Condoleezza Must End Silence About Iran's Gay Executions
[Dear Friends:
It's been a week since Iran killed two gay teens and the U.S. State Department has yet to say a word about the deaths.
I am asking for your help in persuading the State Department and Secretary Rice to loudly condemn Iran's stupidity. Please do one or more of the following suggestions.
CALL
Secretary Rice: 202-647-5291
Henry T. Wooster, State Dept. Iran desk: 202-647-0114
FAX
Secretary Rice: 202-647-2283
EMAIL
Secretary Rice: Send an email to Madame Secretary
Here's a copy of the letter I've sent to Secretary Rice and hope you will send a similar request to her today. I've also called her office and the assistant in charge of Iranian issues, leaving messages asking them to publicly deplore Iran's killing of two gays.
Please contact the State Department and demand this agency speak out about the tragic execution of two gays in Iran last week. Thanks.]
^^^
July 26, 2005
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
State Department
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Madame Secretary:
Iran executed two gay teens on July 19, sparking worldwide condemnation by gay and human rights organizations of these barbaric state-sanctioned killings, according to a story in the Times of London last week.
[1]
In light of the outrageous hanging of these gay Iranian teens and our country's commitment to protecting the human rights of all the world's citizens, I believe you have a responsibility to strongly and unequivocally deplore the executions by the Iranian government.
I wish to remind you of your comments about persecution of gays and the denial of basic human rights for gays around the world during a May 27 talk in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club:
MS. DUFFY [moderator]: Moving on from Iraq, let's talk about human rights a bit. We are here in San Francisco and there's a question, what are you doing to ensure that countries like China and Egypt uphold the civil rights of its gay citizens, of their gay citizens?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, obviously, from our point of view, a democratic and tolerant society is exactly that. It is a society in which all people are included. It does not matter what race, what gender, it does not matter what sexual orientation -- all that matters is that you are a citizen of that country. And indeed, we note that in countries that are democratic, in countries where there can be pressure on government, in countries where there can be checks and balances on government, then the rights and -- the rights of the most vulnerable in society tend to be more protected. And so we are concentrating in places like China and in Egypt and in other places on human rights. Whenever we have discussions with these countries, we talk about human rights. And the United States issues something called a Human Rights Report every year that talks about the human rights conditions in each country and so -- very much in line with the notion that every citizen needs to be represented and rights protected. We believe that this is the way to handle this situation. [2]
While I am pleased you expressed deep concern for gay citizens everywhere, I am very troubled that you have yet to issue any statements, comments, denunciations or criticisms against Iran over the immoral death by hanging of two gay teens.
Please end your silence about Iran's killing of the gay teens, forcefully condemn the executions and call attention to this despicable behavior by the Iranian government.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Sources:
1. Times of London
2. Rice's May 27 remarks
Reports, proud muckraking, photos, videos and musings from the veteran LGBT and AIDS human rights advocate Michael Petrelis. Based in San Francisco since 1995. Contact: MPetrelis_at_AOL_dot_com. Vote Petrelis for BART Board District 9 in November!
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Monday, July 25, 2005
Opinions, Not Facts From BAR Columnist
The Bay Area Reporter's relatively new political gossip columnist, Bill Barnes, a member of the local Democratic Party's central committee and former aide to ex-Mayor Willie Brown and Supervisor Chris Daly, recently ran an item trashing my comments at the July 11th meeting of the Ryan White CARE Council.
I doubt it's news to many that my agenda doesn't square with that of Democrats, the local CARE council, SF DPH and AIDS Inc, but Barnes nonetheless wrote nasty things regarding my call for a federal audit of AIDS epidemiology in San Francisco.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with political gossip columnists putting their agendas and opinions in their weekly columns and attacking their adversaries, but for once, I would appreciate it if the writer would acknowledge, in print, his own comments and political concerns to the same CARE council I addressed earlier this month.
If you read Barnes column about the July 11 meeting, you know that he wrote not a single word about his agenda that day. Because the B.A.R. is too cheap to maintain a web site, I can't link to an online version of Barnes' column so you can see for yourself what he wrote.
However, the minutes of the CARE council meeting have been posted to the web, showing Barnes spoke four times during public comment, and that he had his own agenda, which he conveniently neglected to write about.
Barnes is certainly entitled to share his opinions with readers. I just wish his editor would also require him to disclose facts about his own advocacy before government bodies.
Here are the sections of the July 11 minutes pertaining to Barnes and his agenda:
-- Bill Barnes discussed the City budget, and the proposed cuts of some $15 million. He emphasized that if some of the people who spoke earlier have their way, the cuts could be more. He added that it would be helpful to send a letter or email to the Board of Supervisors expressing support.
-- Bill Barnes commented on the usage of ADAP in other states, and suggested that the HIPP program has more value for the money.
-- Bill Barnes clarified Title I funding for Bayview had been funded in the past with general funds.
-- Bill Barnes commented that by standardizing the process it makes things easier, but if losing budgetary control then it can be problematic.
(Source: SF CARE Council)
The Bay Area Reporter's relatively new political gossip columnist, Bill Barnes, a member of the local Democratic Party's central committee and former aide to ex-Mayor Willie Brown and Supervisor Chris Daly, recently ran an item trashing my comments at the July 11th meeting of the Ryan White CARE Council.
I doubt it's news to many that my agenda doesn't square with that of Democrats, the local CARE council, SF DPH and AIDS Inc, but Barnes nonetheless wrote nasty things regarding my call for a federal audit of AIDS epidemiology in San Francisco.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with political gossip columnists putting their agendas and opinions in their weekly columns and attacking their adversaries, but for once, I would appreciate it if the writer would acknowledge, in print, his own comments and political concerns to the same CARE council I addressed earlier this month.
If you read Barnes column about the July 11 meeting, you know that he wrote not a single word about his agenda that day. Because the B.A.R. is too cheap to maintain a web site, I can't link to an online version of Barnes' column so you can see for yourself what he wrote.
However, the minutes of the CARE council meeting have been posted to the web, showing Barnes spoke four times during public comment, and that he had his own agenda, which he conveniently neglected to write about.
Barnes is certainly entitled to share his opinions with readers. I just wish his editor would also require him to disclose facts about his own advocacy before government bodies.
Here are the sections of the July 11 minutes pertaining to Barnes and his agenda:
-- Bill Barnes discussed the City budget, and the proposed cuts of some $15 million. He emphasized that if some of the people who spoke earlier have their way, the cuts could be more. He added that it would be helpful to send a letter or email to the Board of Supervisors expressing support.
-- Bill Barnes commented on the usage of ADAP in other states, and suggested that the HIPP program has more value for the money.
-- Bill Barnes clarified Title I funding for Bayview had been funded in the past with general funds.
-- Bill Barnes commented that by standardizing the process it makes things easier, but if losing budgetary control then it can be problematic.
(Source: SF CARE Council)
Friday, July 22, 2005
HIV Decline Denialism; Nostalgia For More Gay Deaths
Talk about bad timing. In the same week in which the SF Chronicle heralded decreasing HIV infection rates, and forceful quotes from the city health officials declaring prevention programs as effective, an out-of-touch with statistical reality AIDS expert at the University of California at San Francisco goes against the grain and states in the Bay Times that HIV is up.
"James W. Dilley, MD, executive director of UCSF AIDS Health Project, said the organization serves about 10,000 people a year [...] Dilley spoke about HIV infections rising last year in San Francisco. The infection rate rose fastest among young gay and bisexual men; among this group African American men are at highest risk.
"'A generation has grown up without the warning that pages of obituaries and gaunt faces once provided. For many, the virus appears less deadly—even benign,' he said. 'Yet no one knows the long-term outlook for people on the combination therapies that have provided so much hope. HIV is still a life-threatening virus—and we must fight it.'" [1]
Apparently Dilley reads different data than our leading health official.
This quote ran in the July 20 Chronicle story: "HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in San Francisco appears to be decreasing,'' said city health director Dr. Mitch Katz. [2]
What's going on here? How can two top AIDS experts in San Francisco say such contradictory statements about a vital issue: HIV infection rates?
I have a sneaky suspicion Dilley is simply not up to speed on the latest infection stats and was asked by the Bay Times to mouth off about why he and his group are supposedly so crucial to gay men. Would be nice for this gay publication to print a correction about the false claim of rising HIV infections.
Moving beyond Dilley's ignorance about current stats, what also bothers me, and should be of concern to the gay community's health workers and activists, is Dilley's nostalgia for the good ol' bad days of dozens of weekly obits appearing in the papers. He bemoans the lack of gaunt faces, because without lots of ill gay men, Dilley can't maintain his alarmist message and keep his business going.
But that lack of obits and obvious signs of disease and wasting syndrome are not enough for this doomsayer. His comment about no one knowing how long the anti-AIDS drugs will remain effective contains more than a hope on his part that the drugs fail more people.
Dilley has company from other AIDS Inc executives who express a collective death wish on their gay brothers, or at least a few opportunistic infections, preferably very visible ones.
Remember this quote from Michael Weinstein, the head of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, based in Los Angeles, with affiliates around the country and abroad? "People are in such denial about how serious HIV is. Unfortunately, the best prevention is seeing people die."
Weinstein's offensive remark appeared in an April 3 New York Times story about alleged AIDS apathy among gay men. [3]
And who can forget these cheery sentiments from a colleague of Dilley's and Weinstein's, reported in the SF Chronicle on June 30, 2000?
"AIDS prevention educators said the changing portrait of the epidemic has caused many gay men to let down their guard. 'We don't have the visual reminders of what it can be like to have HIV,' said Steven Gibson, program director for the Stop AIDS project. 'We don't see the wasting syndrome. When was the last time you saw someone with KS lesions in the Castro?'" [4]
I sense that Gibson is only happy when he sees his gay brothers ailing on the streets of San Francisco; Weinstein desires larger numbers of gay deaths; and Dilley is suffering from decline denialism.
Just another day in paradise.
Sources:
1. SF Bay Times
2. SF Chronicle
3. NY Times story
4. SF Chronicle, 2000
Talk about bad timing. In the same week in which the SF Chronicle heralded decreasing HIV infection rates, and forceful quotes from the city health officials declaring prevention programs as effective, an out-of-touch with statistical reality AIDS expert at the University of California at San Francisco goes against the grain and states in the Bay Times that HIV is up.
"James W. Dilley, MD, executive director of UCSF AIDS Health Project, said the organization serves about 10,000 people a year [...] Dilley spoke about HIV infections rising last year in San Francisco. The infection rate rose fastest among young gay and bisexual men; among this group African American men are at highest risk.
"'A generation has grown up without the warning that pages of obituaries and gaunt faces once provided. For many, the virus appears less deadly—even benign,' he said. 'Yet no one knows the long-term outlook for people on the combination therapies that have provided so much hope. HIV is still a life-threatening virus—and we must fight it.'" [1]
Apparently Dilley reads different data than our leading health official.
This quote ran in the July 20 Chronicle story: "HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in San Francisco appears to be decreasing,'' said city health director Dr. Mitch Katz. [2]
What's going on here? How can two top AIDS experts in San Francisco say such contradictory statements about a vital issue: HIV infection rates?
I have a sneaky suspicion Dilley is simply not up to speed on the latest infection stats and was asked by the Bay Times to mouth off about why he and his group are supposedly so crucial to gay men. Would be nice for this gay publication to print a correction about the false claim of rising HIV infections.
Moving beyond Dilley's ignorance about current stats, what also bothers me, and should be of concern to the gay community's health workers and activists, is Dilley's nostalgia for the good ol' bad days of dozens of weekly obits appearing in the papers. He bemoans the lack of gaunt faces, because without lots of ill gay men, Dilley can't maintain his alarmist message and keep his business going.
But that lack of obits and obvious signs of disease and wasting syndrome are not enough for this doomsayer. His comment about no one knowing how long the anti-AIDS drugs will remain effective contains more than a hope on his part that the drugs fail more people.
Dilley has company from other AIDS Inc executives who express a collective death wish on their gay brothers, or at least a few opportunistic infections, preferably very visible ones.
Remember this quote from Michael Weinstein, the head of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, based in Los Angeles, with affiliates around the country and abroad? "People are in such denial about how serious HIV is. Unfortunately, the best prevention is seeing people die."
Weinstein's offensive remark appeared in an April 3 New York Times story about alleged AIDS apathy among gay men. [3]
And who can forget these cheery sentiments from a colleague of Dilley's and Weinstein's, reported in the SF Chronicle on June 30, 2000?
"AIDS prevention educators said the changing portrait of the epidemic has caused many gay men to let down their guard. 'We don't have the visual reminders of what it can be like to have HIV,' said Steven Gibson, program director for the Stop AIDS project. 'We don't see the wasting syndrome. When was the last time you saw someone with KS lesions in the Castro?'" [4]
I sense that Gibson is only happy when he sees his gay brothers ailing on the streets of San Francisco; Weinstein desires larger numbers of gay deaths; and Dilley is suffering from decline denialism.
Just another day in paradise.
Sources:
1. SF Bay Times
2. SF Chronicle
3. NY Times story
4. SF Chronicle, 2000
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Roberts' FEC Files; Gave $1,000 to Bush
I have to say, compared to Clement and Hollan Jones, who gave very little to candidates and PACs, President Bush's actual Supreme Court nominee has doled out some bucks, even donating to Bush.
Let's see what the Democrats do with his FEC records, if anything.
^^^
NewsMeat Records
John G Roberts , 50
judge, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Republican $: $3,735
PACs $: $7,450
special in
Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date
Roberts, John G. Mr. Jr.
Bethesda, MD 20816
Hogan & Hartson/AttorneyBUSH, GEORGE W (R)
President
BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC.
$1,000
primary08/03/00
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONLUGAR, RICHARD G (R)
Senate - IN
FRIENDS OF DICK LUGAR INC
$500
primary04/11/00
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$1,100
primary03/08/00
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$975
primary03/30/99
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONFITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC
$235
general10/23/98
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONFITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC
$500
general06/25/98
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONRUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR
$750
primary04/15/98
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$975
primary03/11/98
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONRUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR
$250
primary12/10/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONFITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC
$500
primary10/29/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$925
primary03/18/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$925
primary05/25/96
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$850
primary03/02/95
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$850
primary03/16/94
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$850
primary03/12/93
I have to say, compared to Clement and Hollan Jones, who gave very little to candidates and PACs, President Bush's actual Supreme Court nominee has doled out some bucks, even donating to Bush.
Let's see what the Democrats do with his FEC records, if anything.
^^^
NewsMeat Records
John G Roberts , 50
judge, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Republican $: $3,735
PACs $: $7,450
special in
Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date
Roberts, John G. Mr. Jr.
Bethesda, MD 20816
Hogan & Hartson/AttorneyBUSH, GEORGE W (R)
President
BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC.
$1,000
primary08/03/00
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONLUGAR, RICHARD G (R)
Senate - IN
FRIENDS OF DICK LUGAR INC
$500
primary04/11/00
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$1,100
primary03/08/00
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$975
primary03/30/99
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONFITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC
$235
general10/23/98
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONFITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC
$500
general06/25/98
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONRUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR
$750
primary04/15/98
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$975
primary03/11/98
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONRUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR
$250
primary12/10/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONFITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC
$500
primary10/29/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$925
primary03/18/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$925
primary05/25/96
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$850
primary03/02/95
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$850
primary03/16/94
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$850
primary03/12/93
Possible SCOTUS Pick Hollan Jones' FEC File
Rumors are swirling on the web that President Bush may not nominate Edith Brown Clement to the Supreme Court tonight.
Instead, gossip has it, Bush could pick Edith Hollan Jones to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the court, which is why I searched Federal Election Commission records on Jones.
Here are the donations she made, more than twenty years ago, to the GOP of Texas and GOP Congressman Ron Paul.
By the way, a search of campaign disclosure forms at the Texas Ethics Commission web site turned up no donations from either Jones or Clement.
^^^
NewsMeat.com
JONES, EDITH H
HOUSTON, TX 77024
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS (R)
$500
primary
07/05/84
JONES, EDITH H MRS
HOUSTON, TX 77057
ATTORNEYPAUL, RONALD E. (R)
House (TX 14)
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT RON PAUL
$125
primary
06/14/79
Rumors are swirling on the web that President Bush may not nominate Edith Brown Clement to the Supreme Court tonight.
Instead, gossip has it, Bush could pick Edith Hollan Jones to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the court, which is why I searched Federal Election Commission records on Jones.
Here are the donations she made, more than twenty years ago, to the GOP of Texas and GOP Congressman Ron Paul.
By the way, a search of campaign disclosure forms at the Texas Ethics Commission web site turned up no donations from either Jones or Clement.
^^^
NewsMeat.com
JONES, EDITH H
HOUSTON, TX 77024
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS (R)
$500
primary
07/05/84
JONES, EDITH H MRS
HOUSTON, TX 77057
ATTORNEYPAUL, RONALD E. (R)
House (TX 14)
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT RON PAUL
$125
primary
06/14/79
SCOTUS Pick Gave to Dubya's Daddy
Looks as though President Bush will deflect attention away from RoveGate tonight when he announces his pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.
Bloggers and traditional reporters are saying Bush will nominate Judge Edith Clement to the highest court in the land when he addresses the nation in a televised speech.
I've searched available Federal Election Commission files at www.tray.com and only one donation from Clement turns up.
Clement's single contribution to a candidate was in 1987 when she gave $1,000 to Dubya's daddy.
Just a fun factoid to file away as the White House attempts to move the spotlight off its handling of Karl Rove's potentially illegal unmasking of a CIA operative and the battle over the next Supreme Court justice heats up.
^^^
Clement, Edith Brown Mrs.
4/16/1987
$1,000.00
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70118
JONES WALKER WAECHTER POITEV
[Contribution]
GEORGE BUSH FOR PRESIDENT, INC
Looks as though President Bush will deflect attention away from RoveGate tonight when he announces his pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.
Bloggers and traditional reporters are saying Bush will nominate Judge Edith Clement to the highest court in the land when he addresses the nation in a televised speech.
I've searched available Federal Election Commission files at www.tray.com and only one donation from Clement turns up.
Clement's single contribution to a candidate was in 1987 when she gave $1,000 to Dubya's daddy.
Just a fun factoid to file away as the White House attempts to move the spotlight off its handling of Karl Rove's potentially illegal unmasking of a CIA operative and the battle over the next Supreme Court justice heats up.
^^^
Clement, Edith Brown Mrs.
4/16/1987
$1,000.00
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70118
JONES WALKER WAECHTER POITEV
[Contribution]
GEORGE BUSH FOR PRESIDENT, INC
Friday, July 15, 2005
S.F. To Hold HIV Prevention Summit
Supervisor Bevan Dufty
City Hall
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Supervisor Dufty:
It pleases me no end that at the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club meeting on July 11, in response to my question about whether you would keep your pre-election promise to voters to organize and host a summit on HIV prevention programs, you said yes, the summit will happen before 2005 is over.
Now that you have agreed to hold the summit, I'd like to make some suggestions about the agenda for the summit.
As you know, the city and federal agencies spend millions annually on epidemiology tracking HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and I think statistics must be a top priority of the summit.
Frequently, the department of public health's epidemiology clearly shows declines of these infections, yet health officials seem to go out of their way to not call attention to the falling numbers.
We need to address why the health department and its nonprofit HIV prevention partners don't publicize the statistics when they are dropping and demonstrate that prevention messages are working to stop new infections.
If the public and private health officials can spend time and money to shout to the press and gay community when HIV/AIDS/STD are climbing, then the officials should also be compelled to inform everyone of declines.
Right now, all HIV/AIDS/STD reports put out by the city reveal continuing falling numbers of new infections, yet not one word has been said about the declines by the health department and nonprofits. [1]
Actually, something about the declines was reported by the health department's head of HIV prevention, Steven Tierney, at the June meeting of the HIV Prevention Planning Council.
The minutes from that meeting report Tierney said, "Indications are that new epidemiology data will show promising trends indicating the [council's] efforts are succeeding."
The minutes also state, "This news was met with applause." [2]
So only those in attendance or read the minutes know that prevention messages are getting through to at-risk people and are effective, but the larger gay community and press remain ignorant about this wonderful development.
Kind of make me wonder if Tierney, the health department and nonprofits are either suppressing the declines or embarrassed to make the drops widely known.
In any event, please put HIV/AIDS/STD statistics; how they're gathered and counted, what they say about prevention programs, their impact on funding, high on your list of things to address at your HIV prevention summit.
I look forward to working with you in the coming months on making the summit a success that improves our HIV prevention messages and organizations.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Sources:
1. SF DPH HIV/AIDS/STD reports
2. HPPC minutes , page 6.
Supervisor Bevan Dufty
City Hall
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Supervisor Dufty:
It pleases me no end that at the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club meeting on July 11, in response to my question about whether you would keep your pre-election promise to voters to organize and host a summit on HIV prevention programs, you said yes, the summit will happen before 2005 is over.
Now that you have agreed to hold the summit, I'd like to make some suggestions about the agenda for the summit.
As you know, the city and federal agencies spend millions annually on epidemiology tracking HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and I think statistics must be a top priority of the summit.
Frequently, the department of public health's epidemiology clearly shows declines of these infections, yet health officials seem to go out of their way to not call attention to the falling numbers.
We need to address why the health department and its nonprofit HIV prevention partners don't publicize the statistics when they are dropping and demonstrate that prevention messages are working to stop new infections.
If the public and private health officials can spend time and money to shout to the press and gay community when HIV/AIDS/STD are climbing, then the officials should also be compelled to inform everyone of declines.
Right now, all HIV/AIDS/STD reports put out by the city reveal continuing falling numbers of new infections, yet not one word has been said about the declines by the health department and nonprofits. [1]
Actually, something about the declines was reported by the health department's head of HIV prevention, Steven Tierney, at the June meeting of the HIV Prevention Planning Council.
The minutes from that meeting report Tierney said, "Indications are that new epidemiology data will show promising trends indicating the [council's] efforts are succeeding."
The minutes also state, "This news was met with applause." [2]
So only those in attendance or read the minutes know that prevention messages are getting through to at-risk people and are effective, but the larger gay community and press remain ignorant about this wonderful development.
Kind of make me wonder if Tierney, the health department and nonprofits are either suppressing the declines or embarrassed to make the drops widely known.
In any event, please put HIV/AIDS/STD statistics; how they're gathered and counted, what they say about prevention programs, their impact on funding, high on your list of things to address at your HIV prevention summit.
I look forward to working with you in the coming months on making the summit a success that improves our HIV prevention messages and organizations.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Sources:
1. SF DPH HIV/AIDS/STD reports
2. HPPC minutes , page 6.
Monday, July 11, 2005
HHS Must Audit S.F.'s AIDS Stats
Daniel R. Levinson
Inspector General
Dept. of Health and Human Services
Room 5541 Cohen Building
330 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Re: Audit request of San Francisco's AIDS statistics
Dear Mr. Levinson:
Millions of federal dollars flow to San Francisco thanks to the Ryan White CARE Act, which is administered through the Health Resources and Services Administration for the care and treatment of people with AIDS. The HRSA allocations are primarily based on the AIDS caseload and number of deaths recorded by AIDS epidemiologists at the city's Department of Public Health, but serious questions about the validity of AIDS numbers here must be addressed by a federal investigation by your office.
There are several reasons why I request that you audit San Francisco's AIDS statistics, which I list here.
1.
The executive summary for San Francisco's 2004 AIDS epidemiology report states that the "cumulative total of 29,056 AIDS cases were reported through 2003 last year; the new count of resident-only cases through 2004 is 26,110." [1]
The DPH has reduced the AIDS caseload by almost 11% because it is ending the practice of counting non-residents of the city in the number of AIDS cases diagnosed here.
This reduction raises two important questions. Has San Francisco been receiving a disproportionate amount of HRSA funds, based on DPH's padding of the AIDS caseload? And, will HRSA decrease the city's allocation of Ryan White CARE Act money because of the reduced caseload, and instead shift the dollars to a city where AIDS cases are rising?
2.
The city's 2004 AIDS report shows the following declining figures for AIDS deaths over the past ten years, for which data are available:
1994
1584
1995
1475
1996
982
1997
413
1998
395
1999
352
2000
340
2001
319
2002
311
2003
215
2004
203
[2]
To many people, the downward numbers reveal a steadily decreasing rate of AIDS mortality. However, the executive summary says, "The stability we are witnessing in this phase of the epidemic is not good news; 500 new cases and 400 deaths each year translate to considerable morbidity and mortality in our city."
We're witnessing declines, not stability, which is characterized as bad news, and the city has thankfully not seen close to 400 AIDS deaths since 1998, according the DPH data. The rhetorical claims are not matched by the figures.
3.
Without explanation, the cumulative number of AIDS deaths for San Francisco has mysteriously fallen.
The DPH's 2003 annual AIDS report said a total of 19,616 people had died of the disease in the city since the epidemic began. But the 2004 surveillance report lists 17,610 cumulative deaths from AIDS for the city. [3, 4]
Frankly, I've never heard of any local health department lowering its cumulative AIDS death statistics, by nearly 10%, without a full and detailed explanation why.
My biggest fear is that San Francisco's AIDS epidemiologists have been cooking the statistics to artificially raise the numbers in order to win more in federal grants, to the detriment of other cities with more AIDS cases and deaths, not to mention better and more genuine AIDS epidemiology.
I've enclosed a copy of Michelle's Cochrane's new book, "When AIDS Began: San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic," for your consideration in deciding how to audit the city's AIDS figures. [5]
"When AIDS Began" is a detailed account of how AIDS epidemiology for the city was developed, the political and financial machinations behind the surveillance, the suppression of data showing HIV and AIDS declines over the years stretching back to at least 1990 by DPH, and the deliberate skewing of data to increase government grants to the city's coffers.
After reading the 2004 DPH surveillance data and executive summary, in addition to "When AIDS Began," I believe you, as Inspector General for Health and Human Services, must carry out an audit of San Francisco's AIDS diagnoses and mortality figures to determine how valid and accurate they are, before Congress and HRSA use the statistics in awarding San Francisco federal dollars for AIDS programs here.
In closing, I ask that you immediately launch a federal audit into the ways in which San Francisco counts AIDS cases and deaths, evaluate the honesty and integrity of the epidemiology, and ask if any city officials have knowingly manipulated data for purposes of federal funding streams.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
Sources:
1. SF's 2004 AIDS report , page viii.
2. SF'S 2004 AIDS report , page 62
3. SF'S 2003 AIDS report , page 13
4. SF's 2004 AIDS report , page 16
5. SF Public Library catalogue listing for "When Aids Began"
Daniel R. Levinson
Inspector General
Dept. of Health and Human Services
Room 5541 Cohen Building
330 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Re: Audit request of San Francisco's AIDS statistics
Dear Mr. Levinson:
Millions of federal dollars flow to San Francisco thanks to the Ryan White CARE Act, which is administered through the Health Resources and Services Administration for the care and treatment of people with AIDS. The HRSA allocations are primarily based on the AIDS caseload and number of deaths recorded by AIDS epidemiologists at the city's Department of Public Health, but serious questions about the validity of AIDS numbers here must be addressed by a federal investigation by your office.
There are several reasons why I request that you audit San Francisco's AIDS statistics, which I list here.
1.
The executive summary for San Francisco's 2004 AIDS epidemiology report states that the "cumulative total of 29,056 AIDS cases were reported through 2003 last year; the new count of resident-only cases through 2004 is 26,110." [1]
The DPH has reduced the AIDS caseload by almost 11% because it is ending the practice of counting non-residents of the city in the number of AIDS cases diagnosed here.
This reduction raises two important questions. Has San Francisco been receiving a disproportionate amount of HRSA funds, based on DPH's padding of the AIDS caseload? And, will HRSA decrease the city's allocation of Ryan White CARE Act money because of the reduced caseload, and instead shift the dollars to a city where AIDS cases are rising?
2.
The city's 2004 AIDS report shows the following declining figures for AIDS deaths over the past ten years, for which data are available:
1994
1584
1995
1475
1996
982
1997
413
1998
395
1999
352
2000
340
2001
319
2002
311
2003
215
2004
203
[2]
To many people, the downward numbers reveal a steadily decreasing rate of AIDS mortality. However, the executive summary says, "The stability we are witnessing in this phase of the epidemic is not good news; 500 new cases and 400 deaths each year translate to considerable morbidity and mortality in our city."
We're witnessing declines, not stability, which is characterized as bad news, and the city has thankfully not seen close to 400 AIDS deaths since 1998, according the DPH data. The rhetorical claims are not matched by the figures.
3.
Without explanation, the cumulative number of AIDS deaths for San Francisco has mysteriously fallen.
The DPH's 2003 annual AIDS report said a total of 19,616 people had died of the disease in the city since the epidemic began. But the 2004 surveillance report lists 17,610 cumulative deaths from AIDS for the city. [3, 4]
Frankly, I've never heard of any local health department lowering its cumulative AIDS death statistics, by nearly 10%, without a full and detailed explanation why.
My biggest fear is that San Francisco's AIDS epidemiologists have been cooking the statistics to artificially raise the numbers in order to win more in federal grants, to the detriment of other cities with more AIDS cases and deaths, not to mention better and more genuine AIDS epidemiology.
I've enclosed a copy of Michelle's Cochrane's new book, "When AIDS Began: San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic," for your consideration in deciding how to audit the city's AIDS figures. [5]
"When AIDS Began" is a detailed account of how AIDS epidemiology for the city was developed, the political and financial machinations behind the surveillance, the suppression of data showing HIV and AIDS declines over the years stretching back to at least 1990 by DPH, and the deliberate skewing of data to increase government grants to the city's coffers.
After reading the 2004 DPH surveillance data and executive summary, in addition to "When AIDS Began," I believe you, as Inspector General for Health and Human Services, must carry out an audit of San Francisco's AIDS diagnoses and mortality figures to determine how valid and accurate they are, before Congress and HRSA use the statistics in awarding San Francisco federal dollars for AIDS programs here.
In closing, I ask that you immediately launch a federal audit into the ways in which San Francisco counts AIDS cases and deaths, evaluate the honesty and integrity of the epidemiology, and ask if any city officials have knowingly manipulated data for purposes of federal funding streams.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
Sources:
1. SF's 2004 AIDS report , page viii.
2. SF'S 2004 AIDS report , page 62
3. SF'S 2003 AIDS report , page 13
4. SF's 2004 AIDS report , page 16
5. SF Public Library catalogue listing for "When Aids Began"
Sunday, July 10, 2005
JAIDS: Penile Swipe May Halt HIV & STDs
This may eventually be good news for stopping HIV and other STDs. Until I read this abstract, I hadn't thought about wiping the penis before and after anal and vaginal sex to stop infections. In the arsenal of disease prevention tools; penile condoms, spermicidal gels, anal/vaginal condoms, pulling out before cumming, getting testing for infections, we may soon add the penile swipe.
^^^
Safety, Acceptability, and Potential Efficacy of a Topical Penile Microbicide Wipe.
JAIDS
Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
39(3):347-353,
July 1, 2005.
Taha, Taha E MBBS, PhD *; Kumwenda, Newton PhD *; Mwakomba, Albert MBBS +; Mwenda, Robin MS ++; Kawonga, Harry CO [S]; Gaydos, Charlotte DrPH [//]; Hoover, Donald PhD [P]; Kafulafula, George MBBS, FCOG #
Abstract:
Summary: Innovative, low-cost, and acceptable measures are needed to reduce sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV. Use of a topical microbicide wipe for penile cleaning before and after sex might be effective in preventing STIs. However, evaluation of this simple method has not been done.
Two studies were conducted in Malawi to determine the safety, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a benzalkonium chloride topical penile microbicide wipe.
The first study was a phase 1 dose-escalating clinical trial among low-risk circumcised or uncircumcised HIV-negative men.
The second study was a pilot before-after efficacy study among uncircumcised HIV-negative or -positive men.
In the first study 24 circumcised and 27 uncircumcised men were enrolled.
During the entire study period, 18 adverse events (AEs) were reported, and 3 AEs were confirmed by physical examination.
Acceptability concerns did not increase with dose escalation, and adherence to use of the wipe ranged from 89%-95%.
In the second study, 27 men were enrolled.
Gram stain and culture tests showed significant reductions in frequency of several organisms after use of the wipe, including STI-associated bacteria.
This penile wipe is safe, acceptable, and can decrease the frequency of penile colonization with microorganisms.
The clinical relevance remains to be determined in larger clinical trials.
This may eventually be good news for stopping HIV and other STDs. Until I read this abstract, I hadn't thought about wiping the penis before and after anal and vaginal sex to stop infections. In the arsenal of disease prevention tools; penile condoms, spermicidal gels, anal/vaginal condoms, pulling out before cumming, getting testing for infections, we may soon add the penile swipe.
^^^
Safety, Acceptability, and Potential Efficacy of a Topical Penile Microbicide Wipe.
JAIDS
Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
39(3):347-353,
July 1, 2005.
Taha, Taha E MBBS, PhD *; Kumwenda, Newton PhD *; Mwakomba, Albert MBBS +; Mwenda, Robin MS ++; Kawonga, Harry CO [S]; Gaydos, Charlotte DrPH [//]; Hoover, Donald PhD [P]; Kafulafula, George MBBS, FCOG #
Abstract:
Summary: Innovative, low-cost, and acceptable measures are needed to reduce sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV. Use of a topical microbicide wipe for penile cleaning before and after sex might be effective in preventing STIs. However, evaluation of this simple method has not been done.
Two studies were conducted in Malawi to determine the safety, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a benzalkonium chloride topical penile microbicide wipe.
The first study was a phase 1 dose-escalating clinical trial among low-risk circumcised or uncircumcised HIV-negative men.
The second study was a pilot before-after efficacy study among uncircumcised HIV-negative or -positive men.
In the first study 24 circumcised and 27 uncircumcised men were enrolled.
During the entire study period, 18 adverse events (AEs) were reported, and 3 AEs were confirmed by physical examination.
Acceptability concerns did not increase with dose escalation, and adherence to use of the wipe ranged from 89%-95%.
In the second study, 27 men were enrolled.
Gram stain and culture tests showed significant reductions in frequency of several organisms after use of the wipe, including STI-associated bacteria.
This penile wipe is safe, acceptable, and can decrease the frequency of penile colonization with microorganisms.
The clinical relevance remains to be determined in larger clinical trials.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
SF DPH Cuts AIDS Cases by 11%
Dr. Mitch Katz
Director
Department of Public Health
101 Grove Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Dr. Katz:
Your latest annual AIDS epidemiology report, for 2004, was posted to the DPH web site last week and I am very concerned about the way in which you've reduced the number of full-blown AIDS cases by almost 11%.
In the "Dear Colleague" letter of the report, the following caveat is given.
"Beginning in 2005, publications of our data were changed to include only persons who were residents of San Francisco at the time they were diagnosed with AIDS. Prior to this change, our reports also included persons who were diagnosed with AIDS at a San Francisco medical facility, but who were residents elsewhere at the time of their diagnosis.
"We have decided to exclude non-San Francisco residents from the data presentations because AIDS case reporting practices result in our having a complete count of San Francisco resident with AIDS, but an incomplete record of non-San Francisco residents with AIDS. In order to provide consistent AIDS surveillance data, our surveillance quarterly and annual reports will include only reports of persons diagnosed with HIV or AIDS who were residents of San Francisco at the time of their diagnosis." [1]
That is quite a shift in counting AIDS stats and I believe a fuller explanation is needed as to why exactly you've implemented the changes in surveillance now, instead of say last year or ten years ago.
The 2004 report's executive summary states the "cumulative total of 29,056 AIDS cases were reported through 2003 last year; the new count of resident-only cases through 2004 is 26,110." [2]
Literally overnight you have cut the AIDS caseload by nearly 11%, raising many questions.
First, why was the city counting diagnoses for those who live elsewhere in the San Francisco surveillance in the first place?
Was the inclusion of the non-residents legal? I will check with lawyers about this question.
While I applaud you now coming clean about who's counted in local AIDS stats, I still must ask why have you never told the public about how our caseload included non-residents?
Considering millions of federal dollars were directed to San Francisco based on the AIDS caseload, were federal officials aware of the padding DPH did to the AIDS numbers?
As you well know, Congress will reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act this year, which will bring an estimated $29 million to the city based on our AIDS caseload. How does the 11% reduction factor into the reauthorization process and will the city now lose 11% in CARE Act funding because non-residents are no longer counted in the San Francisco AIDS stats?
Other than publishing information and revised downward AIDS stats in the 2004 report, which many reporters and funders and members of the public will never read, how will you spread the word about the 11% reduction?
Let's expand the questions to include matters related to other AIDS stats, along with figures for other sexually transmitted diseases and the surveillance for them.
Are your AIDS mortality stats also inclusive of non-residents? If they are, what is the percentage of San Francisco AIDS deaths for non-residents?
Because California irrationally rejects HIV names reporting, we both know any attempt to gather, evaluate and interpret HIV infections is not easy.
Nevertheless, given all the limitations of tracking new HIV transmission with the Unique Identifier system, have you in the past and are you now including new infections among non-residents? If yes, can you give the percentage of new HIV infections for folks who live outside San Francisco, but are counted in our stats?
Now, regarding syphilis cases and male rectal gonorrhea diagnoses for the city, which overwhelmingly occur among sexually active gay men, are those numbers for only San Francisco residents, or are gay men from other areas included in those stats? Again, if they are, what is their percentage of the total numbers for these STDs?
Given your disclosure on the 11% reduction of AIDS cases, I feel it is my duty to ask friends to be deeply skeptical of any and all HIV/AIDS/STD data from you and the DPH. Your inability to make it know sooner that the city's AIDS stats weren't just for residents of San Francisco raise another import matter.
What else are you keeping from public knowledge and view about how you count all things related to AIDS?
I respectfully request a prompt reply.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
Sources:
1. SF DPH 2004 AIDS report, page vii.
2. SF DPH 2004 AIDS report, page viii.
Dr. Mitch Katz
Director
Department of Public Health
101 Grove Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Dr. Katz:
Your latest annual AIDS epidemiology report, for 2004, was posted to the DPH web site last week and I am very concerned about the way in which you've reduced the number of full-blown AIDS cases by almost 11%.
In the "Dear Colleague" letter of the report, the following caveat is given.
"Beginning in 2005, publications of our data were changed to include only persons who were residents of San Francisco at the time they were diagnosed with AIDS. Prior to this change, our reports also included persons who were diagnosed with AIDS at a San Francisco medical facility, but who were residents elsewhere at the time of their diagnosis.
"We have decided to exclude non-San Francisco residents from the data presentations because AIDS case reporting practices result in our having a complete count of San Francisco resident with AIDS, but an incomplete record of non-San Francisco residents with AIDS. In order to provide consistent AIDS surveillance data, our surveillance quarterly and annual reports will include only reports of persons diagnosed with HIV or AIDS who were residents of San Francisco at the time of their diagnosis." [1]
That is quite a shift in counting AIDS stats and I believe a fuller explanation is needed as to why exactly you've implemented the changes in surveillance now, instead of say last year or ten years ago.
The 2004 report's executive summary states the "cumulative total of 29,056 AIDS cases were reported through 2003 last year; the new count of resident-only cases through 2004 is 26,110." [2]
Literally overnight you have cut the AIDS caseload by nearly 11%, raising many questions.
First, why was the city counting diagnoses for those who live elsewhere in the San Francisco surveillance in the first place?
Was the inclusion of the non-residents legal? I will check with lawyers about this question.
While I applaud you now coming clean about who's counted in local AIDS stats, I still must ask why have you never told the public about how our caseload included non-residents?
Considering millions of federal dollars were directed to San Francisco based on the AIDS caseload, were federal officials aware of the padding DPH did to the AIDS numbers?
As you well know, Congress will reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act this year, which will bring an estimated $29 million to the city based on our AIDS caseload. How does the 11% reduction factor into the reauthorization process and will the city now lose 11% in CARE Act funding because non-residents are no longer counted in the San Francisco AIDS stats?
Other than publishing information and revised downward AIDS stats in the 2004 report, which many reporters and funders and members of the public will never read, how will you spread the word about the 11% reduction?
Let's expand the questions to include matters related to other AIDS stats, along with figures for other sexually transmitted diseases and the surveillance for them.
Are your AIDS mortality stats also inclusive of non-residents? If they are, what is the percentage of San Francisco AIDS deaths for non-residents?
Because California irrationally rejects HIV names reporting, we both know any attempt to gather, evaluate and interpret HIV infections is not easy.
Nevertheless, given all the limitations of tracking new HIV transmission with the Unique Identifier system, have you in the past and are you now including new infections among non-residents? If yes, can you give the percentage of new HIV infections for folks who live outside San Francisco, but are counted in our stats?
Now, regarding syphilis cases and male rectal gonorrhea diagnoses for the city, which overwhelmingly occur among sexually active gay men, are those numbers for only San Francisco residents, or are gay men from other areas included in those stats? Again, if they are, what is their percentage of the total numbers for these STDs?
Given your disclosure on the 11% reduction of AIDS cases, I feel it is my duty to ask friends to be deeply skeptical of any and all HIV/AIDS/STD data from you and the DPH. Your inability to make it know sooner that the city's AIDS stats weren't just for residents of San Francisco raise another import matter.
What else are you keeping from public knowledge and view about how you count all things related to AIDS?
I respectfully request a prompt reply.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
Sources:
1. SF DPH 2004 AIDS report, page vii.
2. SF DPH 2004 AIDS report, page viii.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)