Petrelis Files

April 3, 2005

Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
The New York Times

Dear Mr. Okrent:

The Times seems to be engaging in risky reporting today about HIV stats in New York City, in a story written by the paper's gay HIV beat correspondent, Andrew Jacobs; AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy.

While the Times is free to have Jacobs write (and rewrite) essentially the same gay gloom and doom HIV story several times, I am concerned about several claims he made in today's article.

Jacobs wrote: "Locally, at least, the statistics paint a mixed picture. The number of new H.I.V. infections among men who have sex with men declined slightly from 2001 to 2003, according to the most recent figures available, although in much of the country that number has been rising."

First, what is mixed about an overall 35% decline of HIV infections? I'm not sure how there could be a downside to such a drop.

My second concern is that the Times omitted the fact that overall HIV infections for the city are down, and by 35%? Why is a 35% drop of HIV excluded from the story?

Third, why is the Times characterizing an almost 20% drop of new HIV infections for gay and bisexual men in New York City as slight? Surely, if that number were instead climbing by 20%, the Times wouldn't report that jump as slight.

Fourth question: In Jacobs' metro section story on February 15; Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex, he reported on "a growing number of gay men" who are contracting HIV. Please explain to me how we've gone from an expanding number to a decline among gays in New York City in little more than a month, in reporting from the Times.

My fifth and final question concerns what Jacobs wrote in his Beast in the Bathhouse piece on January 12, 2005: "Health officials say a sharp increase in the number of syphilis cases in the city indicates an increase in unsafe sex, which they fear may lead to a resurgence in H.I.V. transmission."

Putting aside for the time being the annoying Times habit of continually referring to unnamed New York City officials simply as "health officials," it would appear that what Jacobs has written today about gay HIV stats declining, proves the dire predictions of the "health officials" last year has not been borne out.

So the question here is, does the Times owe reader an explanation for seeming contradictions in its reporting on the HIV fears of unnamed "health officials?"

A prompt reply to my questions and concerns is respectfully requested.

Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA

cc: Andrew Jacobs, jacobsa@nytimes.com

Sources:

1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/health/03aids.html?

2.
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E16FA395E0C768DDDAB0894DD404482

3.
homepage.mac.com/theatretech/iblog/B1435315922/C1096533194/E1717802805/

-

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
March 25, 2005


AN "APPARENT UPSURGE": You will recall how Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote recently of an "apparent upsurge" of HIV infections among gay men. He was seconded in this by one Charles Kaiser who cited his own anecdotal evidence of rising numbers of gay men contracting HIV in New York City. As it happens, we do have some hard data on this now because since 2002, New York City has required all new HIV diagnoses to be reported. Michael Petrelis lays out the latest data on his blog today. It's quite striking. New diagnoses of HIV have declined each year.

The most comprehensive data is for first quarters of each year (they haven't gotten past reporting the first quarter of 2004 yet). So look at this: in the first quarter of 2002, we have 1403 new diagnoses; in Q1 2003, we have 1288; in Q1 2004, we have 908. So we have a 35 percent decrease in HIV diagnoses in New York City in three years. That's not AIDS diagnoses (although they're down too). This is HIV infection data.

When the infections are broken down into subcategories, the numbers in the first quarters of 2002, 2003 and 2004 of HIV infections among men who have sex with men declines from 327 in 2002 to 344 in 2003 to 277 in 2004: an annual decline from 2003 to 2004 of almost 20 percent. Maybe the "apparent upsurge" has taken place since the beginning of 2004. But I see no reason why this big decline would suddenly reverse itself.

More importantly, Cohen has no and had no evidence to write what he did, and using it to, in his words, "condemn" gay men in New York City whom he holds responsible for a new epidemic. Cohen needs to write a correction and an apology for non-existent reporting.

Petrelis also sends an email to the NYT suggesting they run a story on this great news - especially since their science writer, Lawrence Altman has been writing scare stories for five years. If the NYT can run five consecutive scare stories on a not-new strain of HIV, they can surely run some actual facts about the subject.