 |
 | 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 2005CDC 2003
I just checked out the latest CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report for 2003 and it seems they have updated quite a bit of information. I'm still reading it and trying to digest the numbers, but it looks like for some categories they've expanded the "selected regions" from 30 to 41, but that makes it so much more difficult to compare figures against the old numbers. One nice thing is that they link to each state's HIV/AIDS websites, but I'm still not sure if any of them contain accurate numbers. This will take months to type into a spreadsheet, and I'm wondering what it will show when I'm done. A real quick glance at the CDC figures for 2002 and 2003 seemed to show a DECLINE in new HIV infections for 2003, but I'm pretty sure that table included at least 10 new reporting regions, so that number can't possibly be correct. I'm making it my mission to get every HIV stat entered into an Excel spreadsheet because I believe the numbers are being falsified, if not by CDC then by state and local authorities. Even CDC presents the numbers in a way designed to confuse the reader, giving raw infection numbers for states with very disproportionate populations, so the number becomes meaningless without a total population to compare it to. The California Dept. of AIDS website gave monthly breakdowns of HIV infections, but they were CUMULATIVE, so I had to get out a calculator to subtract each month's cumulative cases from the next month's and get the new HIV infections for each month (~400). This is not accidental, the statistics are presented this way precisely so readers can't figure out the actual new infection rate. It is the number of new HIV infections that determine how effective a local health department has been, if they presented that number they would then have to account for the billion dollars they were given to reduce the number of new HIV infections. >I just checked out the latest CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report for 2003 > and it seems they have updated quite a bit of information. I'm still > reading it and trying to digest the numbers, but it looks like for some > categories they've expanded the "selected regions" from 30 to 41, but > that makes it so much more difficult to compare figures against the old > numbers. Gee, this sounds familiar. Remember when the CDC redefined the case definition for AIDS to include those who were perfectly healthy (1993 I believe)? Just in time for the drug companies to proclaim that people with AIDS were "living longer" (thus the fraudulent claims of drug efficacy to follow!). > One nice thing is that they link to each state's HIV/AIDS websites, but > I'm still not sure if any of them contain accurate numbers. This will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pretty sure that table included at least 10 new reporting regions, so > that number can't possibly be correct. The CDC definitely has the information. When they aren't forthcoming or clear, one MUST become suspicious of motive. That being the Republican Way, why should the CDC be exempt? Are they the Enron of Health??? > I'm making it my mission to get every HIV stat entered into an Excel > spreadsheet because I believe the numbers are being falsified, if not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > then have to account for the billion dollars they were given to > reduce the number of new HIV infections. It is simpler than that. The more people infected directly translates into the funding they get. Who wants their funding cut? The whole thing has been a shameless fraud from day #1. Susie "Susie" <nomail@please.com> wrote... > Gee, this sounds familiar. Remember when the CDC redefined the > case definition for AIDS to include those who were perfectly healthy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > AIDS were "living longer" (thus the fraudulent claims of drug > efficacy to follow!). Except I'm not interested in "AIDS" cases, since it has become fairly rare with the new drugs that keep the HIV virus from ever progressing to AIDS (which is the final stage of the HIV infection). All I care about is how many people are carrying the HIV virus, both healthy HIV+ people plus sick HIV+ people with AIDS. >> One nice thing is that they link to each state's HIV/AIDS websites, but >> I'm still not sure if any of them contain accurate numbers. This will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The CDC definitely has the information. When they aren't forthcoming > or clear, one MUST become suspicious of motive. >> (reference to accounting for billions of dollars...) > > It is simpler than that. The more people infected directly translates into > the funding they get. > > Who wants their funding cut? Which is why they refuse to quarantine carriers, they have no intention of stopping the spread of the disease. One trick I've noticed is that they obsfucate the matter, taking their billion dollars, doing nothing with it except buy Cadillacs and swimming pools, then release numbers showing the decline in "AIDS" cases. The AIDS cases are declining because the drugs DO work (trust me, I know cuz my brother has HIV and they've kept him alive for 10 extra years), but the number of new HIV infections continues to increase. If they were to present the annual number of new HIV infections to the public, people would ask what the billion dollars was used for, because obviously the health authorities have failed to prevent further spread of the virus. > The whole thing has been a shameless fraud from day #1. Which is why I want to get to the bottom of it. The data is out there, it has just been obsfucated (I like that word) for political reasons. But some outright fraud does exist, for example just last month the San Francisco health department announced an amazing 27% drop in new HIV infections from last year. That can't possibly be true, not given what I saw on my visit to Castro Street, and it seems to conveniently coincide with new reporting requirements the CDC expects them to comply with starting next year. Oh, and even that 27% drop was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle as a "27% decrease in HIV infections," which implies that the number of people carrying HIV decreased, when in reality only the annual rate of increase had declined slightly. Sort of like when Democrats demand a budget increase of 10% for some program, the Republicans agree to only an 8% increase, then the Democrats complain that the budget for that program has been "cut." > "Susie" <nomail@please.com> wrote... >> Gee, this sounds familiar. Remember when the CDC redefined the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rare with the new drugs that keep the HIV virus from ever progressing > to AIDS (which is the final stage of the HIV infection). That's the error in thinking that gets you in trouble. You ASSUME that the drugs "work" - that the drugs were "saving lives". Perhaps the only thing that was being "saved" was the NEW case definition for AIDS that swelled the ranks of "AIDS" patients with healthy HIV+ asymptomatics - yes, healthy people. So you see, in this instance, the CDC demonstrated that the "AIDS epidemic" was an important statistical phenomenon. The drug companies correctly claimed that "today, people with AIDS are living longer". True, but was that because of drugs which were released after 16-week trials, or was that because the AIDS case definition was changed to include healthy, longer-living people? Did the CDC/pharmaceutical industry game the system? Perhaps some day someone at the CDC will explain it all to us. >> It is simpler than that. The more people infected directly translates >> into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Which is why they refuse to quarantine carriers, they have no intention > of stopping the spread of the disease. Quarantine "carriers"? Cuba quarantined the HIV positives. Now they have no "epidemic". Does that mean Cuba ever HAD an epidemic? Of course not - we don't know much about Cuba because our government won't talk to Cubans and America the Free has banned travel to Cuba. Aside from Cuba, two other countries did NOT allow HIV+ people into their country: Iraq and the United States. In effect, a weak layer of quarantine that only served to illustrate how much our two countries really had in common. > All I care about is how many people are carrying the HIV virus, both > healthy HIV+ people plus sick HIV+ people with AIDS. I understand your point - quarantine to stop the "plague". I agree with your fear, but I'm not sure you have the right answer. Consider this - what do you do with Hepatitis carriers (A, B and C)? Test them and lock them up? What happens when a virus is discovered to be the cause of certain cancers? Test and lock up? People who get the bird flu? Can you guarantee they won't be carriers? If not, test and lock up? Then there's the problem with poor people in the good old USA - and since 46 million people here are snarled at for not having health insurance, then shouldn't we consider poor people as a threat to public health? So do we lock the 46 million uninsured who put the rest of us at risk because they won't get to a doctor for vaccinations and preventative care? Let's not forget all the people who eat at McDonalds - aren't they imposing the cost burdens of their unhealthy lifestyle on the rest of us healthy-eating taxpayers? Or Taco Bell? After all, taco meat is a frequent vector for E. coli. How about locking up everyone who walks into McDonalds and Taco Bell? And last but not least, what about all those smokers who poison the rest of us with their second-hand smoke pollution? I have asthma so I would LOVE to see everyone tested for nicotine and if positive, locked up. But what about people with asthma? Don't they have a high risk for chronic respiratory infections? Uh-oh... who among will have the key to the quarantine lockdown? Kenneth Lay and the boys from Enron? Susie >That's the error in thinking that gets you in trouble. You ASSUME that >the drugs "work" - that the drugs were "saving lives". So you claim a person with AIDS should never use antiretroviral therapy. Is that correct? >>That's the error in thinking that gets you in trouble. You ASSUME that >>the drugs "work" - that the drugs were "saving lives". > > So you claim a person with AIDS should never use antiretroviral > therapy. Is that correct? George "Conman" Carter again practices his Carl Rove smearobics, however irrelevant and off-topic. Hey, I have an idea - let's turn ALL discussions into absolutes, emphasizing the words "never", "all", "denialists" etc.! That'll spice up the conversation AND turn those with opinions other than our own into objects so we can sweep them under the carpet! What a parochial f.cking simpleton, this Conman! >>>That's the error in thinking that gets you in trouble. You ASSUME that >>>the drugs "work" - that the drugs were "saving lives". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >George "Conman" Carter again practices his Carl Rove smearobics, >however irrelevant and off-topic. What in the world is "smearobics" about asking such a question? Was the reply to be considered equivocal? Some people SHOULD use antiretrovirals? How heretical for a denialist, I should think! Please do clarify. We're all awaiting a discussion about the issues and this is indeed an important one, wouldn't you say? George M. Carter >>>>That's the error in thinking that gets you in trouble. You ASSUME that >>>>the drugs "work" - that the drugs were "saving lives". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >What in the world is "smearobics" about asking such a question? Susie explained it perfectly - even for the meekest mentality. Smearobics is what you do, Conman. Smearobics is about the core of your very being. snip... >Susie explained it perfectly - even for the meekest mentality. I'm very meek, oh great sage. Please do feel free to explain. Do you believe that people with AIDS should never use antiretrovirals? Would you prefer to discuss the science or merely claim that a question like that represents some kind of a smear? I'm sure you'll be able to explain how that might be so! George M. Carter >snip... >>Susie explained it perfectly - even for the meekest mentality. > >I'm very meek Nah - you're just a wimpy con man, Conman. "Susie" <nomail@please.com> wrote: > Susie explained it perfectly - LOL, a fraud calling a fraud, a fraud. > "Susie" <nomail@please.com> wrote: >> >> Susie explained it perfectly - > >LOL, a fraud calling a fraud, a fraud. LOL !!! ... Conman knows the only REAL "fraud" around here, he just spelled it wrong ... it's spelled: "F R O D" FIAR ("Frod's International AIDS Research"), so please be generous: go to: http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/fiar/contact.html FIAR: Frod's International AIDS Research contact information Please consider making a donation! Your donation can be made easy and secure through Paypal. Click above to go to your existing Paypal account and send your donation now. If you are new to Paypal, click below to create a new account through your email address and send and receive funds securely anywhere, anytime! Visa, Mastercard, Discover, American Express, debit card or checking transfers are all accepted. Upon completion, a receipt will be sent to your email address. FIAR also welcomes donations by cheque or money order made out to FIAR - as well as your thoughts, letters, suggestions and ideas for clinical studies. FIAR may be reached in the following ways: Mail: Frod's International AIDS Research (FIAR) Attn: George M. Carter, Director 62 Sterling Place, Suite 2 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Telephone: 718-622-0212 >> "Susie" <nomail@please.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "F R O D" As in Frod Show, the cowardly bully hiding behind the Susis and AZTdeath masks! So, got a REAL JOB yet, FROD? Or are you still too scared to say that you think no one should EVER take ARV?? Or to lose your denialist buddies by admitting that you believe HIV causes AIDS?? Or are you dying from your own BILE? >>> "Susie" <nomail@please.com> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >As in Frod Show, the cowardly bully hiding behind the Susis and >AZTdeath masks! George "Conman" Carter sponsors a true Frod Show, a cowardly bully pulpit turned Welfare Queen operation.... (please donate to Frod, and keep thinking "fraud"): Frod's FIAR model of AIDS treatment for the Third World: FIAR AND FAIR TRADE In developing countries, the FIAR model combines treatment and prevention programs. This will include, as needed, condom, lube and safer sex information, access to traditional medicine, clinical evaluation of traditional medicines, along with access to ARV therapy and treatment for opportunistic infections. So please, help feed Frod ... go to: http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/fiar/contact.html FIAR: Frod's International AIDS Research contact information Please consider making a donation! Your donation can be made easy and secure through Paypal. Click above to go to your existing Paypal account and send your donation now. If you are new to Paypal, click below to create a new account through your email address and send and receive funds securely anywhere, anytime! Visa, Mastercard, Discover, American Express, debit card or checking transfers are all accepted. Upon completion, a receipt will be sent to your email address. FIAR also welcomes donations by cheque or money order made out to FIAR - as well as your thoughts, letters, suggestions and ideas for clinical studies. FIAR may be reached in the following ways: Mail: Frod's Internantional AIDS Research (FIAR) Attn: George M. Carter, Director 62 Sterling Place, Suite 2 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Telephone: 718-622-0212 >>As in Frod Show, the cowardly bully hiding behind the Susis and >>AZTdeath masks! > >George "Conman" Carter sponsors a true Frod Show, a cowardly >bully pulpit turned Welfare Queen operation.... And the sock-puppets would rather remain one anonymous, bullying and obsessed coward, right? Can't even sign your own name, can you? >>>As in Frod Show, the cowardly bully hiding behind the Susis and >>>AZTdeath masks! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And the sock-puppets would rather ... Gee, Conman, speaking of sock puppets, one must wonder what ELSE you are up to. Susie seems to have some rather interesting info to share, given her location near you and her exceptional talent for searching public records... so little time, so much scandal... >>>>As in Frod Show, the cowardly bully hiding behind the Susis and >>>>AZTdeath masks! >Gee, Conman, speaking of sock puppets, one must wonder what ELSE >you are up to. Susie seems to have some rather interesting info to >share, given her location near you and her exceptional talent for >searching public records... You are Susie. However, if she is located "near me" then by all means, perhaps "she" will be willing to state "her" name. > so little time, so much scandal... So little time? Are you dying? >>>>>As in Frod Show, the cowardly bully hiding behind the Susis and >>>>>AZTdeath masks! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >You are Susie. I'm not a "Susie", but you ARE a Conman. > However, if she is located "near me" then by all means, >perhaps "she" will be willing to state "her" name. Perhaps "she" will ... I'll have to ask "her". >> so little time, so much scandal... > >So little time? Are you dying? Conman, if I laugh any harder at your Paypal antics, I just might, so I need be careful ... since this has been just too much fun ... >>>That's the error in thinking that gets you in trouble. You ASSUME that >>>the drugs "work" - that the drugs were "saving lives". [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >What a parochial f.cking simpleton, this Conman! Beautifully put, Susie. And soooo true!! "Susie" <nomail@please.com> wrote... >> "Susie" <nomail@please.com> wrote... >>> Gee, this sounds familiar. Remember when the CDC redefined the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > because the AIDS case definition was changed to include healthy, > longer-living people? I thought I mentioned my stupid brother has HIV. He likely contracted it around 1991, symptoms appeared in 1994, he was getting very sick and around 1995 the new drugs appeared and by the end of 1995 he was apparently "healthy" again. This has nothing to do with redefinition of AIDS by the CDC, the incubation period of the virus is 3-5 years and it is now getting close to 15 years and he's still alive and fairly "healthy." The drug companies are getting rich, but their drugs do work even if they have unpleasant side-effects. From what I remember, the reason the CDC gave for redefining "AIDS" was that at the time services were only available for people with AIDS, those with HIV didn't qualify as prior to the new drugs there really was no treatment for the virus and the existing drugs only useful in treating the opportunistic infections once it progressed to AIDS. > Cuba quarantined the HIV positives. Now they have no "epidemic". Does > that mean Cuba ever HAD an epidemic? Of course not - we don't know > much about Cuba because our government won't talk to Cubans and > America the Free has banned travel to Cuba. Cuba? While I'm a fan of megalomaniacal dictatorships (e.g. Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Idi Amin, etc.), I do not go so far as to actually believe what they say. Cuba's statistics on HIV or any other matter from economic figures to Fidel's public approval ratings to shoe production are all fictional. > Aside from Cuba, two other countries did NOT allow HIV+ people > into their country: Iraq and the United States. In effect, a weak layer > of quarantine that only served to illustrate how much our two countries > really had in common. Except that I've crossed the U.S. border countless times and they never subjected me or any of the thousands of Mexicans in line to an HIV test. You'd have to wear a sign around your neck saying you're HIV+ before they would bar you from entering. Mr. Slave, You have just hit upon something that you run across when you start reading the dissident literature. I remember meeting someone on AIDS Myth Exposed (an MSN chat group) who was trained in the study of statistics and what got him interested in the dissident view was noticing that NONE of original predictions that were made based on the HIV theory ever came true. It's funny how, when you start to really examine this paradigm with a critical eye by exploring the dissident literature, it simply unravels right in front of you. If you want to read a really well referenced book, that is still simple enough for the everyday person to understand, check out "What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS was wrong?" by Christine Maggiore. The entire book is on her website, so you can read it for FREE: http://www.aliveandwell.org Yours truly, -Paul Whiting |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.