AIDS Education..Or Condom Promotion?(Viacom)

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that indoctrination includes ideas like getting condoms to children without parental consent while learning to drop outdated, intolerant (i.e., Judeo-Christian) ideas about homosexuality, it’s beyond "progressive."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

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.

It isn't either or. It isn't 100 people or one person over 100 years. Whether you are one person or one of a group of one hundred, your risk factor is the same. They had to do a sizeable group in order to come up with the factor. That's all. One person's risk is about one percent PER YEAR. Each of the one hundred people have the same personal risk.

It took three hours to download adobe reader so I'm not left with enough time to actually read the report today.

Scromping like a bunny for a hundred years with nary a chance of catching HIV...

no, no, no...silly, madg....I keep telling you, if you live a hundred years, your risk factor would be HUGE. I am not sure it is a simple multiplication of the one year risk factor but it is not far off. The probability that YOU will be the ONE increases every year.

Well....it doesn't increase directly, because your risk stays at 1% a year. However, it increases as a probability.

If one in one hundred people who swam in the ocean were eaten by a shark, your risk of being eaten would be one percent. Do you think, however, that your risk of being eaten would increase if you swam in the ocean every year for a hundred years? Of course it would.

How about if you play Russian roulette. If there is one bullet in a gun and once a year you pull the trigger, your odds each year is one in however many bullets the gun holds, but repeated attempts increase the odds even if the bullet is randomly replaced each year.

Any time you keep doing something risky your odds of a negative outcome increases with time.

The study, however, is too incomplete to judge why each transmission happened. If the failure rate could be defined by a cause it could potentially be eliminated. My guess is, the product is just faulty one percent of the time. That's a random cause and brings the worst case scenerio for your survival. Perhaps the user is at fault one percent of the time (per year). That is better, but you know what they say, "No one is perfect."

I'm rusty on some of this stuff so if I turn out to be wrong don't hold it against me. :)

Person-Years of exposure. They use 100 in order to come up with a percentage. If they had, say, 10 participants for ten years it would be 100 person years. That doesn't change the chances of each individual. It just provides you with a percentage number.

In 10 years, one in ten will get the disease. In one year, only one in one hundred will get the disease. There are variable problems, of course, because the study didn't cover enough usage/frequency/method issues to judge how random the failure rate is. They did talk a lot about the frequency of product failure rate -- a random cause for failure. I went over it very quickly, but I only saw that they tested heterosexual couples (I was in a hurry).

Now, I am soooooo finished with this (unless you find better data than that). ROTFL!

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.