What Does The CIA Have To Do With AIDS?
By Patricia Nell Warren
The government wants to keep Americans believing that gay and bi men are
still causing most of the HIV problems As our new President takes office, I
will still be feeling that chill up my spine I felt when I saw the website
for the "HIV Stops With Me" ad series (www.hivstopswithme.org). Aired in San
Francisco, the TV ads derive from what the CDC calls "alarming" statistics
showing a rise in unprotected sex among gay and bisexual men. The ads were
funded by the CDC and the San Francisco Department of Public Health. These
ads don't just "target" local men in the PR sense -- they put these men
square in the sniper crosshairs. The message couldn't be clearer, with a
funereal black page and the logline jumping out in flaming red -- "HIV+ gay
and bisexual men have the power to stop the epidemic." Really? HIV-positive
gay and bi men have that power as AIDS is declared a global security threat
by the UN, and a national security threat by Washington? As the media declare
that "millions are dying all over the world," and these estimated millions
are said to be mainly heterosexual women and children? So what's behind these
ads? Earlier this year, U.S. AIDS policy underwent a paradigm shift. The CIA
and NSA (National Security Agency) were given oversight over AIDS. The
nation's public-health system is now virtually on a wartime footing --
meaning that uniforms, not white labcoats, are in charge. CDC's website has a
bioterrorist-alert page, equating AIDS with anthrax attacks by Iraq. Noting
this shift, South African President Thabo Mbeki voiced concerns over CIA
interference in his country's AIDS controversy. AIDS apologists snidely
dismissed Mbeki as paranoid. Doubtless Mbeki reviewed the CIA's long history
of covertly involving U.S. troops in other countries' affairs -- notably
Vietnam, Guatemala, Colombia -- and felt a chill of his own. In short,
epidemic disease is now the excuse for U.S. and UN interference in certain
countries' political affairs. Behind its family-friendly facade, the CDC is a
major player in international public-health wars. When Ebola virus broke out
in Uganda recently, the CDC was one of the first on the scene. If we
translate the CDC/SFDPH ads into political English, the message is:
HIV-positive gay and bi men are responsible for the AIDS epidemic -- because
those who "cause" it are the ones who can "stop" it. These men could be held
accountable by military intelligence for any real (or perceived) failure to
act as the government demands. As an old CIA watcher, dating from the sixties
and seventies when I helped cover cold-war politics as a Reader's Digest
editor, I suspect these ads are what spooks call "disinformation"
(government-speak for propaganda). The federal government is retooling the
1980s "gay plague" for use in today's domestic political arena. For maximum
credibility it launches the reinvention in gaydom's flagship city, San
Francisco. Yet, internationally, the U.S. carefully refrains from talk of
gays ending AIDS, and pours billions into fighting an AIDS that is
"everybody's disease." Hence a hypocrisy, as Washington speaks with a forked
tongue about AIDS. It won't be the first time that homosexuals are deemed
"security risks." In the 1950s, the McCarthy hearings trained their
crosshairs on gay men in sensitive government jobs. And this is not the first
time I've mentioned the shell games that public-health officials play with
some statistics while trying to justify their demands for funding and public
support. The CDC has taken notice of my comments, and sent a letter to A&U
defending their crosshairing of gay and bi men (see this issue's Mailbox).
Ronald O. Valdiserri, deputy director of CDC's national Center for HIV, STD
and TB Prevention, insists that "men who have sex with men (MSM) still
represent the single largest share of new infections, estimated to account
for more than 40 percent of all new HIV infections." In his September 15
letter, Dr. Valdiserri adds that heterosexual men and women account for
thirty-three percent of new infections. I can't help wondering about the
sexual orientation of the remaining plus or minus twenty-seven percent. Is it
lesbian and bi women? No -- according to the CDC, the mystery remainder is
injection drug users, which is not a sexual orientation. Here we see the
fallacy of "risk group" statistics -- they don't always add up. And they're
just estimates, because -- as the CDC admits in its own fine print -- the
counters don't always know the risk in reported cases. A recent AP story
quotes different CDC statistics: "Blacks and Hispanics accounted for nearly
70 percent of new HIV infections from July 1999 to June of this year, a
striking change in what was once known as a disease of gay white men. The
groups hardest to reach in prevention campaigns -- high school dropouts,
former inmates and the homeless -- are disproportionately black and
Hispanic." So with bigger groups that are said to need targeting, why is the
CDC pumping millions into a disinformation campaign aimed at gay and bi men
in a single city? In my opinion, the federal government wants to make covert
use of homophobia, even as the CDC pays lip service to the idea that
homophobia is not a good thing. The government wants to keep Americans
believing that gay and bi men are still causing most of the HIV problems.
This way, Americans are more likely to accept stringent new public-health
surveillance and controls, in the interests of fighting the gay/bi "threat."
When the security crackdown comes, most citizens will be less likely to
sympathize with gay and bi men. In fact, it'll be dangerous to sympathize --
you might be listed as a "security risk" yourself. Civilians who get in the
way of a war machine are always viewed as expendable. Am I being paranoid?
The record bears me out. Past "security" scares about unpopular groups --
notably Japanese-Americans and German-Americans -- resulted in human-rights
abuses that most Americans were happy to overlook. Americans are already
accepting greater infringements on their personal liberties -- wiretapping,
police searches without warrants, etc. -- in the interests of "fighting crime
and terrorism." National public-health "security" will be achieved through
coercive new state laws already appearing on the books. More about that in "a
future" Left Field column. Valdiserri complains that "some members of the gay
community remain skeptical of government information." Well, some of us can
add and subtract. The accuracy of government AIDS statistics is under growing
fire in the gay world, as the Bay Area Reporter and rethinking-AIDS groups
analyze statistics on which the SFDPH based their case. The Bay Area Reporter
cites what it calls "continuous inaccuracies regarding HIV infection rates,"
and actually forced the SFDPH to backtrack on some figures. Indeed, any U.S.
citizens who have an HIV-positive test on record, whatever their sexual
orientation, need to ponder the deadly direction of this ad campaign. And
what of free speech for those who question this new AIDS policy?Will we be
viewed as "security risks" too? Yes, that's definitely a chill I'll be
feeling, as the new President takes office. Patricia Nell Warren, author of
The Front Runner, writes provocative commentary for many gay and mainstream
publication. Her editorials are archived at wildcatpress.com. She can be
reached at:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A&U Magazine
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
