thumbnail of Highway 40; Masters and Johnson and the threat of AIDS
Hide -
<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
Highway 40
Masters and Johnson and the threat of AIDS
Producing Organization
KETC-TV (Television station : Saint Louis, Mo.)
Contributing Organization
The Nine Network of Public Media (St. Louis, Missouri)
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia (Athens, Georgia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip-110-16c2ftdq).
Episode Description
"It is one of the most feared diseases, but for heterosexuals the threat of AIDS seems remote, confined to gay men, intravenous drug users and their lovers. But last spring a book written by noted sex therapists Dr. William Masters and Virginia Johnson offered a troubling analysis of the AIDS threat. In CRISIS: Heterosexual Behavior in the Age of AIDS, Masters and Johnson concluded that the 'AIDS virus is running rampant in the heterosexual community' and can be transmitted through casual contacts. Masters and Johnson also charged the government with 'deception' in downplaying the extent and nature of the epidemic. "The publication of CRISIS triggered an uproar in the scientific community, and many AIDS experts were highly critical of the scientific methodology and conclusions reached by Masters and Johnson. In the face of that criticism the authors maintained a virtual silence. However, that silence ended when Dr. Masters agreed to appear 'live' on HIGHWAY 40 to discuss and defend his book. The ensuing discussion explored the implications of Masters and Johnson's latest research and helped answer some of the troubling questions surrounding the threat society faces from the AIDS epidemic."--1988 Peabody Awards entry form.
Broadcast Date
Created Date
Asset type
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: KETC-TV (Television station : Saint Louis, Mo.)
AAPB Contributor Holdings
The Nine Network of Public Media (formerly KETC)
Identifier: cpb-aacip-7d3e35e9a16 (Filename)
Format: U-matic
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia
Identifier: cpb-aacip-ebf424f65c9 (Filename)
Format: U-matic
Duration: 00:27:48
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Highway 40; Masters and Johnson and the threat of AIDS,” 1988, The Nine Network of Public Media, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 28, 2022,
MLA: “Highway 40; Masters and Johnson and the threat of AIDS.” 1988. The Nine Network of Public Media, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 28, 2022. <>.
APA: Highway 40; Masters and Johnson and the threat of AIDS. Boston, MA: The Nine Network of Public Media, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from