 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 20042 Questions: Giving Blood and Flu
1) Isn't giving blood the same thing as taking an HIV test. I read that they test it so is it a good idea to give blood as a way to diagnosis? 2) What are the flu like symtoms exactly? I understand they are pretty severe and long lasting and occur a couple weeks after you supposedly get HIV? Or is this another of those "maybe" symtoms? "Locdog" <jim122232@hotmail.com> wrote in message > 1) Isn't giving blood the same thing as taking an HIV test. I read > that they test it so is it a good idea to give blood as a way to > diagnosis? No. Giving blood is giving a unit (a pint or thereabouts). HIV tests can involve anything from saliva tests to finger-pricks or a test-tube sample. The blood transfusion people in South Africa specifically request people *not* to donate blood to determine whether they are HIV positive or not because of the window period problem where someone may have acquired the virus but not yet have reacted by forming the antibodies. > 2) What are the flu like symtoms exactly? I understand they are > pretty severe and long lasting and occur a couple weeks after you > supposedly get HIV? Or is this another of those "maybe" symtoms? As I understand it, human bodies just simply refuse to act in a certain way just because some other peoples' bodies react like that resulting in "maybe" symptoms. Moira, the Faerie Godmother "Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> wrote... > "Locdog" <jim122232@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > problem where someone may have acquired the virus but not yet have > reacted by forming the antibodies. In the U.S. they now use that new DNA/PCR test (whatever its called) that detects even the most minute traces of HIV DNA. Still, there is a window of at least 48 hours, before that the amount of virus in the bloodstream is so minute that the chances of getting sufficient virus to PCR is very unlikely. And even after the window neither the antibody or PCR test is 100% accurate, there are always false negatives. That is why the blood banks still screen donors with questionnaires, rejecting all those who might have been infected within the window period. The ONLY time I might recommend that potential infectees donate blood is if their request for a PCR test has been rejected and they've been told that an antibody test is sufficient and all they're going to get (like might occur in socialistic countries with government-run medical systems). But there is no excuse if they live in the USA and have access to private testing clinics, though it won't be cheap (last time I checked it was ~$200). Oh, and I forgot to mention that from what I know it is possible - in very rare cases - for a human to successfully neutralize an HIV infection, IF the amount of introduced virus is very very small AND the person is very lucky. I would think that in such cases the lucky person might register a PCR positive, as the destroyed viruses' DNA fragments would be present, but not actually be infected with live virus. Such a person might register both PCR and antibody positives, yet be disease-free. I would think that after time the DNA would disappear and the PCR test show negative while the antibody test might show positive indefinitely. snip >In the U.S. they now use that new DNA/PCR test (whatever its called) that >detects even the most minute traces of HIV DNA. Still, there is a window >of at least 48 hours, before that the amount of virus in the bloodstream >is so minute that the chances of getting sufficient virus to PCR is very >unlikely. And even after the window neither the antibody or PCR test is >100% accurate, there are always false negatives. I don't donate blood because I have Hepatitis C. Now, of course, the BLOOD BANKS should be treating the plasma in any event due to all the potential infections that might not be tested for and or might be missed. There were HUGE scandals around this issue in the 80s and 90s when Red Cross was just too cheap to take the tests. (Too busy padding CEO salaries and golden parachutes, I guess.) The other BIG problem is that they say gay men should not give blood. That's just bullshit discrimination. Yes, some gay men are promiscuous. Many, many more are not. Same with heterosexuals. It is just bigotry to try to target groups based on orientation rather than people who have high risk factors. George M. Carter Thanks. Does anyone have any information or theories on the flu-like illness or is that just kinda something that is not really known about? >Thanks. Does anyone have any information or theories on the flu-like >illness or is that just kinda something that is not really known >about? Not sure what you mean, but when a person is exposed to HIV and becomes infected, in some cases, it may cause flu-like symptoms (aches, fever) or sometimes a rash. Other people may have no symptoms. Is that what you mean? George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote... > The other BIG problem is that they say gay men should not give blood. > That's just bullshit discrimination. Yes, some gay men are > promiscuous. Many, many more are not. Same with heterosexuals. It is > just bigotry to try to target groups based on orientation rather than > people who have high risk factors. The problem is that even when gay men are not promiscuous, so many are already HIV+ and anal sex so conducive to transmission that each sexual encounter is hundreds of times riskier than a typical heterosexual encounter. The numbers for actual HIV infection rate among homosexual men are very hard to come by. Several months ago I was listening to an NPR program describing the comeback of gay bathhouses and the wild sexual orgies that take place within. Health officials are very concerned though their hands are tied because they any attempts to control either bathhouses or the sexual activity that goes on with them is likely to be met with screams of homophobia and discrimination. Nonetheless, they did manage to get some bathhouse patrons to submit to voluntary HIV tests and found a 7% infection rate. I think that number's far too low, I suspect the "low" figure is due to the fact that the tests were voluntary and only those more confident of their safe sex practices submitted to the tests (ignorance is bliss, those at highest risk don't want to know their HIV status). But earlier this year or last police in Taiwan raided a popular gay sex club in Taipei and forcibly tested ALL patrons and discovered 30% were infected. Nothing short of raids and forced testing of gay men will reveal the true extent of HIV infection among American gay men, but I see no reason to believe it would be less than the 30% found in Taiwan. The CDC has lots of numbers but breaks them up to confuse analysis. Looking at them I see numbers for "30 selected areas", but not suprisingly the total population of those 30 selected areas is not given, making calculation of HIV infection rate impossible. Another CDC page does give the rate per 100,000 population, but only breaks the numbers down based on race, not mode of transmission. That page also conveniently uses the phrase "Diagnoses and rates of AIDS" so as to make unclear whether HIV infections which haven't progressed to the now-rare AIDS stage are included. But just in case, that rate is given as a Total of 14.1/100,000 (which translates as 0.0141% of the general population has "AIDS"). This damn CDC website is sh.t. For every table with pretty numbers, at least one key data figure is missing that would make interpretation possible. The other problem is that they constantly interchange the terms "HIV" and "AIDS", not to mention "HIV/AIDS" so that for any given set of numbers it is most unclear whether they are talking about HIV infections or the now-fairly-rare AIDS cases (the terminal stage of HIV infection which now rarely occurs due to the new drug treatments). Yet another problem is that CDC relies on numbers from voluntary reporting from areas that choose to report HIV/AIDS cases, so it is likely those numbers do not reflect national trends. This message is getting long and rambling. I think I'll post a followup after digging up necessary data, such as going to Census and calculating the total population for the "30 selected areas" (one would think CDC would have included that little bit of information, as the number of HIV/AIDS cases they do report mean nothing if not put into context). Okay, y'all got me pissed off with your propaganda that HIV rates among gay males are no higher than among heterosexual males or the average national rate for all males and females. It took me ALL f.cking day finding the numbers on the CDC HIV/AIDS website, and they conveniently omitted population numbers so as to make analysis impossible, so I combined the CDC numbers with the Census 2000 numbers and this is what I got (HIV/AIDS data is from 30 selected regions - 29 U.S. states and the U.S. Virgin Islands - that report HIV infections to the CDC; one may assume they represent a sufficient cross-section of the U.S. population as to fairly accurately represent the national HIV rate). I created a long set of tables and calculations which will be posted as a followup to this message. I am using the University of Chicago sexual survey figure of a 2.8% homosexual rate for American men: Homosexual male HIV infection rate: 10.7134% Heterosexual male HIV infection rate: 0.0661% Heterosexual female HIV infection rate: 0.1240% Average rate for both genders: 0.2079% Make sure you read the followup with all my pretty data tables and the calculations I hope I performed correctly. I did not include children, as they were statistically insignificant and I excluded those over age 65, another statistically insignificant group. The CDC numbers were for 2002 and the population numbers were for 2000. In another thread in this group I ranted about the homosexual HIV rate being "thousands" of times the heterosexual rate, then in a followup I admitted I exaggerated and that it was only "hundreds" of times the hetero rate. Lo and behold, crunching the numbers I just quoted above, the actual rate for homosexual males is *** 162 *** times the rate for heterosexual males! I thought I was exaggerating for effect and just pulled the "hundreds of times" estimate out of my a.s, but it was right on the mark!!! To repeat what I wrote in the prior message, voluntary HIV testing of gay bathhouse patrons in San Francisco revealed a rate of 7%, and forced testing of patrons at a Taipei, Taiwan gay sex club revealed a rate of 30%. The 10.7% estimated average U.S. rate I just computed certainly fits in nicely with the other numbers. I should also mention that 10.7% is only the average for all U.S. gay males; those like myself who have dropped out or are very careful and not promiscuous would have a much lower rate, and the stereotypical gay male disco sex trash slutpuppies would have a far higher rate. Does anyone want to venture a guess on what infection rate might be found among patrons of a typical popular gay bar/disco in a typical large U.S. city? Forget the followup...here are my data tables - mind-numbing, but accurate as far as I can tell: ======================================================================== CDC - HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 2002 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/2002SurveillanceReport.pdf HIV/AIDS data from 30 selected areas - 29 states and U.S. Virgin Islands AIDS diagnoses from all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories ======================================================================== Table A HIV/AIDS data from CDC-SR2002 Table 12, pp. 22-23 Population data from Census 2000 CDC's 30 "Selected Areas" - HIV/AIDS cases and total populations, includes all adults, adolescents, and children currently living with HIV infection (not AIDS) and AIDS (all require confidential name-based HIV infection reporting) (* Florida data include only new cases since 1997) State HIV+ 2002 | AIDS 2002 | HIV+/AIDS 2002 | Pop. 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 01 Alabama 5,714 3,660 9,374 4,447,100 02 Arizona 5,197 4,316 9,513 5,130,632 03 Arkansas 2,202 1,837 4,039 2,673,400 04 Colorado 5,949 3,465 9,414 4,301,261 05 Florida * 29,189 41,015 70,204 15,982,378 06 Idaho 372 262 634 1,293,953 07 Indiana 3,743 3,429 7,172 6,080,485 08 Iowa 462 686 1,148 2,926,324 09 Louisiana 7,906 6,902 14,808 4,468,976 10 Michigan 5,577 5,395 10,972 9,938,444 11 Minnesota 2,272 1,818 4,090 4,919,479 12 Mississippi 4,112 2,602 6,714 2,844,658 13 Missouri 4,717 4,838 9,555 5,595,211 14 Nebraska 592 567 1,159 1,711,263 15 Nevada 3,274 2,502 5,776 1,998,257 16 New Jersey 14,718 15,485 30,203 8,414,350 17 New Mexico 783 1,066 1,849 1,819,046 18 North Carolina 11,112 7,128 18,240 8,049,313 19 North Dakota 68 47 115 642,200 20 Ohio 7,251 5,978 13,229 11,353,140 21 Oklahoma 2,541 1,908 4,449 3,450,654 22 South Carolina 6,914 5,863 12,777 4,012,012 23 South Dakota 188 99 287 754,844 24 Tennessee 6,474 5,639 12,113 5,689,283 25 Utah 728 1,085 1,813 2,233,169 26 Virginia 8,798 7,443 16,241 7,078,515 27 West Virginia 639 599 1,238 1,808,344 28 Wisconsin 2,324 1,797 4,121 5,363,675 29 Wyoming 87 91 178 493,782 30 Virgin Islands 225 282 507 108,612 -- Total for 30 144,129 137,804 281,933 135,582,760 -- United States 281,421,906 ======================================================================== Table B Data from Table A calculated to determine rate of infection for each of the 30 regions: State HIV+/AIDS 2002 | Pop. 2000 | HIV Rate | HIV Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 01 Alabama 9,374 4,447,100 0.002108 0.2108% 02 Arizona 9,513 5,130,632 0.001854 0.1854% 03 Arkansas 4,039 2,673,400 0.001511 0.1511% 04 Colorado 9,414 4,301,261 0.002189 0.2189% 05 Florida * 70,204 15,982,378 0.004393 0.4393% 06 Idaho 634 1,293,953 0.000490 0.0490% 07 Indiana 7,172 6,080,485 0.001180 0.1180% 08 Iowa 1,148 2,926,324 0.000392 0.0392% 09 Louisiana 14,808 4,468,976 0.003314 0.3314% 10 Michigan 10,972 9,938,444 0.001104 0.1104% 11 Minnesota 4,090 4,919,479 0.000831 0.0831% 12 Mississippi 6,714 2,844,658 0.002360 0.2360% 13 Missouri 9,555 5,595,211 0.001708 0.1708% 14 Nebraska 1,159 1,711,263 0.000677 0.0677% 15 Nevada 5,776 1,998,257 0.002891 0.2891% 16 New Jersey 30,203 8,414,350 0.003589 0.3589% 17 New Mexico 1,849 1,819,046 0.001016 0.1016% 18 North Carolina 18,240 8,049,313 0.002266 0.2266% 19 North Dakota 115 642,200 0.000179 0.0179% 20 Ohio 13,229 11,353,140 0.001165 0.1165% 21 Oklahoma 4,449 3,450,654 0.001289 0.1289% 22 South Carolina 12,777 4,012,012 0.003185 0.3185% 23 South Dakota 287 754,844 0.000380 0.0380% 24 Tennessee 12,113 5,689,283 0.002129 0.2129% 25 Utah 1,813 2,233,169 0.000812 0.0812% 26 Virginia 16,241 7,078,515 0.002294 0.2294% 27 West Virginia 1,238 1,808,344 0.000685 0.0685% 28 Wisconsin 4,121 5,363,675 0.000768 0.0768% 29 Wyoming 178 493,782 0.000360 0.0360% 30 Virgin Islands 507 108,612 0.004668 0.4668% -- Total for 30 281,933 135,582,760 0.002079 0.2079% -- United States 281,421,906 ======================================================================== Table C U.S. total population: 281,421,906 Male: 138,053,563 (49.1%) Female: 143,368,343 (50.9%) 18 years and over: 209,128,094 (74.3%) Male: 100,994,367 (35.9%) Female: 108,133,727 (38.4%) 65 years and over: 34,991,753 (12.4%) Male: 14,409,625 (5.1%) Female: 20,582,128 (7.3%) Assuming most HIV/AIDS cases occur in people between 18 and 65, the number of Americans in that category are: U.S. 18 to 65 years: 174,136,341 (61.9%) Male: 86,584,742 (30.8%) Female: 87,551,599 (31.1%) Using the 18 to 65 figures above and applying them to the CDC's 30 selected regions: 30 selected regions 18 to 65 years: 83,925,728 Male: 41,759,490 Female: 42,166,238 The HIV rate for the 30 regions in Table B is given as 0.2079%. Assuming the vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases occur in the sexually active adult population, between 18 and 65 years of age: 281,933 infections among 135,582,760 people 281,933 infections among 83,925,728 sexually active adults = 0.003359 = 0.3359% ======================================================================== Table D Data from CDC-SR2002 Table 8, p. 17 Estimated numbers of persons living with HIV/AIDS by selected characteristics in the 30 selected regions for 2002 Age 15-64: 273,861 (97.1% of total HIV infections) CDC-SR2002 Table 9, p. 18 Exposure categories 2002 (all racial groups): Male adult or adolescent: Male-to-male sexual contact: 125,268 (61%) Injection drug use: 35,380 (17%) MSM & IV drug use: 16,143 (8%) Heterosexual contact: 26,843 (13%) Other (e.g. transfusions): 2,922 (1%) Subtotal: 206,557 (100%) Female adult or adolescent: Injection drug use: 18,831 (26%) Heterosexual contact: 51,538 (72%) Other (e.g. transfusions): 1,627 (2%) Subtotal: 71,996 (100%) This breaks down by gender as: (excludes children) Male (all cases): 206,557 out of 281,931 = 73.27% Female (all cases): 71,996 out of 281,931 = 25.54% ======================================================================== Table E Analysis of data from other Tables: Adult males: MSM only (no IV): 125,268 cases out of 281,933 total = 44.4% Heterosexual: 26,843 cases out of 281,933 total = 9.5% Adult females: Heterosexual: 51,538 cases out of 281,933 total = 18.3% Total sexually-transmitted cases for both genders: 72.2% Table B gives the numbers for the 30 selected regions as: 281,933 cases out of 135,582,760 people = 0.002079 = 0.2079% Table C gives the number of people between 18-65 in the 30 selected regions as: Total: 83,925,728 Male: 41,759,490 Female: 42,166,238 A recent sexual survey conducted by the University of Chicago around 1995 gave rates of homosexuality among American adults as: Male: 2.8% Female: 1.4% If these numbers are accurate, 2.8% of the 41,759,490 adult males in the 30 selected regions would amount to 1,169,265 homosexual males. Now the final calculation! 125,268 MSM HIV cases out of a homosexual male population of 1,169,265 = 0.107134 -----> ***** 10.7134% ***** Let's compare this to the heterosexual male infection rate: 97.2% heterosexual males out of 41,759,490 adult males = 40,590,224 26,843 heterosexual HIV cases out of 40,590,224 heterosexual men = 0.000661 -----> ***** 0.0661% ***** 10.7134 / 0.0661 = 162.0787 -----> 162 Homosexual males have 162x the HIV infection rate than heterosexual males! ======================================================================== Table F Calculation of female infection rates: Table C gives the number of people between 18-65 in the 30 selected regions as: Total: 83,925,728 Male: 41,759,490 Female: 42,166,238 98.6% heterosexual females out of 42,166,238 adult females = 41,575,911 51,538 heterosexual cases out of 41,575,911 = 0.001240 = 0.1240% Heterosexual female rate compared to: Heterosexual male rate: 0.1240 / 0.0661 = 1.8759 -----> 1.87x Homosexual male rate: 0.1240 / 10.7134 = 0.0116 -----> 0.01x Average rate: 0.1240 / 0.2079 = 0.5964 -----> 0.60x ======================================================================== > Okay, y'all got me pissed off with your propaganda that HIV rates among gay > males are no higher than among heterosexual males or the average national [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Homosexual male HIV infection rate: 10.7134% > Heterosexual male HIV infection rate: 0.0661% > Make sure you read the followup with all my pretty data tables and > the calculations I hope I performed correctly. My guess is that you screwed up big time. Less than 1/2 the new infection rates in the CDC statistics are in the "men who have sex with men" (MSM) catagory (which includes both gays and bisexuals). Even if you assume that 1/2 of infection rate is in the MSM catagory (an overestimate) and that all those are gay (only a fraction are), you'd estimate that gays are just under 18 times more likely to be infected per year than the remainder, and that number is probably more like a factor of 6 and possibly less. If you take out the drug users, you'll get a somewhat higher number for gays versus straights. You won't get a factor of 162 (10.7134/.0661). You might consider that the transmission rate for unprotected anal sex is about 4 times worse than for unprotected vaginal sex. "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote... >> Make sure you read the followup with all my pretty data tables and >> the calculations I hope I performed correctly. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the drug users, you'll get a somewhat higher number for gays versus > straights. You won't get a factor of 162 (10.7134/.0661). I'll admit I never took statistics, but I do know how to use a calculator. And I don't care what the new infection rates for other categories has increased recently, I was only trying to determine the CURRENT number of homosexual American men infected, and the CDC numbers were given as 125,268 cases out of 281,933 total population (Census2000) = 44.4% of all those living with HIV or AIDS as of 2002. I did omit drug users, both heterosexual IV drug users and the MSM+IV category. If anything, I would have gotten an even higher rate had I included MSM+IV, but I felt it wouldn't be fair to include a group who although technically homosexual likely were infected through needles. You are trying to play statistical games to obsfucate the issue. Yes, new infections in some groups may increase, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Last year 1 Eskimo caught HIV, this year 2 Eskimos caught it. Now the Eskimo infection rate has jumped by 100%, certainly a crisis in your eyes (naturally, a crisis that can only be remedied with several billion tax dollars). But it's just a statistical blip, come back in 10 years and the average HIV rate among Eskimos will still be 0.0001%. As I said, I'm not great with statistics, but even if the rate of new HIV infections among gay men were to decrease significantly, the actual incidence of those carrying the virus would still INCREASE (remember that those infected no longer die and they continue to infect others, no matter how careful they say they are). So 10.7% infected today WILL rise to 20% in 10 years or so, regardless of how much you reduce new infections among that group. > You might consider that the transmission rate for unprotected anal > sex is about 4 times worse than for unprotected vaginal sex. And where did you get that number? I certainly didn't see it on the CDC site, in fact offhand I can't seem to recall having ever seen a study which determined the actual transmission risks for each type of sexual activity. And whatever the anal sex transmission risk is, it becomes infinitely riskier when there is a 10.7% chance your partner is infected. > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote... > >> Make sure you read the followup with all my pretty data tables and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'll admit I never took statistics, but I do know how to use a calculator. A calculator won't help you when you don't know what to compute. > > You might consider that the transmission rate for unprotected anal > > sex is about 4 times worse than for unprotected vaginal sex. > > And where did you get that number? It was reported in the 1990s in our area newspapers, in an article about some basic research. They included a table giving the probability of transmitting the virus, broken down by sex act. > And where did you get that number? I certainly didn't see it on the CDC > site, in fact offhand I can't seem to recall having ever seen a study > which determined the actual transmission risks for each type of sexual > activity. And whatever the anal sex transmission risk is, it becomes > infinitely riskier when there is a 10.7% chance your partner is infected. HIV transmission varies greatly according to a number of factors: viral load is astronomically high in the initial couple of months before the carrier's body has had time to make antibodies. Risk of infection in partners is very high during this time. Once antibodies are produced the amount of free circulating virus is much lower and the risks go down accordingly. If someone who is infected is on anti HIV treatment, their viral load is very low and they are of the lowest infectivity as long as the viral load stays down. And those with STDs are more likely to transmit AND be infected with HIV if the opportunity strikes. As to the exact difference between anal and vaginal risk for the receptive partner no one can be sure since there is no way to really test that in an objective manner - too many variables you can't control in human surveillence studies. I think most agree that anal intercourse is riskier than vaginal but beyond that it is all really guesswork. Best to be safe at all times.  Signature"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives, to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow." "After all, what else is marriage for?" -- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest > "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote... > >> Make sure you read the followup with all my pretty data tables and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'll admit I never took statistics, but I do know how to use a calculator. It is good that there is frank talk here, Zim seems like a person who will is open to discussion. I'm only juging Zim's first post and his comments up to this point though as I haven't read this group in a while :o). > And I don't care what the new infection rates for other categories has > increased recently, I was only trying to determine the CURRENT number of [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > activity. And whatever the anal sex transmission risk is, it becomes > infinitely riskier when there is a 10.7% chance your partner is infected. > > Okay, y'all got me pissed off with your propaganda that HIV rates among gay > > males are no higher than among heterosexual males or the average national > > rate for all males and females. > > It took me ALL f.cking day finding the numbers on the CDC HIV/AIDS website, > > and they conveniently omitted population numbers so as to make analysis [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > followup to this message. I am using the University of Chicago sexual > > survey figure of a 2.8% homosexual rate for American men: > > Homosexual male HIV infection rate: 10.7134% > > Heterosexual male HIV infection rate: 0.0661% > > Make sure you read the followup with all my pretty data tables and > > the calculations I hope I performed correctly. > My guess is that you screwed up big time. You haven't shown where. > Less than 1/2 the new > infection rates in the CDC statistics are in the "men who have sex > with men" (MSM) catagory (which includes both gays and > bisexuals). For where? Are you using global figures that include totally wild 'statistics' from Africa to refute the figures that Zim has got from the US and Canary islands? Are you saying that the data Zim got for the US and Canary islands was wrong? Are you saying that his simple arithmetic was wrong? I think it extremely unlikely that the CDC would ever grossly understate HIV/AIDS anywhere. If they did, that still would be CDC's 'screw up' wouldn't it? > Even if you assume that 1/2 of infection rate is in the > MSM catagory (an overestimate) and that all those are gay (only a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the drug users, you'll get a somewhat higher number for gays versus > straights. You won't get a factor of 162 (10.7134/.0661). That's comparable to the ratio I got for Australia. I wrote this recently to a poster in another newsgroup: ==================================================================== SQ: http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm ` Transmission in Australia continues to occur primarily through ` sexual contact between men. A history of male homosexual contact was ` reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection diagnosed ` in 1997 to 2001. Now just say that 10% of the population are homosexual and 5% of the population are homosexual males. My guess is that it would be less than that. That would mean that 5% of the population has accounted for 85% percent of the HIV infections. That would make the likelihood for a heterosexual being diagnosed with HIV (85/5:15/95) or 17:0.158 or about 107 times less than for a homosexual. Now let's take your figures of 297 deaths out of 129,350 being due to AIDS. That's roughly 1 in every 435. But remember, that's for everyone, so to get an idea of threat that AIDS poses to heterosexuals let's multiply that ratio by 107. That is assuming that that the AIDS death statistics have stayed roughly similar since 1997 - they have actually gone well down - and that the homo/hetero ratio of death due to AIDS is roughly the the same as the ratio for HIV acquisition. That makes the chances of a random Australian heterosexual person dying of AIDS about 1 in 46,500 in any given year. I believe the figures I have used are generous to the AIDS lobbyists. EQ: ===================================================================== > You might consider that the transmission rate for unprotected anal > sex is about 4 times worse than for unprotected vaginal sex. Zim obtained a ratio of 165:1 for 30 US and Virgin Islands locations. I obtained a ratio of 107:1 for Australia. Remember that I stretched things to the advantage of the AIDS lobby. At the time, I also said this: =================================================================== SQ: Even though you didn't seem top have a problem with this, I would like to add more. As I said, I used figures that were generous to the lobbyists. I don't believe that 10% of the male population (or 5% of overall population) are homosexuals who regularly practice anal sex. I suspect it would be significantly less. I therefore suspect that that 107 times greater risk for a homosexual of dying from AIDS could rise by a factor of 2, 3 or 4. And this is before one considers infection through intravenous injection. EQ: ==================================================================== If you wish to assert that I also have screwed up badly, please point specifically to what I have got fatally wrong. <snip> Best Regards, Sean McHugh > > > Okay, y'all got me pissed off with your propaganda that HIV rates among gay > > > males are no higher than among heterosexual males or the average national [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > ` reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection diagnosed > ` in 1997 to 2001. Which doesn't have much bearing on persons who have had male homosexual contact. For example, I could say that I studied deaths and discovered that in 94% of the deaths, the person had a history of eating apples. Therefor, if you eat apples, you are going to die. Of course, we all know that whether or not you've eaten apples, you are going to die eventually. Could I then say that any people who eat apples are more likely to die than people who don't eat apples, based on a negative-option finding? If nearly ALL of those HIV infections attributable to MSM were found to have been propagated by 8-10% of MSM, does that brand ALL MSM with the same high HIV stat? There must be more to it. > > > > Okay, y'all got me pissed off with your propaganda that HIV rates > among gay [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Which doesn't have much bearing on persons who have had male homosexual > contact. If by bearing, you mean correlation - else what? - of course it has a bearing! Unless of course you would suggest that most or all males partake in (and admit to) having male-to-male anal sex. However, even then it wouldn't be a valid objection because my submission was specifically based on a rather generous hypothetical figure of 10%. If you wish to argue that that percentage is ridiculously low, then go ahead. Beyond that it is simple arithmetic. If a very high percentage of the occurrences of AIDS happen in a group that represents a very low percentage of the population, then that is statistically significant. In this case it represents a ratio/rate of 107 to 1. > For example, I could say that I studied deaths and discovered that > in 94% of the deaths, the person had a history of eating apples. Therefor, > if you eat apples, you are going to die. Of course, we all know that > whether or not you've eaten apples, you are going to die eventually. Could > I then say that any people who eat apples are more likely to die than people > who don't eat apples, based on a negative-option finding? That is a false analogy because it doesn't doesn't take into account the fate of those who don't eat apples. When completed it would yield a finding that 100% of those who eat apples die and 100% of those who don't eat apples, die. That is a ratio/rate of 1 to 1 and it suggests that there is no correlation between apple eating/abstinence and immortality. > If nearly ALL of those HIV infections attributable to MSM were found to have > been propagated by 8-10% of MSM, does that brand ALL MSM with the same high > HIV stat? You are setting up a homophobic straw man. I never suggested, "all". > There must be more to it. Now that's where I could almost agree with you; there may (not necessarily "must") be more to it. It may even be that male to male homosexual sex (or any sex) does not directly cause HIV/AIDS. However, on the figures provided, one would be very foolish to deny, that in Australia, there is a strong correlation with its diagnosis among male homosexuals - as opposed females and heterosexual males. That is, of course, if the data are correct. Best Regards, Sean McHugh [snip] > Now that's where I could almost agree with you; there may (not > necessarily "must") be more to it. It may even be that male to male > homosexual sex (or any sex) does not directly cause HIV/AIDS. > However, on the figures provided, one would be very foolish to deny, The HIV virus doesn't know the sexual orientation of the people it's infecting. > that in Australia, there is a strong correlation with its diagnosis > among male homosexuals - as opposed females and heterosexual males. World-wide data seem to suggest differently. > That is, of course, if the data are correct. > [snip] >> Now that's where I could almost agree with you; there may (not >> necessarily "must") be more to it. It may even be that male to male >> homosexual sex (or any sex) does not directly cause HIV/AIDS. >> However, on the figures provided, one would be very foolish to >> deny, > The HIV virus doesn't know the sexual orientation of the people it's > infecting. Even if ones uses as gospel the most outrageous figures (Africa) that try to inflate heterosexual AIDS, your statement is doomed. Even if the infections of homosexuals males versus the rest were 1:1, there are a lot more folks in this world who are not homosexual males than there are folks who are. Let's work through this: http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm AUSTRALIA HIV & AIDS STATISTICS SUMMARY: ` Transmission in Australia continues to occur primarily through ` sexual contact between men. A history of male homosexual contact was ` reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection diagnosed ` in 1997 to 2001. Let p equal the percentage of persons who are male and homosexual (MSM). The percentage not falling into that category would obviously then be 100-p. Let T equal the total HIV/AIDS occurrences in all groups. MSM's share then becomes 0.85T. For the other 15% their share becomes 0.15T. Now to find out the infection rate, we divide the share for that group by the size of the group. That makes the rate for MSM's 0.85T/(p) and for the rest 0.15T/(100-p). If 85% of the AIDS diagnoses occur in p% of the population, then the rate is 0.85T/p. That would mean that the remaining 15% occurs in the 100-p%. That rate therefore becomes 0.15T/(100-p). So, the likelihood of a random MSM Australian, versus a non-MSM Australian being diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, is (0.85T/p) compared to ((0.15T/(100-p)). To obtain a normalised ratio (n:1), we simply divide the second term into the first. I have heard estimates as low as 1% for homosexuality. The most common figure I have heard quoted for homosexuality in males is 10%. That would suggest 5% of society (both genders). I have even heard estimates as low as 1%. In the above derivation I left that percentage as a variable. Here is a table showing the ratio infection rates (male homosexuals to the rest) assuming different percentages (p) of male homosexuality. ========================================================== MSMs as a MSMs as a Calculated infection % of pop. % of males rate of MSMs compared to non MSMs ========================================================== 1% 2% 561 : 1 2% 4% 277.7 : 1 3% 6% 183.2 : 1 4% 8% 136 : 1 5% 10% 107.7 : 1 6% 12% 88.8 : 1 7% 14% 75.3 : 1 8% 16% 65.2 : 1 ========================================================== In other words, if male homosexuals occupy about 5% of the community (10% of males), then the fact that 85% of new HIV infections are with male homosexuals would indicate that the relative pro rata occurrence of HIV in male homosexuals is 107.7 times greater than in the rest of society. The point to note there, is that even if one assumes the percentage of males being homosexuals as unrealistically high, the 85% allocation of HIV infection to that group still demonstrates that, in Australia, the HIV infection rate is vastly higher amongst homosexual males. >> that in Australia, there is a strong correlation with its diagnosis >> among male homosexuals - as opposed females and heterosexual males. > World-wide data seem to suggest differently. So let's look at the U.S. statistics: http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm UNITED STATES HIV AND AIDS STATISTICS SUMMARY ' Of the 298,248 men (13 years or older) who were living with AIDS, ' * 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM) ' * 23% were injection drug users (IDU) ' * 10% were exposed through heterosexual contact ' * 8% were both MSM and IDU. I can't see where you'd find succour there, Dennis. Best Regards, Sean McHugh >| Dennis Kemmerer wrote: >| [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >| are a lot more folks in this world who are not homosexual males than >| there are folks who are. Are you trying to tell us that the virus can detect homosexuals an heterosexuals? --------------------------------------------------------------- jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply --------------------------------------------------------------- >> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Even if ones uses as gospel the most outrageous figures (Africa) that > try to inflate heterosexual AIDS, Are those figures incorrect? > your statement is doomed. How so? Are you suggesting that the HIV virus is aware of the sexual orientation of the people it's infecting? [snip] > > > > > Okay, y'all got me pissed off with your propaganda that HIV rates > > among gay [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > bearing! Unless of course you would suggest that most or all males > partake in (and admit to) having male-to-male anal sex. Let me clarify my statement. I has no bearing on MSM in general. All the stats tell you is the percentage of cases that are from MSM vs non-MSM. It doesn't tell us anything about incidence of cases among MSM as a whole, only what they count. > However, even > then it wouldn't be a valid objection because my submission was > specifically based on a rather generous hypothetical figure of 10%. Any figure, be it 2% or 10%, is largely conjectural. We can only be reasonably certain about that number/percentage once persons of homosexual orientation don't feel compelled to hide it due to societal perceptions. > If you wish to argue that that percentage is ridiculously low, then go > ahead. Beyond that it is simple arithmetic. If a very high percentage > of the occurrences of AIDS happen in a group that represents a very > low percentage of the population, then that is statistically > significant. In this case it represents a ratio/rate of 107 to 1. Even if certain members of that low-percentage group figure prominently in number of cases, it does not tell us anything about MSM in general. If we were to find 10 sexually active, promiscuous gay males that all tested HIV positive, and only one heterosexual male out of 10 tested positive, it has no bearing on the other 1000 gay males that didn't test positive, or the other 1000 heterosexual males that didn't test positive. > > For example, I could say that I studied deaths and discovered that > > in 94% of the deaths, the person had a history of eating apples. Therefor, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that there is no correlation between apple eating/abstinence and > immortality. It's ill-fitting, I'll agree, only because it was off the top of my head, with little time to go into the details. On a simplistic level it makes a point though. Having sex with a male doesn't cause/create HIV. Similarly, eating an apple does not cause death. If you found that 100% of the people that died, also ate apples, does that have much bearing on those that eat apples in general. Now, with the HIV cases, it is apparent that many cases are attributable to MSM, but does that really make a statement on MSM in general? > > If nearly ALL of those HIV infections attributable to MSM were found to have > > been propagated by 8-10% of MSM, does that brand ALL MSM with the same high > > HIV stat? > > You are setting up a homophobic straw man. I never suggested, "all". You may not be guilty of what I was leading into, but many so-called "homophobes" would use the data you presented as if it were applicable to all gay men somehow, when it clearly is not. > > There must be more to it. > > Now that's where I could almost agree with you; there may (not > necessarily "must") be more to it. It may even be that male to male > homosexual sex (or any sex) does not directly cause HIV/AIDS. It doesn't. HIV is a virus that must be present in one of the persons involved in an exchange of infected bodily fluids (such as unprotected sexual intercourse), in order to infect a person. A seronegative male having sex with another seronegative male will NEVER cause HIV to suddenly appear. > However, on the figures provided, one would be very foolish to deny, > that in Australia, there is a strong correlation with its diagnosis > among male homosexuals - as opposed females and heterosexual males. > That is, of course, if the data are correct. I have no doubt that HIV is more prevalent among certain groups of MSM. SMART BUGS ER SMART BOMBS? HIV cannot be the cause or the sole cause of AIDS. Why would a virus infect 1% of the US population and 30% of some African countries? Why would a virus cause different symptoms depending on your age, gender, race or sexual orientation and geographic location? Why hasn't 20 years worth of research and billions of dollars spent created a vaccine or cure or safe and effective treatment? Why do the pharmaceutical companies, AIDS Industry and government agencies censor the scientists, doctors and laypeople that raise these critical questions and provide reasonable answers? AIDS Dissidents raise critical questions about the accuracy and specificity of the 'HIV' antibody tests and the redefinition and misdiagnosis of all the old diseases that are now lumped under the 'AIDS' catagory-- as well as the safety and efficacy of drug cocktails, condoms and lubricants. After more than 20 years and billions of dollars in research, there is still no proof that anyone has ever been infected with a retrovirus that is the underlying cause of all the old diseases now called 'AIDS.' RETHINKING SOCALLED 'SAFE-SEX' SLIDE EFFECTS AND CONDOMANIA [INDEX OF PAPERS] http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/safesex.htm A LINK TO THREAD WITH OTHER ARTICLES, PAPERS ["CONDOMNATION"] http://groups.msn.com/dissident-action/condomnation.msnw INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND SUMMARY: 1) Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, yet are not selectively biased under the PPVs or Positive Predictive Values formulary labeling gay men as 'at risk' for who they love. Prevention education programs focused on testing and retesting of all gay men which 5% population represented about 40% of all 'HIV' tests given. If they heterosexuals are tested, their results are more likely to be interpreted as cross-reactive or indeterminant because they are not in a 'high risk' group, so even if they would just as frequently test 'HIV' antibody positive they are not being tested proportionately. The 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests do not measure 'HIV' infection and with over 60 known cross-reactors, do not establish probable cause to live and love in fear. 2) Semen may cause minor antigenic stimulation or even immune supression, which also occurs, byt the way, in women who develop morning sickness upon conception to allow furtilization of the egg. It has not been established by Scientists as to the quantity or quality of semen that may be more or less antigenic stimulation or immune suppressive and this deserves further study. Human contact and certainly human physical and sexual intimacy is never 'safe' by nature. Yet gay men have been having anal sex throughout history, and most gay men who do practise anal sex are not testing 'HIV' non-specific antibody positive, yet with the added stress upon an emerging gay subculture and the widespread use of street drugs in the late 1970s, and other health-style factors that are important in all illness/wellness equations-- combined to contribute to aquired immune deficiencies among a certain sub-set of gay men. Yet, all gay men were assumed 'at risk' by the CDC in the 1980s because 'AIDS' was assumed to have a homosexual pathology or sexual transmission, even though there were many known health-style factors of the original sub-group of gay men, originally described as 'GRID'[Gay Related Immune Deficiency]. This, even though all of the CDC's official 29 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in those diagnosed 'HIV' negative and all have well documented causes and treatments unrelated to 'HIV/AIDS.' KS is one of the original defining condition, originally called the 'gay cancer' was first described in the literature in the 1800s and is seen today among middle eastern men. Today, KS is rarely seen in 'AIDS' patients and remains confined to gay men diagnosed with 'AIDS' though Gallo, the alleged 'co-discover' of the putative 'HIV' and other mainstream researchers admit KS likely has been correlated to amyl nitrites or "poppers" used by some gay men and another virus associated with it, HHV-8. 3) Anal health and hygiene, colon hydrotherapy, colonics, fasting, diet all are important illness preventives including reconsidering certain anal sex practises, fisting or rough, "unsanitary" sex. This might include the pull out method or accessing your partners general health while taking steps to sustain your own general health. Anal retentive focus on "bugs" or hypochondriacal sex-negativity are anathma to a holistic or multi-factorial, 'many-cause, many-courses' wellness promotion strategy. Where is the evidence that anal receptive partners or "bottoms" are the gay men testing socalled positive and the anal insertive partners or "tops" are the ones testing negative? This is the major impediment to the statement by even some AIDS Dissidents who propose anal receptive sex, without controlling for the amounts and quality of semen or seminal fluid which might be inherrantly immune suppressive. 4) Latex condoms and chemically carcingen-containing lubes role in immune suppression and the astronomical increase in anal cancer rates, from allergic to immunologic and even death, particularly among gay men. These products were never studied for internal (anal) use, were never approved for such and indicate for *topical use only* on package inserts. 5) Many STDs are not alleged to be spread through semen or seminal fluid, but sores and saliva. Condoms have not been shown effective in preventing most common STDs. Even if one 'contracts' these bugs, approximately 80-90% of those are said to be 'carriers' who do not develop chronic symptoms in their lifetimes, clear it from their bodies naturally after a short course of conventional antiboitic treatment or preferably through the more prophylactic use of alternative, non-toxic immune enhancing therapies-- thus calling into question the significance of the bug-seed versus the human host or organizms' role in immune sufficiency and sustainability. =================================================== What are PPVs? Positive Predictive Values =================================================== SERO-SUSPECT CLASS? SEX=DEATH? ARE GAY MEN "AT RISK" FOR WHO WE LOVE? What are they and how can and does this statistical formulae effect the cummulatively estimated 'HIV' tests conducted world-wide? The following is taken from UNAIDS and World Health Organisation(WHO) "Operational characteristics of commercially available assays to determine antibodies to hiv-1 and/or hiv-2 in human sera." Report 9/10 Geneva 1998. Distribution limited. Page 11 WHO/UNAIDS: "The PROBABILITY that a test will ACCURATELY DETERMINEthe TRUE infection status of a PERSON being tested VARIES with theprevalence of HIV infection in the POPULATION from which the personcomes." How can 'prevalence' of "hiv infection" in the population at largebe determined in the first place and then, by mathmatical extrapolation tothe individual from whom which the formulae was circularly and selectivelybased er biased? By other indirect, socalled surrogate markers, 'HIV'[non-specific]antibody positivity + PPV formulation + High Risk groupinformation ie: "status" or "membership." To restate, how was this Positive Predictive Value [PPV] or the individuals socalled "high risk" status calculated, determinedand/or verified? By other indirect 'HIV' antibody test kits + PPV + High Risk Group Information or selective classificationor bias, circular and self-fulfilling by designation? Page 11 continued: WHO/UNAIDS/Geneva/1998/Report9/10: "In general, the higher the prevalence of HIV infection in the population, the greater the PROBABILITY that a person testing positive is truly infected (i.e., the greater the positive predictive value [PPV]). Thus, with increasing prevalence, the proportion of serum samples testing-false-positivedecreases; conversely, the likelihood that a person showing negative testresults is truly uninfected (i.e., the negative predictive value [NPV]),decreases as prevalence increases. Therefore, as prevalence increases, so does the proportion of samples testing false-negative." There's FUNDAMENTAL FLAW here called SELECTIVE BIAS. It means UNAIDS/WHO's Positive Predictive Values [PPV] selectively bias gay men who do not represent a monolithic health-style. Some Dissidents say there is abundant evidence that ALL the "high risks groups" are far more likely to test *false* positive because they are far more likely to be exposed to one of the 70+ conditions that can generate 'HIV' antibodies in the absence of 'HIV' positivity such as Africans who may actually have TB (a very large number of 'AIDS' cases in Africa are TB or malaria cases and TB and malaria causesso-called *false* positives and/or malnutrition, wasting) or gay men who are theorized to have greater exposure to recreational drugs or anally deposited semen, assuming that were immune modulating. Other Dissidents, such as myself, maintain there is insuficient evidence thatthese socalled "high risk groups" represent uniformely any inherenthealth risk due to gender identity, racial classification or sexualorientation. Whereas, the predonderance of 'HIV' positivity or "aquired immune deficiencies" in these groups are not comparable or correlative tothe general population because they are selectively biased. Therefore, if you put any people under a microscope, in this case a moral and medical microscrope focused in a certain period, and announced, we found these microbes, germs, bugs, cooties, etc. and didn't really compare these socalled 'high-risk' groups, especially gay men which do not have any monolithic life orhealthstyle contrary to popular cultures' heterosexist conjecture, withthe general population, you wouldn't know what if any correlation existedand whether that established causation. So even if there was a correlation between 'HIV' positivity and gay men, showing they were far more likely tobe exposed to one of the 70 agents, factors, conditions known to cause so-called *false* positivity, it can only be said to mean they are more likely to be determined, "interpreted" as a "true" positive because you were selectively biased as 'high risk' because of the inherantflaw or circular construct the 'HIV=AIDS' theory is entirely reliant upon.While it was true that the original subset of gay men who were diagnosedat the start of the socalled 'epidemic' were all sick, they did not haveany direct sexual connection to one another, and all shared certain health-style factors that were ignored as co-causal agents of their illnesses. It was then extrapolated to say all gay men were inherantly 'at risk' because of the assumption that an outbreak of reported illnesses in gay men must be sexually transmissed. Many of these men were diagnosed as having STIs/STIs but also took prophylactic or on-going, regular antibiotics which are known to have immune suppressive side-effects. There is not sufficient evidence to establish there are a disproportionate number of antibodies among selectively biased 'high risk' groups, specifically excluding gay men who have no single, monolithic life or health-style in common or if they have controlled for the disproportionate number of tests done on them. About 40% of 'HIV' tests in the US are done on gay men, which only represent about 5% of the US population. But then this information is transmitted to the lab anddoctor and the tests are interpreted as positive more often if you are preselectively biased as 'high risk.' So, it seems sort of a circular construct. And the evidence of the lack of any heterosexual epidemic after 20 years in the West where they actually do the 'HIV' tests, unlike mostAfrican 'AIDS' cases, does not fulfill the infectious model or it wouldhave spread to the 95% majority heterosexuals by now. The original sub-group of gay men did have certain health styles in common, but thenthe initial socalled 'AIDS' cases was not confined to those 'health risk'groups with many known co-causal factors ignored, but it was extrapolatedto include all gay men, regardless of life or health style. This is why I say that the mindset of 'SAME-SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS' lead to the unquestioned acceptance of 'HIV=AIDS=DEATH.' It was just ten years before the announcement of 'HIV' as the cause of 'AIDS' that homosexuality was removed as a psychiatric disorder by the APA because of cultural bias andreligious prejudices which lead to scientific presuppositions, predeterminations. ======================================================= Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ mode or 'one-cause, one-course' drug-based model or theory of illness which is confirmed by the work of hundreds of AIDS Dissident Scientists, including Nobel Laureates, Members of the National Academy of Sciences and pioneers in their fields. Many often disconnect the alternative theories of diagnosis[PHILOSOPHY] from the alternative therapies of treatment[PRACTISE]-- in how Alternative Medicine differentially diagnoses the individual and treats using a holistic, multi-factorial or 'many-causes, many-courses' approache to illness. They treat the underlying causes of symptoms, not diagnosing/treating diseases and certainly not diagnosing/treating syndromes, which are a 'catch-all' of redefined classifications or catagories of conditions. And therefore, Alternative Medicine does not generally recognize conventional disease classifications. "For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun substantives." "There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease conditions [or states of dis-ease]." Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Disease Dissident and Lesbian?) Interesting that AIDS Apologists, or those who defend or defer to the affirmative statement or new theory, in this case the 'HIV=AIDS' hypothesis, often compare AIDS Dissidents with Flat Earthers, but Galileo was a Dissident, the Flat Earthers were the mainstream scientific establishment. There is a famous story about Galileo, that is relevant here, I think. Galileo was in trouble with the Church authorities, for his observation of Jupiter's moons, through his telescope. (The four moons that he saw are traditionally called the "Galilean" moons, after their discoverer.) Anyway, he offered to let an influential member of the Clergy look through the telescope at these moons, so that said clergyman would see what Galileo had seen. This pious man refused, saying that as long as he did not look, his religious faith could remain intact. Sadly, we are dealing with a kind of medical "church", regarding the HIV theory; its members do not want their faith shaken (or stirred! :-) ) Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for 200 years even while Dissident Scientists were arguing it was a Vitamin C deficiency. The implication was that Seamen or Sailors engaged in 'buggary' were sexually transmissing a 'bug.' Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder by the medical and scientific establishment until 1973, a decade later the medical diagnosis of GRID-- Gay Related Immune Dysfunction was described in the literature. BUG-CHASERS and BARE-BACKERSBug-Chasers have gotten more publicity of late with films like "The Gift" which discuss the small subset of gay men and subset of bare-backers. Bug-Chasers are those who fantasize the idea of becoming 'impregnated' or filled up with 'seed' and sero-converting to a socalled 'HIV' positive status. Bug-chasers are bug-believers in that they accept, consciously at least, that there is a bug or virus called 'HIV' that has been properly isolated and can be accurately tested for. Bare-backers, on the other hand, are those who, for whatever reason, do not use condoms or practise socalled 'safe-sex' at least part of the time. This is a much larger group than those who are socalled "bug-chasers" and include many gay men who are subconsciously rebelling against the puritan sex panic or health scare campaign of the condom nazis. Most bare-backers are not bug-chasers, though all bug-chasers are bare-backers.AIDS Dissidents, as bug dis-believers, are not included among the 'bug-chasers' though do include bare-backers and a growing number of the 'HIV' disaffected who are not *in [HIV] denial* but rather informed in their AIDS dissent, and subsequently do not accept the evidence for probable cause to live and love in fear. ====================================================== RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION The GROUP for the SCIENTIFIC REAPPRAISAL of the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS [100s of pages of articles, papers] http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/find.htm BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL [BMJ] MODERATED ONLINE DEBATE ON HIV/AIDS http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495 [especially note referenced contributions of The Perth Group of Austrailian AIDS Dissident Scientists, lead by biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, whose other extensive archives are found here http://www.theperthgroup.com and here: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/ ] Roberto Giraldo, MD President of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/papers.html TREATING AND PREVENTING ILLNESS ATTRIBUTED TO OR ASSOCIATED WITH "AIDS" http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TreatingAndPreventingAIDS.html REBUTTAL TO NIAID/NIH "Evidence for HIV" DOCUMENT http://www.healtoronto.com/nih INTERNATIONAL AIDS PANEL, INTERIM REPORT Synthesis of deliberations by the panel of experts invited by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki and the ten experiments the Panel designed in attempt to resolve the controversy, endorsed by the African National Congress [AIDS Dissidents/'Denialists' and AIDS Apologists/Orthodoxy] http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/reports/aids/aidspanel.htm REBUTTAL TO DURBAN DECLARATION http://thedurbandeclaration.org/ HEAL [Health Education AIDS Liason] http://www.healtoronto.com ANOTHER LOOK [Breastfeeding and 'HIV/AIDS'] http://www.anotherlook.org MOMM [Mothers Opposing Mandatory Medicine] http://www.informedmomm.com AIDS MYTH EXPOSED [Largest AIDS forum on MSN] http://www.aidsmythexposed.com HIV/AIDS ALTERNATIVE VIEWS [Largest AIDS forum on Delphi] http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous SMART BUGS ER SMART BOMBS? HIV cannot be the cause or the sole cause of AIDS. Why would a virus infect 1% of the US population and 30% of some African countries? Why would a virus cause different symptoms depending on your age, gender, race or sexual orientation and geographic location? Why hasn't 20 years worth of research and billions of dollars spent created a vaccine or cure or safe and effective treatment? Why do the pharmaceutical companies, AIDS Industry and government agencies censor the scientists, doctors and laypeople that raise these critical questions and provide reasonable answers? AIDS Dissidents raise critical questions about the accuracy and specificity of the 'HIV' antibody tests and the redefinition and misdiagnosis of all the old diseases that are now lumped under the 'AIDS' catagory-- as well as the safety and efficacy of drug cocktails, condoms and lubricants. After more than 20 years and billions of dollars in research, there is still no proof that anyone has ever been infected with a retrovirus that is the underlying cause of all the old diseases now called 'AIDS.' RETHINKING SOCALLED 'SAFE-SEX' SLIDE EFFECTS AND CONDOMANIA [INDEX OF PAPERS] http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/safesex.htm A LINK TO THREAD WITH OTHER ARTICLES, PAPERS ["CONDOMNATION"] http://groups.msn.com/dissident-action/condomnation.msnw INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND SUMMARY: 1) Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, yet are not selectively biased under the PPVs or Positive Predictive Values formulary labeling gay men as 'at risk' for who they love. Prevention education programs focused on testing and retesting of all gay men which 5% population represented about 40% of all 'HIV' tests given. If they heterosexuals are tested, their results are more likely to be interpreted as cross-reactive or indeterminant because they are not in a 'high risk' group, so even if they would just as frequently test 'HIV' antibody positive they are not being tested proportionately. The 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests do not measure 'HIV' infection and with over 60 known cross-reactors, do not establish probable cause to live and love in fear. 2) Semen may cause minor antigenic stimulation or even immune supression, which also occurs, byt the way, in women who develop morning sickness upon conception to allow furtilization of the egg. It has not been established by Scientists as to the quantity or quality of semen that may be more or less antigenic stimulation or immune suppressive and this deserves further study. Human contact and certainly human physical and sexual intimacy is never 'safe' by nature. Yet gay men have been having anal sex throughout history, and most gay men who do practise anal sex are not testing 'HIV' non-specific antibody positive, yet with the added stress upon an emerging gay subculture and the widespread use of street drugs in the late 1970s, and other health-style factors that are important in all illness/wellness equations-- combined to contribute to aquired immune deficiencies among a certain sub-set of gay men. Yet, all gay men were assumed 'at risk' by the CDC in the 1980s because 'AIDS' was assumed to have a homosexual pathology or sexual transmission, even though there were many known health-style factors of the original sub-group of gay men, originally described as 'GRID'[Gay Related Immune Deficiency]. This, even though all of the CDC's official 29 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in those diagnosed 'HIV' negative and all have well documented causes and treatments unrelated to 'HIV/AIDS.' KS is one of the original defining condition, originally called the 'gay cancer' was first described in the literature in the 1800s and is seen today among middle eastern men. Today, KS is rarely seen in 'AIDS' patients and remains confined to gay men diagnosed with 'AIDS' though Gallo, the alleged 'co-discover' of the putative 'HIV' and other mainstream researchers admit KS likely has been correlated to amyl nitrites or "poppers" used by some gay men and another virus associated with it, HHV-8. 3) Anal health and hygiene, colon hydrotherapy, colonics, fasting, diet all are important illness preventives including reconsidering certain anal sex practises, fisting or rough, "unsanitary" sex. This might include the pull out method or accessing your partners general health while taking steps to sustain your own general health. Anal retentive focus on "bugs" or hypochondriacal sex-negativity are anathma to a holistic or multi-factorial, 'many-cause, many-courses' wellness promotion strategy. Where is the evidence that anal receptive partners or "bottoms" are the gay men testing socalled positive and the anal insertive partners or "tops" are the ones testing negative? This is the major impediment to the statement by even some AIDS Dissidents who propose anal receptive sex, without controlling for the amounts and quality of semen or seminal fluid which might be inherrantly immune suppressive. 4) Latex condoms and chemically carcingen-containing lubes role in immune suppression and the astronomical increase in anal cancer rates, from allergic to immunologic and even death, particularly among gay men. These products were never studied for internal (anal) use, were never approved for such and indicate for *topical use only* on package inserts. 5) Many STDs are not alleged to be spread through semen or seminal fluid, but sores and saliva. Condoms have not been shown effective in preventing most common STDs. Even if one 'contracts' these bugs, approximately 80-90% of those are said to be 'carriers' who do not develop chronic symptoms in their lifetimes, clear it from their bodies naturally after a short course of conventional antiboitic treatment or preferably through the more prophylactic use of alternative, non-toxic immune enhancing therapies-- thus calling into question the significance of the bug-seed versus the human host or organizms' role in immune sufficiency and sustainability. =================================================== What are PPVs? Positive Predictive Values =================================================== SERO-SUSPECT CLASS? SEX=DEATH? ARE GAY MEN "AT RISK" FOR WHO WE LOVE? What are they and how can and does this statistical formulae effect the cummulatively estimated 'HIV' tests conducted world-wide? The following is taken from UNAIDS and World Health Organisation(WHO) "Operational characteristics of commercially available assays to determine antibodies to hiv-1 and/or hiv-2 in human sera." Report 9/10 Geneva 1998. Distribution limited. Page 11 WHO/UNAIDS: "The PROBABILITY that a test will ACCURATELY DETERMINEthe TRUE infection status of a PERSON being tested VARIES with theprevalence of HIV infection in the POPULATION from which the personcomes." How can 'prevalence' of "hiv infection" in the population at largebe determined in the first place and then, by mathmatical extrapolation tothe individual from whom which the formulae was circularly and selectivelybased er biased? By other indirect, socalled surrogate markers, 'HIV'[non-specific]antibody positivity + PPV formulation + High Risk groupinformation ie: "status" or "membership." To restate, how was this Positive Predictive Value [PPV] or the individuals socalled "high risk" status calculated, determinedand/or verified? By other indirect 'HIV' antibody test kits + PPV + High Risk Group Information or selective classificationor bias, circular and self-fulfilling by designation? Page 11 continued: WHO/UNAIDS/Geneva/1998/Report9/10: "In general, the higher the prevalence of HIV infection in the population, the greater the PROBABILITY that a person testing positive is truly infected (i.e., the greater the positive predictive value [PPV]). Thus, with increasing prevalence, the proportion of serum samples testing-false-positivedecreases; conversely, the likelihood that a person showing negative testresults is truly uninfected (i.e., the negative predictive value [NPV]),decreases as prevalence increases. Therefore, as prevalence increases, so does the proportion of samples testing false-negative." There's FUNDAMENTAL FLAW here called SELECTIVE BIAS. It means UNAIDS/WHO's Positive Predictive Values [PPV] selectively bias gay men who do not represent a monolithic health-style. Some Dissidents say there is abundant evidence that ALL the "high risks groups" are far more likely to test *false* positive because they are far more likely to be exposed to one of the 70+ conditions that can generate 'HIV' antibodies in the absence of 'HIV' positivity such as Africans who may actually have TB (a very large number of 'AIDS' cases in Africa are TB or malaria cases and TB and malaria causesso-called *false* positives and/or malnutrition, wasting) or gay men who are theorized to have greater exposure to recreational drugs or anally deposited semen, assuming that were immune modulating. Other Dissidents, such as myself, maintain there is insuficient evidence thatthese socalled "high risk groups" represent uniformely any inherenthealth risk due to gender identity, racial classification or sexualorientation. Whereas, the predonderance of 'HIV' positivity or "aquired immune deficiencies" in these groups are not comparable or correlative tothe general population because they are selectively biased. Therefore, if you put any people under a microscope, in this case a moral and medical microscrope focused in a certain period, and announced, we found these microbes, germs, bugs, cooties, etc. and didn't really compare these socalled 'high-risk' groups, especially gay men which do not have any monolithic life orhealthstyle contrary to popular cultures' heterosexist conjecture, withthe general population, you wouldn't know what if any correlation existedand whether that established causation. So even if there was a correlation between 'HIV' positivity and gay men, showing they were far more likely tobe exposed to one of the 70 agents, factors, conditions known to cause so-called *false* positivity, it can only be said to mean they are more likely to be determined, "interpreted" as a "true" positive because you were selectively biased as 'high risk' because of the inherantflaw or circular construct the 'HIV=AIDS' theory is entirely reliant upon.While it was true that the original subset of gay men who were diagnosedat the start of the socalled 'epidemic' were all sick, they did not haveany direct sexual connection to one another, and all shared certain health-style factors that were ignored as co-causal agents of their illnesses. It was then extrapolated to say all gay men were inherantly 'at risk' because of the assumption that an outbreak of reported illnesses in gay men must be sexually transmissed. Many of these men were diagnosed as having STIs/STIs but also took prophylactic or on-going, regular antibiotics which are known to have immune suppressive side-effects. There is not sufficient evidence to establish there are a disproportionate number of antibodies among selectively biased 'high risk' groups, specifically excluding gay men who have no single, monolithic life or health-style in common or if they have controlled for the disproportionate number of tests done on them. About 40% of 'HIV' tests in the US are done on gay men, which only represent about 5% of the US population. But then this information is transmitted to the lab anddoctor and the tests are interpreted as positive more often if you are preselectively biased as 'high risk.' So, it seems sort of a circular construct. And the evidence of the lack of any heterosexual epidemic after 20 years in the West where they actually do the 'HIV' tests, unlike mostAfrican 'AIDS' cases, does not fulfill the infectious model or it wouldhave spread to the 95% majority heterosexuals by now. The original sub-group of gay men did have certain health styles in common, but thenthe initial socalled 'AIDS' cases was not confined to those 'health risk'groups with many known co-causal factors ignored, but it was extrapolatedto include all gay men, regardless of life or health style. This is why I say that the mindset of 'SAME-SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS' lead to the unquestioned acceptance of 'HIV=AIDS=DEATH.' It was just ten years before the announcement of 'HIV' as the cause of 'AIDS' that homosexuality was removed as a psychiatric disorder by the APA because of cultural bias andreligious prejudices which lead to scientific presuppositions, predeterminations. ======================================================= Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ mode or 'one-cause, one-course' drug-based model or theory of illness which is confirmed by the work of hundreds of AIDS Dissident Scientists, including Nobel Laureates, Members of the National Academy of Sciences and pioneers in their fields. Many often disconnect the alternative theories of diagnosis[PHILOSOPHY] from the alternative therapies of treatment[PRACTISE]-- in how Alternative Medicine differentially diagnoses the individual and treats using a holistic, multi-factorial or 'many-causes, many-courses' approache to illness. They treat the underlying causes of symptoms, not diagnosing/treating diseases and certainly not diagnosing/treating syndromes, which are a 'catch-all' of redefined classifications or catagories of conditions. And therefore, Alternative Medicine does not generally recognize conventional disease classifications. "For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun substantives." "There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease conditions [or states of dis-ease]." Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Disease Dissident and Lesbian?) Interesting that AIDS Apologists, or those who defend or defer to the affirmative statement or new theory, in this case the 'HIV=AIDS' hypothesis, often compare AIDS Dissidents with Flat Earthers, but Galileo was a Dissident, the Flat Earthers were the mainstream scientific establishment. There is a famous story about Galileo, that is relevant here, I think. Galileo was in trouble with the Church authorities, for his observation of Jupiter's moons, through his telescope. (The four moons that he saw are traditionally called the "Galilean" moons, after their discoverer.) Anyway, he offered to let an influential member of the Clergy look through the telescope at these moons, so that said clergyman would see what Galileo had seen. This pious man refused, saying that as long as he did not look, his religious faith could remain intact. Sadly, we are dealing with a kind of medical "church", regarding the HIV theory; its members do not want their faith shaken (or stirred! :-) ) Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for 200 years even while Dissident Scientists were arguing it was a Vitamin C deficiency. The implication was that Seamen or Sailors engaged in 'buggary' were sexually transmissing a 'bug.' Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder by the medical and scientific establishment until 1973, a decade later the medical diagnosis of GRID-- Gay Related Immune Dysfunction was described in the literature. BUG-CHASERS and BARE-BACKERSBug-Chasers have gotten more publicity of late with films like "The Gift" which discuss the small subset of gay men and subset of bare-backers. Bug-Chasers are those who fantasize the idea of becoming 'impregnated' or filled up with 'seed' and sero-converting to a socalled 'HIV' positive status. Bug-chasers are bug-believers in that they accept, consciously at least, that there is a bug or virus called 'HIV' that has been properly isolated and can be accurately tested for. Bare-backers, on the other hand, are those who, for whatever reason, do not use condoms or practise socalled 'safe-sex' at least part of the time. This is a much larger group than those who are socalled "bug-chasers" and include many gay men who are subconsciously rebelling against the puritan sex panic or health scare campaign of the condom nazis. Most bare-backers are not bug-chasers, though all bug-chasers are bare-backers.AIDS Dissidents, as bug dis-believers, are not included among the 'bug-chasers' though do include bare-backers and a growing number of the 'HIV' disaffected who are not *in [HIV] denial* but rather informed in their AIDS dissent, and subsequently do not accept the evidence for probable cause to live and love in fear. RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION The GROUP for the SCIENTIFIC REAPPRAISAL of the HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS [100s of pages of articles, papers] http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/find.htm BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL [BMJ] MODERATED ONLINE DEBATE ON HIV/AIDS http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7387/495 [especially note referenced contributions of The Perth Group of Austrailian AIDS Dissident Scientists, lead by biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, whose other extensive archives are found here http://www.theperthgroup.com and here: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/ ] Roberto Giraldo, MD President of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/papers.html TREATING AND PREVENTING ILLNESS ATTRIBUTED TO OR ASSOCIATED WITH "AIDS" http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TreatingAndPreventingAIDS.html REBUTTAL TO NIAID/NIH "Evidence for HIV" DOCUMENT http://www.healtoronto.com/nih INTERNATIONAL AIDS PANEL, INTERIM REPORT Synthesis of deliberations by the panel of experts invited by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki and the ten experiments the Panel designed in attempt to resolve the controversy, endorsed by the African National Congress [AIDS Dissidents/'Denialists' and AIDS Apologists/Orthodoxy] http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/reports/aids/aidspanel.htm REBUTTAL TO DURBAN DECLARATION http://thedurbandeclaration.org/ HEAL [Health Education AIDS Liason] http://www.healtoronto.com ANOTHER LOOK [Breastfeeding and 'HIV/AIDS'] http://www.anotherlook.org MOMM [Mothers Opposing Mandatory Medicine] http://www.informedmomm.com AIDS MYTH EXPOSED [Largest AIDS forum on MSN] http://www.aidsmythexposed.com HIV/AIDS ALTERNATIVE VIEWS [Largest AIDS forum on Delphi] http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous Brent wrote: >> Brent Norman wrote: >>>> No One wrote: >>>>> "Zim" <zim@irk.gov> writes: >>>>>> Okay, y'all got me pissed off with your propaganda that HIV >>>>>> rates among gay males are no higher than among heterosexual >>>>>> males or the average national rate for all males and females. >>>>>> It took me ALL f.cking day finding the numbers on the CDC >>>>>> HIV/AIDS website, and they conveniently omitted population [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>>>> message. I am using the University of Chicago sexual survey >>>>>> figure of a 2.8% homosexual rate for American men: >>>>>> Homosexual male HIV infection rate: 10.7134% Heterosexual male >>>>>> HIV infection rate: 0.0661% >>>>>> Make sure you read the followup with all my pretty data tables >>>>>> and the calculations I hope I performed correctly. >>>>> My guess is that you screwed up big time. >>>> You haven't shown where. >>>>> Less than 1/2 the new infection rates in the CDC statistics are >>>>> in the "men who have sex with men" (MSM) catagory (which >>>>> includes both gays and bisexuals). >>>> For where? Are you using global figures that include totally wild >>>> 'statistics' from Africa to refute the figures that Zim has got >>>> from the US and Canary islands? >>>> Are you saying that the data Zim got for the US and Canary >>>> islands was wrong? Are you saying that his simple arithmetic was >>>> wrong? I think it extremely unlikely that the CDC would ever >>>> grossly understate HIV/AIDS anywhere. If they did, that still >>>> would be CDC's 'screw up' wouldn't it? >>>>> Even if you assume that 1/2 of infection rate is in the MSM >>>>> catagory (an overestimate) and that all those are gay (only a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>> for gays versus straights. You won't get a factor of 162 >>>>> (10.7134/.0661). >>>> That's comparable to the ratio I got for Australia. I wrote this >>>> recently to a poster in another newsgroup: >>>> =========================================================== >>>> SQ: >>>> http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm >>>>| Transmission in Australia continues to occur primarily through >>>>| sexual contact between men. A history of male homosexual contact >>>>| was reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection >>>>| diagnosed in 1997 to 2001. >>> Which doesn't have much bearing on persons who have had male >>> homosexual contact. >> If by bearing, you mean correlation - else what? - of course it has >> a bearing! Unless of course you would suggest that most or all >> males partake in (and admit to) having male-to-male anal sex. > Let me clarify my statement. I has no bearing on MSM in general. All > the stats tell you is the percentage of cases that are from MSM vs > non-MSM. Which was my objective. If you look at the start of this thread, you will see that Zim was exasperated by the AIDS fundamentalists denying that there was a higher pro rata occurrence of HIV/AIDS among homosexual males in the US. That is what I was answering. > It doesn't tell us anything about incidence of cases among MSM as a > whole, only what they count. I think you are saying that it doesn't provide an extrapolation of the absolute figure, only the relative. I can agree with that, however, the relative occurrence of HIV/AIDS in homosexual males is so high in the statistics that I presented, that it must be considered highly significant. >> However, even then it wouldn't be a valid objection because my >> submission was specifically based on a rather generous hypothetical >> figure of 10%. > Any figure, be it 2% or 10%, is largely conjectural. This quibble can't perform a rescue. I chose the higher percentage for homosexuality for my demonstration, one that is generous to the AIDS lobby. Anything lower only makes the point more dramatically. Higher percentages (than 10%!) still make the point dramatically. Even with totally incredulous proposed percentages for homosexuality, the statistics would still adequately illustrate the point, that in Australia, the vast majority of HIV/AIDS diagnoses occurs in a minority group in the population. If 10% of the Australian population are practicing homosexual males, then the statistics show that the pro rata infections among that group are 107 times greater than for the rest of society. You can't, by quibbling over the uncertainty of what percentage of males in Australia are homosexual, change that. By making the figure larger (over 10% MSMs) you would do little to improve the pro rata infection rate calculation and on the lower side (and more realistic side), you would quickly make it far worse. In other words, it is the AIDS apologists who should be fearing any uncertainty of the MSM percentage in the population. > We can only be reasonably certain about that number/percentage once > persons of homosexual orientation don't feel compelled to hide it > due to societal perceptions. Either of those two figures will still yield a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS among homosexual males in the statistics provided. Pretending that it doesn't count because we don't know the figure is burying your head in the sand. I suspect you know very well that there is no credible proposed percentage for homosexual males that would sufficiently water down that bottom line. In Australia, the vast majority of HIV/AIDS diagnoses (85%) occurs in a small percentage of the population. That fact remains and does not require any "conjecture". Here it is again: http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm ` Transmission in Australia continues to occur primarily through ` sexual contact between men. A history of male homosexual contact was ` reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection diagnosed ` in 1997 to 2001. >> If you wish to argue that that percentage is ridiculously low, then >> go ahead. Beyond that it is simple arithmetic. If a very high >> percentage of the occurrences of AIDS happen in a group that >> represents a very low percentage of the population, then that is >> statistically significant. In this case it represents a ratio/rate >> of 107 to 1. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message