Here’s a little tale that should help correct some people’s impressions that the blogosphere is somehow less reliable than the “mainstream media.” On February 17, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote a very tough column on the notion of an allegedly new, virulent strain of HIV in New York City. He made several factual claims that I know no solid evidence for. So I emailed him asking him for supporting data. The specific claims he made and I questioned were as follows:
1. “Tragically, this juvenile reasoning partially accounts for the apparent upsurge in HIV infections among gay males — and the emergence of a virulent new strain that has health officials plenty worried.” 2. “Unprotected sex is reckless, and unprotected sex between gays who are already HIV-positive will sooner or later produce a super strain of the disease.” 3. “The fact remains that a portion of the gay population — maybe 20 percent, Kaiser estimates — conducts itself in ways that are not only reckless but just plain disgusting.”
On February 17, I asked him where he got the data for all these assertions. He was in Saudi Arabia when I emailed him and promised to get back to me. Two weeks later, I got the following email:
“I think it’s obvious that I based much of what I wrote on the findings of the New York City medical authorities. As for the rest, it comes from Kaiser, as I made clear. The sentiments about bath house sex and such are strictly my own.”
Let’s review. 1. The New York health department did not say and has not said that there is an “apparent upsurge” in HIV infections among gay men. (By the way, what, exactly, is an apparent upsurge? Either it exists or it doesn’t, no? If it exists, why no supporting data?) So where does this data come from? I have no idea. After two weeks, Cohen can provide no supporting data.
COHEN’S NON-EVIDENCE: In the same sentence, Cohen cites as fact “the emergence of a virulent new strain.” But the strain is not new. It has been seen before in Canada. Those Canadian patients with a very similar strain now have zero viral loads under treatment. A small percentage of new infections in New York and elsewhere are resistant to three of the four classes of drugs now available, as was this one. So the word “new” is factually wrong. What about “virulent”? We do not know – and the NYC authorities did not claim to know – if this single patient’s immune system crash was a function of the viral strain, his repeated use of crystal meth, his own genetics, or simply an example of a common feature of recently infected men, whose immune systems regularly plummet before rebounding. So, again, Cohen has provided no solid evidence for his assertion. The same goes for 2. The bald statement “unprotected sex is reckless” is erroneous. If two men are HIV-negative and in a monogamous relationship, unprotected sex, i.e. what human beings have always called “sex”, is not reckless. It’s responsible and way more intimate and pleasurable than the alternative. Same for a couple who are both HIV-positive. There is no solid evidence that “super-infection” takes place at all. Viral mutation occurs because the virus mutates in the presence of drugs. People already infected with HIV and with antibodies to HIV have not been defintively shown to get reinfected, except if they have not yet developed antibodies. And most viral strains that have become drug-resistant are actually less virulent than regular HIV. Now this issue may be debated (and has been debated) – but this was not addressed by the NYC authorities Cohen cites as his sole source. Then there is his claim that “the fact remains” that twenty percent of gay men “conducts itself in ways that are not only reckless but just plain disgusting.” By that, he means: “Unprotected, promiscuous sex in bathhouses and at parties and using drugs such as crystal meth to prolong both desire and performance.” Notice he doesn’t say: maybe. Or possibly. Or potentially. He says: “The fact is…” Huh? Let’s say gay men make up 2 percent of the population. Cohen is saying that 1.2 million gay men are behaving this way. Again: where’s the evidence for this vast generalization? Cohen’s sole source is one Charles Kaiser. Kaiser is a gay writer and friend of Cohen’s. He has no studies backing this data up, so far as I know, and Cohen provides none, when given two weeks to come up with support. Did Cohen ask for the source for corrobration? Can he provide any data backing this up? Nope. Look, I have no beef with Cohen. In my first email, I began by saying
“First off, I’m a huge admirer of your writing on gay issues. You’re the very rare heterosexual man who actually gives a damn and writes as if we are equal human beings and citizens. Second, you are absolutely right that gay men have a responsibility to protect themselves and others from HIV.”
But this column is built on factual sand. In the blogosphere, it would have been buried by now. In the MSM, it lives on, uncorrected and untrue.
The Dish 