Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AIDS Education..Or Condom Promotion?(Viacom)
MRC ^ | February 14, 2003 | by L. Brent Bozell III

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, it’s 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, it’s 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that indoctrination includes ideas like getting condoms to children without parental consent while learning to drop outdated, intolerant (i.e., Judeo-Christian) ideas about homosexuality, it’s beyond "progressive." It’s radical.

To give you an example of CBS’s "public education" in action, take the February 2 episode of the Ted Danson sitcom "Becker." Danson’s 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 you’re wearing condoms." The boy is screened for sexually transmitted diseases and says he doesn’t 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 he’s 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 UPN’s "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 you’ve ever done." When her friend Dee Dee says she doesn’t 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 can’t believe you’re out there waving that thing around without the safety on. It’s so 1981."

Ain’t 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, that’s 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." It’s 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 he’s gay. His father is accepting, but his mother thinks he’s 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 UPN’s "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. They’re seen as a threat." One doctor complains "there’s 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 that’s not the case when the message fits Hollywood like a glove – or a condom.

Voice Your Opinion! Write to Brent Bozell


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: becker; cbs; condoms; hiv; hollywood; knightsofcolumbus; presidiomed; spencer; viacom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
The "silent numbers" of HIV/Aids has been growing in this country.
1 posted on 02/14/2003 9:12:01 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
What motivates these people? If they want to be immoral losers themselves then fine. Why must they convert everyone else, especially the kids who watch Nickelodeon?
2 posted on 02/14/2003 9:35:41 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
The truth IS begining to reach out!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843378/posts

cLINTON IS oUT -Morals are In!
3 posted on 02/14/2003 9:43:32 AM PST by steplock ( http://www.spadata.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
According to figures released by the state this week, Miami-Dade County in 2002 had 1,765 new HIV diagnoses, 18 percent more than the previous year. Palm Beach County had 519, a 44 percent jump, while Broward County's 1,086 new cases were 30 percent higher than in 2001. Statewide, the number of new HIV cases rose 21 percent.

Posted on Fri, Feb. 14, 2003

South Florida HIV cases show jump, spark debate
BY ANDREA ROBINSON
arobinson@herald.com


5 posted on 02/14/2003 10:13:45 AM PST by fight_truth_decay (Occupied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
"We are still dealing with this perception that HIV/AIDS is not a problem in America — is it just a problem overseas," he added. "Some people call it AIDS complacency. I think it is an issue among all people, not just people of high risk. We are still very concerned about the estimated 280,000 people in America who are infected with HIV and don't know it."

An estimated 850,000 to 950,000 people in the United States are infected with HIV and 36 million worldwide.

Protective Measures Must Be Stressed

Valdiserri urged doctors who treat HIV patients to remind them about ways to avoid transmitting it to others — which include safer sex and letting sexual partners know they are infected.

He said the CDC had investigated a number of outbreaks of syphilis among gay and bisexual men that showed between 43 percent and 59 percent of those turning up with syphilis — which, like HIV, is transmitted by oral, anal and vaginal sex — knew they were HIV-positive.

That suggests the men were having unprotected sex despite knowing they could pass on the virus.

"HIV-infected people need support so they don't transmit the infection to others," Valdiserri said.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/AIDS_US030211.html

7 posted on 02/14/2003 10:24:55 AM PST by fight_truth_decay (Occupied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
Don't miss this part: The panel said that "because of limitations in study designs, there was insufficient evidence from the epidemiological studies on these diseases to draw definite conclusions" about the effectiveness of condoms in actual use. It noted that "the absence of definitive conclusions reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs." The panel also recommended further well-designed research to help answer remaining questions.

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?

9 posted on 02/14/2003 11:39:19 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
You're of course right, RAT Patrol. Condoms break and slip off, not all that infrequently. To give the idea to our youth that sex with condoms is safe is highly immoral.
10 posted on 02/14/2003 11:49:33 AM PST by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
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.

12 posted on 02/14/2003 11:52:06 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
How can anyone be surprised by anything Viacom does

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.

13 posted on 02/14/2003 11:56:30 AM PST by CWW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madg
They "do reduce" incidence of the disease. They do not "prevent" contracting the disease. It is appalling to give the public the sense that they do. I guess the sitcoms don't have time for the whole truth.

Morality would eliminate HIV/AIDS altogether; would it not? How about sending that clear message for a change?

14 posted on 02/14/2003 12:03:16 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
I love math people. Good job!
15 posted on 02/14/2003 12:04:38 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
Condoms break and slip off, not all that infrequently. Exactly. That's why they were careful to clarify the study did not provide conclusion about actual use of the product.
16 posted on 02/14/2003 12:06:09 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
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.
18 posted on 02/14/2003 12:21:53 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
In the study he cites, condoms prevented seroconversion over 99% 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?

20 posted on 02/14/2003 12:53:33 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: madg
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.

21 posted on 02/14/2003 12:57:30 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: fight_truth_decay
TV writers, producers, directors, actors who promote and glorify immorality:

"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"

23 posted on 02/14/2003 1:00:07 PM PST by Luna (Freedom Forever!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madg
I agree that condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 13.4% of the time.
24 posted on 02/14/2003 1:04:04 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: eastsider
Of that 6.7%, condoms would be ineffective in preventing transmission 13.4% of the time.

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.

26 posted on 02/14/2003 1:07:43 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
I agree that condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 13.4% of the time.

You agree with a stat that no one could know is true?

27 posted on 02/14/2003 1:10:22 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: FreeTally
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.
29 posted on 02/14/2003 1:23:23 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I am assuming the accuracy of the NIH study, which is admittedly a summary study.
30 posted on 02/14/2003 1:26:38 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
When the percentage of effectiveness is based on the rate of incidence, what is the difference between saying "85% more effective than not using condoms" and "85% effective?"
32 posted on 02/14/2003 1:50:47 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: madg
One person having sex for 100 years or 100 people having sex for one year… or proportional variations thereon.

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.

33 posted on 02/14/2003 1:50:57 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
But how can they say that? I think they must mean times and not years. Otherwise this study is ridiculous. How many times are they allowing for each person per year? It doesn't make sense to me that way, madg.
35 posted on 02/14/2003 2:01:08 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
Based on the rate of incidence stated in the NIH study, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that condoms will fail to prevent the incidence of HIV transmission 15% of the time. I find nothing deceptive in Bozell's reading of that part of the NIH study.

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.

39 posted on 02/14/2003 2:28:19 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: madg
Thanks for the link. I am going to have to look into it further, but I think it means out of 100 people per year, .9 will get the disease. That means one person has a .9% change of getting the disease PER YEAR. At the end of 50 years your chances, even with appropriate usage, would be quite high.

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.

40 posted on 02/14/2003 2:34:31 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Before you go.....if you have a better understanding of person years will you post it before you leave? Thanks.
41 posted on 02/14/2003 2:35:46 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
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.

42 posted on 02/14/2003 2:48:03 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: madg
Because pyears may have several time variables, it is necessary that all of them be in the same units. For instance in the call py <- pyears(futime ~ rx + ratetable(age=age, sex=sex, year=entry.dt)) with a ratetable whose natural unit is days, it is important that futime, age and entry.dt all be in days. Given the wide range of possible inputs, it is difficult for the routine to do sanity checks of this aspect. A special function tcut is needed to specify time-dependent cutpoints. For instance, assume that age is in years, and that the desired final arrays have as one of their margins the age groups 0-2, 2-10, 10-25, and 25+. A subject who enters the study at age 4 and remains under observation for 10 years will contribute follow-up time to both the 2-10 and 10-25 subsets. If cut(age, c(0,2,10,25,100)) were used in the formula, the subject would be classifed according to his starting age only. The tcut function has the same arguments as cut, but produces a different output object which allows the pyears function to correctly track the subject. The results of pyears() are normally used as input to further calculations. The print routine, therefore, is designed to give only a summary of the table. (your link)
44 posted on 02/14/2003 4:27:34 PM PST by fight_truth_decay (Occupied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: yendu bwam
You got that right (about condoms breakage, etc.) - I have a grandson to prove it....
46 posted on 02/14/2003 7:44:57 PM PST by goodnesswins (Thank the Military for your freedom and security....and thank a Rich person for jobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: madg; RAT Patrol
"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;
Inaction is not a cause;
Therefore, inaction has no effect.
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.

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%.

47 posted on 02/17/2003 8:49:35 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Nice job, eastsider. I'm impressed!
48 posted on 02/17/2003 9:07:38 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol; fight_truth_decay
Hey, RAT Patrol! I got called in to work to cover during the blizzard we're having, and have some down time to FReep. Did you catch fight_truth_decay's explanation of person years in #45?
49 posted on 02/17/2003 9:15:31 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Yes. That was just a cut and paste of the link Madg provided. They need to translate it into english for me.
50 posted on 02/17/2003 9:20:02 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson