Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Global AIDS Numbers Too High by as much as 50%!!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Alex - 21 Jun 2004 04:36 GMT
Posted to the following newsgroups:
misc.health.aids, soc.culture.south-africa

Great article in The Boston Globe.

Read it, at:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/06/20/estimates_on_hiv_called_too
_high/


Estimates on HIV called too high
New data cut rates for many nations
By John Donnelly, Globe Staff  |  June 20, 2004

PRETORIA -- Estimates of the number of people with the
AIDS virus have been dramatically overstated in many
countries because of errors in statistical models and a possible
undetected decline in the pandemic, according to new data
and specialists on the disease.

------

[from page 3, the summation of the article's findings, at:]

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/06/20/estimates_on_hiv_called_too
_high?pg=3


Chin said he thinks the global rate is inflated by 25 percent
to 40 percent, while two US health officials working on AIDS
said they think the global numbers may be 50 percent inflated.
The two spoke on condition of anonymity.

Among their reasons:

In a slum of the Chennai district in India, a high-risk area for
transmission of HIV because of prostitutes and drug users, a
recent household survey found 0.2 percent HIV prevalence.
The nationwide rate is 0.8 percent, or 4 million people. Ghys
acknowledged: "It's difficult to say what is going on in India.
In India, there's always a great deal of uncertainty in those
estimates. Are we sure it's 0.8 percent? The honest answer
is no, we are not sure."

A recent household survey in Burkina Faso put the national
estimate at 1.9 percent; the UN's most recent estimate puts
the rate at 7 percent. In Africa, other recent surveys showing
significantly lower rates have been in Zambia, South Africa,
Mali, and Ghana. Rates also were lowered by a third in
Zimbabwe because of significant numbers of faulty HIV tests.

Several years ago, UNAIDS estimated that up to 60 percent
of the Angolan military was HIV positive. Dr. Richard Shaffer,
head of the US Department of Defense's HIV/AIDS Prevention
Program, said in an interview the estimate was "nowhere near
close to that. It's 6 to 7 percent. They based the earlier number
on a small sample, which included people outside the military,
and extrapolated that to the military as a whole."

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, HIV prevalence in adults aged
15 to 49 in Uganda was estimated as high as 30 percent; now HIV
prevalence is estimated at 5 percent. But now many no longer
believe the 30 percent figure, raising questions about the true impact
of Uganda's much-touted prevention program. Said Ghys: "If we
recast our estimates, it wasn't 30 percent, it was maybe 22 or
something."

Earlier this year, the US government announced its first substantial
grants in President Bush's multibillion-dollar plan to fight AIDS. The
news release cited a 15 percent HIV prevalence rate in Kenya and
a 6 percent rate in Haiti, even though US-funded surveys in both
countries had recently concluded that the rate was at least half
those figures.
Alex - 21 Jun 2004 04:56 GMT
Especially this sentence stands out:

" Rates also were lowered by a third in Zimbabwe
because of significant numbers of faulty HIV tests. "

Anyone still saying that in Africa HIV tests are
"99% accurate"?

Alex
Moira de Swardt - 21 Jun 2004 08:59 GMT
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message

> Especially this sentence stands out:

> " Rates also were lowered by a third in Zimbabwe
> because of significant numbers of faulty HIV tests. "

> Anyone still saying that in Africa HIV tests are
> "99% accurate"?

Yes.  Your statement above is hardly a verified credible source.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Alex - 21 Jun 2004 09:09 GMT
> "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Yes.  Your statement above is hardly a verified credible source.

You mean the Boston Globe is not a credible source?
What evidence do you have for that?

Or are you saying that "of course", HIV tests in Africa
are not 99% accurate and how silly of me to think so?

Actually, the "99% accurate" quote is from a member
of the South African parliament who attacked president
Mbeki for daring to question these tests. And questioned
him prematurely, I would add.

Alex
GMCarter - 21 Jun 2004 11:32 GMT
snip>
>You mean the Boston Globe is not a credible source?
>What evidence do you have for that?
>
>Or are you saying that "of course", HIV tests in Africa
>are not 99% accurate and how silly of me to think so?

Alex, it is not about the test per se. The sensitivity and specificity
of HIV testing depends on how it is done in part, but is VERY high.

The issue is that a lot of the prevalence of HIV is undertaken by
sentinel surveillance sites, antenatal clinics and the like. As such,
a lot of the WHO and other statistics on the numbers of HIV-infected
individuals in a community are estimates.

As ever, I indeed hope and pray that this is the case that the
estimates are somewhat on the high side!! That would be great news.

By contrast, it does not matter if there is but ONE infection--and
there are way, way, way more than one...we need to have access to
care. We need to improve healthcare access for the poorest in the
world. We need to give a damn and make some changes to make this a
better world.

Or do you think it's OK to say--gee, it ain't that many so we don't
have to worry about 4 million people dying this year of AIDS? It's
fewer than we though, so let those kids waste away and die? Let the
mothers die. Let the men die? The miners, teachers, doctors, soldiers,
government officials, farmers, wives, truckers, husbands,
grandmothers...it's OK. Ain't THAT many. Let 'em die. Is that what you
mean?

        George M. Carter
Alex - 22 Jun 2004 07:17 GMT
> snip>
> >You mean the Boston Globe is not a credible source?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Alex, it is not about the test per se. The sensitivity and specificity
> of HIV testing depends on how it is done in part, but is VERY high.

I would say a single ELISA is much more specific in an environment
(Europe, North America) that is pretty much free of the pathogens
that are _known_ to increase the number of false positives, than they
are in an environment where such pathogens (malaria, tb, leprosy,
and who knows even malnutrition) are rife (Africa).
And I'm not even talking about the effect of only using pregnant
women (ANC studies).

> The issue is that a lot of the prevalence of HIV is undertaken by
> sentinel surveillance sites, antenatal clinics and the like. As such,
> a lot of the WHO and other statistics on the numbers of HIV-infected
> individuals in a community are estimates.

They are all estimates. The difference is that some estimates
are based on surveys that more closely represent the statistical
ideal.
There are lots of reasons why ANC studies of women at antenatal
clinics say far less about the general population, than DHS population
surveys which take representative samples of the entire population.

However, one big issue remains, and that is that both ANC and
DHS surveys do not use Western Blot as a confirmation test.
At best, they use a second ELISA if the first one was positive.
In the US, it is mandatory for testing facilities to confirm a positive
ELISA with a positive Western Blot, before telling the patient that
he or she is HIV positive.
There is no excuse at all, for not using the same rigor when doing
surveillance testing.
If a DHS tests 20,000 people, and 10% test positive (as they
did roughly in South Africa), that would only mean 2000 people
whose samples require further testing.
There is no excuse not to use Western Blot on those samples.
It will be more expensive than all ELISA testing, but the data
will be much more valuable.

That's my beef as far as surveillance data is concerned.

Alex
conciliator - 21 Jun 2004 19:10 GMT
> Especially this sentence stands out:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Alex

Let's put it the other way then. Because tests in Zimbabwe are thought
to be faulty, who can argue about the fact that many declared free of
the virus will probably have it anyway? Can't tell, can you?
 
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.