If Reagan is to blame for everyone who got HIV/AIDS from 1981-1989... - And the Band Played On (1993) Discussion

[–] titans_58 10 years ago

I lived through this in the news. To read a book or to watch a movie is way different then watching the news and reading the the stuff in the papers at the time it was happening. Reagan stuck plugs in his ears and didn't want to hear anything about AIDS or speak bout it in the beginning. He was our leader and he would not say one word either way. The people of this country fed off of that.Then you had your haters of gays and then it became a gay thing. He allowed this country to not do anything to help it from spreading when something could have been done in the beginning. By keeping quiet was a bad thing. My father n law died of AIDS because he got tainted AIDS blood in 1982, he was the first statistics of this crisis, he was a Hemophiliac. It took the government 20 years to compensate for there part in not protecting the people because they wouldn't force the issue to have donors blood tested and so my mother n law/the family got a $200,000.00 settlement. The money doesnt make up for the loss of a good man. 30 million have died of AIDS since the beginning....34 million are living with it right now.With anything in this country to much red tape to get the proper meds to the people.

reply

[–] CheshireCatsGrin 8 years ago

So sorry for your loss. As a bleeder myself, I remember the fear. I lived it. Waiting for the results of my HIV test at my college medical clinic, scary stuff. People that haven't lived it will never understand. It's talking to a brick wall.

reply

[–] ivitt 8 years ago

What scared Reagan was exposing all those hetro-macho men who were having orgies and dozens of sexual partners a week at bathhouses and sex clubs. That is why Reagan wimped out. He should have called, like in one of Fidel Castro's better moves, national screening day and frozen immigration. Then isolate them until they die. That would have stopped it like that.

reply

[–] sbender6767 10 years ago

short answer is YES

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trims 10 years ago

The reason people vilify Reagan on this topic is because, of all the people in the world at the time, Reagan was in a position to take steps to limit the spread of the disease.

As President, he was directly responsible for policy regarding public health threats. And the fact that he played politics over basic human decency - let alone ignored a severe public health threat to everyone - is unforgivable.

Reagan isn't responsible for the disease itself. He's not responsible for people having sex and spreading the disease.

He is responsible for not putting any money into research for an effective test. He's responsible for policy which directly lead to several thousand hemophiliacs being infected, because the funding for testing the blood supply wasn't pushed through Congress (or even requested) for several YEARS beyond when it was apparent that there was a threat. He's responsible for creating a public image of the disease that resulted in heterosexuals being unaware of the possible transmission to them, and thus, resulted in possibly tens of thousands of unnecessary HIV infections.

In the end, the Buck Stops There. He was the leader at the time. And he did nothing. The best that can be said is that he didn't stand in Knoop's way. But that's a far cry from fulfilling one's job of protecting the American people from a threat that was known, and increasingly well-defined.

reply

[–] The_Dougster 10 years ago

He is responsible for not putting any money into research for an effective test. He's responsible for policy which directly lead to several thousand hemophiliacs being infected, because the funding for testing the blood supply wasn't pushed through Congress (or even requested) for several YEARS beyond when it was apparent that there was a threat. He's responsible for creating a public image of the disease that resulted in heterosexuals being unaware of the possible transmission to them, and thus, resulted in possibly tens of thousands of unnecessary HIV infections.

I disagree that Reagan's responsible for "creating a public image of the disease that resulted in heterosexuals being unaware of the possible transmission to them". You throw that sanctimonious hyperbole around pretty freely. Hindsight is much easier than foresight, trims. Do you really think the things listed in the quote above would have been dealt with significantly differently under, say, Bill Clinton or Barak Obama? Needless to say, I'm pretty skeptical.

reply

[–] AND77 10 years ago

The harm of Reagan's inaction was twofold:
1) He willfully ignored a growing medical epidemic among his own people. Imagine, today, if an epidemic of some mysterious sort began killing gay men (or women. or prisoners. or people with red birthmarks on their left legs). The CDC would take action immediately - no one with more than two brain cells would ever believe that a disease could remain within just one group of people for very long. In Reagan's case, the CDC spent the mid-80's begging for research and marketing funds which could have saved the lives of thousands. He literally ignored the pleas of U.S. citizens and, more significantly, the pleas of his own government agency. The argument that Reagan "just didn't know the facts at the time" doesn't hold water - the CDC tried to SHOW him the facts, and he refused to look.
2) By ignoring the spread of the disease across the U.S., he perpetuated the sense of fear surrounding AIDS. If you weren't around or past childhood at that time, you can't comprehend the sense of panic over AIDS. Nurses quit their jobs b/c they did not want to come into contact with infected blood. Children who had the illness were barred from schools, even after it was known that only blood/tissue-to-blood/tissue contact could spread AIDS. Reagan would not even say the word "AIDS," thereby validating the revulsion that people had toward both the illness and homosexuals. This sense of public revulsion put the research effort back by YEARS, causing the needless deaths of so many people.
His lack of compassion for his own law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, and his willful ignorance in the face of facts from the government agency whose very existence was to inform him of such matters and take immediate action makes him directly culpable, on some level, for the spread of the disease.

reply

[–] The_Dougster 10 years ago

You raise interesting points but I still feel like you’re taking for granted that hindsight is much easier than foresight.

Imagine, today, if an epidemic of some mysterious sort began killing gay men (or women. or prisoners. or people with red birthmarks on their left legs). The CDC would take action immediately - no one with more than two brain cells would ever believe that a disease could remain within just one group of people for very long.

So let me get this straight. You honestly believe that if the AIDS epidemic began today, as opposed to when it actually did start, Obama’s response would be dramatically different from Reagan’s?

The argument that Reagan "just didn't know the facts at the time" doesn't hold water - the CDC tried to SHOW him the facts, and he refused to look.

Refused to look? Sounds like revisionist history to me. Your assessment of “what the CDC tried to show Reagan” aside, did MOST people really know what they were dealing with at first?

Reagan would not even say the word "AIDS," thereby validating the revulsion that people had toward both the illness and homosexuals.

And you honestly think Clinton or Obama would have handled the situation significantly differently how exactly? In hindsight, I agree that Reagan, and the government in general, didn’t do enough soon enough to battle the disease or the stigma/hysteria surrounding it. I’m just not sure that I buy into this "Reagan’s lack of compassion was a major contributor to the spread of AIDS" school of thought.

reply

[–] jaltenbu 10 years ago

Does it really matter what we think Clinton and Obama would do in the same situation? There's no way to possibly know unless they get tested in the same manner. Reagan was tested, and he failed miserably.

reply

[–] The_Dougster 10 years ago

YES! It matters a great deal if you think about it. When you berate someone with the benefit of hindsight I think it is somewhat relevant what you think other presidents would have done.

reply

[–] jaltenbu 10 years ago

Doesn't change the fact that Reagan failed miserably. Maybe Clinton and Obama would have failed miserably, maybe not. We'll never know. I personally think they would have done a better job with it, but I'm a bit biased. I also think Bush Sr. would have done better. Bush Jr. not so much, but more out of incompetence than cold-heartedness.

reply

[–] The_Dougster 10 years ago

Doesn't change the fact that Reagan failed miserably.

Except that it’s your opinion not a fact. I realize that it seems like a no-brainer but it bears reminding ourselves now and then; Hindsight is 20/20. Nobody really knew what they were dealing with in the early days of the AIDS epidemic. To say that Reagan failed miserably is rather harsh in my view. To further attribute said failure to "cold-heartedness" seems totally disingenuous to me.

reply

[–] SkaterDave 9 years ago

No Dougy, it's a fact. A very well documented fact. If you'd do research before you make claims you wouldn't be coming off the way you are now, which is not good. Aside from that particular thing you have wrong, what other presidents would have done has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. It's a good attempt at deflection but it's not in any way something that changes what a failure Reagan was. However, to answer it, anyway, yes I think both Clinton and Obama would have dealt with it differently. In general republicans don't care about the common people. They aren't republicans. I know it's a generalization but so is the whole idea.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AND77 9 years ago

In reply to the Dougster, are you saying that I'm looking at the advent and spread of AIDS along party lines? Like maybe Reagan hated gays and condemned them to die because he was as Republican right-winger, and Clinton or Obama would have swooped in and helped everyone as bleeding heart liberals? Honestly, I'm not. I don't know specifics, but I'm fairly certain that Bush Senior did exponentially more for the fight against AIDS in 4 years than Reagan did in 8. I know for certain that he has joined Clinton in his initiative to stop the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. The only advantage Clinton and Obama have in this situation, in my mind, is the 20/20 vision of hindsight, which you're right to point out.
It's heartening for me to see leaders take the lessons we all learned from the AIDS crisis and use them to promote public health and safety, however. When the H1n1 scare came about a few years ago, the U.S. government did what I think anyone who looks back at that time and the growing panic surrounding that flu virus would deem as an exceptional response. The public was urged not to panic, to avoid airplane flights in and out of Mexico if possible, and to see a doctor within 24 hours if they suspected they had the flu. A possibly disastrous public health crisis was averted, and H1n1 was included in the following year's flu vaccine. This fall, I noticed more radio/tv marketing and billboards than ever urging people to get a flu shot.
Despite the shrill media response to the recent Ebola outbreak, I would say the U.S. has done a decent job of getting information out about it, as well, and containing and treating those testing positive for the virus.
I'm not saying that today's leaders are any smarter or more caring or even more qualified to make decisions about possible pandemics, but at least they seem to be listening to the advice of their agencies and erring on the side of caution.

reply

[–] RVD42 9 years ago

Please tell me what bills or legislation the Democratic congress introduced to help fight the disease. How is Reagan reponsible for not putting money into research? Do you know how our government works?

reply

[–] Tree_Woman 7 years ago

He is responsible for not putting any money into research for an effective test.

He is responsible for policy which directly lead to several thousand hemophiliacs being infected, because the funding for testing the blood supply wasn't pushed through Congress (or even requested) for several YEARS beyond when it was apparent that there was a threat.

He is responsible for creating a public image of the disease that resulted in heterosexuals being unaware of the possible transmission to them, and thus, resulted in possibly tens of thousands of unnecessary HIV infections.

Well said. And to reference another poster on this board, those who didn't live through it will never 'get' it - it's like talking to a brick wall.

reply

[–] captkirk_4 7 years ago

Reagan was completely preoccupied with confronting the Soviet Union and turning around a bad economy, the idea that an obscure plague in the gay community was on his radar is all hindsight. What is true is that the people he appointed below him to run the national health policies should have taken the emergence of what very strongly looked like a new deadly pathogen much more seriously and a few years went by before the ball finally got rolling. Don't forget that Homosexuality was very controversial back then, I remember strongly in the mid 80s attitudes were quite prevalent amongst average people that "they deserved it." Society in general was very uncomfortable to deal with this disease because of this, had Slick Willy himself been president from 81-89 he too probably would have taken polls to make sure he doesn't appear too gay friendly to alienate voters.

reply

[–] indy_go_blue44 9 years ago

Whether Reagan could have done anything in 1981 to stem the AIDS epidemic is doubtful. It took a year or more to determine that it was a virus and by them many of those with full blown AIDS had been infected for 5-10 years. The virus by then was already deep within the homosexual community and had spread to IV drug abusers and bisexuals and their partners. I assume it was in the blood supply and infecting hemophiliacs.

But Reagan can be blamed for the attitude that developed toward AID sufferers. In 1981 a small number of aged veterans meeting in Philadelphia began dying of some strange disease. The full resources of the government were put into action to find the problem, which was labeled "Legionaire's Disease." As is stated at one point in the movie, if this disease had been killing old men and women instead of homosexuals, Reagan undoubtedly would have responded in kind. He never addressed the issue in his first term; it was 1985 before he even mentioned it publicly and that was after the death of his actor friend Rock Hudson. It was 1986 before he officially addressed the disease; by then many thousands were already dead.

I have little sympathy for those who contracted HIV after 1987 when it was clear how the virus was spread and how to NOT get it. Like any venereal disease it comes from having unprotected sex. Period. That becomes the fault of the person who gets the disease.

I only have one person on ignore, but I've had to ignore him 625 different times.

reply

[–] CheshireCatsGrin 8 years ago

Only that wasn't only affecting one set of the population. It affected hemophiliacs, I received six pints during a routine appendectomy the day before the blood banks finally began testing the blood supply. My surgeon made the unorthodox decision not to use factor due to the contamination of Factor and how it was processed. It affected the Haitian immigrate population. And babies born of infected heterosexual mothers...and...and

Regan failed very early on when it was realized AIDS, still called GRID, was transmitted sexually. Yet he wouldn't even approve decent monies for public health education. This alone would have helped slow down the infection rate. Instead we had to rely on local governments funding posters and most importantly grassroots organizations like ACT UP!. Still in my mid-teens, when I should have been concerned about boys and grades, this hetrosexual central California girl was sending checks from my allowance to ACT UP San Francisco and it's precursors because they were the only ones who were doing anything about the disease affecting me and my fellow hemophiliacs.

Thank goodness my mother had always been politically active. She owned one of the first copies of And The Band Played On in fact. It's still strange to have as friends HIV positive folks who have normal T-cell counts thanks to the new drug cocktails. This could have happened much earlier with proper money from one of the largest industrialized countries.

reply

[–] simbatopcat 8 years ago

just thought I would share this because of the original post about who's fault this all is... there was a documentary i believe called the gift (2003) on youtube and it has young gay men getting infected on purpose! i thought it was a hoax but it is real!

reply

[–] silvercometred1 8 years ago

No on Clinton; Yes on Reagan.

reply

[–] ebettman-1 8 years ago

Look...NO QUESTION the Gays went Nuts and had Too many Partners in the Seventies and Eighties. They spread a Lot of Gonorrhea and Syphillis, and no doubt Herpes, along with parasites, from eating each other out, before AIDS was even known. The IV Drug abusers, similarly, shared needles, spreading Hepatitis B, then C, and, of course, AIDS.

BUT...Reagan was slow to act, and Conservatives to this DAY oppose clean syringe distribution. In Other Nations, such as in Europe, Condoms and syringes were freely distributed as soon as AIDS surfaced, resulting in a lower incidence of the Diseased.

As far as the Reagan Record on Homelessness-many homeless are mentally ill. Reagan reduced funds for outpatient mental health clinics, so the patients were wandering around without their medicine. He also reduced funds for Housing, Welfare, etc. and he broke the Unions, and didn't approve funds to train all the workers for anything else, so they flipped burgers for the rest of their lives, or ended up in Jail.

reply

[–] Patrick_Bateman_777 8 years ago

I just now checked this thread again after not checking it since I originally posted the topic years ago.

As I said in my OP, Reagan was not perfect and made mistakes about AIDS. I said this in the original post and I also lauded the book and the movie that we are discussing. I am also a member of the LGBT community.

My only point is that I have found it absurd the way Reagan has been singled out as THE SINGULAR AIDS bogeyman. It is my sincere belief that this is a politically motivated meme that has been fueled by liberals wanting to denigrate Reagan's legacy specifically and conservatives generally.

There are so many things that went into (or go into) the history of AIDS. To heap pretty much all of the blame onto one guy who was President for 8 years of a 40 year plague strikes me as a little absurd.

There is one thing I am positive about: if a Democrat was President during 1981-1989, and he behaved the same way Reagan did about all of this (and people, trust me that he probably would have; Democrats were not exactly pro-LGBT warriors back then), we would not be hearing all of this stuff all these years later.

I still regularly hear people try to link Reagan with (primary) blame for AIDS. As I said it's becoming something of a meme.

This is my only point. Reagan was far from perfect; please trust that I know this. I just think the level of scorn being heaped upon him is purely because he is a (prominent) Republican and therefore needs to be destroyed.

Liberals have gotten really great about saying "if bad thing X happens during a Republican President's term, then bad thing X is all of his fault." When bad things happen during Democrat's Presidencies, suddenly the issues are more complex and blame is not so easy to affix.

I see much more outrage these days for Reagan and AIDS than I do for Clinton and African genocide. Unlike people on the left, however, I am not going to blame Clinton for genocide in Africa simply because it happened during his Presidency and he didn't do everything people thought he should about it.

reply

[–] ebettman-1 8 years ago

You know...I'm in the Medical Profession and I find the History of Epidemics Fascinating. There were quite a few "Bubonic Plague Deniers" concerning the Fourteenth Century Black Death recently. The issue was pretty much put to Rest by DNA testing in the Tooth pulp of mass graves from the time (which showed the Bubonic Bacteria-Yersinia Pestis.) The Problem that a LOT of us Had was that a Pandemic spread around the known World in about Five Years by Sailing Ship and horseback-but moved only a few miles/year inland when it struck again at the turn of the Twentieth Century (YES-Plague still Exists.) This is Paradoxical in that Plague Victims get sick within a week of being bitten by rat fleas-and Die within days in the absence of antibiotics-not to mention that there was no supportive care back then. The Highly Lethal Pneumonic Form that afflicts the lungs is contagious between people-but kills even Quicker-within one Day without treatment.

Then there was Syphillis. Syphillis absolutely RAVAGED Europe a Century after Plague. And it was very, VERY Bad. Why??? Well, not just because our ancestors sat on more strange toilet seats than we thought-lol. Or because there was no Salvarsan or Penicillin. NO. The strain of Spirochete (the germ that causes the Disease) and lack of host resistance to it, caused it to eat people alive within weeks to months after catching it. It mutated to a less virulent form in subsequent Centuries, but, in a sense, that made it more Dangerous...Folks were willing to play Russian Roulette if there was only a 10% chance they'd go Blind and Crazy.

Now, in the case of AIDS, there were some early Victims even in the West back in the Sixties. There was a Norwegian Sailor who got it from African Prostitutes, probably in around 1961. He had swollen glands and infections in 1968, but his Doctors were able to make him better for a few years. Then, he got Really Sick in 1974, and finally passed away in 1976. His Wife and youngest daughter also Died later that year. Now-this is amazing for Two Reasons. 1) How did he live so long, and how was his condition improved when they A Didn't even know what he HAD and B. were almost Thirty years away from being able to treat it. He DID have AIDS, as did his Deceased family members. His tissues were saved, and examined in 1986, as the Epidemic Raged. Then there was the case of Robert Rayford. He was an African American Teen in St. Louis. He was probably Retarded, and may have been a Gay Prostitute. He had a bunch of opportunistic infections, and Died in the Early Seventies. His tissue was Also preserved, and tested in the Eighties. HIV was confirmed. Why didn't his John(s) come into the Hospital sick with AIDS?? More Importantly, why didn't we see an Epidemic in those years?? the Sailor went on to be a Long Haul truck Driver in Europe, and kept his Promiscuous ways. Yet, there is NO report of infected European Prostitutes in that Timeframe.

reply

[–] averagejoeman2013 7 years ago

It was a new disease. Reagan didn't create it but could have done more. I truly felt for those poor people who got this virus through blood transfusions, people who caught it from a cheating spouse, or babies born with it... break's one's heart. Ultimately the rest of the infections/deaths were from those whose lifestyles caught up with them; Karma but still very sad.

"Obamacare: It only works if you don't!"

reply

[–] chopperman 7 years ago

hiv-aids was inevitable due to this disease's long incubation period. if it killed you off within say 30, 60 days after getting it, it would be a different story. but it's highly possible that a lot of those who had gotten it would not have had his administration responded differently. reagan purposely chose to play politics with an epidemic and that will always remain a black mark on his historical record. the take-away overall is that it was a learning experience. a president at some point had to commit such a bad error in judgement in regards to handling epidemics in order for it to be the pattern to never follow again. never again will you see a president fail to act as swiftly as possible with another potential health plague. our current examples are of course ebola and zika.

Larry Gaylord: "a billion people come in on a day off, and they don't flip out!"

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]