Proposition 102 : Aids Reporting : Reporting Law Would Hurt AIDS Studies, Scientists Say

Some of the nation’s leading AIDS researchers gathered here Tuesday to condemn Proposition 102, the latest California AIDS ballot measure, as a dangerous and politically motivated intrusion into their efforts to quell the epidemic.

“This single piece of legislation will have more to do with prolonging the epidemic than anything I can imagine,” said Dr. Mervyn Silverman, president of the American Foundation for AIDS Research.

“If LaRouche was Peter Pan, then this is Frankenstein,” Silverman added, comparing the November ballot measure to the twice-defeated AIDS initiative backed by political extremist Lyndon LaRouche.

By mandating the reporting to state officials of the names of all those who test positive for the AIDS-causing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), “Prop. 102 would scare away research subjects and drive the epidemic underground,” said Dr. Paul Volberding, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and head of AIDS programs at San Francisco General Hospital.

“Clinical research in California could come to a grinding halt,” added Volberding, who is conducting trials of several potentially promising drugs and depends upon a steady stream of volunteers to test their efficacy.

State law already mandates the reporting of the names of people with clear symptoms of AIDS. Besides extending the reporting provision to those carrying the virus, the measure, backed by Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), would shut down anonymous testing centers for HIV and allow employers and insurers to test for the virus.

The measure would also require doctors to report to the government the names of those they reasonably believe to be infected with HIV, a provision that Silverman called “Orwellian, to say the least.”

Opponents of the measure say it runs counter to the proven public health strategy of encouraging members of high-risk groups to come forward for voluntary anonymous testing without fear of losing their jobs and health insurance.

People have come forward for testing and counseling “because they trust us not to put their names on government lists,” said Dr. Andrew Moss, an epidemiologist at San Francisco General. He noted that the rate of new infection in San Francisco’s gay community “is extremely low and going down,” as a result of the city’s anonymous testing, counseling and education programs.

“This is not a conflict between public health and civil liberties,” added Silverman. “Public health officials already have all the power necessary to cope with this epidemic,” he continued, noting that HIV cannot be transmitted through casual contact.

The researchers at the press conference said they were alarmed by the California Poll released last week that showed 72% of those polled in favor of Proposition 102, 22% opposed and 6% undecided.

Opponents of the measure say their best hope is to persuade Californians that the initiative is bad medicine and cite endorsements of their position by the California Medical Assn., the California Nurses Assn. and the Health Officers Assn.

On Monday, in a boost to the measure’s opponents, U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) joined his Democratic challenger, Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy, in opposing Proposition 102.