"people just aren't talking about [HIV] anymore."

May 9, 2015 3:03 PM

German magazine prints cover in HIV+ blood. In an effort to raise awareness about the recent rise in HIV infections, and combat stigma about HIV+ people, the German men's magazine Vangardist has printed the cover of its spring issue using ink infused with HIV positive blood. Or was it the whole magazine? More from Time.
posted by dis_integration (65 comments total)

Patton Oswalt coined a phrase recently that I think applies here: "Under consideration for the Needlessly Provocative Dickhead Move Award."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:17 PM on May 9, 2015 [10 favorites]

Yeah, what Cool Papa Bell said. Plus it's kind of preaching to the choir, no? And gimmicky?
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 3:25 PM on May 9, 2015

From the HuffPo article:

"Using provocative and innovative methods of reducing stigma is one of the few ways to attract an audience you normally wouldn't attract," Scott McPherson, a founder of the Stigma Project, an HIV awareness group, told The Huffington Post in an email. "What's the risk of someone contracting HIV by picking up a magazine [whose] ink is infused with HIV+ blood? None. And now ... more people will learn this information and hopefully apply it to their everyday lives. We're all in this together, reducing stigma one conversation at a time."

posted by Fizz at 3:28 PM on May 9, 2015 [3 favorites]

Are we sure the stigma here is about HIV+ blood in magazines and not the concept of blood magazines in general?
posted by Drinky Die at 3:31 PM on May 9, 2015 [19 favorites]

Nobody made the same fuss about the first KISS comic, DD, so I'm guessing the former. (I may have my own copy around still.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 3:34 PM on May 9, 2015 [3 favorites]

There was a study I read about possibly two years ago in which college age persons were invited to be involved in a study. When the participant arrived they are purposely put in an extremely cold room with an interviewer who is going to ask them questions. Noticing that the participant was obviously cold the interviewer offers a gender neutral sweater, that is sitting to the side of the participant to drape over them to stay warmer. The interviewer does interject that the sweater was left by an earlier participant and that the person who owned the sweater has full blown AIDS. The reaction of the participants to the sweater was noted. The participants reaction to the sweater was the purpose of the study.
posted by robbyrobs at 3:43 PM on May 9, 2015 [7 favorites]

Basic food safety tells us that a 6-D reduction (i.e., 10^6) by pasteurization does not kill all the microorganisms, by definition. What exactly is being claimed about the manufacturing of these books?
posted by polymodus at 3:43 PM on May 9, 2015

Yeah, what Halloween Jack said. I'm actually pretty willing to believe that the magazine would probably have sold out promptly if it had been printed in blood from a blood bank, or maybe even blood from donors of unknown status from a low-risk group, because hey, cool, blood.

I think the results of this stunt justify it. I think the difficulty they had selling copies of the magazine initially is actually a pretty powerful demonstration of how many people's instinctual risk-calculus is broken when it comes to HIV.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:44 PM on May 9, 2015 [5 favorites]

"Using provocative and innovative methods of reducing stigma is one of the few ways to attract an audience you normally wouldn't attract,"

Ok, but the message would carry more weight, in my opinion, if, say, Time magazine used the HIV ink and not a magazine whose target is gay men. I dunno. Any publicity is good publicity, I guess, but I think most people resent being bludgeoned with a message. The enlightened don't need this message, it's the unenlightened, correct? It may help create the opposite reaction of the one intended.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 3:49 PM on May 9, 2015

Like it or not, this magazine has started a conversation about the stigma against HIV in ways it might not have otherwise. As much as I know it would be safe to handle, I'd still feel weird about it - which has me wondering if I'd feel weird in other situations with HIV+ people as well. It might just be my own ignorance, or failure to be jaded, or whatever, but at least now I'm thinking about my own prejudices and the stigmas I seem to hold against certain people. I'd consider that a success, even if the whole thing was cooked up by an ad agency.
posted by teponaztli at 3:49 PM on May 9, 2015 [17 favorites]

Plenty of stigma to go around, lots of ignorance, too.

"At the same time, H.I.V. specialists from Indianapolis — who have evaluated about 50 people with the virus here so far and started about 20 of them on antiretroviral drugs — are fighting a barrage of misinformation about the virus in Scott County, where almost all residents are white, few go to college and one in five live in poverty, according to the census.

“There are still a significant proportion of people in Austin who have biases about H.I.V. and are contributing to the stigma and subsequent fear,” said Dr. Diane Janowicz, an infectious disease specialist at Indiana University, who is treating H.I.V. patients here. “I have to reassure them: If your grandkid wants a sip of your drink, you can share it. It’s O.K. to eat at the same table. You can use the same bathroom.”" (Also on the blue)

And I don't know why people think there's no stigma in the gay community. Why assume gay men are so "enlightened"? There's plenty of stigma associated with AIDS right here in San Francisco; why would Germany be different?
posted by rtha at 3:52 PM on May 9, 2015 [15 favorites]

Ok, but the message would carry more weight, in my opinion, if, say, Time magazine used the HIV ink and not a magazine whose target is gay men.

I think the problem is that you are incorrectly assuming that HIV stigma is not a major problem among gay men.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:52 PM on May 9, 2015 [11 favorites]

I think the problem is that you are incorrectly assuming that HIV stigma is not a major problem among gay men.

Ok, well I hope this issue of Vangardist succeeds in its intent.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 4:02 PM on May 9, 2015

It is extraordinarily unlikely that they actually did this, rather than just saying they did.
posted by miyabo at 4:07 PM on May 9, 2015

If they did, there's nothing saying how much blood they used even. It could literally be just a drop. Indeed, it probably is, because you don't want to risk affecting the ink so it won't bind well to the page.

I think we should all demand that our governing officials set strict regulatory guidelines on minimum blood content in ink.
posted by JHarris at 4:19 PM on May 9, 2015 [13 favorites]

It is extraordinarily unlikely that they actually did this, rather than just saying they did.

I have to say that I wondered about this as well. I wonder if they can verify this or state who their printer was.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 4:20 PM on May 9, 2015

It is extraordinarily unlikely that they actually did this, rather than just saying they did.

I doubt the magazine would risk alienating their predominantly gay readership by completely fabricating the stunt. It would be very bad press if that leaked.

Tangential: Radiolab ran a story in their blood episode about a series of artworks by Barton Benes, incorporating the artist's own HIV+ blood.
posted by colin.jaquiery at 5:52 PM on May 9, 2015 [1 favorite]

The principles of Homeopathy indicate that having read a FPP about an article about a magazine printed with HIV+ blood we will all die of AIDS.

its too late im sorry
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:19 PM on May 9, 2015 [25 favorites]

The interviewer does interject that the sweater was left by an earlier participant and that the person who owned the sweater has full blown AIDS. The reaction of the participants to the sweater was noted. The participants reaction to the sweater was the purpose of the study.

that's not obvious or anything
posted by jayder at 6:20 PM on May 9, 2015 [1 favorite]

It is extraordinarily unlikely that they actually did this, rather than just saying they did.

Seems it would be easy enough to do, and completely safe. And there's past precedent, a la KISS comic.

Either way I agree with the central argument behind this. About two thirds of global HIV cases are in sub-Saharan Africa alone, and this 2013 ECDC report (.pdf) is downright frightening - HIV rates are almost inversely proportional between EEA and non-EEA countries. That is a serious contrast of access to education, prevention and treatment, and whatever we're doing to change that isn't working. And part of the reason more isn't being done could have a lot to do with how much pressure we're putting on elected officials to do more. I think that's a safe bet.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:12 PM on May 9, 2015

think the difficulty they had selling copies of the magazine initially is actually a pretty powerful demonstration of how many people's instinctual risk-calculus is broken when it comes to HIV.

Or maybe people just don't want touch "bloody" things?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:32 PM on May 9, 2015 [2 favorites]

Guys, we do realise that the risk of infection is zero, right?
posted by hoyland at 7:35 PM on May 9, 2015 [5 favorites]

So if you cut out the individual letters from the cover, does the blood content mean that you could paste them together to sign a contract with the devil that barters the souls of the donors in exchange for unparalleled skill at playing the accordion? Or for some other suitably German Satanic boon? I guess that would be one way to test whether they really used blood.
posted by XMLicious at 8:21 PM on May 9, 2015 [7 favorites]

I think it's great that they did this. Every conversation that spreads further understanding of HIV is a conversation that makes life easier for people with HIV, as well as for people with fear of contracting HIV. Nothing wrong with getting educated!
posted by oceanjesse at 11:33 PM on May 9, 2015 [1 favorite]

The participants reaction to the sweater was the purpose of the study.

So "informed consent" isn't a requirement for a study any more? How is this ethical?
posted by DreamerFi at 2:08 AM on May 10, 2015

BTW, re: pasteurization, it's not just a single protocol: there are completely different pasteurization procedures for different purposes. The temperature/time parameters depend heavily on what pathogens you are trying to kill, what margin of safety you want, and what use your product will have. For example, the protocol for deactivating HIV in blood plasma preparations is totally different from pasteurization of juice to kill bacterial contaminants (60°C at 10h vs. 71°C for 3 seconds, respectively). I don't know why protocols derived from food safety, as opposed to ones specifically designed for HIV inactivation, would be relevant to this conversation.
posted by en forme de poire at 2:08 AM on May 10, 2015

The Time link answers the "how much blood" question.

"We made 3,000 copies of the limited-edition magazine printed with the blood, available for 50 euros online. The ink is mixed with 28 parts ink to 1 part donated blood in a process that was overseen and certified as safe by doctors at Harvard University and Innsbruck University. Another 15,000 copies were printed with regular ink, available for 10 euros at stands."

This also makes it seem more likely that it really happened, to me. Hopefully someone at Time fact checked this with those doctors.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:20 AM on May 10, 2015 [2 favorites]

DreamerFi: studies where the participants are led to believe something is being tested, when in fact something else is being tested (including their own reactions), are very common, and the ethical implications are absolutely taken into consideration when they are considered for approval. Sometimes there's no other way to study a psychological effect than to briefly deceive a participant. I believe that the long-term effects of the deception are taken into account when deciding whether or not to approve a proposed experimental design. In this case, I can't see any long-term ill effects at all. Can you?

There's more detail on this in this Wikipedia article, this set of ethical principles for research with human participants (PDF; section 4) and this paper.
posted by daisyk at 4:52 AM on May 10, 2015 [7 favorites]

Guys, we do realise that the risk of infection is zero, right?

We do. The general public, though...not so much. The fact that there's zero chance of infection, yet this will either be their most popular issue ever, or the least (due to general ignorance and misinformation) is at least part of the point.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:50 AM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]

Cool Papa Bell: "Patton Oswalt coined a phrase recently that I think applies here: "Under consideration for the Needlessly Provocative Dickhead Move Award.""

Huh - that's sorta how I feel about Patton Oswalt far more often than I wish was the case. Funny, that.
posted by symbioid at 9:46 AM on May 10, 2015 [3 favorites]

Halloween Jack: "Nobody made the same fuss about the first KISS comic, DD, so I'm guessing the former. (I may have my own copy around still.)"

And nobody's buying the first issue of my "Zany Guy" comic whose cover is blotter paper with one hit in the corner. (I really did have that as an idea, one day LOL)
posted by symbioid at 9:50 AM on May 10, 2015

The risk of infection is zero?

Huh, and here I was under the misconception that contact with HIV+ blood is dangerous and should be avoided. I mean, that's why you're supposed to wear a condom during sex (unless in a long-term relationship), right? So, that's not necessary anymore?
posted by sour cream at 9:59 AM on May 10, 2015

We're really that ignorant of HIV?

HIV doesn't live outside the body
(eep, deleted alot of my own ignorant comments). The link has better and more reliable info with facts than my own misconceptions...
posted by symbioid at 10:14 AM on May 10, 2015 [3 favorites]

> HIV doesn't live outside the body

In a thread where we're making a point of how much misinformation there is out there, could we limit ourselves to statements that are strictly true? If this were strictly true then HIV could not be transmitted by sharing needles.

I honestly don't think "true, but with a few quibbles and a couple of asterisks" cuts it.
posted by jfuller at 11:28 AM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]

I mean, that's why you're supposed to wear a condom during sex

Are you seriously likening the risk from unprotected sex with an HIV+ person to the risk from touching pasteurized blood that has been diluted with printer ink, dried into a thin film, and allowed to sit around at room temperature after drying?
posted by en forme de poire at 11:54 AM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]

I had written much of this up before and then closed the page without posting it, but it keeps coming up so I feel I have to say it. Three major points:

1. Regardless of the actual safety of HIV virus, the whole thing is a particularly loathsome publicity stunt. The words "in an effort to raise awareness" have been used to justify all kinds of ridiculous events, where people go to great lengths to exploit their privileged positions to affect some social change without actually doing a damn substantive thing.

The way to affect this kind of change is to tell people rationally and let them decide rationally. The media should be in the business of promoting rational discourse, not prodding using the readers' fears, no matter how misplaced they are. The whole thing is a tabloid-level stunt.

2. The thing about viruses is that they are actually inert outside of biological contexts. They aren't alive in the traditional sense, and in a way it's misleading to say they're killed. It's more like deactivated. They're little biological machines. The thing that makes HIV virus nonviable outside of organisms is exposure to the elements, so it's possible for a one-in-a-million chance to mean one could survive. It's a slim chance, and it would still have to make it into someone, which is a hard problem for HIV given its usual infection vectors, but it's not impossible. Official advice concerning HIV assumes that people are rightfully cautious and avoiding contact when possible, instead of including it in 3,000 issues of their mass-market consumer product.

It is not the publisher's place to determine the safety but the people who, if something were to go wrong, would have to face the direct and immediate consequences, and have been denied the opportunity to decide for themselves, especially since, if an infection did happen, there would probably enough uncertainty about where it came from that they would be insulated from blame.

The word to use to describe this ink is not infused; it is contaminated. It would be well to remember what it is contaminated with. This is medical waste, and it's dangerous for reasons other than containing virus. Wikipedia: "Biomedical waste may be solid or liquid. Examples of infectious waste include discarded blood[...]" Medical waste in medical situations is disposed of carefully. How is it handled in a publishing situation? How did they get their blood? And what is the supply chain here? The article says the blood came from HIV-positive donors; from what process? Did any of them have any other diseases? It amounts to playing with people's lives; even if the actual chance of infection is one in a billion, it's still a game to them.

One person quoted in the article notes that AIDS organizations Aid for AIDS of Nevada says: "Just remember, outside of the body HIV can't survive. In minutes it will die and be harmless, but Universal Precautions should always be used." (Their capitalization, my emphasis.) AIDSmap notes that in isolated circumstances virus could survive for several weeks outside the body. It still has to make it in, but again, one-in-a-million chances do happen. In ordinary contexts it's safe, but this is not an ordinary context, its purposely creating 3,000 exposures.

3. Do you actually know what happens to HIV virus out of the body? Of course you don't, if you're not a doctor. People carry a lot of information along with them as they go about their lives, and like Sherlock Holmes, prioritize based on what they need. Pointing at people and calling them ignorant for being scared is being hypocritical; of course they're scared, HIV virus has a tremendous cultural weight attached to it. They're purposely doing this to scare people, and that is reprehensible whatever the reason. In that they're actually increasing the stigma attached to the disease, by making people afraid, which might not make logical sense but that's the thing about fear, it's not logical.

From the post: "Romeyko admits the idea of using HIV blood didn't get any big endorsements from activist AIDS organizations, given the potential for panic and public health outcries." YOU THINK? And when conservative media outlets hear of this, their reaction isn't going to be calm discourse; it's just the grist their 24-hour rumor mills need to stir up fear.

They might print on their pages all the reasons people shouldn't be afraid, but people are going to hear about it and stay as far as possible away from those pages. It's a mixed message in that way.

And imagine if somehow it worked. Imagine the precedent it would set. Even if absolutely safe, another publisher seeing this may not take the same precautions. It's forcibly pushing what they think is important into public mindspaces through fear, and it doesn't scale well. Imagine what would happen if all magazine publishers did this, and you couldn't risk going to the newsstand for fear of what disease their ink was fortified with. "Oh, Time's got bubonic plague this week. Get the New Yorker, they're doing polio."
posted by JHarris at 11:54 AM on May 10, 2015 [6 favorites]

The risk of infection is zero?

Yes. Zero. As per TFA: the virus doesn't live but 30 minutes outside the body, and they went through an additional pasteurization process. Which was likely not entirely necessary even. HIV is not a strong virus. Bleach in water can kill it.

Honestly comments like this prove their point where awareness is concerned.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:01 PM on May 10, 2015 [3 favorites]

(GAH, I reread my comment like eight times and still significant typos got through. Please give benefit of doubt. I'm leaving before hippopotamus artichoke ukelele GOD ITS HAPPENING AGAIN)
posted by JHarris at 12:05 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]

Blood-infused anything, is unappealing to me, and I would avoid buying something whose ink was infused with pig blood, or measles-infused blood.

How was this made? In what scenario is it acceptable to harvest blood for marketing purposes? Handling blood, especially blood from someone with HIV, is inherently dangerous. It seems unethical to me to do this for a publicity stunt.

The ink is infused with sensationalism. Do not want.
posted by theora55 at 12:07 PM on May 10, 2015 [7 favorites]

JHarris, the kind of theoretical risk you're talking about, where so many layers of protection (pasteurization, dilution, extended oxygen exposure at room temperature, your own skin barriers, whatever therapies the donors were taking) would have had to fail for you to have been even exposed to viable virus, strikes me as getting into the realm of being concerned about situations like sharing tableware with an HIV+ person. Despite the fact that you can come up with a contrived scenario where transmission could theoretically happen in that context (what if both of you had bleeding gums and shared a fork?) groups like the CDC (rightly) describe this latter situation as no risk. Even more importantly, contrary to what you claim, nobody has actually taken away anyone's right to "decide for themselves" whether or not to interact with this magazine -- if you genuinely think that even this theoretical risk is too much for you to bear, you are perfectly free to just not purchase a copy, open the sterile packaging and/or read the magazine.

What you are arguing seems to actually go beyond that, though: it seems that you are suggesting that just because this magazine makes you and others scared, that therefore it should not exist. I think this is a very dangerous line of thinking. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to make your own decisions based on this kind of emotional reasoning, and the mere existence of this magazine does not change that; however, that does not mean that your decision-making is above critique, that other people are responsible for managing your emotions by not doing things that make you nervous, or that your emotional reaction alone should be enough to inform decisions that other people make.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:24 PM on May 10, 2015 [3 favorites]

Here in Brazil, a NGO made posters with HIV positive blood.
posted by ireneadler at 3:32 PM on May 10, 2015 [2 favorites]

> The way to affect this kind of change is to tell people rationally and let them decide rationally.

Gosh, no one's thought of that for the last 30 years of this epidemic. That must be why HIV is still of epidemic status and still has so much stigma surrounding it. Maybe we should let the CDC and other national health departments in on this novel idea.

> They might print on their pages all the reasons people shouldn't be afraid, but people are going to hear about it and stay as far as possible away from those pages. It's a mixed message in that way.

How is it mixed? They explain how you cannot catch HIV from touching the magazine. You can't catch it even if you lick that pages. And yet people are staying away from it. How is that a rational decision? It isn't.
posted by rtha at 4:06 PM on May 10, 2015 [2 favorites]

If someone has a fear, immersing them in the object of that fear is probably absolutely the worst thing you can do. By virtue of saying "THIS MAGAZINE IS PRINTED IN HIV+ BLOOD" you are basically ensuring that it isn't read by anyone who actually has these fears, and I don't think it would be any better if someone was "tricked" into handling it.

> They explain how you cannot catch HIV from touching the magazine. You can't catch it even if you lick that pages. And yet people are staying away from it.

Probably because it only says THIS MAGAZINE IS PRINTED IN HIV+ BLOOD on the front - You kind of have to get past that to actually read the details, everything else is on the inside. Can you really fault people who have this "misinformed fear" from not opening it? There is literally nothing on the cover that would help anyone who already has that sort of fear get past it. What possible reason would they have to open it and read more?

Hypothetically, you could print a "THIS MAGAZINE IS PRINTED WITH EBOLA INFUSED INK" issue of, say, Time. Being the more recent scare in which we have all learned how it is and is not transmitted, there should be absolutely no problems there, right? Surely anyone who is afraid of it would pick it up to look inside where they explain how its safe.

Said differently -- Preying on someones fears isn't really the best way to address those fears.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:19 PM on May 10, 2015 [6 favorites]

> Can you really fault people who have this "misinformed fear" from not opening it?

Yes, because it isn't 1981, or even 1991, any more. We are literally decades into this epidemic, and Germany is not a backwater. Just like Indiana is not a backwater. But both are home, apparently, to inadequate sexual health education programs and/or policymakers who put their morals over evidence.
posted by rtha at 4:45 PM on May 10, 2015 [4 favorites]

So "informed consent" isn't a requirement for a study any more? How is this ethical?

I don't even see what the putative problem is supposed to be.
posted by kenko at 6:12 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]

Said differently -- Preying on someones fears isn't really the best way to address those fears.

The point is to make people confront their fears of/biases around HIV that they don't necessarily recognise, not to make them feel comfortable or good about themselves.
posted by hoyland at 6:38 PM on May 10, 2015 [2 favorites]

I want to hear an expert scientist explain the issues about transmission, not handwavy "reasoning" by a bunch of graphic designers regardless of my genuine appreciation for their oft clever and sometimes creative ideas.

For example I expect to hear about 6D reduction when they appeal to "pasteurization".

Or I guess I could read up on it myself. But the best information changes, and has changed, over time, right?
posted by polymodus at 7:41 PM on May 10, 2015 [1 favorite]

> And let me just say I'm hugely fucking uncomfortable with Germany doing this, given their national history of blood libels.

"Germany" hasn't done anything. The magazine that did this is a men's magazine aimed at gay men.

> I want to hear an expert scientist explain the issues about transmission,

Is the CDC good enough?
HIV does not survive long outside the human body (such as on surfaces), and it cannot reproduce. It is not spread by

• Air or water.
• Insects, including mosquitoes or ticks.
• Saliva, tears, or sweat. There is no documented case of HIV being transmitted by spitting.
• Casual contact like shaking hands or sharing dishes.
• Closed-mouth or “social” kissing
• Toilet seats.

From this PDF put out by the Texas Dept of Insurance:
To obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory-grown virus. Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive for days or even weeks under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the amount of infectious virus by 90 to 99 percent within several hours. Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other specimens, drying of HIV-infected human blood or other body fluids reduces the risk of environmental transmission to that which has been observed — essentially zero.
posted by rtha at 7:59 PM on May 10, 2015 [6 favorites]

What's the electronic version made from? Malware that has been rendered inert?
posted by turbid dahlia at 9:29 PM on May 10, 2015

I get that the risk of infection really is zero.

But the messaging is really mixed:

(a) The magazine is "an effort to raise awareness about the recent rise in HIV infections".
So the message here is "Better be careful with that HIV thing. Protect yourself." How else would you combat the rise in HIV infections?

(b) At the same time, it wants to inform people that it is OK to touch (hug, etc.) HIV+ people. So the message is: "It's OK to touch HIV+ people! Nothing to worry about! Just chill and be cool!"

Of course, the two message are reconcilable, i.e. "It is OK to touch HIV+ people, but you better don't have unprotected sex with them."

But perhaps that is a bit too nuanced to get across with a gimmicky magazine cover...
posted by sour cream at 3:43 AM on May 11, 2015

Maybe, just maybe, the magazine has something on the issue of HIV beyond the cover, and we shouldn't expect them to put all of the messaging on the cover. Maybe the nuance is inside, in the articles, which you read once you've looked at the cover and had your interest piqued.

Otherwise, they'd be making a poster, not a magazine.
posted by Dysk at 4:04 AM on May 11, 2015

Reminds me of this vinyl pressing: Perfect Pussy Release Vinyl LPs Containing Singer Meredith Graves' Blood
posted by fiercecupcake at 7:33 AM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]

> I get that the risk of infection really is zero.

I do too. But there are more considerations than just risk of infection. There is such thing as a halo effect, and I would have no interest in taking a ride in the limo President Kennedy was shot in--though I quite understand that political assassination is not communicable in any sense that would interest the CDC or the WHO. People can say "it's all irrational fear and misinformation" as much as they like, without making that true.
posted by jfuller at 1:50 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]

But there are more considerations than just risk of infection. There is such thing as a halo effect...

How is what you are describing different from HIV stigma, in this specific case?
posted by en forme de poire at 3:47 PM on May 11, 2015 [2 favorites]

> How is what you are describing different from HIV stigma, in this specific case?

Not based on irrational fear and misinformation--which, by doctrine, all HIV stigma is.
posted by jfuller at 6:07 PM on May 11, 2015

How is a fear of riding in a car someone was assassinated in fifty years ago not irrational?

How is being afraid of catching a disease you cannot catch from the ink on a magazine cover not irrational and/or the result of misinformation?
posted by rtha at 6:41 PM on May 11, 2015 [3 favorites]

The fact that there is a likely psychological explanation for your fear does not mean that your fear is rational.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:52 PM on May 11, 2015 [1 favorite]

Are you speaking if my fear, of either touching a magazine or of riding in a particular historic vehicle? I hold no such fear. You two just made it up out of whole cloth, as so often happens when this subject comes up.
posted by jfuller at 10:34 AM on May 12, 2015

Uh, anyone's fear, I guess? But you were the one who raised the issue of not wanting to ride in Kennedy's limo because of the "halo effect." In what possible way did I make that up?
posted by rtha at 10:39 AM on May 12, 2015 [1 favorite]

Feel free to substitute "unease" or "discomfort" or any other type of emotional reaction with "fear" above if you feel like that's more suitable in your case. But yeah, a halo effect as I understand it is some kind of emotional reaction to one attribute of an object that spills over into your evaluation of the object as a whole.

It seems like you're stating that because a halo effect is a known phenomenon to which humans are subject, that this means it is not irrational and/or the result of misinformation. Is this a fair characterization of what you're arguing? If so, I would strongly disagree, because this effect is a cognitive bias; in other words, it is very literally a form of prejudice. If not, I don't understand what you mean by appealing to the halo effect while also stating that the halo effect is "not irrational."
posted by en forme de poire at 12:47 PM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]

> In what possible way did I make that up?

You assumed that a big famous death in that car is the thing generating the halo to which (against which) I reacted. It is not; it is my disinclination to do anything that might smack (halo) of the modern fixation on celebrities, with JFK being the celebrity.


> a halo effect as I understand it is some kind of emotional reaction to one attribute of
> an object that spills over into your evaluation of the object as a whole.

Any real material object has an infinite number of attributes; that there might be an unknown number of deactivated human immunodeficiency virii connected to these issues is only one. You have not the remotest trace of evidence that it is the HIV in the ink that makes me uneasy or uncomfortable.

In fact it is not. The attribute that puts me off this one is the stuntishness of whole project. You yourself have referred to it twice in this thread as a "stunt," and I do so agree. I feel about it just as I would feel at seeing publicity from People magazine stating "We hired Taylor Swift to personally kiss every single copy of this week's issue." OMG Ew.
posted by jfuller at 3:24 PM on May 12, 2015 [2 favorites]

You have not the remotest trace of evidence that it is the HIV in the ink that makes me uneasy or uncomfortable.

I actually asked you repeatedly to clarify what you were arguing because it was -- I now realize intentionally -- unclear and ambiguous. Anyway, there are literally multiple people in this thread who have said that it is specifically the collection of HIV+ blood and/or its presence in the ink that makes them uneasy or uncomfortable. If that's not you, fantastic.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:39 PM on May 12, 2015

Deliberately obtuse and obfuscatory. Splendid. Exactly what's needed in a discussion about HIV and stigma. Well-played.
posted by rtha at 4:00 PM on May 12, 2015

Uh, thanks for demonstrating that aversion to being associated with celebrities can't be rigorously categorized as "irrational fear and misinformation" jfuller, who knows what terrible things might have happened if I'd been misled into thinking otherwise.
posted by XMLicious at 4:10 PM on May 12, 2015 [3 favorites]

This poster is HIV-positive. The people who read it are instantly touched.
posted by andoatnp at 2:12 PM on May 31, 2015