Woah, I didn't know about it till this comment! Never even a mention of it in his autobiography either (which is as delightful a book as his fiction)

His family didn't want it to be public for a long time in order to avoid the stigma.

Eventually, hearts changed, and it was decided it would be a powerful statement to come forth with the details surrounding his death.

I didn't know about it either until now. A true tragedy.

I agree with the positive sentiment, but disagree that AIDS should be forgotten. The bigotry and petty vindictiveness in th 90’s was disgusting and in some quarters it lives on. The earlier days were worse as I understand it, and there is a lesson in it all.

Can confirm. My eldest brother died of it via a blood transfusion. This was during the early days when it was little understood and all treatment was experimental.

The "popular" assumption was that catching it proved you were gay and highly promiscuous, or sharing heroin needles, therefore deserved it. Some of my brother's friends never spoke to him again from the moment of finding out. I think he found other's reactions as hard to deal with as the death sentence.

Mother did her utmost to never mention, and made me promise to always say he had cancer.

That bigotry still exists, and is far too common, as seen in some of this thread's comments.

One concern I have is the resurgence of other STDs as a result of curing HIV. The number of sexual partners adults have has been steadily rising and risky so transmission of other "regular" uncurable STDs like HPV and Herpes may spike.

Shouldn't you then question if treating syphilis with penicillin encourages risky habits? Or be concerned about the condom and contraceptive pill? People are always going to want to have sex. Safe sex and condoms aren't foolproof. People get drunk or horny.

The trouble with that apparently innocent concern over the increased risk of other STDs, is the victim blaming it leads to. "Well if only they'd not taken risks", eventually becomes "it's your own fault" and "you shouldn't wear a short skirt".

It was well over a year after my brother died that his widow got the letter admitting liability from the hospital. Until then, I have no doubt that of those who knew he was HIV+ (and that she wasn't) more than a few had doubts. That he had obviously been unfaithful, or was gay and in denial, and had brought it on himself, maybe even deserved it etc. Along with all the extremes of not wanting to breathe the same air, touch, catch it from a seat sat in an hour ago or visit such a dangerous hospital ward.

It was ugly, undeserved and whether gay or not, the popular mood was more of the dark ages than the 20th century. We haven't evolved as far as we like to think.

Safe sex practices have seen a decline in recent years but condoms don't prevent HPV or Herpes Simplex so even people who consistently use condoms because they're concerned about HIV are still risking exposure to HPV & HSV.

People also had the same concern about birth control pills but the social benefits of the pill[1] far outweigh any potential social costs from (alleged) "riskier" behavior. And considering 80% of adults already have HPV and more than 50% carry HSV I think you're concern is largely unwarranted.

[1]https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/so... [PDF]

Do you have the same concerns about curing smallpox?

They've still not had peer review of their work, but this does seem promising:

https://71republic.com/2019/02/13/mexican-scientists-cure-hp...

>The number of sexual partners adults have has been steadily rising

Got a cite for that? I was under the impression the opposite was true.

And even if it is the case, see the book "More Sex is Safer Sex" by Steven Landsburg:

"You’ve read elsewhere about the sin of promiscuity. Let me tell you about the sin of self-restraint.

Suppose you walk into a bar and find four potential sex partners. Two are highly promiscuous; the others venture out only once a year. The promiscuous ones are, of course, more likely to be HIV-positive. That gives you a 50-50 chance of finding a relatively safe match.

But suppose all once-a-year revelers could be transformed into twice-a-year revelers. Then, on any given night, you’d run into twice as many of them. Those two promiscuous bar patrons would be outnumbered by four of their more cautious rivals. Your odds of a relatively safe match just went up from 50-50 to four out of six."

https://slate.com/culture/1996/07/more-sex-is-safer-sex.html

Given it was a scandal that affected thousands, and the hospital later put it in writing, yes.

She did not want to mention it due to the publicity campaign around AIDS at the time, and the popular presumption I mentioned. To avoid questions like that I guess, whilst he was slowly dying.

The 90s were...an interesting time. I vividly remember two aunts arguing about AIDS research funding vs cancer research funding. "But only the fags get AIDS" vs "Cancer is preventable if you just stop smoking" hopefully give you an idea of the joys of growing up in the midwest.

I was in primary school in the 90s; I remember having to write a topical essay and present it in front of class. For some reason I chose AIDS, and I still remember that one of my key points was that you don't catch it through air or touch. Apparently it was common for people to be afraid of standing near a person with AIDS, or breathing the same air.

That said, "But only the fags get AIDS" vs "Cancer is preventable if you just stop smoking" doesn't seem like a thing of the past - this level of argumentation around AIDS, and about other topics - vaccines, GMOs, artificial sweeteners - is something I hear from most people I meet. I cherish the people in my life capable of deeper thought than that.

> Apparently it was common for people to be afraid of standing near a person with AIDS, or breathing the same air.

There was a catchy phrase wildly in used when and where I grew up (translation doesn't make it justice): "AIDS isn't caught, it's transmitted". Le SIDA ne s'attrape pas, il se transmet.

We had a flight of steps in the backyard that was made from reclaimed bricks from an old grandstand that had a toilet block in it. The neighbours kid wasn’t allowed around once they found this out. Imagine being scared of getting AIDS from a brick.

Wasn’t any better in here in London in the UK.

Two events really stand out in UK history to me

The first was Diana in 87, opening a new hiv/aids unit and shaking the hands of a patient.

The other was a character in a soap (watched by over 1/4 of the population - imagine a show with 90 million viewers in the U.S) becoming HIV, and all the various reactions both of him living with it, then later when the neighbourhood bigots found out, that was in the early 90s

> The other was a character in a soap becoming HIV

I know it wasn't your intention and this is a serious topic, but I did chuckle at the thought of this.

AIDS cannot be forgotten or ignored, even once a cure is discovered and is effective. AIDS wiped out an entire generation of LGBTQ people. It wiped out a generation of artists and creatives. It destroyed so many peoples lives. It would be hugely disrespectful and a dishonor to those people and their memory.

As important as a cure is, and I have a feeling it will happen in our lifetimes, I think the history of what AIDS destroyed is incredibly important. I rarely recommend a TV show, but Pose(on FX) did an incredible job of showing how everyone reacted and dealt with AIDS and death in the early 90's, especially in minority communities. It's truly heartbreaking and as a young LGBTQ person, it's such a stark contrast to how the world views these kinds of things today.

> The bigotry and petty vindictiveness in th 90’s was disgusting and in some quarters it lives on.

I get the sense that HIV/AIDS was very much a part of reducing bigotry. Once it turned out that we all have friends and relatives who are homosexual, it seemed to change the mood about what was acceptable to say about them. I've met an older homosexual couple who've said the same; they had to sort of pretend to be friends for decades until quite rapidly they could just be themselves.

> there is a lesson in it all.

There is, but it does not seem that we learned it. Being a simplistic and tribal species seems to be very deep in our nature, sadly.

These days we have gone too far in the other extreme.

My grandfather needing a blood transfusion in 1990 and was seen as a death sentence because of how little of the blood was tested then in Eastern Europe. It ended up that my father and uncle had to take turns donating blood to try and keep him alive.

When people talk about taking blood from high risk groups and call me a bigot for being absolutely against it I always remember my father fainting three days before my grandfather died because he had given too much blood.

I have read most, but not all of his work but did't know that's how he died.

I wasn't old enough in the 90s to understand HIV/AIDS completely but remember it being a death sentence (I remember a rumor that you could get it by using public toilets)

This is a pretty good time to remember Ryan White, who is a fairly under-appreciated contemporary hero. They called this the "gay plague" at one point, and in a derogatory way. To all of our collective shame, it probably would have killed far fewer if people didn't think it was exclusive to gay communities.

It's shameful that people assumed HIV was exclusive to gay communities, likely due in large part to homophobic prejudice rather than facts.

This is not the only shameful thing that has ever happened in the world, but I'm not sure what your example of a shameful action has to do with the GP's.

That's not shameful. What's shameful is that we decided that it was OK to let AIDS run rampant since it only affected homosexuals.

I didn't think it had to be said, but apparently I was wrong. I know the gp is a flagged/dead now, but I came back to the comment today and wanted to thank you for your succinct and correct summary of my implicit point.

Wasn't it more "only affects people having risky promiscuous sex", it's not like HIV is the only transmissible sexual disease.

Ensuring people can adopt a sexually hedonistic lifestyle without caring about protecting themselves or their partners from disease seems pretty low priority to society?

People (in general, based on my observations) only care about anti-vaxxers because of their effect on others. Isn't it the same? A group choose to do something that exposes them to greater risk of disease; society steps in when the impact on others increases.

As a slight aside: Some consider that the reframing, in USA, of HIV as a general problem -- rather than being transmitted primarily amongst promiscuous male homosexuals -- as a great harm.

> Some consider that the reframing, in USA, of HIV as a general problem -- rather than being transmitted primarily amongst promiscuous male homosexuals -- as a great harm

I don't know what kind of fantasy land you come from but that's preposterous. I come from a city with one of the highest HIV populations in the world and it isn't just gay people who have it. My favorite author died of AIDS from a blood transfusion.

> A group choose to do something that exposes them to greater risk of disease; society steps in when the impact on others increases.

What a disgusting outlook. Everybody didn't decide at the Annual Gay Convention that they wanted to start introducing HIV into their population.

It's great that you think sexual promiscuity is comparable to the anti-vaxxer movement, but that's so far from the truth it's painful.

I care about each individual affected by the anti-vax group, including the involved children, not just those outside the anti-vax group it affects. I'm not only concerned when it starts affecting people I consider to be society's desirables.

I care about each kid involved in this crazy movement to mutilate your children's genitals at a young age to "switch their gender". Even if it doesn't affect me or other people.

I care about each person who has contracted HIV, not just homosexuals. I want them to be able to live happy lives despite living them different from mine.

That's called empathy. Caring for people outside of your immediate circle. It's something you should consider trying.

From what I remember back then it isn't that people assumed only gay people could catch it (otherwise why would absolutely everybody be paranoid about it)...

... but that plenty of people thought it was a convenient way to get rid of gay people. Genocide by omission, if you will.

We don't talk about this era anywhere near as much as we should.

> The correct medical diagnosis was Gay Related Immune Deficiency

The medical “GRID” diagnosis was wrong, while “HIV” was attacking gay men, it was also attacking straight people. They were being ignored because it was eliminating gay people. Hospital staff kicked gay people out as HIV diagnoses came in. My friends held their friends in their arms without medical care as they died because a government and medical association did nothing. If gay people had rights they would have been able to have more successful monogamous relationships. If they had government assistance they could have aided in stopping the spread. For 8 years the government did nothing. Clever trick to call it GRID, then once it blooms in straight populations change the official acronym. “Oh it happens in straight people too?!” Damn right.

> Of course anyone can get AIDS, but men who have sex with men have a much higher risk of contracting than any other group with the exception of IV drug users.

Male to male anal sex is a common and easy method for transmission, so is IV drug use. The greatest rate of new infection is African-American women. Why would you point out some groups and leave others out?

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/racialethnic/africanamericans/...

>My friends held their friends in their arms without medical care as they died because a government and medical association did nothing.

Was there any help to be gained from private medical institutions? Or was that also impossible because the government has to allow for treatments?

You’re ignore relative prevalence of the subjects getting infected. Sure, African-American women were infected, but that’s 4,000 out of a population of what? 35M? The rate compared to higher risk populations is still incredibly low.

In the UK, just over half of new infections are in heterosexuals.

The 8 countries with the highest HIV rates all have rates more than twice the rate of homosexuality, so even if every gay and lesbian person had HIV, a majority of people with HIV would not be gay or lesbian.

In the US in particular, new infections are 2:1 homosexual:heterosexual, but the USA isn’t the world.

Reportedly his family didn't publicize the matter at the time, due to the prejudice it would have triggered. His auto biography also does not mention it. It was only made public by his family, several years after his death.

Those tissue paper toilet seat covers only really appeared in public bathrooms in the 90s. I still think about how ridiculous they are in the context of HIV/AIDS, every time I see them.

Yeah, no. Even vigorous bareback anal sex transfers HIV only a minority of the time. Sitting on semen or menstrual fluid, or even rubbing it on your outer sphincter, is not going to give you HIV.

Downvoted for focusing on generating a disgust reaction instead of being aware of any scientific facts.

What do you think is more likely:

1) I like public toilet water splashing up into my anus

2) I want to relay scientific facts about the transmissibility about a disease that has a lot of fear, stigma, and falsehoods spread about it, often in the service of an anti-gay agenda.

To answer what you don't know: no, splashback can't transfer HIV.

I don't know what you're getting at. I just wanted to share a trick.

> I don't know if that can transmit HIV or any other diseases

It's virtually impossible for HIV, you're time would be better spent planning how to spend your big lottery win. The reason anal sex is better at spreading HIV is because anal tearing allows it into the bloodstream, apart from that your anus is no different from your ass checks, you're arm or anywhere else.

>your anus is no different from your ass checks

Doesn't stuff in your intestines get naturally absorbed into your bloodstream by some mechanism? I always figured the danger with putting things in your ass was that you would bypass the safety mechanism that the stomach acids double as.

I'm not a doctor, but consider the size difference between molecules and viruses. Some quick googling puts the size of the aids virus at 0.1 micron and the size of a water molecule at 0.018 microns if I did the conversion right.

Getting from the toilet through the anus and into the intestines is it's own challenge. There's shit, multiple sphincters and bends in the way.

Then you've got the transmissibility of aids itself, which is actually quite low for anything other than blood transfusions: http://www.aidsmap.com/Estimated-risk-per-exposure/page/1324...

Put all that together and there's no chance anyone got aids from toilet splashback.

HN is a relatively sophisticated forum, as forums go. I'm not saying that you need to censor your language, more that a sense of decorum in phrasing could've gone a long way to avoiding downvoting.

Well this has been informative, thanks for sharing.

I am a huge fan of Asimov too. I didn't know he died of AIDS. That's unfortunate.

He and his family kept that fact private, I understand, until years after his passing, because of the enormous stigma around it. That stigma remains one of the most tragic consequences of the disease, as Randy Shilts so devastatingly documented.

I remember chatting with a friend who worked in the biochemical industry in the early 90's - he commented if you had had a blood transfusion in certain countries in the last 10-15 years " you're dead".