible data we have is from CDC. If our model starts in 1960 and produces a data curve which approximates the CDC data, while being higher at the beginning to offset knownreporting defects and differences in reporting in the early years, we will have done the best that we can within the restrictions of those who are controlling us. We have done this in parameter set 1, which we call our 'politically correct' set. On the otherhand, doubling the CDC data and supplying a similarly adjusted curve is, in my opinion, more likely to be closer to fact. We have done this in parameter set 0, which we call our 'most likely' set. Next comes the problem of determining the population pool sizes for the various at-risk groups. There are a multitude of at-risk groups (and groups within groups) but the CDC data recognizes only three: gay, heterosexual, and non-sexual transfer. Since we must use their data as guides,we must also follow that division. Sexual intercourse is the primary actuator in the first two, while the last is victim of accident (or murder depending on how you choose to view it). The overall population size is provided by US Census reports and is known through 1990. The growth rate after that time may be approximated by using the growth rate during the last decade. This growth rate will be effected by the AIDS epidemic itself, so we may approximate the overall population, year by year, by first forecasting its growth, then subtracting the forecasted AIDS deaths,a factor which becomes significant withtime. To find the at-risk heterosexual group size, one must first determine the gay and not-at-risk heterosexual pool sizes then subtract those from theoverall population. Determining the gay population is a tough one. Gay activists claim that more than 10% of the population is gay,bisexual, and lesbian. Some of them claim 20%. Most others claim that the number is closer to 2%. We begged the question by using two sets of parameters, one based on 10% in our 'politically correct' parameter set 1, the other on 2% in 'most likely' parameter set 0. The next question we must answer is: "Is there a group of sexually disciplined heterosexuals, practicing abstinence/monogamy, who will not be atappreciable risk?" The liberal activists say no. They claim that everyone does it, some just lie about it. Christian churches claim about 40% of the population and insist that theirflocks are as pure as the driven snow. The Moslem faith, though much smaller, is as sexually restrictive as the Christian (probably with greater success). There are many other individuals who are not religious, but who recognize the folly, danger, and waste of valuable lifetime in sexual addiction. They practice abstinence/ monogamy as an act of reason rather than faith. All of these groups probably exaggerate their size. Our PC set of parameters (1) uses a zero sizedpopulation for the sexually disciplined, while our 'most likely' parameter set 0 sets 25% of the population as falling into this category. As with all other parameters,this one is available for experimentation. Use any of the experimental parameter sets and 'roll your own'. The sexually liberated heterosexual pool size then becomes theoverall census population less the gay and sexually disciplined heterosexual pool sizes. This is admittedly a rough figure, leaving many questions unanswered. Within the sexually liberated heterosexual pool, probably 40% are too old or too young to indulge. We also have a sizable prison inmate population where some sexual discipline is enforced. At any one timethere is a large population in hospitals, and they probably don't feellike fooling around. This biases the pool size when compared, for instance, with the gay pool, since children are not considered gay until they begin thepractice and there are few old gays. The result of correcting for these factors would not only be complex but the effect on the output data would be small, since compensating adjustments would be needed in the transfer ratios.We have chosen to ignore these factors for the time being. The big problem comes in ascertaining the size of the infected portions of these population pools. In all probability, 85% of the HIV infected, but not yet AIDS diagnosed, do not know (or don't want to know) that they are infected. Short of requiring our entire population to be tested on a regular basis, we never will know the size of the various infected groups. But if our model is correct, it can tell us. If it can provide AIDS data which corresponds with the known, then the associated HIVinfection data will be true. So this is the way we modeled the epidemic (some details are simplified for clarity): 1. We in effect built a 1200 compartment time table to cover each month for 100 years. Within each time slot, we arranged a sub-slot for each characteristic that we wished to calculate and use: gay population pool,gay infected, new gay aids, gay deaths,a set of the same for the at-risk heterosexual, a truncated set for thosebecoming infected accidentally, etc. 2. We assumed that the epidemic startedin 1960. 3. We assumed that the disease started simultaneously in the gay and the heterosexual groups. We saw no reason to blame one for the other, nor did we find any data that would suggest it. 4. We used the US Census to calculate the overall population. For prior timeswe calculated the most probable population and installed those numbers.For future populations we used the growth rate from the last reported decade (1980-1990); 5. We established two parameter sets, one we call our 'politically correct' set and the other our 'most likely' set. Although we display annual charts, most calculations are actually performed monthly. We do this in the following order, starting at year 1960 and extending through year 2060: 1. The expected life span is calculatedby multiplying the current life span with the Extension Due to Medical Advances on an annual basis. Since these advances did not start until 1980, the extension parameter is not used before then. The time from infection to Aids diagnosis and the time from Aids diagnosis to death for that particular year is also calculatedat the same time. 2. HIV Transfer ratios for the various pools, for the current year, are calculated using the initial parameter value as modified by the parameter auxiliary tables. 3. Summaries are made from prior entries in order to obtain the NEW AIDS, NEW DEATHS, and TOTAL DEATHS figures for each at-risk pool. See step5 below for how the prior entries were made. 4. Gay and at-risk heterosexual population sizes are calculated from Census data and parameter assigned values for the various pools. 5. New infections in each pool are calculated from the population pool size, the infected pool size, and the parameter set assigned transfer ratio using the equation discussed at the start of this paper. The new infectionsare then posted into future tables whenthe subjects are due to become AIDS diagnosed and later to die. These values are then summarized when the program reaches those years. See 3 above. The infected pool size is then calculated by adding in the newly infected and subtracting the deaths from AIDS within the pool. 6. Medical costs are adjusted to reflect the steady increase using the parameter supplied. The annual and accumulated costs are then calculated. All of these calculations are based on initial parameter settings. There are two supplied with the program. Both sets of parameters provide the desired degree of tracking of existing data, even though differingin basic assumptions. These parametric values were found by trial and error. Experimentation will show which parameters give what movement to the produced curve. Admittedly it was a bear. Not having any idea where to start, we produced many bizarre resultsbefore we learned which knob to tweak, and which one to leave alone. Interestingly enough, any curve which fits the data will give forecasts whichare quite similar. The disaster is there, only the dates change. It shouldbe noted that all of the parameter setsthat we have tried, and we've tried some wild ones, all lead to the same conclusion. We are in deep trouble. We may not know the exact date when it will it happen, but we know that there will be a day when our population starts to decline because of AIDS deaths. The same applies to the date when there are a hundred million infected and when the cost of AIDS medical care will exceed four trillion dollars annually. Since this program was designed to run on early IBM compatibles, and we wanted it to be fast enough so that it could immediately calculate a full set of tables each time the view data function was called, we kept the calculations simple. The program uses only addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Most of the work is similar to that used in accounting. END IS AIDS MEDICAL OR POLITICAL? The Moslem nations of the world, especially those which combine state and church, will survive the world-wideHIV/AIDS epidemic. Their strict sexual disciplines, enforced by law, will savethem. Yes, they will have HIV/AIDS in their midst. They, too, have gays, drugaddicts, alcoholics, prostitutes, and other sexually undisciplined people in their population. But the numbers will be kept small. As a result, the overalltransfer rates will be low enough to provide population survival. In a similar fashion, but lacking church states, the nations which are predominantly Christian may also survive for the same reason. Notably among these could be a few of the largely Catholic countries in latin America. In countries such as the US, where the religious are dispersed throughout the population, survival becomes more doubtful. Other countries with weak social structures, poor economic conditions, war, and/or civil strife will have no defense. Their populationswill not survive. Baring a near miraculous medical breakthrough which provides a cure and/or vaccine, all of mankind which practices sexual freedom is in deep trouble. In order to avoid annihilation, these people must developa sexual discipline which will contain the spread of the disease. One would think that a reasonable person would adopt practices which would guarantee survival and discard practices which were dangerous to his survival. If such were true, then all that would be needed is to educate the people in what these practices are. A crash course in sex education, teachingthe people which practices to drop and which ones to support would provide them the knowledge on which to act. Everyone seems to agree on that course of action. The big disagreement comes with determining what should be taught.And that's where the politics of culture enter the picture. Under multicultural-diversity theory, all cultures (except the male- dominated, warlike, racially bigoted, and homopathic western culture) are equal in value. Therefore all are acceptable within the society. Since the only difference between the cultures are the differences in customs, then tolerance of all peoples and their customs must be taught. For those in the corrupt western culture, this means that they must be taught that any and all practices within any culture are acceptable behavior, and that any ritualistic, religious, puritanical, and authoritarian taboos practiced within the western culture tothe contrary must be discarded. Only then, so the reasoning goes, will the peoples in the other cultures be able to co-exist and maintain their self- esteem. We must, for example, not only teach that homosexuality (which has been deemed as a culture separate from all others) is proper and acceptable, we must also teach that all of the sexual practices within that culture are also proper and acceptable. In fact, if we teach that the customs within all cultures are acceptable, then it follows that all sexual practices around the globe also become proper and acceptable, except of coursethe sexual disciplines taught within the western culture, all of which are considered authoritarian, male- dominated, oppressive, etc. This may be all well and good in every other way, but it is disastrous when it comes to trying to teach any sexual discipline which might contain the spread of HIV. Almost without exception, the public schools refuse todo it. And they are backed by the full force of the federal government throughthe surgeon general and school recertification programs. The schools are supported in this course of action by the judicial system. The media (a definite part of the nation's educational system) is even more tiltedin that direction. Since teaching a sexual discipline would be counter to all of the ideals of the multicultural-diversity movement, then it can't be a part of any education, presumably even if the survival of our overall population is at stake. Since all sexual practices are considered politically proper, there must be another way to control HIV, so the reasoning goes, and so 'safe sex' was invented. It is a politically correct course of action. It offends no one. Itplaces no stigma on any sexual activity. It is tolerant of all cultures. The fact that it is totally ineffective and actually contributes tothe spread of HIV by teaching an absolute and total lie (that condoms will provide total protection if properly used) seems to bother no one. One would think that a government which has the best interest of its people at heart, would take action to contain the spread of a controllable infectious venereal disease. And if it erred in its zeal to contain the disease, it should err in the directionof the common welfare of all of its people. Not so. Our government is part and parcel of the multicultural- diversity political movement. Our modern federal government, through the passage of laws and tolerance of decisions made in its judicial system, has so severely massaged our constitution (which stresses a government for the people) that the rights of the individual now transcend the welfare and safety of the people. Aby-product of this self-centered movement is soaring crime, another is the 'dumbing of America', still anotheris the burgeoning teen-age single parent births. But our particular problem at the moment is stopping the spread of HIV\AIDS. If we don't take care of that one, all of the other problems will disappear anyway, there won't be any people. In this particularcase (the AIDS epidemic), the tyranny of the individual is threatening the survival of the community. The government now forces the entire medical community to accept and treat HIV carriers, leaving no disease free medical services for anyone. We force restaurants to employ infected people (unlike the lesser diseases of syphilisand gonorrhea). We allow full sexual freedom for the infected. Each one willinfect (murder) seven others, on the average, in his remaining life. The government, in effect, forces the public to allow the infected to mingle,and insists that this infectious disease is not infectious. These problems are not inescapable now, but as the infection climbs in the population, they are compounded. The politics of culture win again over common sense and reason. Our only hope will be politically correct grave stones. The medical community, in all good faith, reinforces the spread of HIV/AIDS. They see their object in lifeas being to provide a public service which: avoids sickness if possible, alleviates suffering of the sick, improves the life quality of the sick, and lengthens the life of those who aresick. All of these are laudable goals. The US medical community is the most compassionate and capable such service in the world. And there is no hint intended that they should change in this regard. But HIV/AIDS is a disease which is so perverse that when an infected person is helped to feel better and live longer, it increases the number of people which he will infect during the remainder of his life. If the average HIV carrier lives 20% longer, he will infect an additional 20% of the public. So the more efficient that the medical community becomes, the faster the epidemic will develop and swallow us all. There is another side to the medicalcommunity that defies logic. They will not tell the public the seriousness of this disease. They will also not allow anyone else to say that it is serious, claiming all who are not physicians lack the knowledge to know. The medicalassociations advise their own doctors to wear thick gloves (surgeons are advised to wear two pair) when working with a patient, yet recommend thin condoms for the public to be used underconditions far from the antiseptic conditions in the doctor's office and in a use that is far thicker in HIV presence. They first told their own surgeons that there was no danger in working with blood, something they havesince had to recant. They first told health workers that they were in no danger, until the health workers began to be infected. They will say that casual contact is not dangerous, but there are many cases that are a mysteryto them and new evidence is piling up daily. They boast of their ability to extend the life of the infected, knowing full well that life extension will result in more infections. They will tell you that kissing is not dangerous, that the HIV concentration in saliva is too weak. But they advise their dentists to wear thick gloves when working in the mouth. What is the solution? There are fivepossible courses of action: 1. The default path is to teach 'safe sex' and not worry about the future. This course would require no action. That is the present course. That courseis projected in the data view function of this software. The parameter set 1 (our 'politically correct' set) shows absolute chaos. The parameter set 0 (our 'most likely' set) shows that onlythe sexually disciplined and their progeny will survive. I must admit thatI don't believe that ending is the trueone. Since there is no data available for a condition where a wide spread epidemic kills off half of a populationin a lingering manner, while bankrupting a country into a Somalia like situation, and at the same time providing massive waves of other by then incurable infectious disease epidemics (medicine resistant hepatitis, tuberculosis, etc) sweeping across the country, I have no idea how to mechanize the results in the programunder those conditions. I was only ableto say that they somehow survived, but my heart isn't in it. 2. Through our efforts, we may be able to convince enough people that action must be taken to curb this epidemic. Since such action will be counter to the entire philosophy of the liberal movement (the predominant political force in the US), it is doubtful that achange in attitude could be accomplished in time (if at all). 3. When the epidemic is considerably larger, perhaps in 10 years or so, the pressure of the epidemic itself may elicit some progressive action. It may turn the public toward thoughts of survival enough for them to temporarilysuspend other societal reforms long enough to stamp out the epidemic. Strong reactions from the public could hasten the day. I also fear that even if this should happen, it would be too late. 4. In times of great public danger, particularly in times of war, it has been necessary for many governments to declare a state of emergency. By suspending certain personal rights for the duration of the crisis, all effort can be focused on the problem at hand. As soon as the danger is passed, the crisis is declared over and the government returns to its normal position. A similar action could allow this epidemic to be curbed quickly. Since this problem is limited in scope,only those personal rights which conflict with the curbing of the disease need be suspended. 5. History has shown that when a government consistently endangers and abuses its people, and the danger posedby its continued existence threatens their safety, armed intervention by thecitizenry is required. Perhaps this is well understood by our government and is the basis for their current action toward disarming the public. There may come a time when the public needs thoseassault rifles. Unfortunately, if this should happen, it would only be in the dying throes of the nation, and would only hasten the final curtain. END A PUBLIC INTEREST AIDS MOVEMENT This is an argument for the need of a new kind of AIDS movement in America,one that stresses the fight against HIV/AIDS from the perspective of the welfare of the general public. Background: During the initial stages of the epidemic, the disease was bewildering. There seemed to be no cause. A healthy person suddenly lost all natural immunity. It was many years before the medical community was able to identify the cause. From a study of the data, itseems probable that the first HIV infection in the US occurred about 1960. Undoubtedly, hundreds of cases were misdiagnosed during the 60s and 70s. It was 20 years later - in the early 80s - before the disease was sufficiently defined to begin a formal reporting system. It spread rapidly during those 20 years. It appeared to be primarily a gay disease. We now knowthat this is not true. It is a sexuallytransmitted disease which occurs in homosexual and heterosexual alike (but with varying infection transfer rates). In modeling the disease to fit knowndata, the transfer ratio (the rate at which an infected person will pass the virus to another person) during the early stages of the epidemic, from about 1960 to about 1975, was found to be about 1.7 per year. The transfer ratio among the heterosexuals was foundto be about 0.7 during the same period.If the infection rate within a population pool was a linear reflectionof the transfer rates of the individuals within those pools, one would expect the rate among the heterosexuals to be about 40% of that among the gays. Not true. The infectionrate within a population pool depends additionally on the number of infected within the pool and the degree of infection of the pool. This effectivelycompounds the differences between the two transfer rates. So AIDS appears to be a gay disease, but IT IS NOT! It is present in the heterosexual community, and thriving. This is all by way of saying that the initial periods of the epidemic looked like a gay disease, to gay and heterosexual alike. This attitude is still erroneously held by most of the public, gay and heterosexual alike. During this same period of time (60sand 70s), noting the civil rights advances by the blacks, homosexuals began a campaign to be recognized as a culture separate from all other cultures and therefore rightful heirs to the fruits of the civil rights movement. The liberal movement, an amalgamation of movements dedicated to the destruction of western culture, welcomed this new ally with open arms. The clash in sexual practices between the homosexuals and the (puritanical and homopathic) western culture became another tool useful for all liberals inattacking western religion. The liberals quickly reasoned that since homosexuality was historical in mankind, it was therefore natural and acceptable. They then reasoned that since the homosexuals practiced different social customs, they must therefore be a different culture. Sincethis is true then the homosexuals deserve the same attention to their cultural rights as are required in cases of ethnic divisions. This same reasoning could be applied to a host ofother groups, such as prostitutes (including both sexes and homosexuals of course), drug addicts, criminals, and perhaps even lawyers and politicians. Indeed it appears that allof these are likely candidates in the future for their own cultural acceptance and civil rights movements. The common belief throughout the public is that AIDS is a gay disease. The common belief among the liberals (amajority of the public) is that gays (homosexuals) are a culture deserving of full cultural protection (bathhousesand sex clubs are examples of cultural attributes which fall under that protection). These two beliefs combine to form an impenetrable defense for thedisease itself. Any criticism of the disease becomes a criticism of the gay community. Any knowledge which might upset the public and thereby cause any gay stigma becomes insensitive and intolerant and is to be avoided. Any thought of isolation of the disease becomes an attack on the gay culture. Any thought of screening the disease from any function where its passage might be particularly dangerous to the general public, immediately becomes a serious civil rights matter. Any call for sexual discipline is an affront to the liberal movement itself, doubly so toward the gay culture. There are many AIDS activist groups in the US, both private and governmental. All profess eagerness to eradicate AIDS, but none offer more than calling for increased 'education' in 'safe sex'. All offer medical, legal, and psychological support to theinfected individuals. They address the plight of the infected, never the danger to the public. Without exception, they fight any effort by thepublic to protect itself from the carriers. They seek to legitimize the disease. To institutionalize it. To glamorize it. To make it a permanent part of society. HIV/AIDS, therefore, is a politically correct disease. Only 'safesex' education is allowed as the politically correct cure. Liberals willconsider all other courses of action tobe intolerant, insensitive, bigoted, homopathic, male-dominated, etc. (exactly the same adjectives applied bythe liberal movement to the western culture). In short, any attempt to eradicate HIV/AIDS other than by 'safe sex' education will be considered politically incorrect. If this course is allowed to continue, the US will become a politically correct slaughterhouse. If a reasonable person finds himselfon the wrong road, and getting farther and farther away from his destination each mile that he travels, he will makean about face. The American public mustdo the same. The answer to the HIV/AIDSepidemic then lies in rejecting the 'politically correct' concept in judging the action to be taken, and return to a value system which weighs an action against its common good. Without exception these actions will beconsidered by many to be politically incorrect. AMERICA NEEDS AN AIDS MOVEMENT THAT IS AIMED AT THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC! If we are to conquer this disease, the following concepts must become our national goal: 1. The public must universally understand that HIV/AIDS is a filthy venereal disease. It is a hateful, cruel, and perverse disease. It not only kills, it also destroys the life that remains. And it does it in a lingering way. It also converts the carrier into a killer of others. The AIDS experience is a hell on earth. Often the mind degenerates along with the body. 2. It must be understood that when someone is infected through sex (unlessby rape or an errant spouse), HIV/AIDS is a matter of choice. The risks are known. An HIV carrier or an AIDS sufferer is not to be pitied. He is nota victim. As with the sky-diver whose chute fails to open, he chose his own path of destruction with full knowledgeof the risks and of alternate paths available. He, and he alone, is responsible for his own life and safety, but instead deliberately chose a dangerous life style. He took a chance and lost. He is not deserving ofany care or aid from the public. He is also, therefore, to be held accountablefor his action in contracting the disease. He is, in fact, to be censored. First, as a fool for deliberately ruining his own life. And secondly as someone who holds in contempt the well-being of his fellow man, for he will subject them to great risk. Each HIV carrier will infect (murder) seven others, on the average, during the balance of his infected life. 3. The public must demand severe laws covering the transfer of HIV to someone who was not infected. And insist on a strict and speedy enforcement. People who live risky lifestyles should be held accountable for the results. If they end their own lives that is one thing. To end another's is at the least negligent manslaughter. If the transfer is deliberate or through fraud, they should be charged with murder. 4. It should be fully acknowledged that when a person is infected through accident, crime, or an errant spouse, then he is a victim. He is deserving ofsympathy. He is deserving of all of thecare and aid which the public can afford. He is also deserving of the complete support of our court system incollecting from those who were negligent and obtaining retribution from those who were criminal. 5. The public should demand an immediate change in sex education in the schools. A completely new sex education must be mandated in all public schools, one which stresses abstinence-monogamy as the only safe sex. The course should point out the life-quality and longevity benefits of abstinence-monogamy in a responsible sexual life. It should stress a man- woman two-parent family unit as a meansof guiding children along the same path. If special classes are required for children raised by homosexuals or as homosexuals then they should be provided. Here again the stress should be on abstinence-monogamy. Condoms should be taught only as a method of delaying the disease for a short time and only for those who have no self- discipline. And the truth about the reliability of condoms should also be taught. 6. The public should not be forced to mingle with known HIV/AIDS infected people. Health care workers and food handlers should undergo periodic tests.When national infection becomes more widespread, there should be disease- free medical facilities set aside for the uninfected public. 7. Each person infected with HIV must be held responsible for his own action. He must not be allowed to spread the disease to unsuspecting people with impunity. If he leads a risky life, it is his responsibility toknow if he has HIV or not. If he infects another unknowingly, it does not excuse him. He is guilty of a negligence that cost another his life and should be handled on the same basisas drunken driving, for example. If a person knows he has an HIV infection, but conceals that fact as he infects another, he is guilty of murder in the heat of passion. A CALL TO SERVICE: I call on anyone and everyone to help in this great cause. Learn all youcan about this disease. Be skeptical ofwhat people tell you (including me). Study for yourself. Then tell the worldwhat you know (it'll be close to what I'm saying, of that I'm sure). I need your help in the following ways: 1. Spread this program far and wide.Send copies to your elected officials and demand that they pay heed. Insist that your family members and close friends listen to your plea. Urge everyone to pay for the program, I needthe money to expand into other ways of getting this message across. 2. Supply me with factual information. I need all that I can get.If you think that I am wrong about something, don't hesitate, let me hear your views. 3. I would like to see this movementextended with other communications tools. If you have skills in video, optical disk, journalism, etc. and wishto join with me, get in touch. John Stevenson Box 131, 206A S. Loop 336 West Conroe TX 77304 (409) 273-1345 END
