TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
20.03.2008
More on AIDS and Race

I'm straying from the topic of the campaign, but this is fascinating stuff. So I want to follow up on my earlier post about Jeremiah Wright's views on the AIDS virus as a genocidal weapon. A colleague directs me to this 2005 Washington Post article about a study which found some deeply depressing attitudes within black America about the AIDS virus, its origins, and what's being done to combat it.

To some degree these numbers are a reminder that, in the context of urban America, what Wright said is not so fringe. As one professor told the Washington Post:

"This is not a bunch of crazy people running around saying they're out to get us," Akbar said. The belief "comes from the reality of 300 years of slavery and 100 years of post-slavery exploitation."

But the problem is that Wright, as a pillar of the community, ought to know better. And he has an obligation to disabuse people of self-destructive false beliefs. Here's the real reason to get exercised about this, why this is more than just scoring easy points:

Phill Wilson, executive director of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, said past discrimination is no longer an excuse for embracing conspiracies that allow HIV to fester.

"It's a huge barrier to HIV prevention in black communities," Wilson said.... "The whole notion of conspiracy theories and misinformation . . . removes personal responsibility," Wilson said. "If there is this boogeyman, people say, 'Why should I use condoms? Why should I use clean needles?' And if I'm an organization, 'Why should I bother with educating my folks?' The syphilis study was real, but it happened 40 years ago, and holding on to it is killing us."

If nothing else comes of this Wright mania, maybe there will at least be some new effort to confront this tragically destructive canard. 

Incidentally, it should go without saying that a mass delusion like this one will be the problem of any president, not just Barack Obama. I wonder whether John McCain, for instance, is even aware of it.

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:16 PM with 35 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

The more publicity this issue gets, the more it hurts Obama.

A pity. If his speech had been less ambitious-- or maybe more humble-- and had merely attacked the conspiracy mentality that animates so many in Wright's audience as well as so many in Ron Paul's audience, and Jerry Falwell's, and so many other nutjobs, he would have DEFUSED the racial aspect, batted the ball back into McCain's court, and reinforced his image as the great cleanser and uplifter of our national politics.

What a missed opportunity. He'll regret this one for a long time.

March 20, 2008 5:05 PM

singlespeed said:

Michael, another thing that hinders the treatment and prevention of AIDS within the African-American community and also the Latino community is the denial that homosexuality exists in either of those communities as a whole and openly acknowledging the 'on the down low' life-style of many African-American and Latino men infecting their girlfriends and wifes further exacerbates the problem of educating the respective communities as well as getting to the deeply held-to cultural rejection of homosexuality in each of those communities.

I guess the bigger item on that poll is most believe a cure is being withheld from the poor which, in a broad sense in light of the fact that Big Pharma fights every chance to authorize manufacturing generics of AIDS/HIV medications to be made available in the US and most especially in Africa, one can understand why many African Americans believe that. Despite the facts that treatment in the US is not withheld outright from the poor many organizations make it hard for minorities to get the help they need or marginalize them.

Here are two stories attesting to that fact....

www.westword.com/.../new-life

www.westword.com/.../a-grim-prognosis

March 20, 2008 5:25 PM

miceelf said:

Nutty ideas aside, the pastor has been documented to have talked about AIDS theory exactly once in his 20 year career.

Meanwhile, he has encouraged his congregation to get tested and been openly wellcoming of gay folk, two things which put him at odds with the Black church in particular and the African American community more generally.

March 20, 2008 5:28 PM

singlespeed said:

TEP....I see you're placing all your hope in BHO to save us from our 'conspiracy theory' selves. If only Obama had done more as a politician in his speech by addressing every conspiracy theory held by religious leaders. Perhaps the more logical thing to do would be to actually, you know, treat us like adults and expect us to realize that those conspiracy theories are just that...conspiracy theories.

But he didn't and the world still rotates on it's access and we all go on our happy way. Now where's that can of New Coke I just opened? ;)

March 20, 2008 5:34 PM

teplukhin2you said:

I was talking about all of Rev. Goof's fevered conspiracy theories, including the ones about IzRaeL and The Joos.

March 20, 2008 5:44 PM

singlespeed said:

Tep...just giving you a ribbing! Apologize if I came off too rough there.

March 20, 2008 5:47 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Single - I wish Obama had done LESS, not "more." His speech was way too ambitious. It riveted everyone's attention on race, instead of moving beyond it. It missed the point-- it's the conspiracy-mongering, stupid!-- and missed its target, which was his association with Rev Goofball.

Really, this was a rookie mistake. Not quite Dean's Scream, if only because the fallout is delayed, but almost as bad.

March 20, 2008 5:51 PM

singlespeed said:

AXIS not access..

Damn multitasking has my malapropisms in action.

March 20, 2008 5:58 PM

redemption438 said:

Kudos to woland in the previous thread who pointed out the 50% number.

This is obviously a serious problem, but why is anyone surprised by it? Mass delusion is what humans specialize in, especially when it allows them to believe their group is superior or has been particularly hard done by and deserves retribution. Blacks don't have a monopoly on believing crazy things.

In this case, most people are not going to sit down and organize all the historical and medical evidence and seriously evaluate the rumor that AIDS was man-made, or that treatment is being withheld. They will react based on instinct and expectation, and for African-Americans there is plenty of reason to be receptive to these rumors.

The poll is also a bit meaningless without a comparison to what white Americans would say. I'd bet at least 30% of Americans generally think that AIDS is a man-made virus.

March 20, 2008 6:01 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Something tells me Mike that the McCain advisors are busy trying to work out how to push for a flat tax and how to get Israel to strike Iran. I'd imagine they couldn't give a f**k about this or any other crap that springs from this septic affair.

Please stop pouring fuel onto the fire. Enough already. There's more than enough bigotry and ignorance to go around Obama, Clinton, Left and Right.

I think people have more pressing things to be worried about.

March 20, 2008 6:53 PM

blackton said:

of course, and we all know the US government would never knowingly infect blacks with syphilis and let the disease run its course to see what the effects would be, no, it would never do that. Except, of course, it did. I think wrong as a lot of blacks are, they are more entitled to their conspiracy than we are willing to admit.

March 20, 2008 7:52 PM

mrmonster said:

I'm so sick of the Rev. Wright controversy.

March 20, 2008 8:19 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

What's the story with that syphilis thing? I only got snippets. Did the government deliberately infect people with syphilis? Jesus, maybe MK Ultra wasn't the bottom. Shocking. If that's the case, then Wright's comments should be seen as some sort of historical echo, as well as deeply insulting.  

March 20, 2008 8:23 PM

caaggies said:

Oh boy, the "syphilis thing" again. To repeat: The U.S. DID NOT infect blacks with syphillis. What happened was that, under the Tuskegee program, those black men already infected were given "treatments" that were nothing of the sort. In fact, the Tuskegee program was a way that the doctors and scientists involved could "study" syphillis in a manner that violated every tenet of medical and scientific ethics.

March 20, 2008 8:57 PM

ndmackenzie said:

Ignorant Populist -

From Wikipedia:

-- The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[1] also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Pelkola Syphilis Study, Public Health Service Syphilis Study or the Tuskegee Experiments was a clinical study, conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, in which 399 (plus 201 control group without syphilis) poor — and mostly illiterate — African American sharecroppers were denied treatment for Syphilis.

-- This study became notorious because it was conducted without due care to its subjects, and led to major changes in how patients are protected in clinical studies. Individuals enrolled in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study did not give informed consent and were not informed of their diagnosis; instead they were told they had "bad blood" and could receive free medical treatment, rides to the clinic, meals and burial insurance in case of death in return for participating.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

March 20, 2008 9:00 PM

AaronBBrown said:

Man-made origin of AIDS

en.wikipedia.org/.../AIDS_conspiracy_theories

[Edward Hooper, a former BBC correspondent, has advanced the so-called "contaminated polio vaccine" theory for the origins of HIV and AIDS. In his exhaustively researched book, The River, Hooper advances the theory that HIV1 Human_Immunodeficiency_Virus) is a mutation or variant of, or the result of animal-to-human transmission of, SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), a virus found in the chimpanzee. He lays blame on Dr. Hilary Koprowski ,a virologist working for Philadelphia's Wistar Research Institute ,who allegedly used hastily concocted chimpanzee kidney culture medium from a Stanleyville research laboratory to create millions of doses of oral polio  vaccine for a mass vaccination program in the Belgian colony of the Belgian Congo .The experimental vaccine was administered to millions of natives in the Belgian Congowithout their informed consent. The research was partially funded by the U.S. Government. Hooper points out inconsistencies in what Koprowski and his team said they did, and what workers in Koprowski's laboratories and at his chimpanzee research camp said was done. He describes Koprowski's single-minded drive to beat Drs. Salk and Sabin in developing the first commercially-available polio vaccine, and posits that this was a factor in the use of the contaminated vaccine.

The contaminated polio vaccine theory was supported by the influential evolutionary biologist and Oxford University professor, W. D. Hamilton ,who died as a result of contracting malaria on one of his trips to Africa to seek proof for the theory. On the other hand, other scientists, such as University of Arizona  professor Michael Worobey have conducted research that contradicts the theory.]

The River : A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS (Hardcover)

www.amazon.com/.../0316372617

March 20, 2008 9:04 PM

AaronBBrown said:

See the documentary, hear the evidence, and think about what it would mean if it were shown that the virus which causes HIV was created as the result of corporate sponsored profit driven shoddy, irresponsible and unethical experiments.  If conclusive evidence were shown, imagine the liabilities involved.

Imagine what the outcry would be in Africa and around the globe if these polio experiments turn out to be the origin of AIDS. Can we place a dollar value on the infection of entire continents and the entire world?  

Origines du SIDA, Les (2003) [The Origins of Aids (2004)]

www.imdb.com/.../tt0438938

March 20, 2008 9:14 PM

teplukhin2you said:

what's the frequency, Aaron?

March 20, 2008 10:00 PM

eweiss said:

Aaron, with all due respect...  This is garbage and you know it. While wikipedia is not on any list of high impact scientific journals, if you are going to cite it, here is nice summary of the true garbageness of this "theory" in a competing entry en.wikipedia.org/.../OPV_AIDS_hypothesis

March 20, 2008 10:14 PM

chmclean said:

This story about SIV accidentally being transmitted to humans has been around for at least a decade. I read about it years ago (don't remember the source now - may have been that bastion of journalistic integrity and accuracy, Rolling Stone Magazine). I remember that it was a pretty scary and persuasive piece. However, apparently this theory has been busted. The same IMDB listing that AaronBBrown cites above has a review that refers to a PubMed article that says this:

"These data [referring to a study to determine whether chimpanzee epithelial cells were found in samples of oral polio vaccine used to inoculate people in East Africa in the 50s] reinforce earlier findings on this topic providing no evidence to support the contention that poliovirus vaccination was responsible for the introduction of HIV into humans and sparking the AIDS pandemic."

The review lists the PubMed citation so you can check it out yourself. The section of the study that appears in the review is pretty technical but there's also enough layman's terminology that you get the gist of what the study's author(s) are saying.

March 20, 2008 10:28 PM

jhildner said:

eweiss:  Actually, a recent study showed Wikipedia to be more accurate than the Encylopedia Britannica on scientific topics.  Just thought I would throw that out there....

March 20, 2008 10:29 PM

chmclean said:

eweiss -

You beat me to the punch - and made my point much more succinctly. I am delighted however that I remembered correctly that it was a Rolling Stone article I read about this. My shrivelling brain, you know . . .

March 20, 2008 10:32 PM

chmclean said:

One more thing -

Even if there were any truth to the theory that SIV jumped to the human population, it certainly wouldn't have been intentional, which is clearly what Wright believes.

March 20, 2008 10:35 PM

chmclean said:

Should've said "SIV jumped to the human population through tainted oral polio vaccine"

March 20, 2008 10:39 PM

eweiss said:

jhildner... i wasn't questioning its accuracy, just pointing out that it is not really peer-reviewed. but as a secondary source, it is a nice aggregator.

March 20, 2008 10:47 PM

eweiss said:

chmclean... great point. Wright's thesis is that the govt. innoculated african americans with it as a means toward genocide. as you point out, even if the conspiracy theory garbage about the vaccines were true, it was the result of carelessness not malice (on the part of a single scientist and not the "government").

March 20, 2008 10:50 PM

ironyroad said:

Even if criminally sloppy and unethical medical and research procedures introduced the key element for a transmission of the original SIV to humans in the Belgian Congo a half-century ago, it still wouldn't provide a shred of evidence that black Americans were deliberately infected in the United States.

March 21, 2008 12:25 AM

AaronBBrown said:

eweiss

From your link,

[A few scientists, notably the biologist W.D. Hamilton, thought the hypothesis required serious investigation, but they received little support from the scientific community. Hamilton wrote a letter to Science in 1994[28] supporting Pascal and Curtis, but it was rejected by the editors.]

Virology is not my area of expertise, but it seems to me no that one has put the study necessary into this possibility because no one wants to know the answer, perhaps because the answer is dangerous. The fight against AIDS these days is a lot like the fight in Iraq, we aren't real concerned with how it all started, whether it was just some horrible screw up, or whether it was intentional, we are in so deep now it doesn't matter anymore, right?  

Yes it does matter, finding the beginning of an equation is always helpful in understanding the problems complete picture, and revealing the truth always matters.  Everybody's too busy dealing with the AIDS pandemic now, the origin tends to get lost with a lot of other questions.

But the larger point I think I've made here, that such assertions are certainly not out of the realm of possibility when you consider the known actions of state-sponsored scientists, who in this case appeared to be acting purely out of capitalistic impulses.  This was an example of an operation in the 1950s and 60s experimenting upon people, some without their knowledge, risking the lives of others by taking shortcuts and shattering ethical boundaries that should remain inviolate.  There is no excusing that, it is immoral by any standard.

And doesn't it seem normal to expect that such activities would raise the suspicions of those who have been experimented upon, specifically in this Congo population, which coincidentally turned out to be one of the earliest centers from which the virus began to propagate in the human population.

So perhaps such assertions are not as far-fetched as some would like to believe.

March 21, 2008 12:49 AM

jhildner said:

Dear Tep:  Now we're comparing a *noise* to thoughtful, moving oratory.  Great.  Pardon me while I puke.

A few differences:  First, the Dean scream was played up by the press (absurdly) as a big problem.  This speech, by contrast, was very well received by the press.  Second, the noise was a noise, and the speech was a speech, and not just any speech, but the best speech I have ever heard any politician give on the subject of race, or, truthfully, any subject -- the sort of speech that, if Obama becomes president and maybe even if he doesn't, will be remembered and studied.  Third, the noise put the nail in the coffin of Dean's nearly dead campaign.  Obama's campaign continues to be doing very well.  He polls better than Hillary by some counts and polls better than Hillary against McCain even in the wake of his worst moment and a respite for Hillary.  Meanwhile, McCain continues his honeymoon as the Democrats make news among themselves, and he naturally benefits, poll-wise, following a controversy about Obama.

Of course, Tep, you never let the facts get in the way of your conflation of public opinion on the one hand with your own attitudes on the other.  We'll see how much damage the Wright business does.  It doesn't seem to have come anywhere near sinking him.  Maybe you underestimate those regular "sensible folks" you like to invoke with that "gaseous" and, I'm supposing, inauthentic reverse snobbery of yours.  Sensible folks can tell the difference between a man and his friend.  Sensible folks do not ascribe to the man every view of his friend.  Sensible folks know that they -- the man and his friend -- are in fact two different people.  Besides, even if it did sink him, this incredible speech, which I'm guessing independents viewed favorably, wouldn't be the culprit.

The culprit would be the attitude that condemns a politician for doing or saying anything ambitious or unconventional or thoughtful or subtle or non-market-tested or, let's face it, sincere.  The culprit would be the intellectual dishonesty and regular dishonesty that pervades our public discourse as people become ever more efficient at constructing impervious echo chambers for themselves and their like-minded friends.  The culprit would be our cultural balkanization where millions receive their marching orders from psychotic imbeciles.  The culprit would be the shared culture that that balkanization leaves us with, at once insipid and hysterical, where giving offense is the greatest offense, baseless and gratuitous pieties (left, right, and, yes, center) stifle any honest, robust inter-bubble communication or understanding, and judgment is both swift and ill-informed.  The culprit would be our childish sense of entitlement to lies, to prostitution, to disloyalty -- the perverse attitude that actually demands pettiness and condemns virtue.  We only want political courage, it seems, in the abstract or in history books.  We never want it for real.  We never want it Right Fucking Now.

The Chicago Tribune -- an increasingly independent-minded but still conservative paper which hasn't endorsed a Democratic candidate for president for more than a hundred years (not counting a fanciful endorsement of the West Wing's fictional Democratic candidate Matt Santos) -- ran an editorial today praising Obama's race speech as well as his sit-downs last Friday with reporters at both major Chicago papers about Tony Rezko.  The editorial was called "An uncommon candidate."  Uncommon because he sat down with reporters and said, in effect, "Ask me anything you want to know about Rezko."  Obama answered every question in detail.  An uncommon candidate because he, amazingly, out of nowhere, took this bullshit Wright controversy and turned it around into something meaningful:

"Damage control. If you're not good at it, you don't survive as a politician.  But Obama got beyond damage control and created the most remarkable moment in this presidential campaign. He delivered one of the most profound speeches in memory on a subject that creates peril in American politics and society: how we deal with race. ... And he said, as he has before: everyone, your anger is understandable, now rise above it. He gambled again. It's hard to imagine any other national candidate who could -- or would -- deliver that speech."

Damn right.  And you say he doesn't have balls.

I don't swoon over Obama.  I haven't drunk any Kool-Aid.  I don't think he's the Messiah.  I don't even agree with everything he says (although I agree with most things he says).  I don't just support him because he's a smoker, a lawyer, a brilliant writer, or because he's a lefty -- left-handed, that is -- in short, my kind of guy.  I support him because he's uniquely smart, able, honest, and right.  I support him because he's not a prick, not a liar, and not a whore.  Uncommon indeed.

March 21, 2008 4:34 AM

lymon1 said:

I'm about as anti-Obama as an Obama supporter can get and as I've written I didn't like the analogy to disowning a family member either and view a lot of his record pretty cynically, but can anyone deny that he's run an extremely classy campaign and has turned the other cheek on several ocassions when he could have justifiably knee-capped Hillary Clinton with a variety of stuff from the Clinton White House?   That makes me comfortable enough to cut him some slack --  I hear in Obama's speech *both* honest personal pain and political positioning on Wright.  

March 21, 2008 7:33 AM

singlespeed said:

I think despite Tep's protestations about his "Less is More" criteria for Obama's race speech, I'm beginning to realize that his protestations are really a sly way of showing his feverish, yet closeted support for Obama. Despite all the demographic denials he makes, the conspiracy-denial he wanted from BHO, and the earnestness for Obama to show his *truthiness*. It's ok...patience my friends. Williamyard began the interventions already. We just have to wait for the serum to take affect.

March 21, 2008 10:20 AM

nbarry said:

With regards to AIDS, there is more than one way to severely weaken or destroy the immune system besides HIV, such as heavy alcoholism and substance abuse.  The conspiracy theory about the government and HIV sounds like a cop out.

March 21, 2008 10:53 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Hildner - as I say, every day that passes shows more clearly that Obama's decision to go mega-racial, mega-historical, and mega-looooooonnnnnnnngggggg was a major strategic blunder.

I would be willing to bet you a decent sum, payable in any currency (specie or liquid, as you like), that Obama's decision to stick the nation's nose deeper into Race will signal the point at which he ceased to be a viable candidate, if not in the primaries then in the GE.

A bottle of Talisker says that unless Obama goes 180 degrees in the other direction and finds a way to DOWNPLAY race, completely disassociate himself in the public eye from Rev Goof, and get back to the original, post-racial promise of his candidacy, he is toast.

best,

t

March 21, 2008 2:27 PM

teplukhin2you said:

single - yes, I voted for BHO in the primary and will likely vote for him in the general. I'd like him to be an effective candidate and an effective president.

To the extent BHO goes retro on race, and allows it to distract him from huge issues that are vastly more important to the nation and other supposedly racial issues which aren't really about race at all (school performance, economic relnsh with Mexico etc), I think his effectiveness declines, significantly.

March 21, 2008 3:17 PM

Snarkmarket said:

Nicholas Kristoff:[Quoting Melissa Harris-Lacewell.] "One of the things fascinating to me watching these responses to Jeremiah Wright is that white Americans find his beliefs so fringe or so extreme. When if you’ve spent time in black communities, they

March 21, 2008 5:03 PM