 |
 | 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 2005HIV estimates for gays...
======================================================================== CDC - HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 2002 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/2002SurveillanceReport.pdf HIV/AIDS data from 30 selected areas - 29 states and U.S. Virgin Islands AIDS diagnoses from all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories ======================================================================== Table A HIV/AIDS data from CDC-SR2002 Table 12, pp. 22-23 Population data from Census 2000 CDC's 30 "Selected Areas" - HIV/AIDS cases and total populations, includes all adults, adolescents, and children currently living with HIV infection (not AIDS) and AIDS (all require confidential name-based HIV infection reporting) (* Florida data include only new cases since 1997) State HIV+ 2002 | AIDS 2002 | HIV+/AIDS 2002 | Pop. 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 01 Alabama 5,714 3,660 9,374 4,447,100 02 Arizona 5,197 4,316 9,513 5,130,632 03 Arkansas 2,202 1,837 4,039 2,673,400 04 Colorado 5,949 3,465 9,414 4,301,261 05 Florida * 29,189 41,015 70,204 15,982,378 06 Idaho 372 262 634 1,293,953 07 Indiana 3,743 3,429 7,172 6,080,485 08 Iowa 462 686 1,148 2,926,324 09 Louisiana 7,906 6,902 14,808 4,468,976 10 Michigan 5,577 5,395 10,972 9,938,444 11 Minnesota 2,272 1,818 4,090 4,919,479 12 Mississippi 4,112 2,602 6,714 2,844,658 13 Missouri 4,717 4,838 9,555 5,595,211 14 Nebraska 592 567 1,159 1,711,263 15 Nevada 3,274 2,502 5,776 1,998,257 16 New Jersey 14,718 15,485 30,203 8,414,350 17 New Mexico 783 1,066 1,849 1,819,046 18 North Carolina 11,112 7,128 18,240 8,049,313 19 North Dakota 68 47 115 642,200 20 Ohio 7,251 5,978 13,229 11,353,140 21 Oklahoma 2,541 1,908 4,449 3,450,654 22 South Carolina 6,914 5,863 12,777 4,012,012 23 South Dakota 188 99 287 754,844 24 Tennessee 6,474 5,639 12,113 5,689,283 25 Utah 728 1,085 1,813 2,233,169 26 Virginia 8,798 7,443 16,241 7,078,515 27 West Virginia 639 599 1,238 1,808,344 28 Wisconsin 2,324 1,797 4,121 5,363,675 29 Wyoming 87 91 178 493,782 30 Virgin Islands 225 282 507 108,612 -- Total for 30 144,129 137,804 281,933 135,582,760 -- United States 281,421,906 ======================================================================== Table B Data from Table A calculated to determine rate of infection for each of the 30 regions: State HIV+/AIDS 2002 | Pop. 2000 | HIV Rate | HIV Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 01 Alabama 9,374 4,447,100 0.002108 0.2108% 02 Arizona 9,513 5,130,632 0.001854 0.1854% 03 Arkansas 4,039 2,673,400 0.001511 0.1511% 04 Colorado 9,414 4,301,261 0.002189 0.2189% 05 Florida * 70,204 15,982,378 0.004393 0.4393% 06 Idaho 634 1,293,953 0.000490 0.0490% 07 Indiana 7,172 6,080,485 0.001180 0.1180% 08 Iowa 1,148 2,926,324 0.000392 0.0392% 09 Louisiana 14,808 4,468,976 0.003314 0.3314% 10 Michigan 10,972 9,938,444 0.001104 0.1104% 11 Minnesota 4,090 4,919,479 0.000831 0.0831% 12 Mississippi 6,714 2,844,658 0.002360 0.2360% 13 Missouri 9,555 5,595,211 0.001708 0.1708% 14 Nebraska 1,159 1,711,263 0.000677 0.0677% 15 Nevada 5,776 1,998,257 0.002891 0.2891% 16 New Jersey 30,203 8,414,350 0.003589 0.3589% 17 New Mexico 1,849 1,819,046 0.001016 0.1016% 18 North Carolina 18,240 8,049,313 0.002266 0.2266% 19 North Dakota 115 642,200 0.000179 0.0179% 20 Ohio 13,229 11,353,140 0.001165 0.1165% 21 Oklahoma 4,449 3,450,654 0.001289 0.1289% 22 South Carolina 12,777 4,012,012 0.003185 0.3185% 23 South Dakota 287 754,844 0.000380 0.0380% 24 Tennessee 12,113 5,689,283 0.002129 0.2129% 25 Utah 1,813 2,233,169 0.000812 0.0812% 26 Virginia 16,241 7,078,515 0.002294 0.2294% 27 West Virginia 1,238 1,808,344 0.000685 0.0685% 28 Wisconsin 4,121 5,363,675 0.000768 0.0768% 29 Wyoming 178 493,782 0.000360 0.0360% 30 Virgin Islands 507 108,612 0.004668 0.4668% -- Total for 30 281,933 135,582,760 0.002079 0.2079% -- United States 281,421,906 ======================================================================== Table C U.S. total population: 281,421,906 Male: 138,053,563 (49.1%) Female: 143,368,343 (50.9%) 18 years and over: 209,128,094 (74.3%) Male: 100,994,367 (35.9%) Female: 108,133,727 (38.4%) 65 years and over: 34,991,753 (12.4%) Male: 14,409,625 (5.1%) Female: 20,582,128 (7.3%) Assuming most HIV/AIDS cases occur in people between 18 and 65, the number of Americans in that category are: U.S. 18 to 65 years: 174,136,341 (61.9%) Male: 86,584,742 (30.8%) Female: 87,551,599 (31.1%) Using the 18 to 65 figures above and applying them to the CDC's 30 selected regions: 30 selected regions 18 to 65 years: 83,925,728 Male: 41,759,490 Female: 42,166,238 The HIV rate for the 30 regions in Table B is given as 0.2079%. Assuming the vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases occur in the sexually active adult population, between 18 and 65 years of age: 281,933 infections among 135,582,760 people 281,933 infections among 83,925,728 sexually active adults = 0.003359 = 0.3359% ======================================================================== Table D Data from CDC-SR2002 Table 8, p. 17 Estimated numbers of persons living with HIV/AIDS by selected characteristics in the 30 selected regions for 2002 Age 15-64: 273,861 (97.1% of total HIV infections) CDC-SR2002 Table 9, p. 18 Exposure categories 2002 (all racial groups): Male adult or adolescent: Male-to-male sexual contact: 125,268 (61%) Injection drug use: 35,380 (17%) MSM & IV drug use: 16,143 (8%) Heterosexual contact: 26,843 (13%) Other (e.g. transfusions): 2,922 (1%) Subtotal: 206,557 (100%) Female adult or adolescent: Injection drug use: 18,831 (26%) Heterosexual contact: 51,538 (72%) Other (e.g. transfusions): 1,627 (2%) Subtotal: 71,996 (100%) This breaks down by gender as: (excludes children) Male (all cases): 206,557 out of 281,931 = 73.27% Female (all cases): 71,996 out of 281,931 = 25.54% ======================================================================== Table E Analysis of data from other Tables: Adult males: MSM only (no IV): 125,268 cases out of 281,933 total = 44.4% Heterosexual: 26,843 cases out of 281,933 total = 9.5% Adult females: Heterosexual: 51,538 cases out of 281,933 total = 18.3% Total sexually-transmitted cases for both genders: 72.2% Table B gives the numbers for the 30 selected regions as: 281,933 cases out of 135,582,760 people = 0.002079 = 0.2079% Table C gives the number of people between 18-65 in the 30 selected regions as: Total: 83,925,728 Male: 41,759,490 Female: 42,166,238 A recent sexual survey conducted by the University of Chicago around 1995 gave rates of homosexuality among American adults as: Male: 2.8% Female: 1.4% If these numbers are accurate, 2.8% of the 41,759,490 adult males in the 30 selected regions would amount to 1,169,265 homosexual males. Now the final calculation! 125,268 MSM HIV cases out of a homosexual male population of 1,169,265 = 0.107134 -----> ***** 10.7134% ***** Let's compare this to the heterosexual male infection rate: 97.2% heterosexual males out of 41,759,490 adult males = 40,590,224 26,843 heterosexual HIV cases out of 40,590,224 heterosexual men = 0.000661 -----> ***** 0.0661% ***** 10.7134 / 0.0661 = 162.0787 -----> 162 Homosexual males have 162x the HIV infection rate than heterosexual males! ======================================================================== Table F Calculation of female infection rates: Table C gives the number of people between 18-65 in the 30 selected regions as: Total: 83,925,728 Male: 41,759,490 Female: 42,166,238 98.6% heterosexual females out of 42,166,238 adult females = 41,575,911 51,538 heterosexual cases out of 41,575,911 = 0.001240 = 0.1240% Heterosexual female rate compared to: Heterosexual male rate: 0.1240 / 0.0661 = 1.8759 -----> 1.87x Homosexual male rate: 0.1240 / 10.7134 = 0.0116 -----> 0.01x Average rate: 0.1240 / 0.2079 = 0.5964 -----> 0.60x ======================================================================== > ======================================================================== > CDC - HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 2002 > http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/2002SurveillanceReport.pdf > > HIV/AIDS data from 30 selected areas - 29 states and U.S. Virgin Islands > AIDS diagnoses from all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories > 281,933 infections among 135,582,760 people > > 281,933 infections among 83,925,728 sexually active adults > = 0.003359 = 0.3359% > Now the final calculation! > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Homosexual males have 162x the HIV infection rate than heterosexual > males! Nice work, slave. Of course, that is for the 30 states mentioned. On the other hand, when you look at all cases worldwide, the U.S. homosexual infection rate fades completely into obscurity as if a grain of sand on the beach of heterosexual infections. Which argues for the sudden and widespread introduction of HIV directly into the homosexual U.S. population via the contaminated HepB vaccine route in 1980 by the CDC's Dr. Donald Francis. Of course, for a virulent virus "pandemic" which is purported to have spread sexually for over 25 years, not very many people are actually infected. susie All of the bellow does only one thing it predicts the infection rate of those who got tested for HIV or had an AIDs diagnosis 3 years in the past. For only those 30 states that passed laws requiring that positive HIV tests be reported by patient name. These states were not selected by the CDC as you claim bellow, they are simply the only states that have followed the CDC's guidelines for the type of HIV reporting it will accept. Washington, New York, California and other states all have HIV reporting laws but because they refuse to disclose the names of the patients to the federal government the CDC will not use there numbers. This concern for the security of the data has been born out by such events as the Florida list of HIV positive people being disclosed to the public by a disgruntled Health Department worker and other similar events in other states. The other glaring error in the bellow data is that it does not even attempt to address the issue of how many people are HIV positive but have not been tested. Thus the bellow data is completely inaccurate and all but useless for any predicative purpose. Gary Stein > ======================================================================== > CDC - HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 2002 [quoted text clipped - 230 lines] > Average rate: 0.1240 / 0.2079 = 0.5964 -----> 0.60x > ======================================================================== "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message > All of the bellow does only one thing it predicts the infection rate of > those who got tested for HIV ... > > The other glaring error in the bellow data is that it does not even attempt > to address the issue of how many people are HIV positive but have not been > tested. ... data referenced as below was cut, see Mr. Slaves original posting. Is it safe to say, you believe the numbers of infected are much greater in scope than what is reported? Would you say half of the infected got tested and received a positive result? A third perhaps? Mayhap one quarter ? Think of the implications of that. The 72% figure the CDC used could be multiplied by a factor of 4 (four). Mr. Slave placed a value at 162x that of the heterosexual population. I understand better his statement that the homosexual population is so saturated that an increase would be impossible for this generation. Gary Stein wrote... > All of the bellow does only one thing it predicts the infection rate of > those who got tested for HIV or had an AIDs diagnosis 3 years in the past. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > tested. Thus the bellow data is completely inaccurate and all but useless > for any predicative purpose. Right, the posted the figures in response to another thread where I said my calculations were very rough. Since I've heard that only about half of those who have HIV know they have it (meaning they've been tested), my 10% estimate doubles to 20%. Since California and New York are non-reporting states but have the highest HIV rates in the country, the figure could easily rise to 30% or more. Florida (which has a large population) omits cases diagnosed before 1997 and so the figure would be slightly higher than what I calculated. If the 30 reporting regions are not representative of the country as a whole, why bother to use them? It could be that the other 20 or so states have zero cases of HIV/AIDS, so the national average I calculated is so much lower. Possible, but very unlikely. And then of course I used the UoC survey figure of 2.8% for American males who are homosexual, and of course that doesn't include the unknown figure of bisexuals. My calculations for the 30 reporting regions shows a 162x higher rate of infection among homosexual males than heterosexual males. Accept Kinsey's fairly-discredited estimate of 10% and you get 45x. Accept Jerry Falwell's estimate of 1% and you get 454x. (Big Snip) > Right, the posted the figures in response to another thread where I said > my > calculations were very rough. Since I've heard that only about half of > those who have HIV know they have it (meaning they've been tested), my 10% > estimate doubles to 20%. That is simply a wild guess there simply has not been any sampling of the general US population in a manner that would provide a statistically valid estimate of the rate of HIV infection in this country. It's not that it would be especially difficult or for that matter all that expensive to do the needed research, and relative to the amount of money the NIH spends on HIV research annually it would cost a tiny fraction of that spending. But for some reason neither the NIH or CDC seems interested in the answer to this question even though the prevention community has been begging for it for over a decade. > Since California and New York are non-reporting states California and New York are not "non-reporting states" they are not names reporting states. I am sure that the California and New York State Health Departments publish HIV infection statistics for there respective states. All you need to do is a bit of looking I am sure. > but have the highest HIV rates in the country, the figure could easily > rise to 30% or more. Florida (which has a large population) omits cases [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whole, > why bother to use them? Because as I told you the first time those 30 state legislatures chose to pass laws that required the states medical community to report positive HIV tests by patient name to the state's department of health and allowed that health department to share those names with third parties. This is the only type of HIV data that the CDC will accept. States such as Washington State have HIV reporting systems in place and each HIV positive test reported to the states department of health can be associated with a patients name, the state can not by law disclose that name to any third party such as the CDC. The CDC will not accept Washington's HIV data and the same issues are true for New York and California, got it now? Gary Stein > (Big Snip) > States such as Washington State have HIV reporting systems in place and > each HIV positive test reported to the states department of health can be > associated with a patients name, the state can not by law disclose that > name to any third party such as the CDC. So Gary, given that you have moved to Washington state from a non-reporting area, would you agree that you are not on record there as being HIV-positive, even though you are receiving treatment for AIDS? susie >> (Big Snip) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > susie No I would not agree, in that I have AIDs and that is universally reported nationwide. Thus I am on record as an AIDs patient. My first diagnosis was for AID's not simply an HIV infection so I have been counted as a AIDs patient since my first diagnosis. Also Washington state does report AIDS cases (as do all states) so all AIDs patients diagnosed in the state do appear in the CDC data. Now as to were I show up in the CDC numbers that is a different question. I was diagnosed for the first time in Washington DC so my AIDs case shows up in the CDC data for the District of Columbia. The CDC has been debating how to deal with the issue of patients current place of residence versus the location of there initial diagnosis for years and as of yet have come to no resolution for dealing with this problem as it is related to the distribution of Ryan White funds and other Federal programs dealing with AIDs that are based on the numbers of HIV and AIDs cases in the various states and metropolitan locations. Gary Stein >>> (Big Snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > cases (as do all states) so all AIDs patients diagnosed in the state do > appear in the CDC data. So the reporting of your AIDS diagnosis was made in Washington D.C. and then also in Washington state. And each time you either go to your doctor or switch doctors, you are reported as an AIDS diagnosis unless your social security number is provided as identifying your individual case each time. Since I don't recall any requirement to have a social security number before receiving AIDS treatment, this process could dramatically inflate the AIDS statistics, couldn't it? > Now as to were I show up in the CDC numbers that is a different question. > I was diagnosed for the first time in Washington DC so my AIDs case shows [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AIDs that are based on the numbers of HIV and AIDs cases in the various > states and metropolitan locations. The accuracy of doing this would require a unique identifier for each patient, such as the social security number. Where do I find the law requiring the reporting of social security numbers of people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS? susie "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message > >>> (Big Snip) > >> > And each time you either go to your doctor or switch doctors, you are > reported as an AIDS diagnosis unless your social security number > is provided as identifying your individual case each time. you assume > Since I don't recall any requirement to have a social security number... Mr. Chairman I have no recollection... > The accuracy of doing this would require a unique identifier for each > patient, such as the social security number. Now a statement of fact to a question where you assume. > Where do I find the law requiring the reporting of social security numbers > of people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS? Now you want a referrence to a law that no one has said exsist. Good going Sally >>>> (Big Snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > before receiving AIDS treatment, this process could dramatically > inflate the AIDS statistics, couldn't it? No dipshit as I clearly stated only the first AIDs diagnosis a patient receives is reported. The same is true for HIV reporting. Thus each patient is only counted once. There is no inflating of the numbers. There is however inaccuracies regarding were those patients currently reside. >> Now as to were I show up in the CDC numbers that is a different question. >> I was diagnosed for the first time in Washington DC so my AIDs case shows [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Where do I find the law requiring the reporting of social security numbers > of people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS? You don't, but your are speaking in support of the CDC's stand that name based reporting is required in order to deal with uniquely identifying each HIV and AIDs patient. Considering your past disdain for anything the CDC says I found it odd that you are supporting their position in this matter. Gary Stein >> Since I don't recall any requirement to have a social security number >> before receiving AIDS treatment, this process could dramatically >> inflate the AIDS statistics, couldn't it? > > No dipshit Now was that necessary? > as I clearly stated only the first AIDs diagnosis a patient receives is > reported. But you said that you were reported in Washington state as well as Washington D.C. as an AIDS patient. THAT was what sparked this discussion. >The same is true for HIV reporting. Thus each patient is only counted once. >There is no inflating of the numbers. There is however inaccuracies >regarding were those patients currently reside. "Inaccuracies"? >> Where do I find the law requiring the reporting of social security >> numbers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > CDC says I found it odd that you are supporting their position in this > matter. I have no position in this matter. I'm just trying to make sense of a system which - in certain states - requires the reporting of the names of people who have an HIV+ test and report their names as "Micky Mouse", "Donald Duck", "Anthony Fauci", or for that matter "George Mary Carter". That IS what has been happening, and I'm not convinced that you have furthered my understanding about this, but thanks for the input. susie "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message > "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message > Fred age 40 > >> Since I don't recall any requirement to have a social security number > >> before receiving AIDS treatment, this process could dramatically [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now was that necessary? imperative, you are sooo in denial of reality. you have altered every post to suit your agenda. you argue points not included in any given post. I disagree with Gary on some things but I agree with dipshit. >>> Since I don't recall any requirement to have a social security number >>> before receiving AIDS treatment, this process could dramatically [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as Washington D.C. as an AIDS patient. THAT was what > sparked this discussion. No I did not make any such claim, dipshit. >>The same is true for HIV reporting. Thus each patient is only counted >>once. There is no inflating of the numbers. There is however inaccuracies [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > you have furthered my understanding about this, but thanks > for the input. Well in that I doubt you will find many insurance policies, Medicare accounts or medical records in the name of Mickey Mouse your premise is false on it's face. The cases that are reported are not those from anonymous HIV testing sites but are from the doctor or hospital that provides medical treatment for the patient the first time they receive treatment for AID's in a clinical environment. And yes to receive that treatment one does have to establish there identity for billing and insurance or Medicare/Medicaid/Ryan White funding. Gary Stein > susie >>>> Since I don't recall any requirement to have a social security number >>>> before receiving AIDS treatment, this process could dramatically [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No I did not make any such claim, dipshit. Here's what you DID say (and conveniently snipped), dipshit: "Thus I am on record as an AIDs patient. My first diagnosis was for AID's ... so I have been counted as a AIDs patient since my first diagnosis. Also Washington state does report AIDS cases (as do all states) so all AIDs patients diagnosed in the state do appear in the CDC data." When you moved to Washington, you are thus claiming that your NEW doctor did NOT make a diagnosis that you have AIDS and you are being treated for a disease that you doctor failed to diagnose! Who the hell do you think you are fooling, dipshit? >>>The same is true for HIV reporting. Thus each patient is only counted >>>once. There is no inflating of the numbers. There is however inaccuracies >>>regarding were those patients currently reside. >> >> "Inaccuracies"? I LOVE your non-response! >>>> Where do I find the law requiring the reporting of social security >>>> numbers of people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Well in that I doubt you will find many insurance policies, Insurance policies have NOTHING to do with the reporting of diseases and YOU KNOW IT! > Medicare accounts or medical records in the name of Mickey Mouse your > premise is false on it's face. I said NOTHING about medical or medicare records in the name of Mickey Mouse. You are a joke - your answers are jokes and all this confirms is that you are a shill public relations employee for the pharmaceutical industry. > The cases that are reported are not those from anonymous HIV testing sites Oh, how WRONG you are - especially when those "anonymous" sites are supposed to be anonymous according to the state regulations. > but are from the doctor or hospital that provides medical treatment for > the patient the first time they receive treatment for AID's in a clinical > environment. So you actually believe that everyone out there is somehow keeping track of the exact and precise FIRST time you encountered the medical establishment? Are you crazy? Do you believe in alien abductions? > And yes to receive that treatment one does have to establish there > identity for billing and insurance or Medicare/Medicaid/Ryan White > funding. You KNOW that wasn't the question, don't you? I said NOTHING about billing - I ONLY asked about treatment. Insurance is another matter entirely and has NOTHING to do with reporting anything. Gary - you have confirmed that you are not merely a fool, but that you are employed by the drug company public relations industry to troll the internet and promote the agenda. susie >>>>> Since I don't recall any requirement to have a social security number >>>>> before receiving AIDS treatment, this process could dramatically [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Who the hell do you think you are fooling, dipshit? Get a clue for once, I have repeatedly told you that only the first time a patient is diagnosed with AID's for the purpose of receiving treatment is the case reportable in any state. When I moved to Washington I of course took my medical records with me. The new doctor in Washington received those medical records and of course knew my history with AIDs and thus no new diagnose was required and no report of a new AIDs case was made. Understand now dipshit? >>>>The same is true for HIV reporting. Thus each patient is only counted >>>>once. There is no inflating of the numbers. There is however [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Oh, how WRONG you are - especially when those "anonymous" sites > are supposed to be anonymous according to the state regulations. Again your ignorance glares out for the world to see. The CDC does NOT accept "anonymous" HIV or AID test data for case reporting purposes. As I have stated numerous times the CDC will only accept name based reporting for either HIV or AIDs. >> but are from the doctor or hospital that provides medical treatment for >> the patient the first time they receive treatment for AID's in a clinical [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Are you crazy? Do you believe in alien abductions? It's really pretty simple one would think even a nine year old child could grasp the facts. If someone sees a new doctor and fills out the common medical history form all new patients are required to fill out they would be endangering there health if they lied and did not tell the doctor there true medical history. Also in the vast majority of cases the doctor will request the name of the patients previous doctor and the new doctor will contact the previous doctor and request the patients medical records. Thus there is no way for there to be any confusion as to the history of AIDs in that patient. >> And yes to receive that treatment one does have to establish there >> identity for billing and insurance or Medicare/Medicaid/Ryan White [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you are employed by the drug company public relations industry > to troll the internet and promote the agenda. No susie/frod you've confirmed your the same dizzy dipshit you've always been. You make the claim that patients lie about there name to the doctor who is treating there AIDs for the first time. I explained to you the simple facts that lying about your name to a treating doctor is extremely difficult due to the fact that the doctor needs to identify the patient for insurance or Medicare billing purposes. And you try and claim that billing and insurance have nothing to do with treatment, what planet are you living on now Paxil Land? Gary Stein >>>>>> Since I don't recall any requirement to have a social security number >>>>>> before receiving AIDS treatment, this process could dramatically [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > new diagnose was required and no report of a new AIDs case was made. > Understand now dipshit? So you really believe that when you move, your new doctor isn't reporting your AIDS diagnosis? (which IS a NEW diagnosis FOR HIM!) No matter - so what you ARE admitting is that Washington state is now treating MORE AIDS patients than reported (if only by YOUR count of +1)! Geez, what a dipshit! >>>>>The same is true for HIV reporting. Thus each patient is only counted >>>>>once. There is no inflating of the numbers. There is however [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> I LOVE your non-response! > Again your ignorance glares out for the world to see. The CDC does NOT > accept "anonymous" HIV or AID test data for case reporting purposes. As I > have stated numerous times the CDC will only accept name based reporting > for either HIV or AIDs. Precisely. Which is why "anonymous" test sites in certain areas are asking for the names of people who test positive (yet tell these people that they can just make up a name). So you don't believe this happens and if it does, it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the CDC reporting? You are a nightmare as a source of info for others with your disease! >> So you actually believe that everyone out there is somehow keeping >> track of the exact and precise FIRST time you encountered the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be endangering there health if they lied and did not tell the doctor there > true medical history. Bullshit - the patient form does NOT relieve the doctor's burden of diagnosis! If you said you were diabetic, the doctor MUST confirm the diagnosis - anything else would be M-A-L-P-R-A-C-T-I-C-E!!! What planet are YOU from, Mr. Stein? > Also in the vast majority of cases the doctor will request the name of the > patients previous doctor and the new doctor will contact the previous > doctor and request the patients medical records. Thus there is no way for > there to be any confusion as to the history of AIDs in that patient. More B.S. - you actually BELIEVE that a doctor is going to DELAY treatment until some secretary or bureaucrat gets around to sending a copy of your records? What planet are YOU from, Mr. Stein? >>> And yes to receive that treatment one does have to establish there >>> identity for billing and insurance or Medicare/Medicaid/Ryan White [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No susie/frod you've confirmed your the same dizzy dipshit you've always > been. What planet are YOU from, Mr. Stein? >You make the claim that patients lie about there name to the doctor who is >treating there AIDs for the first time. A lie! I NEVER said that! > I explained to you the simple facts that lying about your name to a > treating doctor is extremely difficult due to the fact that the doctor > needs to identify the patient for insurance or Medicare billing purposes. I said NOTHING about lying to a doctor about anything! > And you try and claim that billing and insurance have nothing to do with > treatment Treatment is treatment. Billing is billing. If you pay cash-in-full, nobody gives a rat's a.s about billing and the doctor will likely give you a discount. What planet are YOU from, Mr. Stein? susie "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message Gary Stein said > >You make the claim that patients lie about there name to the doctor who is > >treating there AIDs for the first time. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I said NOTHING about lying to a doctor about anything! M-i-c, see you lied, k-e-y, why, because you are you, M-o-u- s - e. Gary Stein wrote... > No I would not agree, in that I have AIDs and that is universally reported > nationwide. Thus I am on record as an AIDs patient. My first diagnosis was > for AID's not simply an HIV infection so I have been counted as a AIDs > patient since my first diagnosis. Also Washington state does report AIDS > cases (as do all states) so all AIDs patients diagnosed in the state do > appear in the CDC data. The CDC may have the information but it does not publish it. I thought the problem with the 20 non-reporting states was that they only included cases of "AIDS" and not diagnosed HIV infections. The other 30 states report both AIDS and HIV and also names. > Now as to were I show up in the CDC numbers that is a different question. I > was diagnosed for the first time in Washington DC so my AIDs case shows up [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AIDs that are based on the numbers of HIV and AIDs cases in the various > states and metropolitan locations. Ans Susie and others have talked about the CDC redefining the definition of AIDS back in the 1990s. I expect it had something to do with Ryan White, lowering the symptoms needed for an AIDS diagnosis allowed patients earlier to Ryan White funded treatment. It was purely political, since Clinton was unable to convince Congress to expand coverage of HIV treatment, he simply lowered the definition of AIDS, causing the existing law to cost far more than had been planned. "Mr. Slave" <slave@jethuth.chrith.net> wrote in message > Ans Susie and others have talked about the CDC redefining the definition of > AIDS back in the 1990s. I expect it had something to do with Ryan White, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lowered the definition of AIDS, causing the existing law to cost far more > than had been planned. The definition of what constitutes AIDS has been constantly expanding, with more diseases being added to the list with each passing year. Today, not only are tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, herpes, anemia, dementia, Kaposi's sarcoma, and other long-known diseases often lumped under the banner of AIDS, but problems such as chronic fatigue syndrome and yeast infections are being redefined as having a background in HIV infection. These latter two problems afflict women in high proportions, and their reclassification as "AIDS indicators" have unscientifically inflated the "heterosexual risk" category. snip >The definition of what constitutes AIDS has been constantly >expanding, with more diseases being added to the list with >each passing year. That's untrue. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > snip > >The definition of what constitutes AIDS has been constantly > >expanding, with more diseases being added to the list with > >each passing year. > > That's untrue. Beginning in 1984, the definition of AIDS was changed to make the Hodgkin's case less anomalous and eventually to include transplant patients. The discovery of HIV "AIDS" during 1984 caused a revision in June 1985, the CDC added seven more diseases. If a person was found to be HIV sero-positive by any test beyond the lungs or lymph nodes; isosporiasis causing chronic diarrhea for more than a month; bronchial or pulmonary candidiasis; many types of nonHodgkin's lymphomas; Kaposi's sarcoma over the age of sixty; chronic lymphoid interstitial pneumonitis if a child; or any cancer of the lymph system diagnosed three or more months after a diagnosis of any opportunistic infection, then he or she was an AIDS patient. A number of groups that had previously been excluded from diagnoses of AIDS, such as certain cancer patients and men with Kaposi's sarcoma, KSV. The 1985 revision of the AIDS definition also stated that some OIs previously diagnostic for AIDS would be diagnostic in the future only if HIV was present. Twelve of fourteen cases of Kaposi's sarcoma diagnosed in individuals without identified risk factors for AIDS during 1981 and 1982 had normal immunologic results and were not tested for HIV. since HIV had not yet been (discovered) According to the 1985 definition, they might not have been diagnosed as AIDS patients. These issues become more confused in August 1987. According to this set of revisions, the list of opportunistic infections indicative of AIDS grew to twenty-four, again enlarging the pool of potential AIDS patients. One set of twelve opportunistic diseases, including Pneumocystis pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, disseminated cytomegalovirus infection, and esophageal candidiasis, were diagnostic for AIDS. Twelve other diseases were diagnostic for AIDS only in conjunction with a positive HIV antibody test. AIDS, in short, has become a schizophrenic disease. Some people with diseases identical to those classically used to define the syndrome, such as disseminated tuberculosis, are not AIDS patients in the absence of HIV. Some people are AIDS patients if they develop opportunistic infections even in the absence of evidence of HIV. In 1992, the CDC proposed altering the definition of AIDS to include any person who had developed a significant loss of a particular type of white blood cells. The reason for this latest definitional alteration is social and economic, not scientific. AIDS activists are now dictating how AIDS is to be diagnosed and who is to be included in the count. The issue is not one of correct diagnosis or elucidating the cause of AIDS: it is the desire to increase access to the free clinic. In other words, the number of AIDS cases may double with one fell swoop, not because AIDS has suddenly spread to new risk groups or even because it has spread within acknowledged risk groups but by definitional bullshit. > "Mr. Slave" <slave@jethuth.chrith.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > and their reclassification as "AIDS indicators" > have unscientifically inflated the "heterosexual risk" category. You mean like all those disease that anyone can catch and lots do, that you classify as Gay diseases? > You mean like all those disease that anyone can catch and lots do, that you > classify as Gay diseases? Agence France Presse 12-7-05 ABUJA (AFP) - Not only are women biologically more prone to HIV infection than men, but for a variety of social, cultural and economic reasons they also have a harder time coping with the illness once infected, particularly in Africa. "Nearly 60 percent of infections at the moment are in women, most of them in younger women," explained Helen Jackson, HIV/AIDS advisor for southern Africa with the UN Population Fund. "The physiological data seem to indicate it's something like twice as easy for women to become infected as for men," she said at the 14th International Conference on AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections in Africa (ICASA) being held this week in Abuja. African women are particularly hard hit. Of women affected worldwide, 77 percent are Africans, according to Michel Sidibe, deputy director of UNAIDS, the body that brings together ten UN agencies in the fight against HIV/AIDS. In southern Africa, young women aged between 15 and 24 are at least three times more likely to be HIV-positive than men of the same age. Physiologically, it is the make-up of their genital area that makes women more vulnerable, but socio-cultural factors also play a large role. "Infection often occurs between older men and young women. There is a greater chance of the women's partners being HIV-positive (than if they had sex with boys of their own age) and the immature vaginal tract is more easily infected," Jackson explained. Women who are financially dependent on their male partner find it difficult to negotiate the use of condoms or to refuse unprotected sex even if they suspect the partner is infected or sick. A UNAIDS study published earlier this month illustrates the extent to which women are vulnerable even if they stick to one partner in a lifetime. "Among women surveyed in Harare (Zimbabwe), Durban and Soweto (South Africa), 66 percent reported having one lifetime partner, 79 percent had abstained from sex at least until the age of 17. Yet 40 percent of the young women were HIV-positive," the report said. Some women engage in commercial sex, either as a means to survive or for the better off as a way of acquiring coveted new clothes or a smarter mobile phone. Once infected, women's access to testing, counselling and care is in many cases dictated by the male partner, particularly in rural societies. "In many societies women carry an incredible workload", Jackson said, citing child rearing, fetching water and either agricultural work or small-scale trading. "If the husband has been earning a wage and becomes sick then they carry an even greater responsibility", she added, emphasizing that most of the responsibility for caring for other AIDS sufferers in the family traditionally falls on women. "The chances of infection are greater in women; they are the ones who can transmit the virus to their children and on top of all that they tend to get blamed for catching it," Jackson resumed. There are, however, signs the situation could be slowly changing. UNAIDS chief Peter Piot, in a keynote address to the conference emphasized the need to tackle the "structural drivers" of the epidemic. He cited "sexual violence against women" and "inheritance and property rights for women". "There is increasing local, national and international recognition of the burden of women. Discussion is now going on about gender amid groups that would not previously have broached the subject and women are also demonstrating being assertive," Jackson noted. <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > You mean like all those disease that anyone can catch and lots do, that you > classify as Gay diseases? 12 7 2005 Welcome to the Tainted Blood Network! The Tainted Blood Network is the website of the Tainted Blood Product Action Group . The Tainted Blood Product Action Group is a voluntary unit that advocates special assistance for all people affected by contaminated blood. Through our direct actions we have forced one government inquiry (HCV in Plasma 2003) and one Senate Inquiry into Hepatitis C and the blood supply (June 2004). We have also featured in over 80 media stories covering Australia's worst medical disaster: Tainted blood. Up to 20 000 people have been infected with the potentially deadly Hepatitis C virus from contaminated blood transfusions. Victims of this tragedy include adults, children, pregnant women, the sick, the anaemic, accident victims, and those having had elective surgery. They have not been isolated to the acutely ill who would have died without an urgent transfusion. While this is a medical disaster, it is in essence, first and foremost, a human tragedy that has destroyed the lives of many men, women and children. Recipients of blood contaminated by Hepatitis C are victims, who went into hospital, received contaminated transfusions, and ended up with this life-changing disease. Many of them now face a lifetime of disability, increasing the pressure of every day responsibilities like being a parent, paying a mortgage and putting food on the table for their families. Red Cross 'sorry' over tainted blood The Australian Red Cross Blood Service has apologised for the first time to thousands of victims who received blood transfusions contaminated with hepatitis C during the 1980s. But it has not accepted liability for the tragedy. In a private mediation session in the NSW Parliament last week, national blood products manager Brenton Wylie said the Red Cross recognised that some blood transfusion recipients contracted hepatitis C. Red Cross apologises for hepatitis in blood The Australian Red Cross Blood Service has apologised for the first time to victims of tainted blood, saying it is "very sorry" for what happened. In a public turnaround, the organisation said hepatitis C infections via blood transfusions were "a terrible fact" but it would work to make things better. Note: The Sydney Morning Herald June 5, 2004. By Gerard Ryle Posted by tbpag on Sunday, September 05 @ 00:15:39 CDT (134 reads) Victims will fight on for hepatitis compensation Financial aid and an apology for those infected with hepatitis C from blood transfusions and blood products were only the first steps in redressing a wrong, victims groups have said. A Senate committee recommended yesterday that a fund be established to help infected people access health and related services, but refrained from supporting calls by victims for compensation. Sydney Morning Herald. June 18, 2004 By Brian Robins Posted by tbpag on Sunday, September 05 @ 00:08:42 CDT (220 reads) KodRed Design Contact the charity for tainted blood victims in Australia: Ph: 02 9799 3810. Fax: 02 9665 0359 Mobile: 0417 992 966 Postal address: Independent Blood Council PO Box 1595 Ashfield NSW 1800. Email: info@independentbloodcouncil.com - Web site engine code is Copyright © 2003 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license. Page Generation: 0.999 Seconds > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > human tragedy that > has destroyed the lives of many men, women and children. Some cut. So are you suggesting that those 20,000 people were infected with Hep "C" was caused by gay people who were infected with hep "C"? FYI despite the above message Australia has one of the cleanest blood supplies in the world, blood is not paid for here as it is in the USA, but donated free of charge, and while there have been problems with HIV in the early days of HIV infection, donors are now tested for HIV and Hep "C" amongst other diseases. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr 1999-mw-mw99050.htm Some people are not allowed to give blood http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?Article=4019 The Red Cross will not accept blood from anyone who has had male to male sex within 12 months Blood is screened. HTLV-I http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/may5/whyte/whyte.html Hep "C" http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr 1999-mw-hmc1.htm At the accreditation laboratory blood screening tests are performed, ranging from blood grouping; testing for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus type I and II, hepatitis C, and human T leukaemia virus; testing for the hepatitis B virus and screening for syphilis. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/7008bd12952520a5ca256c320024173c?OpenD ocument ==================== Now on saying all of that, there is still a extemely slim chance that some tainted blood can sneak through, one young girl was infected with HIV in 1999 by such blood, as the tests only show up positive for HIV after 22 days after infection. It seems that there are now tests that reduce that number to 11, but I am not sure if they are used. <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > > > > Up to 20 000 people have been infected with the potentially deadly > > Hepatitis C virus from contaminated blood transfusions. >>Victims of this tragedy include adults, ... > Some cut. > > So are you suggesting that those 20,000 people were infected with Hep "C" > was caused by gay people who were infected with hep "C"? I suggested nothing. I said tainted blood infected large numbers of people who had nothing to do with IV drug use of contact with faggots. Sexual behavior had zero to do with their plight. > FYI despite the above message still in denial as if nothing was proven, he continues: > Australia has one of the cleanest blood > supplies in the world, 20,000 + 1, don't believe it. >> <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >>> You mean like all those disease that anyone can catch and lots do, that [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > So are you suggesting that those 20,000 people were infected with Hep "C" > was caused by gay people who were infected with hep "C"? You is giving us faggots a bad name.  SignatureOf all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Homosexuality. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter. –Thomas Paine >> <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >>> You mean like all those disease that anyone can catch and lots do, that [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > after infection. It seems that there are now tests that reduce that number > to 11, but I am not sure if they are used. You are my hero. How soon can you f.ck you butt? > You are my hero. How soon can you f.ck my butt? Death - you are a f.cking pig! susie "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message > news:QkOlf.299221$xd2.214309@fe03.news.easynews.com... > > > > You are my hero. How soon can you f.ck my butt? > > Death - you are a f.cking pig! LOL, chumploaf >"Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >LOL, chumploaf "Go f.ck Yourself" -Dick Cheney > Gary Stein wrote... >> No I would not agree, in that I have AIDs and that is universally [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of "AIDS" and not diagnosed HIV infections. The other 30 states report > both AIDS and HIV and also names. I know for a fact that the people who do the reporting have been telling people who test positive that they can just make up a name. You can only imagine how many times "Mickey Mouse" has been reported as being infected with HIV! > Ans Susie and others have talked about the CDC redefining the definition > of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lowered the definition of AIDS, causing the existing law to cost far more > than had been planned. Actually the "politically correct" excuse for including the healthy HIV+ people in the AIDS definition was that up to that point, the AIDS definition didn't serve women well - that is, women with HIV weren't getting sick enough to receive an AIDS diagnosis and thus they could get the treatment that followed. susie > My calculations for the 30 reporting regions shows a 162x higher rate of > infection among homosexual males than heterosexual males. Accept Kinsey's > fairly-discredited estimate of 10% and you get 45x. Accept Jerry > Falwell's > estimate of 1% and you get 454x. Of course, as I stated previously, these statistics are UNIQUE to the U.S., where HIV and KSV-contaminated vaccine for HepB was administered to the gay "tops" (preferentially) in the large metropolitan gay bath houses in 1980 by the CDC. Worldwide, however, homosexual infection statistics are but a puddle dwarfed by the ocean of heterosexual infections. susie This discussion about registration of seropositives is fascinating. Is it really unique to the U.S.? What will be next? Will the positives be legally required to wear a big yellow star? I hate to think of what comes after that... > This discussion about registration of seropositives is fascinating. Is it > really unique to the U.S.? > What will be next? Will the positives be legally required to wear a big > yellow star? I hate to think of what comes after that... Apparently its much worse in the U.K. If you are a subject of the Queen and you happen to test positive for HIV, you cannot get a mortgage for a home. In the U.S., the reporting of names has been a joke since there is no verification of identity: in fact, the people reporting the names have been telling people to simply make up a name. The number of times "Mickey Mouse" has been reported as HIV+ should reveal the systematic confabulations of the HIV conspiracy. susie >"The number of times "Mickey Mouse" has been reported as HIV+ should reveal the systematic confabulations of the HIV conspiracy." That's fascinating, Susie. I've stayed in many hotels in the U.S. where I could tell from the register that George Washington slept there. |
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
|
©2009 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.