April 14, 2004

JUST A LIFESTYLE CHOICE:

Syphilis Relapse: Cases soar in the city (Sharon Lerner, April 16th, 2004, Village Voice)

In 1998, syphilis rates were so low the Centers for Disease Control announced a plan to completely eliminate the disease. The agency began an all-out prevention campaign, stepping up syphilis surveillance in New York City and the few counties across the country where it still existed. By 2000, the sexually transmitted infection was at its lowest point since 1941. Soon, the country's top doctors predicted, the dread illness that afflicted Henry VIII, Ivan the Terrible, and even a pope would be nothing more than an unpleasant memory, gone the way of smallpox and other eradicated diseases.

But just six years after the bold elimination plan, syphilis is back. Nationally, cases in gay men shot up more than 15 percent in 2001. In New York City, the number of people with symptoms of syphilis has gone up even further, increasing a total of more than 500 percent between 1998 and 2003, from 82 to 531 people, according to preliminary health department data. As of last week, there were an additional 953 people infected with syphilis but without apparent symptoms, according to the health department. Many more cases of syphilis likely go unreported. [...]

Frightening as the statistics are, this latest outbreak of syphilis may be more significant as a harbinger of the next stage of the city's HIV epidemic than as a direct health threat. "In my mind, it's a marker that people are having unprotected sex," says Dawn Harbatkin, medical director of the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center. "In the relative scheme of things, I'm more worried about crystal meth use and new HIV infections. But I think they're all linked. It's not just the syphilis, but what it means for these other issues."

Harbatkin's fears are founded. In a health department study comparing 88 men with infectious syphilis to a control group, more than half of the infected men reported barebacking, or having anal sex without condoms. Drugs are also clearly implicated in the recent outbreak. One-third of men with syphilis reported using Viagra. And infected men were also more likely to use crystal meth, poppers, and pot.

The study also found that men with syphilis were more than twice as likely to have HIV. "It's a potentially explosive situation for the spread of HIV," says the health department's Blank. "People with HIV are leading longer and healthier lives than was possible in the '80s and early '90s. Part of that involves feeling good—and feeling good enough to have sex." And having active syphilis makes it easier to both pass on and contract HIV when you have sex. Being HIV-positive can also affect the course of syphilis, shortening the length of time it takes for the bacteria to move through their cycles and cause real damage.


With so many folks telling them they're just like everyone else, they start believing it--with predictabley tragic results.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 14, 2004 7:47 AM
Comments

Orrin:

But haven't you heard? It's all going to go away when they get to marry. Just like it did for heteros.

Posted by: Peter B at April 14, 2004 8:39 AM

Remind me, teaching kids celibacy is bad for what reason?

Posted by: Roy Jacobsen at April 14, 2004 9:47 AM

Roy-

Since celibacy before marriage is a tenet of Christianity. Any value derived from religious teachings is suspect. Seperation of church and state. The official religion is absolute secularism and kids will be sexually active anyway so safe sex is the official position by necessity. Can't make judgements, you know?

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 14, 2004 10:50 AM

Vice is self punishing.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 14, 2004 11:46 AM

Jeff:

You prove Elie Wiesel's point:

The opposite of love isn't hate but indifference.

Posted by: oj at April 14, 2004 12:29 PM

syphillis is easily treated with 2.4million units penicillin g IM. so that in and of itself is not a big deal, and neither is a possible surge in HIV cases. the gay population has maintained a relatively stable % of cases over the past decade, just like drug users have. what worries health care workers is the cross-over between heterosexual females and 'heterosexual' males having sex with other guys (i think orrin posted about this a few months back) since the females get shafted (always remember, woman are 8-10x more likely to get HIV from a man, than a man from a woman).

Posted by: poormedicalstudent at April 14, 2004 4:02 PM

I would not minimize the awfulness of syphilis, but Orrin's glee at seizing on anything to show his love for the poor homosexuals takes him into ludicrous territory.

So there are a thousand cases of syphilis in a population of 10 million?

When my wife did the syphilis testing for the state of North Carolina, back around 1968, there were nearly that many cases in one rural country with a population of under 100,000.

All Christians, too.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 14, 2004 10:57 PM

Harry:

In NC that marked a decline, in NYC a rise.

Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 8:07 AM

A trivial rise, epidemiologically speaking.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 15, 2004 4:46 PM

All that matters epidemiologically is whether a disease is rising or falling.

Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 6:03 PM

Well, no, that can't be right. Because if it were, we'd all be dead of something or other by now.

As Darwinism explains so cogently, it is nearly impossible for an epidemic to spread unchecked. I'll go so far as to say, impossible in a sufficiently large population.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 15, 2004 9:46 PM

They rise or fall--one is good, one bad.

Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 10:14 PM

The trends look more like waves than cliffs.

Measles, for example, was not a major killer in England in the 17th and 19th centuries, but in the 18th century it accounted for about one death in 10.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 16, 2004 2:49 PM

Yes, measles became less deadly as we became wealthier, as have most similar diseases. If deaths started going up again it would be cause for concern, no?

Posted by: oj at April 16, 2004 2:59 PM

No question England was wealthier in the 18th c. than the 17th, so that can't be right.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 16, 2004 9:04 PM

Why?

Posted by: oj at April 16, 2004 9:07 PM
« BAD PUN OR BAD EDITTING?: | Main | CHURCH CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST: »