Highway 40; Masters and Johnson and the threat of AIDS

<v Speaker>The production of Highway 40 is supported in part by the Fox Family Foundation. <v Speaker>We're dealing with a fatal disease. <v Speaker>And if we can do anything to stimulate, hurry up the process <v Speaker>of definitive research, boy, we're in favor of it. <v Speaker>We have not changed our concepts as to how the disease is transmitted, <v Speaker>nor how rapidly it's spreading as a result of the Johnson and Master <v Speaker>information. <v Speaker>When you are a scientist of distinction as they are, you have the responsibility to <v Speaker>present material to the public in such a way that the public is not misled. <v Speaker>The new Masters and Johnson book on AIDS. <v Speaker>Is it accurate or is it hype aimed at selling the book? <v Speaker>Dr. William Masters joins us live to answer his critics. <v Speaker>Tonight on Highway 40. <v Speaker>Good evening, I'm Dennis Riggs, and this is Highway 40, the U.S.

<v Speaker>surgeon general called it irresponsible, a major weekly newsmagazine dubbed it an <v Speaker>outbreak of sensationalism. In the two months since its release, the new Masters and <v Speaker>Johnson book on AIDS has been in the center of a firestorm of controversy. <v Speaker>In the face of all that criticism, Masters and Johnson have maintained a virtual silence. <v Speaker>Well, tonight, it all ends as Dr. William Masters joins us live to discuss and defend <v Speaker>his book. But first, a background report on the book and its critics by Highway 40 <v Speaker>producer Carl Swineherd. <v Speaker>We're dealing with a fatal disease. <v Speaker>And if we can do anything to stimulate, hurry up the process <v Speaker>of definitive research, however, in favor of it, that is how Masters and Johnson defend <v Speaker>their controversial new book. <v Speaker>The book was released last month and was instantly met with criticism from public health <v Speaker>officials across the country. In the book, Masters and Johnson claim that the Center for <v Speaker>Disease Control has underestimated the number of nondrug using heterosexuals infected <v Speaker>with the AIDS virus. The risk of catching AIDS from donated blood is much greater <v Speaker>than health officials admit, and the AIDS virus can be transmitted by casual contact,

<v Speaker>such as mosquito bites, kissing and even contact with toilet seats. <v Speaker>We are saying that the government leadership and the particularly <v Speaker>at CDC and at some of the other policy setting levels have in some <v Speaker>instances been overly cautious in raising questions, <v Speaker>haven't been fully honest with the public about what studies remain <v Speaker>to be done or the limits of our certainty in certain areas. <v Speaker>But AIDS experts have denounced the book and accused Masters and Johnson of <v Speaker>sensationalism. <v Speaker>They were really promoting books and selling literature rather than providing <v Speaker>good, frank, useful information. <v Speaker>The director of the Centers for Disease Control told reporters in St. Louis that the <v Speaker>Masters and Johnson book was full of scientific errors. <v Speaker>Johnson and Masters have some good skills in certain areas of science, <v Speaker>but epidemiology and the study of the transmission of age is not one of their fortes. <v Speaker>The book also questions the safety of America's blood supply.

<v Speaker>Experts have estimated the chance of catching AIDS from donated blood is about one in <v Speaker>40000. Masters and Johnson say the odds are closer to one in five thousand. <v Speaker>That claim has been rejected by health officials. <v Speaker>While it is not absolutely safe, it is substantially <v Speaker>safer than their numbers and certainly as safe as many <v Speaker>other medicines. And blood is a medicine like anything else. <v Speaker>Perhaps the most controversial claim is that casual contact, like mosquito bites and <v Speaker>kissing, can theoretically spread the disease. <v Speaker>There's no evidence for spread through insects. <v Speaker>There's no evidence for casual contact spread. <v Speaker>And this message is a message in which we should have confidence <v Speaker>and we should have the confidence to repeat and repeat and repeat this business of toilet <v Speaker>seats, kissing, mosquito bites and all that is mostly just scare. <v Speaker>It's perfectly legitimately true that there's a low, low, low, real probability which are <v Speaker>very low. And it's all to worry about the high probability of it. <v Speaker>You know that that you will send your kid off to college somewhere and they will contract

<v Speaker>AIDS simply because of the sexual experience or an experimentation with drugs. <v Speaker>That's something you can think about because it's got a real probability of much, much <v Speaker>higher than they'll get it by kissing. <v Speaker>Controversy is nothing new to Masters and Johnson. <v Speaker>However, their work in the field of human sexuality is widely respected by experts. <v Speaker>But critics of their latest work say it may do more harm than good in the battle against <v Speaker>AIDS. <v Speaker>To present it as a clear and present danger from toilet seats and kissing <v Speaker>is to take such an extreme position that people don't pay attention to the valid <v Speaker>thing they are trying to say, which is that there may be substantial spread in the <v Speaker>homosexual community should not ignore that danger. <v Speaker>If we have time, we're good at trying to take questions from you at home. <v Speaker>Our number here at Highway 40 is 726 76 70 again that's 726 <v Speaker>76 70. With us in the studio tonight, our Dr. William Masters, coauthor of the <v Speaker>controversial new book and founder of the Masters and Johnson Institute. <v Speaker>And Dr. James Kimmey, the director of the Health Services Education Research Center at <v Speaker>St. Louis University and a member of the AIDS Task Force here in Missouri.

<v Speaker>Dr. Kimie has not only read the book, he's researched and read all of the bibliographical <v Speaker>references. Dr. Masters. Let me turn to you first. <v Speaker>How do you react to all these charges of sensationalism, irresponsibility? <v Speaker>Well, they're not new to us. <v Speaker>Every time we've made a major report to the health care professions, that's four times <v Speaker>there's been a tremendous controversy. <v Speaker>But in the past, that controversy has been because you're breaking new ground, you're <v Speaker>breaking taboos. And a lot of people are saying we should even talk about sex. <v Speaker>And here the scientific community is challenging you on. <v Speaker>They say that your methodology is wrong. <v Speaker>Your method of approach is wrong. <v Speaker>Well, you're not going to please all the people all the time. <v Speaker>There's no argument there. <v Speaker>But I think it's important to point out that we made <v Speaker>very clear that the research program that we did was strictly limited in its application, <v Speaker>that it was not an epidemiologic study. <v Speaker>One doesn't have to be an epidemiologist to work with 800 people. <v Speaker>We also pointed out that the far and away, the most important thing

<v Speaker>that we could do was to stimulate research in this area. <v Speaker>I think it's terribly important to point out that all of the research we did was <v Speaker>very limited. The CDC, that the public health service has issued <v Speaker>no grants whatsoever in this area up to this time. <v Speaker>What do you think the book has gotten so much criticism? <v Speaker>I think it puts pressure on a bunch of people. <v Speaker>No, it's going to put pressure on the CDC. <v Speaker>They're going to put pressure on the National Health Service. <v Speaker>What we want. <v Speaker>I think you get right down to it. <v Speaker>One of the things that is most important is that it goes <v Speaker>against the basic dictum health <v Speaker>services in that you should not be the information <v Speaker>that is less than happy for the public <v Speaker>itself. We feel that the public should be educated. <v Speaker>Dr. Kim, do you think the book is educating the public or is it misleading the public,

<v Speaker>creating fear? <v Speaker>I think the book is certainly agitating the public and bringing attention <v Speaker>to an issue. I agree. The book is very clear that this is not an empty, magical <v Speaker>study. I think chapter forming said absolutely clear. <v Speaker>I think my concern with the book is a lot of the other things are sort of hung on along <v Speaker>with the uppity or with the Chapter four study that raise issues <v Speaker>that given the need for education, you might have wanted to spend more time <v Speaker>going toward that goal with the book rather than talking about things like toilet seats <v Speaker>and so forth. I think it detracted from the central message, which I thought was in your <v Speaker>last chapters, that laid out a strategy that ought to be followed. <v Speaker>I think you may have a point, but to a degree, <v Speaker>for instance, Curran, who head of the AIDS <v Speaker>research. The CDC has agreed to this completely in terms of this the possibility of <v Speaker>contamination from saliva. <v Speaker>This is the first time it's been laid out before the public.

<v Speaker>You say in the book that theoretically you could catch the disease from casual contact, <v Speaker>from saliva, from mosquitoes, from toilet seats that I think is one of the. <v Speaker>Only theoretically that there is obviously a negligible risk. <v Speaker>The reason we put that chapter in is that these questions are being asked time and <v Speaker>time again by the public to the health care professionals. <v Speaker>But if it's such a negligible risk, why alarm the public about it? <v Speaker>I don't think the public would have been alarmed if somebody hadn't raised the issue. <v Speaker>It's something that we shouldn't talk about. <v Speaker>Well, is that something that we should talk about as it would be? <v Speaker>But, you know, the book raises the issue. <v Speaker>And so then I think we have to deal with the response to it. <v Speaker>People are asking those kinds of questions. And I think, you know, in the book, you use <v Speaker>the example of the you can't get AIDS from a doorknob is being negative public education. <v Speaker>I don't see that any more negative than raising issues like the toilet seat in the name <v Speaker>of public education. <v Speaker>I mean, I can only tell you that what we <v Speaker>said about the toilet seat is theoretically possible.

<v Speaker>That's all. And we made it very clear in the book we were only talking theoretically when <v Speaker>it comes to saliva. We're not talking theoretically. <v Speaker>That's a fact. <v Speaker>Do you still stand behind everything in the book? <v Speaker>Well, I stand behind everything we printed, certainly. <v Speaker>Do you wish maybe you had printed it a little differently? <v Speaker>Oh, I can't conceive of doing something a second time and doing it better than you did <v Speaker>the first time. Of course, I would hope that I could do it better. <v Speaker>But you must remember, our concern was time. <v Speaker>Why did we not take the chapter, chapter four, the one on <v Speaker>AIDS in the heterosexual population AIDS virus in heterosexual population <v Speaker>and send it through the routine magazine publishing thing. <v Speaker>That's a year to year and a half. <v Speaker>To go to through scientific journals. You've been criticized for going to the- <v Speaker>On the other hand, we have said and I said that we didn't have peer to peer review. <v Speaker>Nothing is further from the truth. <v Speaker>That chapter was reviewed by at least two dozen professionals in this field. <v Speaker>We didn't send it through publication because we were we were concerned with the time. <v Speaker>You see, the difficulty comes. Let's let's let the public understand this.

<v Speaker>The time that the homosexual population was in great <v Speaker>risk was from 1977 to 1980, one or two, <v Speaker>the time that the heterosexual population is at great risk. <v Speaker>From 1986, 87, 88, 89, often 91 or two. <v Speaker>We didn't want to wait another year to have a major report to the show, <v Speaker>to the public. <v Speaker>We think it is terribly important that the public understand that the heterosexual <v Speaker>population is now in their risk phase of acquiring the virus, not <v Speaker>the disease, the virus. <v Speaker>Comparing the risk phase, you know, it is right to say that it's rampant, which is one <v Speaker>thing that's been attributed. <v Speaker>The book says that basically AIDS is running rampant in the heterosexual community. <v Speaker>But does the does is that a valid conclusion from a study that you admit is not a <v Speaker>scientific study and not a thorough study? <v Speaker>Well, let's define the word rampant. <v Speaker>That means uncontrolled or unrestricted, and that's called a dictionary population- <v Speaker>definition. And that's exactly what we see.

<v Speaker>But if we're splitting semantics, like defining rampant and saying, theoretically, <v Speaker>ecoterrorism, is that good science? <v Speaker>Yes. Is it responsible to the public to put out information with those qualifiers, <v Speaker>run it, knowing that a lot of people are not going to pick up those subtleties? <v Speaker>The difficulty comes is, are you going to make an attempt to educate the public? <v Speaker>Aren't you? Are you going to educate all people? <v Speaker>Of course not. Is there a risk involved in it? <v Speaker>Certainly we happen to feel that the public is not only entitled <v Speaker>to be educated, it's capable of being educated. <v Speaker>And this is where the public health service differs from us. <v Speaker>It's a matter of philosophy, not semantics. <v Speaker>Well, you know, I think that of the things that have bothered me about the book is as a <v Speaker>public health person, it's the assertion that almost gets the point of saying is a <v Speaker>conspiracy not to do this, you know? <v Speaker>Well, Charles, it benevolent deception. <v Speaker>There are limits in the research budget. No question about that. <v Speaker>I think the choice has been made to direct the research monies that are available toward <v Speaker>basic research, into the nature of the virus and so forth, which I think we both know is

<v Speaker>important. <v Speaker>The kinds of research you'd like to see funded, I think. <v Speaker>I agree that research needs to be done, but I think public health service and certainly <v Speaker>state health departments in this state in particular have made a tremendous investment in <v Speaker>education and trying to get this message to the public. <v Speaker>I think the most frightening thing about your study is the low level of concern <v Speaker>among that particular population. <v Speaker>You know, with multiple contacts who don't appear to be much concerned about getting AIDS <v Speaker>and the low level of protection. I couldn't agree with you. <v Speaker>That's a frightening thing. <v Speaker>If we hadn't done the study, for instance, when I did the study, everybody. <v Speaker>All 800 people had their their AIDS virus tighter Tron. <v Speaker>Everybody was entitled to call back and find out what that was. <v Speaker>Just over 50 percent did. <v Speaker>You've mentioned several times here, and you said in the book that the CDC is involved in <v Speaker>some sort of conspiracy to keep the information from the public, the word of benevolence, <v Speaker>deception, deception, basic policy. <v Speaker>What proof do you have of that?

<v Speaker>They've done it all along in other other situations and other public health situations. <v Speaker>But do you have proof that-. <v Speaker>Let me give you an example I can give you wonderul examples. <v Speaker>We were talking about the possibility of AIDS being transmitted by contact. <v Speaker>For instance, if a lab worker spills a contaminated blood on an arm or there's a cut. <v Speaker>We said there's a possibility of AIDS being picked up from that. <v Speaker>CDC had now reported three cases of that. <v Speaker>The first case they had, they knew for a year that that was true, <v Speaker>that the worker had picked up the AIDS that way and the AIDS virus that way. <v Speaker>And they didn't publish it or make it available to the general public. <v Speaker>Why would the CDC purposefully underplay this? <v Speaker>I don't know, I'm not the CDC. So if you say, is it the level of deception? <v Speaker>The answer? It's deception. I gave it a kind word. <v Speaker>But this, you know. Does the fact that their laboratory worker working with highly <v Speaker>concentrated solutions of HIV can turn zero positive?

<v Speaker>Have a lot of relevance to the public's concern until they've demonstrated conclusively <v Speaker>that's what it was. Now, you think they had that case? <v Speaker>They had the subsequent case, the individual that got themselves with the cannula and <v Speaker>another case where there three cases, third case was a skin rash and <v Speaker>in some sloppy handling. <v Speaker>It seems to me that those cases aren't nearly as important for CDC to be pushing with the <v Speaker>public as the known risk groups. <v Speaker>And that's what they were doing at that point in time. <v Speaker>I don't think they were actually hiding this. <v Speaker>You know, you go back. <v Speaker>They denied the suggestion. <v Speaker>Because rumors were all over the country that the scientific level and then denied <v Speaker>they denied that this had happened for a year. <v Speaker>So you're saying CDC is hiding from the public information about AIDS that we should know <v Speaker>about? <v Speaker>No, no, no. I said benevolent deception. <v Speaker>I said that they knew about this case and didn't publicize it. <v Speaker>Why are they being benevolent?

<v Speaker>If I didn't use the word benevolent deception in this particular instance, I just gave an <v Speaker>example of deception. <v Speaker>Again, we get to this question of why. <v Speaker>Let me give you another. <v Speaker>If there if-. <v Speaker>Let me give you another example. <v Speaker>Okay. <v Speaker>If anybody hasn't read the April issue <v Speaker>of National Geographic on the subject of Uganda and what's happening there <v Speaker>with people dying like crazy because of black flies, but they're <v Speaker>not dying from AIDS, most of them, they're dying from the AIDS related <v Speaker>complex. You know what we're talking AIDS has <v Speaker>certain specific physical dimensions, characteristics, <v Speaker>the AIDS related complex also as a result of the AIDS virus. <v Speaker>But they have different characteristics. <v Speaker>If you're dying by the thousands and it's equally now involved in the heterosexual <v Speaker>population. But the CDC has refused to even call, <v Speaker>except that as an infection. And it is not and it is not reportable in this country. <v Speaker>But is that a valid parallel to draw? Because they have different sanitary conditions?

<v Speaker>I have no argument. I just say that they're dying from the disease. <v Speaker>And at least should be a reportable disease in this country. <v Speaker>Sure. It's not it's not the same. <v Speaker>They don't have the same sanitary conditions. <v Speaker>Their immune system is frequently much more insulted. <v Speaker>Well, it does occur and it's occurring increasing frequency in this country. <v Speaker>And the CDC has not has not to date. <v Speaker>But the CDC's defense, although, you know, I think, you know, clearly <v Speaker>from your perspective, they're moving too slowly. <v Speaker>They have redefined AIDS. They have altered their definition to bring more things in <v Speaker>the ring in the original 1981 definition. <v Speaker>They have reexamined the figures concerning the number of seropositive <v Speaker>in the population. And, you know, with three fairly sophisticated statistical <v Speaker>techniques, still suggest a million and a half is about right. <v Speaker>So I think we have a difference. There's a difference of opinion here. <v Speaker>There's a difference of opinion. But I think that's. <v Speaker>And you're so positive in the book. <v Speaker>And I think what you know, the point is there is a difference of scientific opinion. <v Speaker>Do you feel the CDC is hiding information?

<v Speaker>Do you feel that CDC is hiding information? <v Speaker>You're not remembering what I said. <v Speaker>I said there was a case in point. <v Speaker>I'm not blanketly attacking CDC. <v Speaker>Well, they came out Saturday or Sunday and said that in the low risk heterosexual <v Speaker>group in this country, there are between one and five cases of AIDS. <v Speaker>Doesn't that contradict what you've just been saying in your book? <v Speaker>No, no. <v Speaker>As a matter of fact, I don't. I find it hard to accept that. <v Speaker>Actually, the number that they wouldn't give us three. <v Speaker>That there are three people. <v Speaker>Yes. <v Speaker>Then how can you say that AIDS is running rampant among the heterosexual community? <v Speaker>The low risk. You're saying the statistic is off. <v Speaker>Yes. But we're talking two different things. <v Speaker>Where he read AIDS. <v Speaker>They're talking about cases. <v Speaker> And we're concerned with the virus. <v Speaker>And that's why you can't really say that we <v Speaker>have gross concern if we only have 30, 40 thousand deaths from AIDS <v Speaker>so far. It's the distribution of the virus, for instance, <v Speaker>in order to get to the three million we think that is present in this country.

<v Speaker>Let me give an example. Then use your bureaucracy statistics. <v Speaker>The last time I checked with the CDC statistics, they said that 55000 <v Speaker>people that had they had the diagnosis of AIDS. <v Speaker>You agree with that? Now, the World Health Organization says for every one of the cases <v Speaker>of AIDS around the world, there's somewhere between 50, 100 people that have the virus. <v Speaker>And that's an estimation. That's an issue. <v Speaker>No one knows for sure. No, but if you use the small figure, not fit, not 100, but <v Speaker>50 and multiply that by the 55000. <v Speaker>That's one two million 755. <v Speaker>And you know, whether you're seventy five and you figure 75, the multiplier. <v Speaker>Sixty seven. <v Speaker>Sixty seven. But. <v Speaker>But again, that's that's an estimate based on someone else's estimate. <v Speaker>And people are saying how can they come up with three million. <v Speaker>That's a guess based on a guess. <v Speaker>That's not science. <v Speaker>It's using their statistics objectively. <v Speaker>That's all. I didn't say it was science. <v Speaker>If you been to say science and they shouldn't publish a theoretical concept at all,

<v Speaker>nor should we. But I disagree that you can't. <v Speaker>In science, I disagree that you can't theorize. <v Speaker>One of the charges that has been lodged, an allegation came from a national newspaper <v Speaker>that said you had a conflict of interest because Ortho Pharmaceuticals gave you twenty <v Speaker>five thousand dollars seed money to come up with a spermicidal jelly that will kill AIDS <v Speaker>during intercourse. <v Speaker>All right. Let's put it this way. I went to Ortho. <v Speaker>They didn't come to me. And this is <v Speaker>16 months ago and told them. <v Speaker>And we've tried many foundations that not just ortho, that <v Speaker>we had a concept of controlling the acidity of the vagina to kill the AIDS <v Speaker>virus in the vagina. So that would not be transferred <v Speaker>sexually. All right. <v Speaker>I went to Ortho to see if they could if they could manufacture a controlled acidity <v Speaker>jelly that would maintain its its acidity, despite the very <v Speaker>severe buffering power of the seminal fluid.

<v Speaker>And they have done that. Doing that in their laboratory. <v Speaker>They gave me twenty five thousand dollars to start the work. <v Speaker>The program itself would cost somewhere between six and seven hundred thousand dollars a <v Speaker>year for two years. <v Speaker>And if that's conflict of interest, we have no product. <v Speaker>We just theorize the concept. <v Speaker>It is certainly not unusual to go to a drug house to support of your research. <v Speaker>Washing university does it all the time. <v Speaker>Well, the critics are saying that you're trying to stir up through your book by fear a <v Speaker>market for this. <v Speaker>I assure you that if the product comes out, we won't have to stir up of market. <v Speaker>The market will be there overwhelmingly. <v Speaker>We're not. We're not. I'm not interested in selling the product. <v Speaker>If there's anything that turns out from the product, it with the the money would go to <v Speaker>the institute. Not to me. <v Speaker>I think, you know, that kind of distracts from sort of more important issues about the <v Speaker>book. I would bring the focus back. One of the things that doesn't quite jibe with the <v Speaker>three million figure or with the the idea of of, you know, <v Speaker>wildly uncontrolled AIDS virus in heterosexual

<v Speaker>population is the screening military recruits where there's been no significantly <v Speaker>significant increase in the percentage from the time they started screening. <v Speaker>One would think that if the virus was, you know, was highly prevalent <v Speaker>in passing in the heterosexual community that that screening level would go up. <v Speaker>You couldn't have said it better for me. <v Speaker>I can tell you that in two weeks time when the Army new army figures are released, you'll <v Speaker>find there is an injury. <v Speaker>I'm a straight man. How much of an increase are we talking? <v Speaker>I'll leave it up to them to turn their figures in. <v Speaker>It is significant. Statistically significant. <v Speaker>For instance, you may be interested to know, I'll tell you this, that we made a mistake <v Speaker>in selecting the cities that we did to do the very brief review <v Speaker>on. We selected New York and Los Angeles and in Atlanta, two large <v Speaker>cities where we expected a significant viral exposure, and two cities, <v Speaker>large cities where we didn't expect so much. <v Speaker>St. Louis is now either fifth or sixth in the country in terms of the incidence of the

<v Speaker>virus, according to the figures that are coming out from. <v Speaker>We're fifth or sixth in the country. That's what the army figures will show <v Speaker>that is going to be released in the next two weeks. <v Speaker>To what do you attribute that? <v Speaker>I don't attribute it to anything except that worry. <v Speaker>I'm concerned. <v Speaker>Weaver's really surprised at the incidence of the AIDS virus we got in <v Speaker>the multiple partner work that we did in the St. Louis area. <v Speaker>Dr. Kennedy is it possible that five years, 10 years down the road, we're gonna be <v Speaker>looking back in 1988 and say this man and his partners were right? <v Speaker>Certainly possible. I mean, you know, we've several times tonight said anything's <v Speaker>possible and you make assumptions. I think we've got two scientific <v Speaker>constructs for this disease is and where it might be going. <v Speaker>And they differ. And it may well be that different perpetrations. <v Speaker>Right. I think important thing is that the public react as <v Speaker>Dr. Masters wants them to. And that's with practice, safer practices, <v Speaker>behaving as if there is a danger because there is a danger.

<v Speaker>One thing that has come up in the public a lot is the nation's blood supply. <v Speaker>You say that the chances are much greater of catching AIDS through the blood supply than <v Speaker>the CDC says. That's correct. Is it something that if you're going in for a surgery, <v Speaker>elective surgery, you should be worried about? <v Speaker>It's something that if you go in for elective surgery, you should go in ahead of time and <v Speaker>make a deposit of a pint or two of your own blood so that if you needed it surgery, you <v Speaker>can get it through a transfusion so that you're not getting other blood <v Speaker>products. The incidence is significant. <v Speaker>Is there any question that if we're talking about the incidence of <v Speaker>from our statistical approach, the incidence of contamination, <v Speaker>contaminated blood products, not just transfusion of blood products, <v Speaker>is in the order of the incidence of distress <v Speaker>in seizure one in five thousand, one in six thousand, something in that order. <v Speaker>But again, CDC says it's not that bad. It's one in 40 thousand. <v Speaker>I understand that where we differ in terms of our statistics,

<v Speaker>we have as much right to our statistics as anyone. <v Speaker>In your book, you call for mandatory testing of people getting married, of pregnant women <v Speaker>of convicted prostitutes, people in the hospital. <v Speaker>In the hospital. That's correct. <v Speaker>Do you think that would help or would that cause, as some of the people in the effort for <v Speaker>AIDS group says, more discrimination and more paranoia? <v Speaker>Well, there are a lot of people to think of that effect. <v Speaker>I listen to advance hospital staff discussion this week on <v Speaker>AIDS. And the issue was made is we should not do mandatory testing because if someone <v Speaker>came up with a positive AIDS test, they'd have trouble getting insurance. <v Speaker>That's true. They'd have trouble getting insurance. <v Speaker>But I don't think that's the way to approach this thing from a scientific point of view. <v Speaker>We aren't going to know the spread of the AIDS in the heterosexual population unless we <v Speaker>test. <v Speaker>We've got about 30 seconds left. What would you like to see done to increase the <v Speaker>knowledge in the AIDS front? <v Speaker>I would like to see now a tremendous amount of work done in prevention. <v Speaker>I have no argument, totally support the concept of the lab where there <v Speaker>must be the ultimate protection against the virus developed.

<v Speaker>But until that time and we're talking years, more effort and money and time is <v Speaker>spent in research and developing protective mechanisms such as the contraceptive jelly. <v Speaker>Hooray! <v Speaker>We're out of time. Thank you both for being here. <v Speaker>I'm sorry you didn't get to phone tonight. But thank you at home for watching. <v Speaker>If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, let us know. <v Speaker>Our address is Highway 40, 6996 Millbrook Boulevard, St. Louis six three <v Speaker>one three oh. A local video store owner says someone is threatening to kill his children <v Speaker>if he doesn't stop running x rated movies. <v Speaker>The battle over pornography: has it escalated to death threats? <v Speaker>That'll be our topic next week on Highway 40. <v Speaker>Until then, I'm Dennis Riggs. Goodnight. <v Speaker>The production of Highway 40 is supported in part by the Fox Family Foundation.