The
Plague Cheer
Hey, wait a minute. Despite
what Jon Cohen asserts in "AIDS Isn't Over," nothing in my New York Times
Magazine article stated that AIDS is over. There are two full paragraphs
on the unknowables and imponderables of the new drugs. There is an explicit
statement early on that "in one sense, obviously, it is not [over]," by which I
mean the fact of many, many more deaths from HIV (including, eventually,
probably, my own); and a clear assertion that "nothing I am saying here is
meant to deny that fact, or to mitigate its awfulness." The quote he keeps
using as his smoking gun--"this ordeal as a whole may be over"--is wrested from
a fuller sentence, which reads, "Perhaps this is why so many of us find it hard
to accept that this ordeal as a whole may be over." It follows a section
devoted to the description of someone's gruesome death. Blithe optimism? Give
me a break. The very title of the piece--"When Plagues End"--is deliberately
and carefully conditional.
Cohen is
obsessed with the idea of a vaccine. This is understandable, since he has
devoted a good deal of his journalistic career to the notion that AIDS will
only be cured by a vaccine. He may be right (although the obstacles to a
successful HIV vaccine are enormous), but he shouldn't let his own agenda blind
him to a simple fact: HIV may not be "cured," but it may be successfully
treated for decades. For those of us with HIV, there's not a lot of
difference.
--Andrew
Sullivan
Jon Cohen
Replies:
Andrew Sullivan steers clear
of my main criticism of his article--that it overstates the hope that now
exists--and instead resorts to unfounded suggestions that I've ignored his
checked tone, taken his writing out of context, and--most absurdly--nit-picked
him because I am obsessed with AIDS vaccines and have an agenda.
Sullivan's article, as its
subhead states, is an exploration of the "twilight of an epidemic" that
reflects repeatedly on why it is difficult for HIV-infected gay men, in
particular, to consider the possibility that new drug regimens will allow them
to survive this plague. The ideas he examines, often with insight and delicacy,
have to do with things like past vs. future, loss of community, and excessive
skepticism. The passage he accuses me of having "wrested" out of context is
just such a musing. And he gives short shrift to another, more pertinent idea:
Perhaps many infected people find it hard to accept that this ordeal as a whole
may be over because they have yet to see evidence that these drugs will extend
their lives beyond a year or two. And the gruesome death he recounts prior to
this musing is not, as far as we can tell, about someone who responded well to
the new treatments only to die too young and too painfully. Rather, he
describes the death to set a marker in time, raising the possibility that such
horrible experiences now may be in the past.
When Sullivan writes here
about the caveats his article contains, he is taking himself out of context.
The "one sense" he is referring to about the epidemic not being over is
directed at newly infected people and those who can't access or afford the
drugs. Although he does describe attending a meeting where physicians detail
several unknowns for people taking the drugs--which I state in my article
(listing, further, several other unknowns that he doesn't mention)--he does so
almost wearily: "There were caveats, of course," he writes. The dismissive tone
is critical to his entire argument, because if he squarely reflected on the
great uncertainty that now exists about the impact of the new treatments, he
would undermine the foundation of an exploration of The End. His analysis would
seem, in a word, premature, and that is essentially my problem with the
article.
As for Sullivan's claims
about my obsession and agenda, give me a break. True, I have written a
great deal about AIDS vaccines, and I have a particular interest in the
subject. I've also written thousands of column inches about most every other
topic relating to the disease. And I have written, and continue to write, about
many things that have nothing at all to do with AIDS. You could look it up.
Finally,
Sullivan mixes up "cure" and "prevention." The AIDS vaccines I'm speaking of
are designed to prevent an infection and thereby stem an epidemic. If drugs do
extend the lives of infected people for, say, decades--and I hope they do and
that Sullivan is wrong about his own fate--I, too, would use the word "cure."
But unfortunately, we have to sit and wait for studies that are underway to
finish before we can predict the future with something more statistically
powerful than hope.
The Lock
Is a Crock
I just wanted to add
something to Jacob Weisberg's "Republicans in Denial," his amusing commentary on the
Republicans' unseemly bout of whining, blaming, and rationalizing following
this year's elections.
One other--rather
curious--explanation for the Republican defeat in the 1996 presidential race
was proffered by a member of Bob Dole's polling staff. During an election
post-mortem (televised on C-SPAN), she suggested that it would have been very
difficult for Bob Dole to win the presidency in the Electoral College since,
according to her, Bill Clinton went into this election with 300-some electoral
votes already locked up, based on the results of the 1992 election. As evidence
of this, she painstakingly detailed Clinton's electoral assets state by state,
in the Northeast, Midwest, and West. By the time she was finished, one could
only conclude that Bill Clinton was predestined to win re-election.
It was quite interesting to
hear this said, out of the blue, about a Democratic presidential candidate. It
was a mere five years ago, I recall, that conservative commentators were
crowing about the supposed "lock" that the Republican Party had on the
Electoral College, based on its (the party's) strongholds in the South and
Mountain West. This was supposed to guarantee Republican presidential supremacy
forever--or at least until the name "Ronald Reagan" had slipped into the wells
of history.
Well, a
mere eight years after Reagan uttered his last valedictory words, it would seem
that the Democrats did, in fact, have a chance at the presidency once
again.
--John Treumann
Fight
Night at Slate
As much as
I get a cheap thrill from exploring the world of scholar/expert rivalry in your
magazine, the Thanksgiving issue was beyond the pale. Krugman vs. Wanniski,
Wright vs.
Gould, and (particularly) Krohn &
Plotz vs. Hackworth were all heavy on the feuding and light on the facts. I
probably agree with all your writers' assessments; it's just that I'd hate to
see the magazine turn into a giant venting extravaganza.
--Matt
Hellman
