 |
 | 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 2005San Francisco HIV infection data, 1978 to 1998
San Francisco HIV infection data, 1978 to 1998 (article excerpted from the Journal AIDS (Nov 1997) "Although combination antiretroviral therapy with protease inhibitors clearly improves survival, our analysis shows that San Francisco would have experienced a significant decline in AIDS cases, due to the decrease in HIV seroconversions, even if combination antiretroviral therapy had not been developed." The Journal AIDS (Nov 1997) reported the data concerning the number of gay and bisexual HIV infections in San Francisco during the period from 1978 to 1998 (see below). Relevant quotes(Lemp et al.): "For gay and bisexual men, incidence of HIV infection is estimated to have peaked at 7600 and reduced to about 500 infections per year from 1987 onward." "Both our projected model and our observed model indicate a peak and decline in AIDS incidence. Recent national reports have also demonstrated a decrease in AIDS incidence and mortality among gay and bisexual men. Much of this decline is being attributed to the effect of therapy. Although combination antiretroviral therapy with protease inhibitors clearly improves survival, our analysis shows that San Francisco would have experienced a significant decline in AIDS cases, due to the decrease in HIV seroconversions, even if combination antiretroviral therapy had not been developed." ============================ Lemp GF, Porco TC, Hirozawa AM, Lingo M, Woelffer G, Hsu LC, Katz MH. Projected incidence of AIDS in San Francisco: the peak and decline of the epidemic. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1997 Nov 1;16(3):182-189 Abstract: To predict the incidence of AIDS from 1978 through 1998 in San Francisco, we developed a model that combined annual HIV seroconversion rates for homosexual and bisexual men and for heterosexual injecting drug users with estimates of the incubation period distribution between HIV seroconversion and AIDS diagnosis and with estimates of the size of the at-risk populations. Our model assumed the availability of antiretroviral therapy at the efficacy level of zidovudine monotherapy. The annual number of new AIDS cases is estimated to have peaked at 3332 in 1992, and is projected to decline to 1196 annually by 1998. Although the projected number of cases decreased steadily during this period for homosexual and bisexual men, the projected number of cases for injection drug users, women, and persons with other risks increased between 1993 and 1998. The decline in the incidence of AIDS in San Francisco reflects the dramatic reductions in new HIV infections that occurred a decade previously and that were achieved as a result of significant changes in high-risk behaviors, primarily among homosexual and bisexual men. Changes in HIV seroincidence must be factored in before attributing the decrease in AIDS incidence to more effective combination antiretroviral treatment. Page 188: Both our projected model and our observed model indicate a peak and decline in AIDS incidence. Recent national reports have also demonstrated a decrease in AIDS incidence and mortality among gay and bisexual men. Much of this decline is being attributed to the effect of therapy. Although combination antiretroviral therapy with protease inhibitors clearly improves survival, our analysis shows that San Francisco would have experienced a significant decline in AIDS cases, due to the decrease in HIV seroconversions, even if combination antiretroviral therapy had not been developed. Page 184-185: Figure 1 (below) shows the HIV seroincidence for gay and bisexual men and heterosexual injection drug users. For gay and bisexual men, incidence of HIV infection is estimated to have peaked at 7600 and reduced to about 500 infections per year from 1987 onward. Numbers are from Figure 1 for gay and bisexual men in San Francisco between 1978-1998: 1978 - 0, 1979 - 500, 1980 - 1,500, 1981 - 2,500, 1982 - 7,600, 1983 - 6,400, 1984 - 5,300, 1985 - 1,100, 1986 - 1,000, 1987 - 400, 1988 500, to ... 1998 - 500, [END] Susie, age 9 wrote... > Numbers are from Figure 1 for gay and bisexual men > in San Francisco between 1978-1998: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to ... > 1998 - 500, Hmm, I seem to recall the HIV test being developed in 1983 and even then it wasn't in full use for several years and of course even today not all gay men with HIV bother to get tested. So the numbers are simply estimates, probably guesses. If halfway accurate they support my opinion that the reason the new infection rate has declined is because of population saturation. ALMOST all gay men in San Francisco are already infected, or at least those who engage in the high-risk behaviors that spread the disease (for example, I am celibate). The only gays left to infect are the "new" gays, either gay children of San Francisco residents just beginning sexual activity, or gay immigrants from the rest of the country. But back in the early 1980s there was the entire gay population to infect. Anyway, I'm never going to find an unbiased estimate of gay men in SF, but one site claims 80,000 gays and lesbians live in the city. The infection rate is an official state secret, but you could make a lot of assumptions to estimate an infection rate. For example, we could assume that homosexuals are equally divided between males and females so that SF contains 40,000 homosexual males (who get HIV while lesbians don't). Those infected from 1993 onward are likely to still be alive (because of the drug therapies introduced around 1995), so 500 infections per year from 1993 to 2001 (when the survey I'm referring to was published and assuming the rate of 500 hasn't declined since then) means 4000 gay men were infected during that time, so the infection rate could be estimated at 10%. Actually, that is NOT correct, I combined CDC data with Census data for the the 30 or so reporting states and came up with a very rough estimate of 10% average for the entire country based on those 30 states. They didn't include California or New York, which although the official numbers are state secrets, it is well known they contain the highest rates of infection in the country. So California's statewide average would be above 10% and since San Francisco is THE international gay mecca its rate is surely far higher than the statewide average. Please post any HIV figures you've found for California and SF and I will post my calculations in the thread "HIV estimates for gays". Something is not right here. Here's my favorite quote on falsified statistics... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as 62 million. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to 57 million, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfilled. In any case, 62 million was no nearer the truth than 57 million, or than 145 million. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain." -- George Orwell, "1984" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Susie, age 9 wrote... >> Numbers are from Figure 1 for gay and bisexual men [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > gay men with HIV bother to get tested. So the numbers are simply > estimates, probably guesses. The HIV test was offered in the Castro doctor's offices in October, 1984. > If halfway accurate they support my opinion > that the reason the new infection rate has declined is because of > population saturation. A better explanation (see Occam's Razor) would include behavioral changes (see condoms, use). > ALMOST all gay men in San Francisco are already infected, The estimate was 70% infected in SF around 1985 - but that was for those who engaged in unsafe sex on a regular pig-like basis. After the cocktail "cure" of 1996 and the mass graves of the previously infected generation long forgotten, there was a rush back to the nightlife and the sex clubs. That's when the infection rate began to tick up once again. > Anyway, I'm never going to find an unbiased estimate of gay men in SF, > but one site claims 80,000 gays and lesbians live in the city. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lesbians don't). Those infected from 1993 onward are likely to still > be alive (because of the drug therapies introduced around 1995), Actually, the 12-year time frame from infection to clinical manifestations has held steady, until the cocktail drugs arrived - then the time from infection to illness has actually gotten much shorter (somewhere around 5 years or so). Of course, the pharma establishment denies that - they call these early OIs "immune restoration syndrome" - that is, "proof" that the drugs are "saving lives", especially when they have saved no one. Health through Illness is like Peace through War (see George Orwell for further info). ssusie Susie, age 9 wrote... > Actually, the 12-year time frame from infection to clinical manifestations > has held steady, until the cocktail drugs arrived - then the time from > infection to illness has actually gotten much shorter (somewhere around > 5 years or so). From day one I had heard the incubation time typically ranged from three to five years, with occassional cases of 1-2 years and sometimes up to 10 years. 12 years is not impossible, some people have genetic resistance and even immunity, but it is not typical. My stoopid brother developed symptoms about 3.5 years after when I'm sure he contracted it (on a trip to Hawaii where he picked up some piece of trash at a bar and had sex with him behind a dumpster). The sites I see referring to 10 years or more seem to be trying to discredit the Patient Zero theory, that French-Canadian flight attendant Gaëtan Dugas was responsible for spreading the virus across North America in the late 1980s. The theory is so nice because it explains the simultaneous outbreak of AIDS from New York City to Los Angeles in 1981. Since he was flying around the country in the late 1970s and even bragged about his thousands of sexual partners (whose names he couldn't remember), it fits in neatly with a 3-5 year incubation period. It does not fit in neatly with the gay activists who are offended by the claim that any homosexual could possibly go through thousands of sexual partners in a few years, so all the sites claiming 10 years also discredit the Patient Zero theory. Still, the disease DID break out simultaneously from coast to coast, leading to accusations that the CIA had invented and unleashed the disease to wipe out homosexuals. But the thought that a single flight attendant could do it is unthinkable. > Of course, the pharma establishment denies that - they call these > early OIs "immune restoration syndrome" - that is, "proof" that > the drugs are "saving lives", especially when they have saved > no one. Health through Illness is like Peace through War > (see George Orwell for further info). You're telling the wrong person to consult Orwell. "1984" is my life, I have probably memorized a large portion of the book and of course my last post quoted the part about statistical manipulation. Here's the one about doublethink en español... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Saber y no saber, hallarse consciente de lo que es realmente verdad mientras se dicen mentiras cuidadosamente elaboradas, sostener simultáneamente dos opiniones sabiendo que son contradictorias y creer sin embargo en ambas; emplear la lógica contra la lógica, repudiar la moralidad mientras se recurre a ella, creer que la democracia es imposible y que el Partido es el guardián de la democracia; olvidar cuanto fuera necesario olvidar y, no obstante, recurrir a ello, volverlo a traer a la memoria en cuanto se necesitara y luego olvidarlo de nuevo, y, sobre todo, aplicar el mismo proceso al procedimiento mismo. Esta era la más refinada sutileza del sistema: inducir conscientemente a la inconsciencia, y luego hacerse inconsciente para no reconocer que se había realizado un acto de autosugestión. Incluso comprender la palabra 'doblepensar' implicaba el uso del doblepensar." -- George Orwell, "1984" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Mr. Slave" <slave@jethuth.chrith.net> wrote in message > Here's the one about doublethink en español... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- George Orwell, "1984" > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "To Know and not to know, to be found conscious of what is really truth while carefully elaborate lies tell, to maintain simultaneously two opinions knowing that are contradictory and to believe nevertheless in both; to employ the logic against the logic, to repudiate the morality while resorts to her, to believe that the democracy is impossible and that the Party is the guardian of the democracy; to forget as much as It was necessary to forget and, nevertheless, to resort to it, to return it to bring to the memory as soon as was needed and then to forget it again, and, above all, to apply the same process al same procedure. This it was the most refined subtlety of the system: to induce consciously to the unconsciousness, and then to be done unconscious for recognize not that itself had carried out an act of autosuggestion. Even understand the word 'doublethink' implied the use of the doblepensar." George Orwell, "1984" > Susie, age 9 wrote... >> Actually, the 12-year time frame from infection to clinical [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 10 years. 12 years is not impossible, some people have genetic resistance > and even immunity, but it is not typical. No, actually 12 years is the standard among the UNTREATED. I will try to find the references and post them. The HAART study groups later revealed a significant shortening of the 12 year time from infection to illness to around 5 years. > The sites I see referring to 10 years or more seem to be trying to > discredit > the Patient Zero theory, Not really - the 10-12-year delay to symptoms has been the standard among those who delayed treatment until signs of illness, > that French-Canadian flight attendant Gaëtan Dugas The Patient Zero theory was designed to draw attention away from the CDC's responsibility in broadcasting the infection among U.S. gays early on. I like it because they blamed the French. >The theory is so nice because it explains the simultaneous outbreak > of AIDS from New York City to Los Angeles in 1981. They tried to make this work but it didn't come close to the 1980 program by the CDC that used contaminated HepB vaccine on the gay tops in the large metro area bath houses. susie |
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.