Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2006
Question for Dr Dach - What is an epidemic?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
DavidT - 05 Oct 2006 10:03 GMT As our friend Dr Dach seems to be obsessed by the epidemiology of heterosexual HIV, I thought his readers would wish to know his answers to the questions concerning the topic that he has so far deliberately refused to answer on this forum.
So here we go. Dr Dach, in your opinion:
1. How many cases of an infection (with ANY agent, not just HIV) need to occur before you agree there is "an epidemic"? 2. Is there a "homosexual" epidemic of HIV in the US? 3. Is there a heterosexual epidemic of HIV in Africa?
I would appreciate a simple answer to those questions in the form of numbers and yes/no responses. I am sure you might wish to discuss each question at greater depth, and of course you are free to do so, but we would like an answer to the questions FIRST, please.
DavidT - 06 Oct 2006 13:22 GMT You've had plenty of time to pen what should be virtually one-word answers to these questions, Doctor.
Running scared?
Perhaps you are too busy formulating anti-aging "cures" to flog via your web site, but you must have a spare 2 minutes, surely?
jdach - 06 Oct 2006 23:33 GMT > You've had plenty of time to pen what should be virtually one-word > answers to these questions, Doctor. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Perhaps you are too busy formulating anti-aging "cures" to flog via > your web site, but you must have a spare 2 minutes, surely? reply from drdach:
I almost missed this post and your question to me, Dave Thomson. Which newsgroup reader software are you using? I could use a better one.
It would be more direct if you simply emailed me on my contact page on my web site as everyone else is doing. by the way, where's your web site, Nick Bennett has one. Or are you still in hiding?
regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT - 09 Oct 2006 09:03 GMT As I explained - I do not have a web site which I use to sell dubious products to prevent aging, unlike yourself. I also do not have narcissistic personality disorder.
I want you to answer these questions here on this open forum, so we can see your response. Your readers wish to know.
It is you who is running scared, not me. You do not know what an epidemic is, do you? If you did you would have no problem answering my questions.
js - 09 Oct 2006 11:07 GMT > As I explained - I do not have a web site which I use to sell dubious > products to prevent aging, unlike yourself. I also do not have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > epidemic is, do you? If you did you would have no problem answering my > questions. Epidemic: a widespread outbreak of an infectious disease; many people are infected at the same time
This is (one of) the official definition(s). But today we must reconsider because the definition doesn't hold any more. SARS was called an epidemic and even, a pandemic (=world wide epidimic), so if approximately 40 (Toronto) and 80 (Hong-Kong) cases constitute and epidemic, we do not know anymore what is meant by terms like "widespread outbreak" and "many people".
HIV and Aids are different. The so-called Aids-epidemic is only theoretical because ancient diseases have been rebaptized and pushed all together on one heap. One day Aids may become a shelter for all diseases and that day we'll have to deal with a giant pandemic. Millions will be infected PER DAY.
But there's no need to panic. Doctors and chimists and virologists and all kinds of scientists I did not mention will take care. Don't worry, have a beer, watch tele and stay stupid.
OR: read, read, read, read, and think, think, think, think. You may start here: http://www.virusmyth.com
JS --- http://www.nightsofarmour.com
jdach - 10 Oct 2006 00:38 GMT > > As I explained - I do not have a web site which I use to sell dubious > > products to prevent aging, unlike yourself. I also do not have [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > --- > http://www.nightsofarmour.com from drdach:
thanks js for an erudite reply.
regards from www.drdach.com
jdach - 09 Oct 2006 15:21 GMT > As I explained - I do not have a web site which I use to sell dubious > products to prevent aging, unlike yourself. I also do not have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > epidemic is, do you? If you did you would have no problem answering my > questions. reply from drdach:
Your Error Number One: There are no products for sale on my web site. There is no shopping cart and no mechanism to receive payment on the web site. Discussions on my web site mention drugs, books and other products from independent sources as a service to the readers.
Your Error Number Two: You still haven't revealed your identity and are hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. Sorry but this doesn't fool any of our readers. They know this simply means that you are a coward and/ or embarrassed about yourself and that is the real reason you have no web site, no posted credentials and remain anonymous. This is the lowest form of web surfing and deserves no respect or credibility.
Your Error Number Three: As soon as you correct error number two, I will be more than happy to answer all of you questions for you.
Are you a psychiatrist? You seem to know the language.
Regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT - 12 Oct 2006 15:49 GMT Dr Dach, I would still like to know YOUR opinion on how many cases of an infection constitute an epidemic, not Jan Spreen's. Your readers wish to know too.
> Your Error Number One: There are no products for sale on my web site. > There is no shopping cart and no mechanism to receive payment on the > web site. Discussions on my web site mention drugs, books and other > products from independent sources as a service to the readers. I apologise. I should have said "promote" anti-aging products, rather than selling them.
> Your Error Number Two: You still haven't revealed your identity and > are hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. Sorry but this doesn't fool > any of our readers. They know this simply means that you are a coward > and/ or embarrassed about yourself and that is the real reason you have > no web site, no posted credentials and remain anonymous. This is the > lowest form of web surfing and deserves no respect or credibility. Failing to reveal my identity is not an error - you already know that I have sufficient experience about HIV and the medical field to speak on the subject critically and rationally, faculties you cannot seem to use despite being a qualified MD.
> Your Error Number Three: As soon as you correct error number two, I > will be more than happy to answer all of you questions for you. I have told you - when you demonstrate that you know who "redrumza" is (You remember, that extremely anonymous source of "information" on George Carter that you were so ready to believe) I will tell you who I am. You must be consistent doctor - you cannot persistently demand the identity of one person on the web without applying the practice universally. You come up with the goods, then I will.
> Are you a psychiatrist? You seem to know the language. So first I was a ward clerk, er no.... a computer programmer..... er ..a infection clinician,... and now a psychiatrist? I told you - I am a laboratory monkey.
jdach - 16 Oct 2006 03:56 GMT > Dr Dach, I would still like to know YOUR opinion on how many cases of > an infection constitute an epidemic, not Jan Spreen's. Your readers [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > ..a infection clinician,... and now a psychiatrist? > I told you - I am a laboratory monkey. Reply from drdach:
The CDC, NIH and WHO says that there is a hetersexual AIDS epidemic globally. The Washington Times disagrees and says there is not (see the Fumento book). I will leave the reader the liberty of deciding which source to accept. (see below)
Definition of epidemic from the web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic
In epidemiology, an epidemic is a disease that appears as new cases in a given human population, during a given period, at a rate that substantially exceeds what is "expected", based on recent experience.
Definition of Epidemic:
Defining a epidemic can be subjective, depending in part on what is "expected". An epidemic may be restricted to one local (an outbreak), more general (an "epidemic") or even global (pandemic). Because it is based on what is "expected" or thought normal, a few cases of a very rare disease like rabies may be classified as an "epidemic", while many cases of a common disease (like the common cold) would not.
Common diseases that occur at a constant but relatively high rate in the population are said to be "endemic". An example of an endemic disease is malaria in some parts of Africa (for example, Liberia) in which a large portion of the population is expected to get malaria at some point in their lifetimes.
Famous examples of epidemics include the bubonic plague epidemic of Medieval Europe known as the Black Death, the Great Influenza Pandemic concurring with the end of World War I, and the current AIDS epidemic, which some also consider to be of pandemic proportions.
World Health Organization Web Site:
As in other countries, the epidemic in the USA often exploits social fault-lines. A recent study in North Carolina, for example, found that HIV-positive women were considerably more likely to be unemployed, requiring public assistance and exchanging sex for money and gifts (Leone et al., 2005).
The estimated annual number of new HIV cases has remained roughly stable at 40 000 since 2000 in the USA (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005). http://www.unaids.org/epi/2005/doc/EPIupdate2005_pdf_en/Epi05_10_en.pdf
The Washington Times, May 7, 1996, Tuesday, EDITORIALS; Pg. A14
HEADLINE: Death by government?
In a front-page story last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that for most heterosexuals, the risk of getting AIDS from a single sex act is smaller than that of getting hit by lightning.
This is not exactly news. As The Washington Times' Joyce Price noted in 1987, "Except for drug addicts and their partners, AIDS simply isn't a significant threat to the heterosexual population. Nearly all AIDS researchers say so, and some public-health professionals decry media exaggeration as making a bad situation worse." Or take the case of Michael Fumento, the title of whose 1990 book, "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS," speaks for itself.
But you could be forgiven if you happened to miss accounts like these. The general media barrage on the subject of heterosexuals and AIDS was more in keeping with this 1987 assessment from noted science journalist Oprah Winfrey: "Hello everybody. AIDS has both sexes running scared. Research studies now project that one in five - listen to me, hard to believe - one in five heterosexuals could be dead of AIDS in the next three years."
How could so much of the media, AIDS activists and others have gotten the story so wrong? According to the Journal's remarkable story, a substantial part of the blame lies with the federal government for running what now appears to have been an AIDS disinformation program.
The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: A Nine-Year Retrospective of Fear and (Mostly) Loathing By Michael Fumento http://www.fumento.com/pozaids.html
The reader is invited to visit my web site and leave a message on the contact page. How about you? Where's your web site or are you still in hiding. Your other misc.health.aids friends have revealed who they are. Chris Noble MD is an MRI fellow in Australia. Nick Bennet MD is a pediatric resident in NY, David Canzi is a computer guy systems programmer in Windsor, Canada and a few others are uneducated ACT UP types. What about you? What is your last name ? Thomson or Thompson? What kind of lab monkey are you? Which lab ? Do you do Elisa or Western Blot tests in your lab?
Regards from www.drdach.com
Chris Noble - 16 Oct 2006 05:57 GMT > Chris Noble MD is an MRI fellow in Australia. I am not an MD. I never claimed that I was.
Chris Noble
jdach - 16 Oct 2006 12:30 GMT > > Chris Noble MD is an MRI fellow in Australia. > > I am not an MD. I never claimed that I was. > > Chris Noble reply from drdach:
Sorry Chris, I stand corrected. You actually have a PHD in physics, not an MD.
This is the bio you have previously posted here:
Chris Noble Multifrequency EPR Facility, Centre for Magnetic Resonance, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, 4072, Australia.
PhD in Physics, the Monash University Physics Department Postgraduate degree at the Univ. of Queensland
Most notable quote from: Chris Noble Sun, Oct 23 2005 1:15 am
"That is also the difference between character assassination and critically evaluating the evidence. One is a cheap rhetorical trick the
other is part of the scientific method."
Make sure you keep the oxygen tank out of the core.
regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT - 16 Oct 2006 14:06 GMT First you endorse Jan Spreen's definition of an epidemic, now you quote wikipedia. What is your own opinion, doctor?
# Is there an epidemic of HIV in the heterosexual population in the USA - Yes or No? # Is there an epidemic of HIV in the heterosexual population in Africa. - Yes or No? # Is there an epidemic of HIV in the homosexual population in the USA. - Yes or No?
Just answer those 3 questions please, as I have asked many times before.
I assume your answer to #1 is No (but it would be so nice for you to say, rather than dissembling and quoting different newspapers. I accept that by commonly-held definitions of an epidemic that some will argue there is no heterosexual epidemic in the US, but according to the Wikipedia definition there is.
What is it that you dispute precisely about the "epidemic " label? Is it that there are not enough cases? Are 12 000 a year insufficient? What would you accept - 50 000, 1K, 2K? Just say the number doctor, we are waiting.
jdach - 16 Oct 2006 16:18 GMT > First you endorse Jan Spreen's definition of an epidemic, now you quote > wikipedia. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > What would you accept - 50 000, 1K, 2K? Just say the number doctor, we > are waiting. Reply from drdach:
The point is this: Every year since 1984, the NIH, CDC and WHO joined by various television personalities have made dire predictions of an "AIDS epidemic" in the heterosexual population, predicting that very large numbers of people in the heterosexual population will die of AIDS over the next few years. It has been 20 years now, and these predictions have not come to pass. There is a difference of opinion between various journalists and authors, and the official CDC, NIH, WHO positions on this matter as mentioned above.
For example, Mr. Fomento, who believes as you do, that HIV causes AIDS, also believes that the heterosexual AIDS is a myth as discussed in his book:
The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: A Nine-Year Retrospective of Fear and (Mostly) Loathing By Michael Fumento
A short review of his information can be found here: http://www.fumento.com/pozaids.html
The reader of this web site is given the liberty of freely thinking about the matter and selecting which one of these opposing opinions to believe or not to believe.
Regarding the actual definition of the term "epidemic", as stated by the Wikipedia definition, this is a subjective term so it can mean almost anything you want it to. "Defining a epidemic can be subjective, depending in part on what is expected" Based on CDC, and NIH predictions, we were "expecting " far greater numbers than actually materialized over the past 20 years.
If you want my personal opinions regarding any questions whatsoever, I would be glad to share them with any of our readers (including anonymous ones like you David T). Simply visit my contact page on my web site and leave your comment, question and email address, and I will gladly reply with my personal opinions.
The readers may want to know the answer to this question: "Why is it so important for the government (NIH and CDC) to predict larger numbers of heterosexual AIDS cases than actually materialize ?"
Where's your web site, or are you still in hiding? Your other misc.health.aids friends have revealed who they are. Chris Noble PHD is an MRI physicist in Australia. Nick Bennet MD is a pediatric resident in NY, David Canzi is a computer guy systems programmer in Windsor, Canada. What about you? What is your last name ? Thomson or Thompson? What kind of lab monkey are you? Which lab ? Are you a lab tech doing Elisa and Western Blot tests? Or are you the janitor who merely takes out the rubbish? Regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT - 16 Oct 2006 18:44 GMT > The point is this: Every year since 1984, the NIH, CDC and WHO joined > by various television personalities have made dire predictions of an > "AIDS epidemic" in the heterosexual population, predicting that > very large numbers of people in the heterosexual population will die of > AIDS over the next few years. It has been 20 years now, and these > predictions have not come to pass. Well it has certainly come to pass for 12000 heterosexual US men and women in the last year alone.
> Regarding the actual definition of the term "epidemic", as stated > by the Wikipedia definition, this is a subjective term so it can mean > almost anything you want it to. So why on earth did you reply to my question by quoting the Wikipedia definition? Huh?? I ask you for specifics and you waffle.
> Based on CDC, and NIH predictions, we were "expecting " far greater > numbers than actually materialized over the past 20 years. > The readers may want to know the answer to this question: "Why is it > so important for the government (NIH and CDC) to predict larger numbers > of heterosexual AIDS cases than actually materialize ?" There are several reasons as to why the epidemic did not spread as rapidly as people feared.
Firstly, most of the early predicitions were based upon what was known about the natural history and infectivity of HIV that was seen at the time, ie the mid 80s. Because of lead-time bias, cases were assumed to be more rapidly progressive than they were in reality. People were also felt to be quite infectious, and this was true - the cases of AIDS were more infectious than the well asymptomatic group of individuals, who no-one realised existed in any substantial numbers at that time.
Secondly, based on previous experience with hepatitis B, it was predicted that HIV would quite easily make the transition from bisexual men/drug users into heterosexuals. We now know that HIV is actually much less infectious than Hepatitis B by a factor of up to 100-fold less.
Thirdly, there was a huge drive towards safer sex and social responsibility in personal relationships. AIDS was feared as a killer, and many people were nearly put off sex altogether by the specter of the grim reaper knocking on their bedroom doors. Condom usage skyrocketed. These educational measures certainly helped ameliorate the extent of the burgeoning epidemic.
Fourthly, those in WHO/CDC etc saw no reason to pussyfoot around and quote low estimates for an epidemic. If you want to stop people spreading a disease, you have to literally scare them into altering their behaviour. So any estimates of epidemics were laid on with a trowel.
Fifthly, the media know a good story when they see one. How often have sensible estimates and claims been shouted out by the media as harbingers of doom. The CDC gives a little cough and before you know it the public think that America is going to die of flu. That is the power of the media for you. Even official figures get misinterpreted and exaggerated.
Finally, the powers that be might well have used the opportunity of HIV to talk up their research budgets and obtain extra funding - the temptation to do this would be too great to resist. Imagine asking the head of epidemiology in a surveillance unit about what funding he wants, and he replies, "Well, ojust give us the same budget this year please. You see, we don't think there will be anything new to get worried about." Yeah - I can see them doing that.
So in conclusion, there are several reasons why the heterosexual epidemic failed to reach initially estimated proportions. It would be wrong to say it never happened though, as you wish to.
> If you want my personal opinions regarding any questions whatsoever, I > would be glad to share them with any of our readers (including > anonymous ones like you David T). Simply visit my contact page on my > web site and leave your comment, question and email address, and I > will gladly reply with my personal opinions. I am asking you your personal opinions here, on this open forum. Why is it that you have something to say on virtually every thread on this board, yet when someone asks a slightly tricky question you become all shy and say you will only respond your contact page? Who is hiding here? How about you stick all your opinions on HIV on your web site and stop posting here.
......OK, I'll answer for you. You think there is no heterosexual epidemic in the USA.
Now can you answer the following: # Is there an epidemic of HIV in the heterosexual population in Africa - Yes or No? # Is there an epidemic of HIV in the homosexual population in the USA - Yes or No?
GMCarter - 16 Oct 2006 20:16 GMT snip....
>So in conclusion, there are several reasons why the heterosexual >epidemic failed to reach initially estimated proportions. It would be >wrong to say it never happened though, as you wish to. And of course, you're talking about the United States and Europe. The IV pandemic is also a driver for sexual transmission (whether same sex or otherwise). Clean needle programs have helped to reduce that but not in places like Russia.
wherefore...
>Now can you answer the following: > # Is there an epidemic of HIV in the heterosexual population in Africa >- Yes or No? > # Is there an epidemic of HIV in the homosexual population in the USA >- Yes or No? George M. Carter
DavidT - 18 Oct 2006 09:19 GMT GMCarter wrote:> wherefore...
> >Now can you answer the following: > > # Is there an epidemic of HIV in the heterosexual population in Africa > >- Yes or No? > > # Is there an epidemic of HIV in the homosexual population in the USA > >- Yes or No? He doesn't want to answer these questions, George. I think we all know why.
GMCarter - 18 Oct 2006 11:03 GMT >GMCarter wrote:> wherefore... >> >Now can you answer the following: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >He doesn't want to answer these questions, George. >I think we all know why. Maybe it isn't just white chicks he wants to bang at random without a condom....
Death - 20 Oct 2006 18:32 GMT "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> Maybe it isn't just white chicks he wants to bang at random without a > condom.... Ruth Pollard Health Reporter October 12, 2006
NEW HIV diagnoses are at their highest in a decade and rates of chlamydia have increased fourfold, suggesting people of all sexual orientations are practising safe sex less often.
After a long-term decline, the number of new HIV diagnoses has increased over the past five years. More than 1000 new cases are expected this year, says the Annual Surveillance Report 2006, released today by the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research.
Queensland reported the highest increase in HIV infections (48 per cent), followed by Victoria (40 per cent), South Australia (34 per cent) and NSW (20 per cent).
Federal Government complacency had resulted in the 41 per cent national increase in HIV infections, the executive director of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, Don Baxter, said. "Government investment in HIV prevention has remained static while the epidemic has been steadily increasing," he said.
"These new infections will add at least $500 million to PBS [Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme] drug costs, yet we're investing less than $20 million on HIV prevention now."
Despite the release of the fifth National HIV/AIDS Strategy last year, the Government had yet to plan or fund a revitalised prevention program, he said.
Also, government funding for the two key HIV research centres had been cut by a quarter, compromising research that had guided prevention and treatment efforts over the past two decades, he said.
The Health Minister, Tony Abbott, said the rise in HIV infection rates was worrying, but had to be kept in perspective.
"Rates have risen from 656 in 2000 to 930 last year," he said. "I've asked the ministerial advisory council to carefully consider what might be causing this, what might be feasible to try to bring the rate of HIV infections down."
The rise in chlamydia rates - the country's most common notifiable sexually transmitted infection - over the past 10 years was also worrying, the professor of sexual health at the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Basil Donovan, said. "We have already passed the 40,000 mark nationally and there could be 200,000 extra undiagnosed infections out there," he said. "We may only be detecting one in five."
But pelvic infections in young women - a complication of chlamydia - have halved over the same period, he said."People are getting treated earlier and treatment has improved - it is just a single-dose antibiotic."
Rates of safe sex peaked in the early 1990s but, soon afterwards, heterosexuals began to realise that their risk of HIV was limited - it is mostly transmitted through sexual contact between men - and gave up using condoms regularly, he said. Australia then had one of the lowest rates of chlamydia in the world.
Professor Donovan is pushing for screening programs for young men to find the true rates of infection and treat more cases. For women, he proposes an active recall system, much like the Pap smear register.
"We are not finding enough cases to lower the prevalence. It would be cost-effective if every sexually active woman up to the age of 25 was screened annually for chlamydia."
jdach - 19 Oct 2006 03:17 GMT > > >Now can you answer the following: > > > # Is there an epidemic of HIV in the heterosexual population in Africa > > >- Yes or No? reply from drdach:
I've started a new thread to continue this entitled : HIV/AIDS in Africa: Real or Imagined?
regards from www.drdach.com
|
|
|