 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2005CDC data
Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses -- 33 States, 2001--2004 MMWR Morbidity & Mortality Weekly report November 11, 2005 / Vol. 54 / No. 44 -- An important event in HIV/AIDS reporting is the inclusion of data from New York in the analysis of national HIV data in 2005. Although New York implemented name-based HIV/AIDS reporting in June 2000, this is the first time these data have been included in analyses of national surveillance data. --CDC is recommending that all states conduct name-based HIV reporting. --In 2004, the rate among blacks was 8.4 times higher than among whites. rates among blacks have remained high and warrant increased prevention efforts, especially among black MSM and black women. -- During 2001--2004, an estimated 157,252 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed in the 33 states reporting to CDC. --- (29%) were female Blacks accounted for 51% (18%) were Hispanic --Although the main transmission category for males was male-to-male sexual contact, among blacks, one fourth of HIV infections occurred through high-risk heterosexual contact. --From 2003 to 2004, the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM increased 8%; this increase was statistically significant --Among Asian/Pacific Islanders, a significant 9.0% average annual increase occurred. --highest annual rates were among blacks, followed by Hispanics, American Indian/Alaska Natives, whites, and Asian/Pacific Islanders. See tables at the end of this report. In 2003, more than 1 million persons in the United States were estimated to be living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (1). As a result of advances in treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) since 1996, persons infected with HIV are living longer than before and progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) has decreased. Consequently, AIDS surveillance no longer provides accurate population-based monitoring of the current HIV epidemic. Therefore, CDC recommends that all states and territories adopt confidential, name-based surveillance systems to report HIV infection (2). This report describes the characteristics of persons for whom HIV infection was diagnosed during 2001--2004 and reported to 33 state and local health departments with name-based HIV reporting. The findings indicate that the rate of HIV diagnosis in these states decreased among non-Hispanic blacks* from 2001 to 2004; however, the rate of HIV diagnosis among blacks remained disproportionately high. In 2004, the rate among blacks was 8.4 times higher than among whites. Improved knowledge of HIV status and access to care and prevention services is important to decrease the number of new HIV infections among those populations most affected. Included in this analysis are HIV cases reported to CDC from 33 states that have conducted name-based HIV/AIDS reporting for at least 44 years. The addition of New York, a state with high AIDS morbidity, has resulted in data for a greater percentage of U.S. cases of HIV infection. Cases of HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2001--2004 and reported to CDC through June 2005 were analyzed. Cases included 1) diagnosis of HIV infection that had not progressed to AIDS, 2) diagnosis of HIV infection followed by a diagnosis of AIDS, and 3) concurrent diagnoses of AIDS and HIV infection (i.e., AIDS and HIV diagnoses in the same calendar month). Data from U.S. territories were not included. Cases were classified in the following hierarchy of transmission categories: 1) male-to-male sexual contact, 2) injection-drug use, 3) both male-to-male sexual contact and injection-drug use, 4) high-risk heterosexual contact (i.e., with someone of the opposite sex known to have HIV/AIDS or a risk factor [e.g., male-to-male sexual contact or injection-drug use] for HIV/AIDS), and 5) all other HIV risk factors combined. The number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses, rates per 100,000 population, and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Data were adjusted for reporting delays and redistribution of risk among persons initially reported without sufficient information to classify into a transmission category (3). Estimated annual percentage changes and 95% CIs were calculated for the annual numbers of diagnoses and rates. During 2001--2004, an estimated 157,252 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed in the 33 states reporting to CDC. --- ---Of these, 112,106 (71%) were male and 45,146 (29%) were female (Table 1). Blacks accounted for 80,187 (51%) of persons with HIV/AIDS diagnosed (68% among females and 44% among males); 45,479 (29%) were white; 28,673 (18%) were Hispanic; 1,340 (1%) were Asian/Pacific Islander; and 766 (<1%) were American Indian/Alaska Native. The route of HIV infection for the majority (61%) of males was through male-to-male sexual contact; 17% occurred through high-risk heterosexual contact, and 16% occurred through injection-drug use. The majority (76%) of females with HIV/AIDS diagnosed were exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact; 21% were exposed through injection-drug use. The proportional distribution of HIV/AIDS diagnosed among males and females by transmission category varied by race/ethnicity (Table 2). Although the main transmission category for males was male-to-male sexual contact, among blacks, one fourth of HIV infections occurred through high-risk heterosexual contact. The total number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses decreased from 41,207 (CI = 40,961--41,453) in 2001 to 38,685 (CI = 37,924--39,445) in 2004; the average annual decrease was not statistically significant. MSM A nonsignificant average annual increase occurred in the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM), from 16,609 (CI = 16,260--16,957) cases in 2001 to 18,196 (CI = 17,609--18,782) cases in 2004 (Figure 1). From 2003 to 2004, the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM increased 8%; this increase was statistically significant (p<0.05). A significant average annual decrease of 9.1% occurred among injection-drug users (IDUs). The overall annual rate of HIV/AIDS diagnoses per 100,000 population did not change significantly, from 22.8 per 100,000 in 2001 to 20.7 per 100,000 in 2004. However, a significant 5.0% average annual decrease in rates among blacks was observed, from 88.7 per 100,000 in 2001 to 76.3 per 100,000 in 2004. Among Asian/Pacific Islanders, a significant 9.0% average annual increase occurred, from 5.6 per 100,000 in 2001 to 7.2 per 100,000 in 2004 (Figure 2). The highest annual rates were among blacks, followed by Hispanics, American Indian/Alaska Natives, whites, and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Reported by: L Espinoza, DDS, HI Hall, PhD, ML Campsmith, DDS, LM Lee, PhD, Div of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC. Editorial Note: An important event in HIV/AIDS reporting is the inclusion of data from New York in the analysis of national HIV data in 2005. Although New York implemented name-based HIV/AIDS reporting in June 2000, this is the first time these data have been included in analyses of national surveillance data. As a result, an additional 36,111 HIV/AIDS diagnoses were added to the surveillance system during 2001--2004; this substantial addition should be considered when making comparisons with previous reports (4). An evaluation of the impact of adding a state with high morbidity to national surveillance data is under way. In April 2003, CDC launched the Advancing HIV Prevention (AHP) initiative to increase emphasis on HIV testing and providing prevention services for persons living with HIV (5). An estimated 25% of persons living with HIV do not know they are infected (1). AHP is aimed at getting persons with undiagnosed HIV tested and into care and prevention services. Because AHP emphasizes increased testing, an increase in HIV/AIDS diagnoses might be expected; however, a decrease in diagnoses among IDUs and blacks was observed. ---Subsequent analyses will examine whether these changes were a result of a differential change in testing patterns among various populations, decreased incidence of HIV infections, or the effect of additional data added to the national surveillance system.. In addition, CDC is working with states to develop a new system for monitoring HIV incidence (i.e., new HIV infections) more directly through the use of a testing method that distinguishes recent from longstanding infections. The decrease in rates of diagnoses among blacks during 2001--2004 was driven, in part, by decreases in New York, which might be attributed to the New York epidemic being older than the epidemic in some other areas of the United States, the volume of cases reported into the system, and recent changes in reporting requirements.§ Decreases in HIV diagnoses among IDUs were consistent with other reports of success in reducing HIV incidence among IDUs (6) and might account, in part, for decreases observed among blacks. However, rates among blacks have remained high and warrant increased prevention efforts, especially among black MSM and black women. Although a statistically significant increase occurred from 2003 to 2004 in the number of diagnosed infections among MSM, the overall annual average percentage change from 2001 to 2004 was not significant. ----Flat trends in diagnoses were observed among white, black, and Hispanic MSM. The small upturn in diagnoses in 2003--2004 occurred for all racial/ethnic MSM populations. Increases in HIV diagnoses during this period are more difficult to interpret because of increasing emphasis on the benefits of increased testing among persons at high risk. Whereas increases among MSM might reflect increases in HIV incidence, consistent with increases in syphilis and other risk behaviors, they might also reflect increases in HIV testing among MSM. Increasing HIV testing among MSM is critical in light of a study of MSM aged 15--29 years in six U.S. cities, which reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77% (7). Although a significant increase occurred in HIV/AIDS diagnoses among Asian/Pacific Islanders from 2001 to 2004, this population continues to have the lowest HIV/AIDS rates of any racial/ethnic population in the United States. The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, although AIDS is a reportable condition in all 50 states, name-based HIV data are not reportable in all states. The 33 states analyzed in this report are estimated to represent 63% of all AIDS cases in the United States during 2001--2004. Although the representativeness of the national data has improved, data from California are not included, which results in an under-representation of cases in the West. To describe the epidemic more completely, CDC is recommending that all states conduct name-based HIV reporting. As of October 2005, a total of 38 states¶ conducted name-based HIV/AIDS reporting that met CDC standards (2,8), and additional states have initiated procedures to adopt name-based HIV-infection reporting beginning in 2006. Personal identifiers are removed before data are submitted to CDC. Second, classification of cases with no identified risk factor was based on follow-up investigations; those cases were assumed to constitute a representative sample of all cases initially reported without a risk factor. In this analysis, the average annual diagnosis rate among blacks decreased; however, the rate in 2004 was 8.4 times higher among blacks than whites. Several factors contribute to higher risk for HIV infection among blacks, including higher prevalence of infection in the black community and, for females, greater likelihood of encountering high-risk heterosexual or bisexual male partners (9). The epidemic has continued to concentrate in groups that traditionally have had limited access to prevention services, medical care, and effective therapies. Prevention will require reassessment of ongoing activities to ensure resources target those at highest risk. Strengthening the partnership between government public health programs and affected communities and developing novel interventions that are culturally appropriate are essential to meet the needs of all groups affected by the epidemic. Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses -- 33 States, 2001--2004 MMWR Morbidity & Mortality Weekly report November 11, 2005 / Vol. 54 / No. 44 -- An important event in HIV/AIDS reporting is the inclusion of data from New York in the analysis of national HIV data in 2005. Although New York implemented name-based HIV/AIDS reporting in June 2000, this is the first time these data have been included in analyses of national surveillance data. --CDC is recommending that all states conduct name-based HIV reporting. --In 2004, the rate among blacks was 8.4 times higher than among whites. rates among blacks have remained high and warrant increased prevention efforts, especially among black MSM and black women. -- During 2001--2004, an estimated 157,252 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed in the 33 states reporting to CDC. --- (29%) were female Blacks accounted for 51% (18%) were Hispanic --Although the main transmission category for males was male-to-male sexual contact, among blacks, one fourth of HIV infections occurred through high-risk heterosexual contact. --From 2003 to 2004, the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM increased 8%; this increase was statistically significant --Among Asian/Pacific Islanders, a significant 9.0% average annual increase occurred. --highest annual rates were among blacks, followed by Hispanics, American Indian/Alaska Natives, whites, and Asian/Pacific Islanders. See tables at the end of this report. In 2003, more than 1 million persons in the United States were estimated to be living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (1). As a result of advances in treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) since 1996, persons infected with HIV are living longer than before and progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) has decreased. Consequently, AIDS surveillance no longer provides accurate population-based monitoring of the current HIV epidemic. Therefore, CDC recommends that all states and territories adopt confidential, name-based surveillance systems to report HIV infection (2). This report describes the characteristics of persons for whom HIV infection was diagnosed during 2001--2004 and reported to 33 state and local health departments with name-based HIV reporting. The findings indicate that the rate of HIV diagnosis in these states decreased among non-Hispanic blacks* from 2001 to 2004; however, the rate of HIV diagnosis among blacks remained disproportionately high. In 2004, the rate among blacks was 8.4 times higher than among whites. Improved knowledge of HIV status and access to care and prevention services is important to decrease the number of new HIV infections among those populations most affected. Included in this analysis are HIV cases reported to CDC from 33 states that have conducted name-based HIV/AIDS reporting for at least 44 years. The addition of New York, a state with high AIDS morbidity, has resulted in data for a greater percentage of U.S. cases of HIV infection. Cases of HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2001--2004 and reported to CDC through June 2005 were analyzed. Cases included 1) diagnosis of HIV infection that had not progressed to AIDS, 2) diagnosis of HIV infection followed by a diagnosis of AIDS, and 3) concurrent diagnoses of AIDS and HIV infection (i.e., AIDS and HIV diagnoses in the same calendar month). Data from U.S. territories were not included. Cases were classified in the following hierarchy of transmission categories: 1) male-to-male sexual contact, 2) injection-drug use, 3) both male-to-male sexual contact and injection-drug use, 4) high-risk heterosexual contact (i.e., with someone of the opposite sex known to have HIV/AIDS or a risk factor [e.g., male-to-male sexual contact or injection-drug use] for HIV/AIDS), and 5) all other HIV risk factors combined. The number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses, rates per 100,000 population, and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Data were adjusted for reporting delays and redistribution of risk among persons initially reported without sufficient information to classify into a transmission category (3). Estimated annual percentage changes and 95% CIs were calculated for the annual numbers of diagnoses and rates. During 2001--2004, an estimated 157,252 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed in the 33 states reporting to CDC. --- ---Of these, 112,106 (71%) were male and 45,146 (29%) were female (Table 1). Blacks accounted for 80,187 (51%) of persons with HIV/AIDS diagnosed (68% among females and 44% among males); 45,479 (29%) were white; 28,673 (18%) were Hispanic; 1,340 (1%) were Asian/Pacific Islander; and 766 (<1%) were American Indian/Alaska Native. The route of HIV infection for the majority (61%) of males was through male-to-male sexual contact; 17% occurred through high-risk heterosexual contact, and 16% occurred through injection-drug use. The majority (76%) of females with HIV/AIDS diagnosed were exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact; 21% were exposed through injection-drug use. The proportional distribution of HIV/AIDS diagnosed among males and females by transmission category varied by race/ethnicity (Table 2). Although the main transmission category for males was male-to-male sexual contact, among blacks, one fourth of HIV infections occurred through high-risk heterosexual contact. The total number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses decreased from 41,207 (CI = 40,961--41,453) in 2001 to 38,685 (CI = 37,924--39,445) in 2004; the average annual decrease was not statistically significant. MSM A nonsignificant average annual increase occurred in the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM), from 16,609 (CI = 16,260--16,957) cases in 2001 to 18,196 (CI = 17,609--18,782) cases in 2004 (Figure 1). From 2003 to 2004, the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM increased 8%; this increase was statistically significant (p<0.05). A significant average annual decrease of 9.1% occurred among injection-drug users (IDUs). The overall annual rate of HIV/AIDS diagnoses per 100,000 population did not change significantly, from 22.8 per 100,000 in 2001 to 20.7 per 100,000 in 2004. However, a significant 5.0% average annual decrease in rates among blacks was observed, from 88.7 per 100,000 in 2001 to 76.3 per 100,000 in 2004. Among Asian/Pacific Islanders, a significant 9.0% average annual increase occurred, from 5.6 per 100,000 in 2001 to 7.2 per 100,000 in 2004 (Figure 2). The highest annual rates were among blacks, followed by Hispanics, American Indian/Alaska Natives, whites, and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Reported by: L Espinoza, DDS, HI Hall, PhD, ML Campsmith, DDS, LM Lee, PhD, Div of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC. Editorial Note: An important event in HIV/AIDS reporting is the inclusion of data from New York in the analysis of national HIV data in 2005. Although New York implemented name-based HIV/AIDS reporting in June 2000, this is the first time these data have been included in analyses of national surveillance data. As a result, an additional 36,111 HIV/AIDS diagnoses were added to the surveillance system during 2001--2004; this substantial addition should be considered when making comparisons with previous reports (4). An evaluation of the impact of adding a state with high morbidity to national surveillance data is under way. In April 2003, CDC launched the Advancing HIV Prevention (AHP) initiative to increase emphasis on HIV testing and providing prevention services for persons living with HIV (5). An estimated 25% of persons living with HIV do not know they are infected (1). AHP is aimed at getting persons with undiagnosed HIV tested and into care and prevention services. Because AHP emphasizes increased testing, an increase in HIV/AIDS diagnoses might be expected; however, a decrease in diagnoses among IDUs and blacks was observed. ---Subsequent analyses will examine whether these changes were a result of a differential change in testing patterns among various populations, decreased incidence of HIV infections, or the effect of additional data added to the national surveillance system.. In addition, CDC is working with states to develop a new system for monitoring HIV incidence (i.e., new HIV infections) more directly through the use of a testing method that distinguishes recent from longstanding infections. The decrease in rates of diagnoses among blacks during 2001--2004 was driven, in part, by decreases in New York, which might be attributed to the New York epidemic being older than the epidemic in some other areas of the United States, the volume of cases reported into the system, and recent changes in reporting requirements.§ Decreases in HIV diagnoses among IDUs were consistent with other reports of success in reducing HIV incidence among IDUs (6) and might account, in part, for decreases observed among blacks. However, rates among blacks have remained high and warrant increased prevention efforts, especially among black MSM and black women. Although a statistically significant increase occurred from 2003 to 2004 in the number of diagnosed infections among MSM, the overall annual average percentage change from 2001 to 2004 was not significant. ----Flat trends in diagnoses were observed among white, black, and Hispanic MSM. The small upturn in diagnoses in 2003--2004 occurred for all racial/ethnic MSM populations. Increases in HIV diagnoses during this period are more difficult to interpret because of increasing emphasis on the benefits of increased testing among persons at high risk. Whereas increases among MSM might reflect increases in HIV incidence, consistent with increases in syphilis and other risk behaviors, they might also reflect increases in HIV testing among MSM. Increasing HIV testing among MSM is critical in light of a study of MSM aged 15--29 years in six U.S. cities, which reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77% (7). Although a significant increase occurred in HIV/AIDS diagnoses among Asian/Pacific Islanders from 2001 to 2004, this population continues to have the lowest HIV/AIDS rates of any racial/ethnic population in the United States. The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, although AIDS is a reportable condition in all 50 states, name-based HIV data are not reportable in all states. The 33 states analyzed in this report are estimated to represent 63% of all AIDS cases in the United States during 2001--2004. Although the representativeness of the national data has improved, data from California are not included, which results in an under-representation of cases in the West. To describe the epidemic more completely, CDC is recommending that all states conduct name-based HIV reporting. As of October 2005, a total of 38 states¶ conducted name-based HIV/AIDS reporting that met CDC standards (2,8), and additional states have initiated procedures to adopt name-based HIV-infection reporting beginning in 2006. Personal identifiers are removed before data are submitted to CDC. Second, classification of cases with no identified risk factor was based on follow-up investigations; those cases were assumed to constitute a representative sample of all cases initially reported without a risk factor. In this analysis, the average annual diagnosis rate among blacks decreased; however, the rate in 2004 was 8.4 times higher among blacks than whites. Several factors contribute to higher risk for HIV infection among blacks, including higher prevalence of infection in the black community and, for females, greater likelihood of encountering high-risk heterosexual or bisexual male partners (9). The epidemic has continued to concentrate in groups that traditionally have had limited access to prevention services, medical care, and effective therapies. Prevention will require reassessment of ongoing activities to ensure resources target those at highest risk. Strengthening the partnership between government public health programs and affected communities and developing novel interventions that are culturally appropriate are essential to meet the needs of all groups affected by the epidemic. * For this report, persons identified as white, black, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, or of other/unknown race are all non-Hispanic. Persons identified as Hispanic might be of any race. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Inndiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. § In addition to AIDS cases, in June 2000, New York began requiring that all confirmed HIV diagnostic tests, detectable HIV viral load tests, and CD4 counts of <500 µL be reported to the health department. Health-care providers are required to report all cases of HIV diagnosis, HIV illness, and AIDS. In June 2005, reporting requirements were changed to include all HIV viral load tests and all CD4 counts, regardless of value. ¶ Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. _______________________________________________ NATAP HIV mailing list -- HIV@natap.org GMCarter wrote... > Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses -- 33 States, 2001--2004 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > --CDC is recommending that all states conduct name-based HIV > reporting. California is still missing from the CDC data, but last year I was on a number-crunching trip and found the average national rate of infection for MSMs (based on the 30 or so reporting states) was about 10%, and I predicted that when New York and California were finally included the average MSM infection rate would soar, as those two states contain a large percentage of the nation's total MSM population. Until I see the actual numbers, I will guesstimate a national average MSM rate of around 25%, with California and New York states around 40% with rates reaching up to 75% for NYC and SF. Of course any of you are free to prove me wrong. The simplest way (and of course it is illegal) is to raid randomly-chosen gay bars and forcibly take blood samples from random patrons and we can easily find out what the MSM infection rate is. Tapei did this a few years ago, though they tested everyone at the bar and came up with 30% as being infected, and that was just the antibody test that wouldn't detect those recently infected. But the 30% fits in nicely with reports I've heard for other large world cities. snipola out Carters bullshit > California is still missing from the CDC data,... The political machine in correctness mode. > ...for MSMs (based on the 30 or so reporting states) was about 10%, and > I predicted that when New York and California were finally included the > average MSM infection rate would soar, as those two states contain a > large percentage of the nation's total MSM population. ... Here is an article I came across you may find of interest: By Sylvia Westphal (WebMD) -- Contrary to the arguments of many researchers and policy makers, a study released Monday shows that reporting HIV-infected persons to public health authorities does not seem to affect how quickly the patients seek medical care, or how many partners they notify of their HIV status. The study -- funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in the current issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine -- is likely to stir up the highly controversial issue of whether names of HIV-positive people should be released to public health departments in order to facilitate surveillance of the disease. Currently all 50 states mandate that people with AIDS be reported by name to local public health departments. However, only 31 states have adopted a similar policy for reporting people who are HIV-positive and haven't developed AIDS. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. In states such as California that don't have the policy, the issue is under consideration -- and not without intense debate. Many argue that reporting HIV-infected people by name not only supports surveillance of the disease, but also allows efficient follow-up of infected individuals -- a potential opportunity for public health officials to help people notify sex and needle-sharing partners, and to help get people into care faster, the argument goes. But opponents contend that name reporting deters high-risk people from being tested or from seeking further care -- so as to "hide" from the system. What the new study shows is that many of the arguments both in favor and against name reporting have been exaggerated, says Dennis Osmond, Ph.D., lead author of the study. "The bottom line is that within the realm of public issues about partner notification and getting people into care earlier, name reporting did not help public health departments," says Osmond, a researcher in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). The team of researchers, from the CDC, UCSF and the University of California, Berkeley, analyzed data from surveys done in 1995 and 1996 in nine states with different laws for name reporting. Notifying partners and seeking care The surveys revealed that the percentage of people seeking medical care within two months of learning their HIV status was similar in states with and without name reporting (66 percent vs. 67 percent respectively). People contacted by health departments were no likelier to get medical care within the first three to six months of a positive HIV test, according to study results. Name reporting also did not deter many people from seeking care once they knew their HIV status. Most respondents said their major reason for not seeking care was that they felt healthy or did not want to think about HIV. None of the respondents said fear of being reported to the health department was the major reason for avoiding care -- and less than 9 percent of people surveyed mentioned it as a reason at all. The researchers also analyzed partner notification in states with name reporting. They compared people who had taken an anonymous test with those who had taken a confidential one (so that their name was unknown). The average number of partners personally notified by those who had taken an anonymous test was the same (about 3.8 partners) as that for people who had taken a confidential test and had been assisted with notification by the health department. Those results are distressing because one of the purposes of name reporting is to help notify partners who might be infected, says Jeffrey Levi, Ph.D., of George Washington University's School of Public Health in Washington, D.C. "This should be read as something of a wake-up call to health departments," Levi says. But the concern remains that the policy of reporting names may deter some from getting tested in the first place, Osmond says. The study also found that, in states with the policy, more gay men delayed testing for fear of having their names revealed. The debate continues And that is one reason why many AIDS advocacy groups are fighting the establishment of the measure in states like California. "People have not understood how different HIV is, how great the stigma is, how scared people are," says Fred Dillon, state policy director of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. But author Stan Lehman, M.P.H., from the CDC, says surveillance is based not on monitoring people, but on reporting a test result. A name is used because that's the way things have traditionally been done in public health for all diseases, he added. "To do old-fashioned public health you got to have information on a person," Lehman says. "But HIV has always been a much more political than normal disease." >GMCarter wrote... >> Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses -- 33 States, 2001--2004 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >infected. But the 30% fits in nicely with reports I've heard for other >large world cities. All of the above crap is purely that as there is no statistics concerning the total number of gay men in America. Guesses from 1% to 5% of the male population have been published by anti-gays in this newsgroup so the percentage for gays with HIV/AIDS could range from 40% high to a low of 8%. How anybody can calculate an absolute number from these figures is a complete mystery? Go try your lying speculation elsewhere bastard. -- "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."~Elbert Hubbard to quote a relative of mine. Bernard Hubbard Bernard Hubbard wrote... > All of the above crap is purely that as there is no statistics > concerning the total number of gay men in America. Guesses from 1% to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > from these figures is a complete mystery? Go try your lying > speculation elsewhere bastard. Well, the two major surveys say 2.8% for males in the 1995 University of Chicago survey, to the 10% in the highly controversial and largely discredited Kinsey Report of the early-1950s. The gay bar forced testing scenario might answer the question, as it can resaonably be assumed that the majority of patrons are homosexual and/or bisexual men (dykes have their own bars). That wouldn't directly reveal the portion of gay/bi males in the general population, it would directly reveal the prevalence of HIV among that group. Given that this group of MSM makes up X% of total HIV cases, then combine that with a survey that shows Y% of males engaging in MSM sex. The survey is the tricky part, whoever conducts it has a bias, even knowing their professional careers are on the line if the results make any group with political correctness privileges look less than perfect. So the researchers for Oral Robert University will try to discover that less than 0.25% of the population is homosexual, while researchers for the University of Berkeley will discover that 25% of the population is homosexual, with another 33% as having experimented with it. The rates of HIV are compared with or the other, each side proving his point. Many assumptions have to be made, and my assumptions of 2.8% combined with the CDC and Census data for 30 regions and averaged out gives a national average 160x higher HIV infection rate for MSM than for exclusively heterosexual males? That wasn't including New York or California which will be for my next number trip. Gawd, I'm so high! "Wow, I always knew Cartmans' mom was a slut..." <mrscartman@crack.whore.magazine.net> wrote in message > > > Of course any of you are free to prove me wrong. The simplest way (and > of course it is illegal) is to raid randomly-chosen gay bars and forcibly > take blood samples from random patrons and we can easily find out what > the MSM infection rate is. HIV Could Launch Bird Flu Pandemic Scientists are concerned that HIV/AIDS carriers who contract Bird Flu could mutate the Flu virus into a more easily transferable form, warning that this might trigger the feared international pandemic. Noted US virologist Dr Robert Webster warns that people with compromised immune systems will not be able to fight off influenza, and could carry it for much longer than healthy people, allowing it to mutate in their bodies to a form which more easily spreads in humans. Scientists have already found that Avian Flu will mutate in such a way, and that a long period in a person with a compromised immune system will allow the mutation to occur more quickly. The greatest concern is currently for people living in South Africa, where there is the world's highest number of people living with HIV/AIDS. Bird Flu has presently infected about 125 people in South East Asia, and has spread to Asia, home to the second largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the world. Should Avian Flu be contracted by someone with HIV/AIDS in one of these two regions, scientists warn that the influenza virus could quickly spread into a pandemic. Aids may help spread of bird flu By Roland Pease BBC science correspondent It is feared bird flu will jump from human to human Bird flu could readily mutate into a pandemic form if it infects people with Aids, a flu expert has warned. Dr Robert Webster said it was possible people with Aids, who have depressed immune systems, could harbour the deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu. This would potentially give it the opportunity to become better adapted - and more dangerous - to humans. Dr Webster was speaking at a conference organised by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. At present, H5N1 cannot pass easily from human to human. It has so far infected around 125 people in South East Asia, but most of these have had close contact with infected birds. Experts fear that the widespread infection of birds in this region, coupled with the close mixing of birds and people, could lead to the virus evolving to pose a more deadly threat. But Dr Webster, of St Jude Children's Research Hospital im Memphis, said the key could be when H5N1 reaches East Africa, where HIV/Aids is rife. Cannot clear virus He said experience with immune-compromised cancer patients at his hospital had showed they are unable to clear normal flu virus from their systems, and can shed copies of the virus for weeks. The same could be expected of AIDS patients coming down with H5N1, he said. "We're all very worried by the prospect," he told the BBC. Reproducing over a long period inside a human would be the ideal conditions for more infectious forms of the virus to develop. H5N1 has not reached East Africa yet, but it is the final destination for many birds currently migrating from infected areas. Officials at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation expect to arrive there soon. They believe that because the social conditions are close to those in Asia, and farming practices are similar, the virus could take a grip among poultry as it has in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and China. Health expert Laurie Garrett adds that with malaria, tuberculosis and HIV already widespread in Africa, it will be difficult to single out the symptoms of bird flu in new victims - high fever and nausea. The situation is compounded by the parlous state of the health systems across the continent. The direct effect of H5N1 on people with Aids is hard to predict. The H5N1 virus overstimulates the immune system, and many of its powerful effects are caused by what medical expert call a "cytokine storm", after the immune molecules excited by the disease. It was the cytokine storm that overwhelmed so many victims of the 1918 flu pandemic. Aids patients may be spared that fate. But equally possible, with their immune defences down, they could succumb easily to the disease. "In that situation," said Laurie Garrett, "vast populations of HIV positive people could be obliterated by the pandemic flu." Can China cope with bird flu? By Stephen Cviic BBC News China has announced its first human death from bird flu, raising renewed fears about the possible spread of the disease among birds and humans. Up until now, all of the human fatalities from the H5N1 strain have been in East Asia, most of them in Vietnam and Thailand. But when the disease affects people in China, the world's most populous country, it is bound to attract even more attention. The woman who is known to have died of it was a poultry worker in the eastern province of Anhui. The other confirmed case was a boy in Hunan province who has since recovered; his sister died, but because she was cremated immediately afterwards, it is impossible to know what the cause of death was. "The virus is entrenched... we expect more outbreaks" Henk Bedekam World Health Organization China has been grappling with eleven separate outbreaks of bird flu, also known as avian influenza, among fowl, and some human cases were expected. Henk Bedekam, the World Health Organization's representative in China, says the time of year is also favouring the continuation of the disease. "We're moving towards winter and we know that [the virus] can longer survive in the winter when it's cold, so we're not surprised that we have now here and there some outbreaks. "We know that in this part of the world - of course not for the whole of China as well, but for parts of China - that the virus is entrenched, and that means especially in the cold months that we expect some more outbreaks." Human infection 'rare' Bird flu has already spread from Asia into Europe. Outbreaks have been reported in Turkey, Romania and Croatia. However, Europe has had no human cases, and all the ones in Asia seem to have been the result of direct contact with animals. Dick Thompson, of the WHO in Geneva, says there is no evidence that that is changing. "The one thing that we are worried about of course and we've been worried about for some time is that this virus will change in a way that will allow it to move easily from one human to another. "That hasn't happened. It continues to be an extremely rare event for a human to become infected with this disease." But of course the threat of avian influenza is a worry for farmers everywhere. In China, millions of birds have been culled, and now the authorities have come up with an even more ambitious plan: to vaccinate every single one of the 14 billion farm birds in the country. But is this actually possible? Enough vaccine? "I think logistically that's an enormous nightmare, particularly given that as far as European scientists are concerned, any vaccine would have to be done twice, with one week between both vaccines," says Roger Wait of the agricultural newsletter, Agra Facts. "You also have other problems, such as the vaccine itself - do you have enough vaccine in China? One could imagine there could be a problem with bogus vaccines or imitation vaccines getting into the system somehow. "And then of course you've got other issues such as trade and a question mark over whether the vaccine actually kills the virus itself." So, there is not a global consensus that vaccination of birds represents the best answer. Experts do believe, however, that trying to control the movement of domestic fowl is important. Ultimately, though, once the uncertainties surrounding wild bird migration and virus mutation are factored in, it is fair to say that nobody really knows how much effect avian influenza will eventually have on the world's economy and its population. TESTIMONY BEFORE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS Would you please speculate on what you think would happen when an individual who is HIV positive becomes exposed to a bird or in some other way acquires an infection of H5N1? WEBSTER: Well, thank you for the crown. I'm not sure that I wear it comfortably at the moment -- not at all. My great concern I think I'm sharing with you is that if this virus and when this virus gets into Africa into the HIV-positive people, who are immunosuppressed, what happens in an immunosuppressed person we know with influenza in cancer patients, the virus is shed for an extended period of time, and it gives the virus the chance to accumulate the mutations of adaptation to humans. And so this -- you put your finger on the great worry that we all have for this virus getting into Africa along with HIV. There are at this moment unconfirmed reports of H5N1 die-offs among bird populations in Iran and Iraq. If true, these could foretell spread of the virus to the African flyway, which would include a spectacular range of species migrating from Ethiopia to South Africa. We do not know how H5N1 will behave in the body of an HIV+ human being. There are two theories, scientific rationales for which are a bit too complicated to detail here. Nevertheless, in one scenario the HIV-weakened immune systems of infected individuals create permissive environments for H5N1, allowing the flu virus to thrive, mutate and adapt to human beings. In such a scenario, the HIV+ person is, in a sense, an ambulatory Petri dish, incubating, and possibly spreading, new forms of the virus. In a second scenario, however, the HIV+ individual, unable to mount a protective immune response against H5N1 is easily infected and swiftly devastated. In that situation vast populations of HIV+ people could be obliterated by the pandemic flu. This is a horrible notion, and ominous given the extraordinary HIV infection rates in many African countries. Regardless of which HIV/H5N1 scenario is correct, spotting any movement of the flu virus from African birds to the continent's peoples will be exceedingly difficult. As weak as the public health infrastructures and surveillance systems are in much of Asia, such capacities are far worse in sub-SaharanAfrica. Further, spotting symptoms such as the emergence of clusters of people with high fevers and nausea might be impossible against a background of malaria, tuberculosis and HIV. When there is a human-to-human confirmed case, will that tell us something about the underlying health status of the humans involved, or will it tell us something that's changed fundamentally about the virus itself? WEBSTER: One human-to-human won't tell us very much. And unfortunately, we don't get enough information from humans in Asia on what has happened to humans. The number of postmortems done is extremely small. The number of viruses we get to examine is extraordinarily small. And we will not know from one or two passages the molecular basis. We have to take this back into the laboratory to really understand this, and we will know when we have sustained transmissibility; that's the breakpoint. SUAREZ: Dr. Wolinsky, is there a situation that's created by human activity or a situation that's created by bird activity, which is something sort of beyond our reach, that can make this a greater or lesser danger? DR. STEVEN WOLINSKY: Well, certainly when, during the course of human events when we're put in greater proximity to animals that have other viruses, they do have a propensity to leap from their animal host to humans. This has gone on in many situations. HIV/AIDS is a perfect example of a virus that existed within a primate host for a long period of time until it actually was successful in its jump to humans. But that leap was preceded by many sort of tentative steps, as we're seeing now where it sort of makes a little dance forward; maybe there's a one or two person spread. It doesn't quite make it. And again, I would emphasize that we really do need to know what is going on at the molecular level. What really characterizes the virus that makes that leap? What are the underlying genetic factors that both the virus, the host and its immune response that makes this happen? SUAREZ: Are there changes that happen in the virus that blunt any attempts to defend against it? WOLINSKY: Well, in respect that the virus can have enhanced pathogenicity -- its ability to actually do greater damage to the host -- there may be aspects of the virus, per se. Witness the 1918 influenza virus. There's properties that we've seen in the animal models where it really has shown an enhanced ability to kill in a situation where other viruses, other influenza viruses did not -- its ability to incite an immune response that far outweighs what is needed for the host to be protected, and in fact, ravages the host, ravages the animal model. So there are some genetic variants that exist in particular and have been transmitted. What are the actual particular pathogenic factors that mediate this are still really not known. SUAREZ: We tend to talk about mutation as if it's a discrete event which gets you from one place to a single new place. Could five or six or 10 or 100 variants be cooking right now in animal host bloodstreams and some just end up being mutational dead ends because they kill too quickly or don't kill at all or don't spread easily, and, in fact, it's only the one that's successful that catches our attention? WOLINSKY: Well, certainly -- we can just go back to Darwin on this -- (inaudible) -- we're looking at dissent with modification. SUAREZ: You can do that because we're in New York State. Okay? (Laughter.) WOLINSKY: That's right. We're not in Kansas anymore. (Laughter.) And like other RNA viruses, flu is highly mutable, highly adaptable and capable of rapid evolution. And within the host, it's not a single virus that you have but actually a swarm of viruses. And they're all genetically related but yet distinctive. The virus is constantly mutating. And it's on a cycle that's akin to other RNA viruses that every time it replicates, it makes a mistake. And so basically you're left with this viral swarm. And how the swarm actually adapts to the host, how the immune system actually manages that is really up to an individual basis as well. And there are individual differences in terms of how people respond to infectious diseases, and there are differences because of their genetic makeup, because of their immune response, their underlying difficulties with immune response, how the virus is able to exploit these and the fact that certain ones become adapted, better able to grow in a certain environment. www.natap.org Death wrote... > "Wow, I always knew Cartmans' mom was a slut..." <mrscartman@crack.whore.magazine.net> wrote in > message > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > have already found that Avian Flu will mutate in such a way, and that a long period in a person > with a compromised immune system will allow the mutation to occur more quickly. Ha! And don't forget the various anti-viral drugs HIV patients take could make H5N1 resistant to Tamiflu or any other drug used to treat flu and other viruses. Instead of being wiped out by an epidemic, HIV patients may act as incubators and not only incubate but mutate it beyond our wildest dreams, possibly acting to recombine HIV genes with genes from very unrelated viruses, unimaginably deadly new species of viruses, all resistant to antiviral drugs. The self-proclaimed "experts" in this group (experts because they managed to contract the virus despite the most graphic warnings) will blithely dismiss this idea as "impossible," yet I'll bet you can't find one credentialed virologist who could explain why such a scenario is impossible. Why couldn't a respiratory virus found in birds and able to replicate and mutate indefinitely in a host with a suppressed immune system eventually combine with other viruses in the same host, even the HIV virus that is suppressing the immune system? Unlikely, but if you study the field of complexity and self-organization you would realize that literally trillions or quadrillions of permutations are being tried and one or more of those permutations - e.g. a fragment of H5N1 combined with a fragment of polio combined with a fragment of herpes combined with a fragment of HIV etc. - can form a new, functional, and infectious species; in other words you might get an airborne and highly contagious virus that causes AIDS. And since I'm getting all scifi, but not impossibly so, y'all need to check out the books "Darwin's Radio" and "Darwin's Children" by Greg Bear. "Towelie" <tolwelie@wanna.get.high.net> wrote in message > Ha! And don't forget the various anti-viral drugs HIV patients take could make > H5N1 resistant to Tamiflu or any other drug used to treat flu and other viruses. > Instead of being wiped out by an epidemic, HIV patients may act as incubators > and not only incubate but mutate it beyond our wildest dreams, possibly acting > to recombine HIV genes with genes from very unrelated viruses, unimaginably > deadly new species of viruses, all resistant to antiviral drugs. bingo > The self-proclaimed "experts" in this group (experts because they managed to > contract the virus despite the most graphic warnings) will blithely dismiss this > idea as "impossible," bingo >yet I'll bet you can't find one credentialed virologist > who could explain why such a scenario is impossible. Why couldn't a respiratory > virus found in birds and able to replicate and mutate indefinitely in a host > with a suppressed immune system eventually combine with other viruses in the > same host, even the HIV virus that is suppressing the immune system? Unlikely, I prefer indubitably over unlikely > but if you study the field of complexity and self-organization you would realize > that literally trillions or quadrillions of permutations are being tried and > one or more of those permutations - e.g. a fragment of H5N1 combined with a > fragment of polio combined with a fragment of herpes combined with a fragment > of HIV etc. - can form a new, functional, and infectious species; in other words > you might get an airborne and highly contagious virus that causes AIDS. several times I said, the anus was the cause of hiv/aids and the virus was the effect. Not once was I challenged on that other than with, bigot. Consider that for a moment, cause and effect. One hiv/aids + untreated faggot and one hiv/aids+ treated faggot engage in anal sex. The untreated faggot passes his virus to a virus that has come under control through meds. A mutation then developes. The treated faggot still on meds gets sick again, feels better and goes out to the bar. He is passing a strain that has not been researched and a med avalible to fight the new virus. Greed is the culprit, not personal behavior. Now add an OI into the vat and stur. Poison is the cry and hue, not personal behavior. Add jet travel to other countries where the strain is different. Mix that into the brew and you have.........the present day problem. Stur in, swine flu, bird flu, malaria, mad cow, etc.......etc......... and of course etc. Indubitably, yep, that is the word. > And since I'm getting all scifi, but not impossibly so, y'all need to check out > the books "Darwin's Radio" and "Darwin's Children" by Greg Bear. I disagree with Darwin, I say mankind is going backward not forward. > I disagree with Darwin, I say mankind is going backward not forward. You know what I read some of the dribble you write I must agree with you, as you do seem like a throw back to the dark ages. <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > You know what I read some of the dribble ... another debunking or a lesson in how to structure a thought? dribble is the correct word, Lol > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > dribble is the correct word, Lol Yep when you write it, it is. >> <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yep when you write it, it is. LOL! susie snip >Ha! And don't forget the various anti-viral drugs HIV patients take could make >H5N1 resistant to Tamiflu or any other drug used to treat flu and other viruses. What? Delirium? People with impaired immune function could be a source for increased virulence of ANY virus, including H5N1. The elderly and malnourished/starving individuals also represent a significant threat. People who have received tranpslants. People in war situations. LOTS of incubator groups out there....but it may also be something that may arise in an otherwise immune intact individual. I see two possible solutions. One--kill them. Round them up and shoot ANYONE who might represent a risk. From Thailand and Indonesia to Bulgaria to New York. Anyone, anywhere, any time. It would be impossible to quarantine them. So: Kill them. By the millions. OR..... Gosh. Make sure that food is available, provide care and treatment, spend our resources on butter more than guns....er...that takes a lot of work and caring. I know what some of the bigots on here will choose.... George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > The elderly and malnourished/starving individuals ... Talk about an outright lie. Hunger has not been the cause of one case of hiv/aids. Being old has not caused one case of hiv/aids. Stupidity, has caused millions of cases though. And Carter, you are ate up with it. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Hunger has not been the cause of one case of hiv/aids. >Being old has not caused one case of hiv/aids. To say that would be inaccurate--I didn't say that. I said that people with these conditions have impaired immunity. That is not the same as AIDS. It never has been. So the one lying here is you for inferentially claiming that I made such statements. You lie all the time; most importantly to yourself. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > To say that would be inaccurate-- Bullshit >I didn't say that. I said that people > with these conditions have impaired immunity. That is not the same as > AIDS. that is not what you said >It never has been. now allow me to refresh your memory, note the words of ANY. then you go foward with the elderly and starved in another sentence. I singled out that sentence above "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > People with impaired immune function could be a source for increased > virulence of ANY virus, including H5N1. > > The elderly and malnourished/starving individuals also represent a > significant threat. ``````````````````````````````````` > So the one lying here is you for inferentially claiming that I made > such statements. You lie all the time; most importantly to yourself. There it is for you to see if I lied or not. Again, no one has gotten aids just from being old. Again, no one has gotten aids just from being hungry. Your strawman is burning and you don't even smell smoke. There it all is below. Apparently, you are incapable of comprehending what I wrote. Pretty much what I would expect from a bigot. George M. Carter >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >Again, no one has gotten aids just from being hungry. >Your strawman is burning and you don't even smell smoke. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > There it all is below. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > >> >> The elderly and malnourished/starving individuals ... no, I understood well, >People with impaired immune function could be a source for increased >virulence of ANY virus, including H5N1. ANY virus would include aids/hiv >The elderly and malnourished/starving individuals also represent a >significant threat. only if they are already positive. > People who have received tranpslants. Only if the donor was positive, and I'll ass-ume you meant transplants >People in war situations. LOTS of incubator groups out there.... only if they are positive >but it may also >be something that may arise in an otherwise immune intact individual. being old, in and of itself does not cause aids, being hungry, in and of itself does not cause aids, having an impaired immune system in and of itself does not cause aids. when you are wrong and know it, you yell bigot (as if) that helps. utterly childish >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >no, I understood well, Nope. You didn't. >>People with impaired immune function could be a source for increased >>virulence of ANY virus, including H5N1. > >ANY virus would include aids/hiv Yes. Indeed, some speculate that the original SIV may have infected individuals suffering malnutrition and subsequently generated a more virulent HIV. >>The elderly and malnourished/starving individuals also represent a >>significant threat. > >only if they are already positive. Ah--no. That's not the point--see. In your busy job of filling your mind with hate, you were incapable of understanding the comment. That is, the H5N1 flu pandemic of 1918 is speculated to have been driven in its pathogenicity/virulence by soldiers in the trenches. Similarly, other groups suffering from serious stress (e.g., advanced age, malnutrition) as well as people with AIDS, MAY be sources where infection with H5N1 from a bird source may result in a transformation. Given that many of the birds infected are found in areas where some populations live under significant stress, IF this theory is valid, those individuals may be the source of a new strain. The theory remains, however, speculative. A few animal models using Coxsackie virus (where disease arises in the context of selenium deficiency) hint at possibilities. >> People who have received tranpslants. > >Only if the donor was positive, and I'll ass-ume you >meant transplants >>People in war situations. LOTS of incubator groups out there.... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >being hungry, in and of itself does not cause aids, >having an impaired immune system in and of itself does not cause aids. I never stated ANY of those things with regard to AIDS. >when you are wrong and know it, you yell bigot (as if) that helps. >utterly childish Ah...bigot, dear, you're too busy wasting your short life in the throes of your own agonizing hate to understand what you read apparently. I hope you find healing before you die realizing just how much of your life you wasted in this futile exercise. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > Yes. Indeed, some speculate that the original SIV may have infected > individuals suffering malnutrition and subsequently generated a more > virulent HIV. Read what you just said 1. speculate 2. may have I tell you without doubt, without caviot: old age, in and of itself does not cause aids. Look up, you say: the hungry/starving/aged were infected with SIV and generated a more viruent hiv. Exactly what I have said all along. >The elderly and malnourished/starving individuals also represent a >significant threat. only if they are already positive. ...more drivel. "Caveat" by the way. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > ...more drivel. > > "Caveat" by the way. A spelling mistake Your whole line is bullshit and all you do is find a spelling mistake, LOL faggots earn their name daily > Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses -- 33 States, 2001--2004 > > MMWR Morbidity & Mortality Weekly report > November 11, 2005 / Vol. 54 / No. 44 > In 2003, more than 1 million persons in the United States were > estimated to be living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) > infection (1). As a result of advances in treatment with highly active > antiretroviral therapy (HAART) since 1996, persons infected with HIV > are living longer than before and progression to acquired > immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) has decreased. The CDC knows that this is a lie. The "longer living" myth arose directly from the CDC's 1993 change in the case definition for an AIDS diagnosis in which healthy people with HIV were then counted along with sick people as "AIDS" - thus the statistics were artificially inflated to "prove" that people with AIDS were living longer - in fact, the opposite is the case. >Consequently, AIDS > surveillance no longer provides accurate population-based monitoring > of the current HIV epidemic. Therefore, CDC recommends that all states > and territories adopt confidential, name-based surveillance systems to > report HIV infection (2). The CDC bureaucrats are liars who cannot be trusted with the confidentiality of anything. Carl Rove has proven that even CIA operative's identities cannot be kept secret - do you think the government gives a rat's behind about protecting the identity of infected minorities or homosexuals? LOL !!! susie Susie, age 9 wrote... >>Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses -- 33 States, 2001--2004 >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the statistics were artificially inflated to "prove" that people with > AIDS were living longer - in fact, the opposite is the case. I seriously doubt you are age 9, Susie. But you are wrong, while the CDC may lie about many things, the part about HIV no longer progressing into AIDS is definitely true. My brother has HIV and WAS very very sick from AIDS (no matter how you define it), and since he began taking the new drugs he is in almost perfect health. He periodically stops taking his pills for whatever reason, begins to deteriorate, and when the boils on his butt and other nasties become too uncomfortable he begins taking his pills again and recovers. The CDC doesn't so much lie as it spins the truth. It takes real statistics about HIV and AIDS then presents them in such a way as to confuse the reader, numbing the reader with irrelevant correlations then interchangeing "HIV" and "AIDS" to make the reader come to the false conclusion that new HIV infections are declining. The number of new infections is NOT declining - it appears to be increasing - only the number of "AIDS" cases has declined since the new drugs are so effective they prevent the HIV infection from ever progressing to the terminal stage of opportunistic infections known as "AIDS." Since the CDC's job according to its title is disease CONTROL and PREVENTION, the declining number of AIDS cases/deaths does not mean it has done its job of preventing HIV infections and controlling the spread of that virus. CDC also loves to present raw numbers with no context, for example showing the number of HIV/AIDS cases for Mormon Flats, Utah as 3, conveniently neglecting to mention its population is 10, so the raw figure of 3 tells you absolutely nothing about whether HIV is a crisis in that area. And before attacking the CDC, go to the California Dept. of AIDS website and try reading their crap. Not only is it unreadable to the point of being useless, their data seems to have eaten up the majority of the state HIV/AIDS budget, the pretty meaningless graphs having cost more than 10 years of ARV treatment for the entire state's HIV population. > Susie, age 9 wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I seriously doubt you are age 9, Susie. But you are wrong, Regardless of my age, I am not wrong. > while the > CDC may lie about many things, the part about HIV no longer progressing > into AIDS is definitely true. Not really. The problem with "AIDS" is that it keeps changing - and NOT because of any antiviral drug treatment. Kaposi sarcoma - a common diagnosis in the late 1980's is almost NEVER seen today. Gee, why did KS disappear? Do you actually think that antiretroviral drugs had something to do with that? I don't. And what about PCP pneumonia? PCP was a leading cause of death - now it is easily recognized and treated ... with antibiotics. If you think the antiretroviral drugs have something to do with that, then you are mistaken. Meantime, the "someone close to me" stories are suspect because they have proven time and again to not be true (esp all the "deathbed recoveries" that the pharmaceutical public relations companies were proffering on this newsgroup as well as sci.med.aids since 1996). Today the US military is doing the VERY SAME THING in the Iraq news media - millions in contracts are paid to publish phony pro-American stories to mislead the Iraqi public, meantime George W. tells us how happy they are that we are making them so free and how wonderful it is that they have such a robust free press. While I digress, I have no reason to believe what you say about your brother's experience isn't true. > My brother has HIV and WAS very very > sick from AIDS (no matter how you define it), No. Its not how I define it - its how the CDC has CHANGED the definition to get the statistical result it needed. > and since he began taking > the new drugs he is in almost perfect health. "Almost"? Until he drops dead from liver failure, pancreatitis or heart failure... he wouldn't be the first, you know. But on the other hand, if what you say is true, then maybe he is better off using the drugs. I suppose if it were me, then I would rather feel good for a short time than feel bad for a long time and then die. > He periodically stops > taking his pills for whatever reason, begins to deteriorate, and when > the boils on his butt and other nasties become too uncomfortable he > begins taking his pills again and recovers. Actually, this is probably the best way to survive the use these drugs. > The CDC doesn't so much lie as it spins the truth. The CDC spins its lies. > It takes real > statistics about HIV and AIDS then presents them in such a way as to > confuse the reader, No. The CDC actively prosecutes its lies. Deliberate misrepresentation or exclusion of relevant factual data is also known as "fraud" in academic circles. It isn't that the CDC isn't in touch with reality - it merely has its OWN reality. > The number > of new infections is NOT declining - it appears to be increasing Maybe recently - but since the late 1980s the number of cases HAS been declining, and rather dramatically. Meantime, the case definition changed to include perfectly healthy non-progressors under the AIDS redefinition. That raises legitimate questions about the purported effectiveness of the antiviral drugs - questions which the CDC will NEVER deal with honestly. > only the number of "AIDS" cases has declined since the new drugs are > so effective they prevent the HIV infection from ever progressing to > the terminal stage of opportunistic infections known as "AIDS." This is The Big Lie. Today the standard of care does NOT offer these drugs as early intervention. Didn't you know that? And didn't you know that people have been dropping dead on these drugs and that's why they might not be living long enough to get the OIs? That's the truth the pharmaceutical companies won't admit. Did you know that the studies for these drugs were stopped after a dozen weeks or so? > And before attacking the CDC, go to the California Dept. of AIDS > website and try reading their crap. I have. > Not only is it unreadable to > the point of being useless, their data seems to have eaten up the > majority of the state HIV/AIDS budget, the pretty meaningless > graphs having cost more than 10 years of ARV treatment for the > entire state's HIV population. That depends on what your eyes want to see. If you need to see proof that the antiretroviral drugs and protease inhibitors are "saving lives", then there is little doubt that your eyes will find the evidence to prove whatever you want. susie "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message > Regardless of my age, I am not wrong. Yep, wrong again. Your creditability is at stake here. Regardless, my a.s, either you are 9yo or you lie with each and every post. So Frank, did you leave your mothers womb 9 years ago or not? > "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message >> >> Regardless of my age, I am not wrong. > > Your creditability is at stake here. That's "c-r-e-d-i-b-i-l-i-t-y", Death. And if you don't like a nine-year-old correcting you, then figure out how to use a spell-checker. love, susie "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message > That's "c-r-e-d-i-b-i-l-i-t-y", Death. And yours is as bad as my spelling. > And if you don't like a nine-year-old correcting you, There is that creditability thing again > then > figure out how to use a spell-checker. Pass, I may make a mistake in haste, but I am not so ignorant as to have to depend on a checker. You help yourself tho. Susie, age 9 wrote... >>The number >>of new infections is NOT declining - it appears to be increasing > > Maybe recently - but since the late 1980s the number of cases HAS been > declining, and rather dramatically. Meantime, the case definition changed > to include perfectly healthy non-progressors under the AIDS redefinition. See, you're blurring the definition. I'm talking about HIV infections, I don't give a flying f.ck about the number of "AIDS" cases, no matter how CDC or anyone defines them. I am only concerned with how many people are infected with the HIV virus, the current state of their immune system is totally irrelevant to me. The number of new HIV infections is NOT declining, a decline seems to be impossible and a steady INCREASE in new HIV infections would seem to be the result of the new longevity of HIV patients who now live indefinitely while continuing to infect as many people as they did before the new drugs were introduced. In the old days a person contracted HIV and it took 3 years before symptoms appeared and from that point he had 1-2 years before he died of AIDS, and the symptoms of infection were very obvious which had the effect of scaring off potential sexual partners. Now it still takes 3 years before HIV symptoms appear, but the drugs keep the patient alive indefinitely - perhaps 10-20 years instead of the previous 1-2 years - so that person can infect so many more people before dying. Also, the drugs create the appearance of good health, potential sexual partners now have no clue at all. Also, because the HIV patient is taking the drugs, those who contract it from his now are infected with a virus resistant to most drugs on the market, which will lead to a new round of AIDS deaths in the next few years. Whatever, any statistic that shows a decline in new HIV infections is a lie. > Susie, age 9 wrote... >>>The number [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > See, you're blurring the definition. Nope - the CDC did that, thank you very much. > I'm talking about HIV infections, I > don't give a flying f.ck about the number of "AIDS" cases, no matter how > CDC or anyone defines them. Well, aren't they ALL HIV infections? > I am only concerned with how many people are > infected with the HIV virus, the current state of their immune system is > totally irrelevant to me. Long-term non-progressors don't share your enthusiasm for ignoring the reality that THEY are, by definition, the ones who have generally avoided the toxic "antiviral" interventions (that is not to say that everyone who avoids the drugs are LTNPs - that isn't the case). > The number of new HIV infections is NOT declining That's what the health departments are saying - and I have no reason to dispute that. > a decline seems to be impossible Wrong - there was at least a 10 year plunge in new infections. > and a steady INCREASE in new HIV infections would seem to be > the result of the new longevity of HIV patients who now live indefinitely You are living in a fantasy world - the increase in new HIV infections is due to changes in behavior and the reversal of behavior (the practice of safe sex has become the avoidance of safe sex). Don't you believe that HIV is spread through behavior? Haven't you bothered to watch the skyrocketing obituaries in the San Francisco gay media? > In the old days a person contracted HIV and it took 3 > years before symptoms appeared What makes you think it was ONLY HIV?? Have you ever considered the fact that KSV infections have disappeared (and, guess what - KSV is NOT spread sexually)??? Or that PCP (leading cause of death in the 1980s) is NOT treated by antivirals? > and the symptoms of infection were very obvious which had > the effect of scaring off potential sexual partners. Purple lesions tend to do that. > Now it still takes 3 years before HIV symptoms appear Dead Wrong. > but the drugs keep the patient alive indefinitely - Once again - time for a reality check (look at the SF gay media obits). > Also, the drugs > create the appearance of good health, potential sexual partners now have > no clue at all. The engine that drives HIV infection includes: - gay sex clubs and easy internet "hook ups" - methamphetamine (keeps 'em going and going) - viagra (keeps 'em coming and coming) >Also, because the HIV patient is taking the drugs, those > who contract it from his now are infected with a virus resistant to most > drugs on the market, "Resistant" virus theory is a scam - everyone has a viral swarm and different variants are found throughout the body compartments that resist easy testing. > which will lead to a new round of AIDS deaths in the > next few years. What planet are you on - these guys have been dropping like flies. 25 year-olds with fatal heart attacks? Oh, come on! 28 year-olds with fatal sudden pancreatitis? Oh, come on! > Whatever, any statistic that shows a decline in new HIV > infections is a lie. I'm not aware of any statistic that shows a decline in the past few years. The decline happened after the behavior changed. The behavior has reverted to unsafe-ness. susie >> Susie, age 9 wrote... >>>>The number [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > avoided the toxic "antiviral" interventions (that is not to say that > everyone who avoids the drugs are LTNPs - that isn't the case). Yes finally a bit of honesty from you. In reality much less then one percent of HIV positive people can be classified as LTNPs. Even that number has come into question as the so called LTNP community has been followed for an additional decade since the term was first coined. And what has been found is that the majority of those once classified as LTNPs are now known to be simply slow progressors rather then non-progressors. >> The number of new HIV infections is NOT declining > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Have you ever considered the fact that KSV infections have > disappeared (and, guess what - KSV is NOT spread sexually)??? Recent studies have shown that KS is caused by a kind of sexually transmitted herpesvirus that has been called KSHV, or HHV 8. Why do you think KSHV has disappeared in AIDs patients what reason other then the improvement in there immune system and general health due to ARV would you attribute this decline in KSHV cases? > Or that PCP (leading cause of death in the 1980s) is NOT treated > by antivirals? No it is not but there has been a significant decline in PCP cases since the advent of ARV and the advent of PCP prophylaxis. Most patients on ARV see there CD4 counts increase to levels higher then 200 and then are able to stop prophylaxis's thus ARV is as effective in preventing PCP as is prophylaxis. >> and the symptoms of infection were very obvious which had >> the effect of scaring off potential sexual partners. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > 25 year-olds with fatal heart attacks? Oh, come on! Not many 25 year-olds frod, recent studies on ARV and morbidity have found it more likely that the fact that ARV is allowing AIDs patients to survive into middle and late middle age. Is the main reason for the heart related deaths not ARV use it self. It is only common sense to compare the rate of heart disease in the general population of the same age range to the rate of heart disease in AIDs patients of the same age range. Guess what there isn't a large difference between the two. > 28 year-olds with fatal sudden pancreatitis? Oh, come on! Again an extremely small number, and ARV is not the only commonly used medication that can have this side effect while it can be fatal that is extremely rare or the drugs both ARV and the others would never have been approved by the FDA. >> Whatever, any statistic that shows a decline in new HIV >> infections is a lie. > > I'm not aware of any statistic that shows a decline in the past > few years. The decline happened after the behavior changed. > The behavior has reverted to unsafe-ness. In that there was no data regarding HIV infection rates during the first decade of the epidemic I would be curious as to what data you are using to back up this claim. Yes there were Safe Sex messages aimed at the gay community. Yes there was a decline in AIDs cases and deaths in the gay community but that in no way says anything about the rate of HIV infections. The rates of HIV infection in the US during the first decade of the epidemic is simply unknowable with the data available from that time. Furthermore with only 33 or 37 states reporting HIV infection rates currently, one can not know what the national HIV infection rate is even at this stage of the epidemic. Even if all states reported HIV infections there remains the problem with estimating the HIV infected population that has not been tested and thus not reported. The lack of scale a scope data regarding HIV infection is the biggest single factor in the failure of HIV prevention efforts to reduce the HIV infection rate in the US. Prevention planners are forced to use the SWAG method of decision making when allocating prevention dollars to particular target populations. SWAG stands for Scientific Wild Assed Guess sadly. Gary Stein "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message > SWAG stands for Scientific Wild Assed Guess sadly. Sex therapist Theresa Crenshaw told Congress: "If the spread of AIDS continues at the same rate, in 1996 there could be one billion people infected; five years later, hypothetical 10 billion however, the population of the world is only five billion." She was appointed to Reagan's AIDS commission. Scientific............Wild Assed Guess? >>> Susie, age 9 wrote... > Yes finally a bit of honesty from you. In reality much less then one > percent of HIV positive people can be classified as LTNPs. Even that > number has come into question as the so called LTNP community has been > followed for an additional decade since the term was first coined. The drug studies won't include those NOT using the drugs in their drug studies (unless, of course, they use the drugs). It has been declared unethical to study ANYONE not using the drugs (see Dr Ho et al). > And what has been found is that the majority of those once classified as > LTNPs are now known to be simply slow progressors rather then > non-progressors. After 25 years of being infected, free of drug intervention and healthy, many LTNPs would disagree - semantics aside, aren't we ALL "slow progressors", even the HIV-negatives? >> Have you ever considered the fact that KSV infections have >> disappeared (and, guess what - KSV is NOT spread sexually)??? > > Recent studies have shown that KS is caused by a kind of sexually > transmitted herpesvirus that has been called KSHV, or HHV 8. Wrong - the studies PRESUME that KS is spread sexually. Do you have actual proof of KS sexual transmission? >Why do you think KSHV has disappeared in AIDs patients what reason other >then the improvement in there immune system and general health due to ARV >would you attribute this decline in KSHV cases? First, ARV has NEVER been proven to restore immunity - in fact, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion (e.g. CMV retinitis outbreaks among the treated). Second, the purple lesion crowd died off in the 1980s. Where are they now? If KSV was sexually transmitted, there would have been no steady HUGE decline in the number of people with purple lesions and they would have chased away the sex club crowd. Third, KSV is not seen in the Third World AIDS cases. If it was sexually transmitted, it would be there. Fourth. KSV was found in the hep-B unsterile vaccines targeted for the gay sex clubs by CDC's Dr. Donald Francis. >> Or that PCP (leading cause of death in the 1980s) is NOT treated >> by antivirals? > > No it is not but there has been a significant decline in PCP cases since > the advent of ARV and the advent of PCP prophylaxis. PCP is not treated by ARV. Many other, more likely factors and co-factors have changed the face of this disease. >Most patients on ARV see there CD4 counts increase to levels higher then >200 and then are able to stop prophylaxis's thus ARV is as effective in >preventing PCP as is prophylaxis. Wrong. People with over 500-600 treatment-increased CD4s were breaking out with PCP. The antivirals ONLY increased the CD4 count in the blood - it had nothing to do with immune reconstitution. >> 25 year-olds with fatal heart attacks? Oh, come on! > > Not many 25 year-olds frod, Yes, many, Mr. Drug Company Sellout. > recent studies on ARV and morbidity have found it more likely that the > fact that ARV is allowing AIDs patients to survive into middle and late > middle age. Is the main reason for the heart related deaths not ARV use it > self. Sorry, but you are simply wrong even though you can always relied on for towing the Pharma Party Line. > It is only common sense to compare the rate of heart disease in the > general population of the same age range to the rate of heart disease in > AIDs patients of the same age range. Guess what there isn't a large > difference between the two. Nope. >> 28 year-olds with fatal sudden pancreatitis? Oh, come on! > > Again an extremely small number, and ARV is not the only commonly used > medication that can have this side effect while it can be fatal that is > extremely rare or the drugs both ARV and the others would never have been > approved by the FDA. Oh please! Protease inhibitors were first developed to induce a model of pancreatitis in lab animals! >>> Whatever, any statistic that shows a decline in new HIV >>> infections is a lie. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > decade of the epidemic I would be curious as to what data you are using to > back up this claim. The data exists. It has been posted here over the years. San Francisco Health Department published the numbers. > Yes there was a decline in AIDs cases and deaths in the gay community but > that in no way says anything about the rate of HIV infections. Wrong. Behavior modification resulted in a plunge in infections from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s when the number of infections began to tick up. I'm surprised you didn't know that, even if you are a PR patsy. > The rates of HIV infection in the US during the first decade of the > epidemic is simply unknowable with the data available from that time. Not so. > Furthermore with only 33 or 37 states reporting HIV infection rates > currently, one can not know what the national HIV infection rate is even > at this stage of the epidemic. You don't need to know the infection rate in every state - you only need look at the "sentinel" states like California and New York to get the big picture. > Even if all states reported HIV infections there remains the problem with > estimating the HIV infected population that has not been tested and thus > not reported. There is no problem with estimating the HIV infected population. > The lack of scale a scope data regarding HIV infection is the biggest > single factor in the failure of HIV prevention efforts to reduce the HIV > infection rate in the US. The infection rate isn't a data problem - it has always been a behavioral problem. > Prevention planners are forced to use the SWAG method of decision making > when allocating prevention dollars to particular target populations. SWAG > stands for Scientific Wild Assed Guess sadly. Prevention planners are bureaucrats who are paid to justify their jobs and by God, they will. susie "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message > Wrong - the studies PRESUME that KS is spread sexually. > > Do you have actual proof of KS sexual transmission? been there, done that. >always the loser never the bride, here ya go Frank age 40. Edited by Death for time and space, see original post hiv cure for monkeys not faggots 12-2-05 >-- The (sexually transmitted virus) that causes the KS lesions has just been (firmly identified) by >a team at the University of California at San Francisco. >Scientists at UCSF are reporting today that they (have identified) a unique strain of herpes >virus as the primary cause of Kaposi's sarcoma, while the international team, led by Dr. Robert >Gallo at his Institute of Human Virology in Baltimore, announced yesterday that they have >tested their protein and (discovered) its remarkable range of effects. >A report from the UCSF group published in the New England Journal of Medicine today (identifies >a herpes) virus called HHV-8 as the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma, and the data show that the virus >is most often transmitted during (homosexual intercourse) between men. >>>> Susie, age 9 wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > studies (unless, of course, they use the drugs). It has been declared > unethical to study ANYONE not using the drugs (see Dr Ho et al). Oh Frod your such a simple little troll. Yes placebo controlled trials of ARV medications are considered to be unethical. That has nothing to do with the fact that LTNP's have been identified and studied intensely for over a decade. Someone who would be classified as an LTNP would not meet the guidelines for starting ARV therapy in that there HIV has not progressed (hence the name Long Term Non-progressor) so there is no ethical problem in studying these people. A simple search in PubMed will bring up dozens of research papers on Letup's. >> And what has been found is that the majority of those once classified as >> LTNPs are now known to be simply slow progressors rather then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > many LTNPs would disagree - semantics aside, aren't we ALL "slow > progressors", even the HIV-negatives? No HIV negatives and true Letup's do not see the decline in CD4 cells and the increase in Viral Loads as seen by some one whose HIV disease progresses no matter when that progression takes place. >>> Have you ever considered the fact that KSV infections have >>> disappeared (and, guess what - KSV is NOT spread sexually)??? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > evidence supports the opposite conclusion (e.g. CMV retinitis outbreaks > among the treated). Oh jeez are we back at your total lack of understanding of what immune reconstruction syndrom is? Yes some patients in the first 30 to 60 days of ARV threapy do have resurgences of CMV however this is not due to ARV damaging the immune system but just the oppisite in fact. That is why once ARV starts to increase the persons CD4 count above the 100 range the CMV problem goes away in the vast majority of patients. > Second, the purple lesion crowd died off in the 1980s. Where are > they now? If KSV was sexually transmitted, there would have been > no steady HUGE decline in the number of people with purple |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message