“SUPER-HIV”

The New York Times’ story today about the alleged new strain of HIV tells us a few things. No other person has been found with an identical strain; the patient is responding to anti-retroviral treatment; the bulk of his sexual contacts were already HIV-positive. So we had five days of hysterical coverage from the NYT for … this? The new story – tellingly – does not include the context that was provided in previous stories, i.e. that this new strain comes “as a growing number of gay men become infected despite warnings about unsafe sex.” Maybe that’s because the New York City Health Department has no statistics to support that claim; and, in fact, has data that refute it (data unknown to the reporters at the NYT). Is New York City alone in marking a decline in HIV infection rates? Nope. We were told a couple of years ago that Seattle was having a huge new increase. The Seattle Weekly recalls that “[King County’s] top AIDS official, Dr. Bob Wood, called the situation ‘frightening,’ ‘astounding,’ and ‘the most dramatic increase since the beginning of the epidemic.'” Hard data two years later show a stable rate of infections, despite a growing number of people living with HIV. Or a state like Virginia? A state-wide drop of 20 percent between 2003 and 2004. In Charlottesville, they saw a 67 percent drop. San Francisco? The same hype only a few years ago – “sub-Saharan levels” of infection, according to the head of the city’s public health department. The latest data show infection rates completely stable, along with a dramatic rise in the number of people getting tested. I’m waiting for evidence that will show that this “new” strain is new, that there is a resurgence of HIV infection among gay men in America, and that the New York Times is not a megaphone for whichever AIDS hysteric comes along next. As I said, I’m waiting.