Skip to comments.AIDS Education..Or Condom Promotion?(Viacom)
Posted on 02/14/2003 9:12:00 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
In 2000, many media critics had a fit when they learned that TV entertainment executives had negotiated with the federal government to place anti-drug messages directly into their programs to avoid having to air free public-service announcements that would cut into their profits.
Now Viacom, the parent company of CBS, UPN, Nickelodeon, MTV, VH-1, and Showtime, is at it again. This time, however, its for a noble cause, the "public interest," not ad savings. Viacom has joined with the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation for a "public education initiative." Viacom is touting that its programs on various networks would "incorporate HIV/AIDS themes" into their sitcoms and dramas.
If a red flag just went up, its for good reason. What Viacom and Kaiser call "public education" is what most anyone else would call propaganda. And when that indoctrination includes ideas like getting condoms to children without parental consent while learning to drop outdated, intolerant (i.e., Judeo-Christian) ideas about homosexuality, its beyond "progressive." Its radical.
To give you an example of CBSs "public education" in action, take the February 2 episode of the Ted Danson sitcom "Becker." Dansons title character, a doctor, sees a 15-year-old boy named Brad who comes in complaining of painful urination. (He told his mother only that he had a sore throat.) When Brad admits being sexually active, Becker replies, "Fine, I guess, as long as youre wearing condoms." The boy is screened for sexually transmitted diseases and says he doesnt need condoms to prevent AIDS and could get that "cocktail thing" if he contracts the disease anyway. Becker has the liberals appropriate political answer: "Congratulations, you just reached a level of stupidity only found in Republicans and lower primates."
Becker punishes the boy by withholding his test data until hes nearly in tears over the thought he has AIDS. It all ends happily with the boy now publicly educated accepting a bag of condoms.
On UPNs "Half and Half" on February 3, Mona demands to know if Spencer used "protection." He says no. "You had sex without a condom? That is possibly the stupidest thing youve ever done." When her friend Dee Dee says she doesnt keep a stash of condoms, Mona shows more contempt: "Are you like Sister From Another Century or something?" In another scene, a gay man lectures: "I cant believe youre out there waving that thing around without the safety on. Its so 1981."
Aint it grand to be in enlighted 2003?
Is this true health education, or just condom promotion? In July 2001, a study for the National Institutes of Health found that while use of condoms was about 85 percent effective at preventing transmission of HIV, thats a failure rate of 15 percent. Human papilloma virus, or HPV, is the cause of more than 90 percent of all cases of cervical cancer, which kills more American women each year than AIDS. The NIH analysis found no evidence that condoms prevent HPV transmissions.
Other serious venereal diseases including chlamydia, syphilis and genital herpes also showed no reduction with condom use. These diseases also increase the risk of contracting HIV. So what Viacom and Kaiser are promoting is not "safer sex." Its promoting a sexually "liberated" viewpoint that at best is controversial and is not established science.
Not every one of the CBS and UPN shows contained health education. Some lashed out against "intolerance" of homosexuality. The January 24 episode of "Presidio Med" on CBS tells the story of 15-year-old Curtis, who says hes gay. His father is accepting, but his mother thinks hes just confused. Despite a pediatrician assuring him that being gay is okay and things will get easier, a janitor later finds Curtis hung himself, another casualty of "intolerance."
On UPNs "Enterprise," the February 5 episode went intergalactic with the agenda. No one here had AIDS at all, but a Vulcan obtained a social disease through a mind-meld. The mind-melders the metaphorical stand-in for homosexuals are "part of the telepathic minority. One of the reasons they left [that evil planet] Vulcan was to escape prejudice. Their behavior is considered unnatural. Theyre seen as a threat." One doctor complains "theres more intolerance today than there was a thousand years ago."
If the Knights of Columbus came to Viacom proposing a joint project to promote the joys of virginity, or a patriotic pro-America message in a time of war, you know the reaction. The Hollywood crowd would wail in protest over this propagandistic abuse of artistic products. But thats not the case when the message fits Hollywood like a glove or a condom.
Voice Your Opinion! Write to Brent Bozell
A products "effectiveness" or "ineffectiveness" is about the percentage of CHANGE it produces. It is not about total risk. Bozell's statement is accurate. IT IS NOT 100%. It should not be advertised as a cure-all. Morality is still the best answer. Shame on Viacom for promoting immorality while peddling condoms. Are they getting a kick-back from condom companies or something?
The study is saying that an HIV-positive person and HIV-negative person could have sex for fifty years, and if they always used condoms, there is a LESS THAN ONE PERCENT chance of the negative person becoming positive.I guess it's also saying, then, that an HIV-positive person and HIV-negative person could have sex for fifty years, and if they "never" used condoms, there is LESS THAN SEVEN PERCENT chance of the negative person becoming positive.
5.8 (i.e., the difference between 6.7 and .9) divided by 6.7 is 86.6%.
Meaning that condom use is indeed ineffective in preventing HIV transmission 13.4% of the time. Why anyone would call that a distortion is beyond me.
Viacom owns MTV, which is one of the greatest purveyors of the free love and sex crowd. When I was in collge, i.e., when MTV just started in 1982, it was about music. Now its about debauchery, and lots of it!
The president, CEO and founder of Viacom, Sumner Redstone, is dispicable for putting this trash on the tube.
Morality would eliminate HIV/AIDS altogether; would it not? How about sending that clear message for a change?
No. When condoms are used correctly and consistently, they are nearly 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission.The rate of incidence with condoms (.9%) is being compared to the rate of incidence without condoms (6.7%), which is how the researchers arrived at their 85% condom effectiveness figure. Of that 6.7%, condoms would be ineffective in preventing transmission 13.4% of the time.
You are attributing to condoms the chance percentages. That's inaccurate. You can only judge condoms on the DECREASE in incidence they provide.
A couple of questions I have:
Is there a difference in effectiveness rates between heterosexuals and homosexuals?
Is there a difference in effectiveness rate depending on which partner is infected?
What do they mean by 100 person years? Do you know?
In the study he cites, condoms prevented seroconversion over 99% of the time.The rate of prevention in the NIH study (thanks for the link) attributable to condom use is 85%, not 99%.
Overall, Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users.
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"
How could anyone ever come to that conclusion? Your saying that people who got HIV, 13.4% would have still gotten it even if they ahd used condoms? No one could know that and there is no way to determine that. If I misunderstood your statistics, please be mroe clear.
You agree with a stat that no one could know is true?
Your saying that people who got HIV, 13.4% would have still gotten it even if they ahd used condoms?Assuming the accuracy of the NIH study (see link in post #4 above), yes. The NIH study concluded that condoms had an 85% effective rate in preventing HIV transmission. As I see it, it follows that condoms would have been ineffective in preventing HIV transmission 15% of the time.
But that doesn't make sense. Each person would have sex with varying frequency. I could see it being 100 times or 100 people; e.g. One in a hundred would contract the disease. The comment you made about having sex for 50 years with an HIV positive partner doesn't make sense.
I'm getting ready to shove off and I rarely FReep on weekends. I've enjoyed our discussion, and appreciate its civility. Have a great weekend, madg.
I'm not sure I'm right. But if the disease is as hard to get as you said earlier, there would be no disaster in Africa. I have to sign off for the night, but I'll check back on this. Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong. I'll look at it tomorrow.
It would be easier to compare this per exposure. I might be misunderstanding something.
Before you go.....if you have a better understanding of person years will you post it before you leave? Thanks.The "person years" is obscure to me as well, but I'll look at it again over the weekend. I also find it as difficult to believe as you do that the incidence of HIV transmission without a condom is less than 7%.
Have a good one, RP.
"Never" using condoms is ~93% effective, "always" using condoms is ~99% effective, therefore "always" is 85% MORE effective than "never."The major and minor premises of the above-stated syllogism are both false.
Major Premise: Never using condoms is never effective, as can be demonstrated by a simple syllogism:
Every effect has a cause;To say that "never" using condoms is 93% effective is like saying that condoms are 93% effective when not used, which is absurd. As the poster in #6 above correctly pointed out, condoms are 0% effective when not used.
Inaction is not a cause;
Therefore, inaction has no effect.
Minor Premise: The effectiveness of a prophylactic is calculated by (a) subtracting the total number of unfavorable events that occur in the group using the prophylactic from the total number of unfavorable events that occur in the control group (i.e., the group not using the prophylactic, and (b) dividing the difference by the total number of unfavorable events that occur in the control group. For example, if we wanted to know how effective seat belts were in preventing traffic fatalities and we knew that 7 of 100 motorists who never wore seatbelts were killed in traffic accidents but only 1 of 100 motorists who always wore seatbelts were killed, we would subtract 1 from 7 and divide the difference by 7, giving us an effective rate of .85, or 85%.
The data in our example do not support the onclusion that seatbelts are 99% effective. To determine the effectiveness, we have to compare the results of the test group to the results of the control group. Comparing the actual number of traffic deaths in the test group (1) with the total number of motorists in the test group (100) doesn't tell us how effective seatbelts are, only the chances of surviving a traffic accident while wearing a seatbelt -- that is, 99 out of 100 times, or 99%.
The data support Bozell's conclusion that condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 15% of the time . Condoms are 85% effective against HIV transmission, not 99%.