I’d like to present some concerns raised by the article, "African-Americans now account for half of new HIV/AIDS cases in Dallas County," (Dallas Voice, March 20).
This article continues to perpetuate the notion that the transmission of HIV from black men to black women is largely due to "on the down low" behavior:
"Nobles also noted that HIV/AIDS has increased dramatically in recent years among black women, many of whom contract the disease from men who have gay sex on ‘the down low.’ In 2007, for example, 81 percent of all new HIV/AIDS cases were in males, but 32 percent of new cases among blacks were in females.
"’They have a gay lifestyle but in the public they have a wife or a girlfriend, and so the disease is crossing over rather rapidly in this particular population,’ Nobles said."
It is extremely important to note that in scientific literature, this has been discounted, or at least viewed as highly suspect.
The careless use of such claims to explain the disproportionate infection rate among black women is based on anecdotal evidence and is not scientific in the least. It serves to demoralize the black community and may even hurt research efforts to discover the true reasons behind the trends.
I would also like to know how the data in Dallas was gathered. Are we going to see a radically different number only months from now as we did in D.C.?
As many are aware, the recent "3 percent" number of infected Washington residents has been all over the news and has been the subject of myriad press conferences by health officials. But in January 2008, American Medical News reported that 5 percent (or 1 in 20) of D.C. residents were HIV-positive.
Not 3 percent, but 5 percent. This is a 40 percent drop.
So is there actually reason to celebrate in D.C.? A 40 percent drop in HIV infections in a single year is significant, yes?
Sarcasm aside, the better question is: How is this data being gathered?
And the biggest question is: Why are journalists so quick to report numbers like this and never check previous statistics and studies?
I know the Voice’s concern is Dallas and not D.C. But I worry that the sloppy data gathering may be an issue everywhere.
I have been looking at comments on many blogs where the D.C. numbers — and now Dallas numbers — have been reported.
There’s this general acceptance that African-Americans are simply "different," "more promiscuous," "more homophobic," etc. And when I’m teaching inner-city, at-risk youth and they are handed pamphlets for Black HIV Testing Day — and they say things like, "Why is our community too stupid to not get AIDS," my heart sinks.
This is a dangerous sort of racism. The reasons given by the media are oversimplified in an attempt to explain disproportionate numbers that make no epidemiological sense.
I ask Dallas Voice and the rest of the media to consider these issues and make sure that great care is given when hurling accusations at minority communities.
Ironically, in an effort to "help," I fear health care practitioners may be missing the actual causation of this trend among African-Americans and in the process, are promoting racial stereotypes.
Does it truly add up — just using common sense — that "black homophobia" can account for 50 percent of all HIV cases in the U.S., but African-Americans only make up 13 percent of the population?
That’s an absolutely staggering number. And I think harder questions and better research must be conducted to truly understand what is going on.
Matthew B. Zrebski is a teacher and theater practitioner in Portland, Oregon.
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition March 27, 2009.
This is sad. Thanks Zrebski for helping to clear up the misconceptions in this article. Its so sad to see how racism and stereotypes still plauge things like our media today
This isn’t racism, the media is doing it’s job. They aren’t supposed to be conducting research. If the infection rates are disproportionate, fine. The European-American community has been blamed for all the problems African-Americans face for far too long.
I’m sick of all this white guilt.
Whether it’s on the DL, drug use, homophobia, lack of education on HIV/AIDS issues, WHATEVER, we cannot hide the fact that this is a major problem within our community. Instead of being pissed off b/c the new statistics put blacks in a bad light, we need to figure out how to decrease the number of new cases within the community.
As a Doctor of Epidemiology and BLACK man, I will tell you that the numbers in D.C. are not inflatted or bogus, a it is true that our community is accounting for nearly half of all new case of HIV (49%) and that 67% of all new cases in males come from male-to-male sexual contact. But 33% of those cases come from high risk hetrosexual activity. The I don’t think that the anyone can make the correlation between “down low brotha’s” and the 64% infection rate of sista’s. I am will not venture to touch social issues but I think that black men have gotten the well deserved title of playa. As a 28 y.o. doctor, I am not immune to it, I have made my rounds so to speak but I think that is our wanton disregard for safer sex practices.
Stephen, we aren’t blaming Anglo-American for the problems, we are blaming them for contributing to the conditions that cause the problems.
*All Stats. provide by the Center for Disease Control.
So white honkies like me aren’t the cause but “are contributing to it”. That’s just another way of denying responsibility. The plantation mentality of many blacks who blame their condition on whitey doesn’t change a thing BECAUSE if whitey doesn’t change the problem it won’t get changed. SO why should blacks change this or any problem that they’re faced with. Bill Cosby and President Obama understand personal responsibility. Unfortunately many members of the NAACP and jive talking pimps like Sharpton and Jackson have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They do nothing more than blame and extort honkies and nothing changes. That’s not the message MLK gave us.
As moderator, I am asking everyone to keep in mind the terms of agreement before posting. Posts deemed to be a violation of those terms have been and will be deleted.
To Rodney Jones and all… my letter to the Dallas Voice concerning this issue is based largely on the study in the Annals of Epidemiology, March 2006.
This was reported by Reuters in 2007. From the article:
“First of all, the practice of straight men secretly having sex with men is seen across all ethnic groups.
Also, Ford notes, while black men and women have higher rates of HIV infection than other ethnic groups, they also report fewer risk behaviors, suggesting researchers should look elsewhere to understand the disparity.”
(see link for the full article – please read it!)
https://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSCOL86099120070228
I caution anyone from using anecdotal evidence to justify statistics. I also caution anyone from accepting statistics without understanding how data is gathered. I am, in no way, arguing that there isn’t a big problem in D.C. or Dallas or elsewhere…I am simply pointing out that the disparity is huge – and that this tendency to blame “closeted” behavior and larger promiscuity among African Americans is simply not backed up by studies.
The notion that black men should be labeled “playas” is precisely the type of language that causes more harm than good – and potentially distracts from discovering more accurate explanations.
Even if one can successfully argue that somehow “black culture” (whatever that means) yields more reckless male sexual behavior – is it enough to cause such statistical gaps where a non-discriminating pathogenic virus is concerned?
–MBZ
Is it me, or was no explanation offered here for the disproportionate statistics? The ‘down low’ debate notwithstanding, your arguments are heard here to ‘counter’ assumptions. But where are the alternative explanations to those who see traditionally HIV transmissions by gay sexual activity and/or shared needles, the early-on norm for transmission?
It’s fine to shum those who make blanket assuptions. But to simply dismiss them as racially ignorant finger wavers misses not only the point but the subject at hand. I keep listening for genuine information to better explain the rate of new HIV infections within the African-American ranks.
Is it me, or was no explanation offered here for the disproportionate statistics? The ‘down low’ debate notwithstanding, your arguments are heard here to ‘counter’ assumptions. But where are the alternative explanations to those who see traditionally HIV transmissions by gay sexual activity and/or shared needles, the early-on norm for transmission?
It’s fine to shum those who make blanket assuptions. But to simply dismiss them as racially ignorant finger wavers misses not only the point but the subject at hand. I keep listening for genuine information to better explain the rate of new HIV infections within the African-American ranks.
Rawlins,
You ask where are the alternative explanations.
There have been a great number of people attempting to educate the public of the alternative explanations for nearly 20 years. Unfortunately, they are labeled as “Aids denialists” and are not covered in the media.
All hiv testing uses indirect methods to find what is believed to be hiv or what is believed to be hiv antibodies.
Hiv has never been isolated directly from any human blood sera, at least according to classical virus isolation standards, therefore one cannot even be sure that hiv testing actually finds hiv or its antibodies. We also, therefore, cannot be sure that hiv is what causes immune deficiency.
Unfortunately, pointing out this simple fact does not go over well with the public, who see the hiv/aids explanation as fitting their personal world view regarding gays and blacks and sex.
It also does not go over well with the thousands of hiv researchers/caregivers, who, despite being unable to find how hiv causes aids, are unwilling to give up their authority and the 300 billion that has been poured into hiv theory so far.
There are about 70 factors listed in science journals that are verified to often make hiv tests show false positive.
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjtestfp.htm
Oh, and by the way, read the book by Professor Henry Bauer, “The Origins, Failures, and Persistance of HIV/AIDS Theory” that was just out last year. It points quite clearly to whatever is causing blacks to often test hiv positive, it is not possible for it to be a sexually transmitted virus.
As HIV tests show positive about 10 times as often in blacks as they do in whites, this points to genetic factors and/or differences in antibodies and antibody production being different in many of those whose ancestors come from Africa. This is also well proven via sickle cell and natural anti-malarial antibodies in many blacks.
My own take on it: HIV tests are called 99.9% accurate. However, what the public is not told is that the tests accuracy statement is based on how accurate the test is at NOT FINDING HIV. There is no established accuracy for finding hiv, simply because, as I stated earlier, it has never been isolated from human blood sera via classical isolation techniques. As such, there is no way for researchers to possibly verify that hiv tests actually find hiv. This testing accuracy statement is obviously fraudulent to any thinking person, simply because the tests are proven in our scientific journals to often be going false positive for 70 proven and verified factors.
I suggest that the hiv/aids theory is more scientific dogma and more politically expedient, and is also a necessity for the “moral majority” who all find hiv/aids theory quite convenient, even if it has never been scientifically proven to be true.
I find it very sad that this response by Zrebski was printed. Why? Because Mr. Zrebski did not list one single piece of evidence. He made statements such as:
“It is extremely important to note that in scientific literature, this has been discounted, or at least viewed as highly suspect.” yet he did not give one single example of scientific literature that discounted the notion that HIV rates have been on the increase. If you are going to make such bold statements, please be able to back them up with peer reviewed proof.
Here is an example of why HIV transmission in African Americans is disproportionately higher. It is partially because blacks, whether African Americans, or Africans, are 40% more likely to have a Duffy Antigen, which makes them resistant to P. vivax, malaria, but 11% more likely for HIV transmission.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18621010?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
JTD
see the link I provided in the comments…
https://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSCOL86099120070228