• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CDC: 1 million living with HIV in U.S.

Status
Not open for further replies.

themadcowtipper

Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- For the first time since the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, more than a million Americans are believed to be living with the virus that causes AIDS, the government said Monday.

The latest estimate is both good and bad news -- reflecting the success of drugs that keep more people alive and the failure of the government to "break the back" of the AIDS epidemic by its stated goal of 2005.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that between 1,039,000 and 1,185,000 people in the United States were living with HIV in December 2003. The previous estimate from 2002 showed that between 850,000 and 950,000 people had the AIDS virus.

The jump reflects the role of medicines that have allowed people infected with the virus to live longer, said Dr. Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention.

"While treatment advances have been an obvious godsend to those living with the disease, it presents new challenges for prevention," Valdiserri said.

The challenges include overcoming a failure by the government to meet its 2005 goal of cutting in half the estimated 40,000 new HIV infections that have occurred every year since the 1990s. Then, Dr. Robert Janssen of the CDC pledged the government campaign would "break the back" of the epidemic.

CDC officials previously have said the country's HIV infection rate has been "relatively stable" and without change. As the National HIV Prevention Conference was set to begin this week, Valdiserri said no new infection data will be available until next year.

However, recent outbreaks of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases in major cities around the country offer a hint that new infections may be as high as 60,000 cases a year, rather than the government estimate of 40,000, said Dr. Carlos del Rio, an Emory University professor of medicine.

"The U.S. has had a clear failure in HIV prevention -- I think the increase in prevalence is a reflection of that, of the poor job we do in HIV prevention," del Rio said.

He added that the higher number is not as surprising as why the country has not been able to curb new infections. He said the CDC hasn't been given adequate resources to tackle HIV prevention and that experts have focused too much on whether it's better to promote abstinence or condom use to stop the spread of the virus.

"We're debating too much what to do and are not doing enough," he said.

At the same time, reaching the 1 million mark is "a sign of both victory and failure," said Terje Anderson, executive director of the National Association of People Living With AIDS.

"Part of the reason the number is so big is we're not dying as before," he said. "But the other problem is we have not made a significant dent in new infections."

Estimating the number of Americans with HIV has always been a difficult task for health officials, but this year's figures are believed to be the most accurate ever thanks to wider case reporting.

In the 1990s, the CDC and other agencies generally agreed that between 600,000 and 900,000 people had the virus, according to the University of California-San Francisco's Center for HIV Information.

Previous estimates -- as high as 1.5 million people -- from the 1980s were later determined to be too high. For example, the CDC estimated in 1986 that between 1 million and 1.5 million people had HIV. In 1987, that was revised to 945,000 to 1.4 million and was refined in 1990 to 800,000 to 1.2 million.

The CDC's latest estimates indicate blacks account for 47 percent of HIV cases; gay and bisexual men make up 45 percent of those living with the virus that causes AIDS, the health agency believes.

In 2003, the rates of AIDS cases were 58 per 100,000 in the black population, 10 per 100,000 Hispanics, 6 per 100,000 whites, 8 per 100,000 American Indian/Alaska native population, and 4 per 100,000 Asian/Pacific Islanders.

The CDC also warned those demographics may soon change because heterosexual blacks, women and others infected after having high-risk sex (such as with someone with HIV, an injection-drug user or a man who has sex with other men) now account for a larger proportion of those living with HIV than those who are living with full-blown AIDS.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/hiv.cases.ap/index.html

Urged the U.S to be on the lookout for this man
magic.jpg
 

Ponn

Banned
Everyone should watch And the Band Played On. Great movie about Aids. I actually thought the number would be higher.
 

themadcowtipper

Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
Ponn01 said:
Everyone should watch And the Band Played On. Great movie about Aids. I actually thought the number would be higher.
I like the movie as well..Everytime the credits play with the statistics and "The Last Song" playing in the background, I get a little weepy and I'm all man....
 

themadcowtipper

Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
muncheese said:
The good medicine is only available for the rich, you don't know that?
I know that ,but how did they get rid of it, I mean I know they can supress it and keep it from turning into Aids, but I did not know they could get completely rid of HIV
 

Iceman

Member
Blind luck.

I'm surrounded by some of the top dogs in HIV research and they are still scratching their heads as to how to stop HIV.

Cocktails have done the trick in controlling the spread of HIV in the body and thus in its transmission.. but dealing with the escape mutations is beyond our understading at this point. The virus cannot be kept suppressed by any one treatment yet.
 
themadcowtipper said:
In 2003, the rates of AIDS cases were 58 per 100,000 in the black population, 10 per 100,000 Hispanics, 6 per 100,000 whites, 8 per 100,000 American Indian/Alaska native population, and 4 per 100,000 Asian/Pacific Islanders.

Ratio is pretty staggering when you look at it slightly differently

1 per 1,724 blacks
1 per 10,000 hispanics
1 per 12,500 indian
1 per 16,666 whites
1 per 25,000 asians

That's a huge difference between 1st and 5th. You know culture has to do with that but you've got to wonder just how much.
 

ShadowRed

Banned
themadcowtipper said:
I know that ,but how did they get rid of it, I mean I know they can supress it and keep it from turning into Aids, but I did not know they could get completely rid of HIV




Some people have been known to have to have been possitivaly have HIV and then spontaniously it's gone. Some people seem to have the ability to destroy the virus. I wasn't aware Magic was one of them. I think he just has access to the best medicine and can keep up a strenous workout.
 

Tritroid

Member
In regards to Johnson:

The rumor there is that he never was actually infected with HIV; That it was announced that he was in an effort for public awareness of the disease to be more effective in 'hitting home'. The idea was that if a public figure like Johnson could contract HIV, then any other average joe could as well.

However, it's been 20+ years since it was announced that Johnson was infected. In that time there has been no furthur discussion of his health or struggle coping with the disease. In fact, you can't find one recent bit of information alluding to Johnson's condition.

Conclusion? Johnson never actually had HIV.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
michael000 said:
That's a huge difference between 1st and 5th. You know culture has to do with that but you've got to wonder just how much.

What are you suggesting, exactly?
 

teiresias

Member
Loki said:
What are you suggesting, exactly?

Speaking strictly at the "gay" aspect of it, the "on the down-low" attitude of many closeted black gay men (which many times results in unprotected sex) has been attributed to high number of infected black men. I don't know any studies concerning latinos, but just from personal experience the ones I know are much more willing to participate in unprotected sex than your average gay person as well - obviously this shouldn't be taken as a blanket statement as I know many that are just as religious about safe sex practices too, but the ratio of those willing to have unsafe sex is just higher amongst my latino acquaintances.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
teiresias said:
Speaking strictly at the "gay" aspect of it, the "on the down-low" attitude of many closeted black gay men (which many times results in unprotected sex) has been attributed to high number of infected black men. I don't know any studies concerning latinos, but just from personal experience the ones I know are much more willing to participate in unprotected sex than your average gay person as well - obviously this shouldn't be taken as a blanket statement as I know many that are just as religious about safe sex practices too, but the ratio of those willing to have unsafe sex is just higher amongst my latino acquaintances.

That's all well and good (and it certainly makes sense, though as you noted it cannot be generalized), but the reason I asked is because, based on his tone, it didn't seem like he was hinting at something quite as logical as what you just posted. ;) :p
 
Tritroid said:
In regards to Johnson:

The rumor there is that he never was actually infected with HIV; That it was announced that he was in an effort for public awareness of the disease to be more effective in 'hitting home'. The idea was that if a public figure like Johnson could contract HIV, then any other average joe could as well.

However, it's been 20+ years since it was announced that Johnson was infected. In that time there has been no furthur discussion of his health or struggle coping with the disease. In fact, you can't find one recent bit of information alluding to Johnson's condition.

Conclusion? Johnson never actually had HIV.

Why would he torpedo his chances for adultery? :)
 

Phoenix

Member
trippingmartian said:
Sex ed is a failure.

Mostly because:

a) lots of parents don't want the government/someone else teaching their child about sex
b) what they are teaching isn't realistic - kids will have sex
c) nobody 'young' believes that they will get it, nor that their partner will have it
 
Tritroid said:
In regards to Johnson:

The rumor there is that he never was actually infected with HIV; That it was announced that he was in an effort for public awareness of the disease to be more effective in 'hitting home'. The idea was that if a public figure like Johnson could contract HIV, then any other average joe could as well.

However, it's been 20+ years since it was announced that Johnson was infected. In that time there has been no furthur discussion of his health or struggle coping with the disease. In fact, you can't find one recent bit of information alluding to Johnson's condition.

Conclusion? Johnson never actually had HIV.


Hmmmm....now I'm curious, your theory sounds like something straight out of a bad Hollywood movie, yet it makes sense if you haven't been keeping up with Mr. Johnson's health. Now I need to do some digging, I'm curious as hell.....
 
Tritroid said:
In regards to Johnson:

The rumor there is that he never was actually infected with HIV; That it was announced that he was in an effort for public awareness of the disease to be more effective in 'hitting home'. The idea was that if a public figure like Johnson could contract HIV, then any other average joe could as well.

However, it's been 20+ years since it was announced that Johnson was infected. In that time there has been no furthur discussion of his health or struggle coping with the disease. In fact, you can't find one recent bit of information alluding to Johnson's condition.

Conclusion? Johnson never actually had HIV.

Interesting theory. Do i believe it? Heck no, but interesting.

Oh and Magic Johnson still has HIV. It is simply non-detectable now with his cocktail treatments. If he were to stop his cocktail viral titers in his blood would rise and he would progress.
 

OmniGamer

Member
teiresias said:
Speaking strictly at the "gay" aspect of it, the "on the down-low" attitude of many closeted black gay men (which many times results in unprotected sex) has been attributed to high number of infected black men. I don't know any studies concerning latinos, but just from personal experience the ones I know are much more willing to participate in unprotected sex than your average gay person as well - obviously this shouldn't be taken as a blanket statement as I know many that are just as religious about safe sex practices too, but the ratio of those willing to have unsafe sex is just higher amongst my latino acquaintances.

Speaking as a gay black man, the whole "DL" bullshit really PISSES me off! Without getting too deep into it, there's just a really serious identity crisis there, a constant worry about their perceived masculinity...and unfortunately the other side of it is just as troublesome, just last week here in Brooklyn, NY(Brownsville), a group of black guys beat up another guy just on the suspicion that he was gay...and one of the neighborhood guys said on camera, rather blase, regarding the attack, "Yo on the real, we don't like that gay stuff here".

Are black gay men more prone to being closeted and DL because of how anti-gay a lot of black communities can be? I dunno....I just know as much of a turn off a fem/flamer black guy(fem guys in general, but a lot of black fem guys try too hard to be their sister's ghetto beautician) is to me sexually, I applaud the ones that are comfortable in their own skin and are "out"(unless they are of the obnoxious variety). I wish more would have the balls to be real and put an end to this DL crap...acting like thugs in the streets and a queen between the sheets. The homo-thugs need to realize a pair of Timbs, talking about smokin' trees, and overuse of slang doesn't make you "masculine". H-h-h-h-h-how u doin'[/Wendy Williams]
 

Pimpwerx

Member
I hope you're right Tritoid, but that makes no sense on just how much money and pussy Magic passed up. Someone would have leaked that shit by now IMO. But whatever, Magic is awful fat for a guy with HIV. I mean, really, whatever drugs they gave him, he looks healthy as hell. PEACE.
 

teiresias

Member
Pimpwerx said:
I hope you're right Tritoid, but that makes no sense on just how much money and pussy Magic passed up. Someone would have leaked that shit by now IMO. But whatever, Magic is awful fat for a guy with HIV. I mean, really, whatever drugs they gave him, he looks healthy as hell. PEACE.

Oh please, HIV doesn't mean you suddenly lose 50 pounds. The weight loss is part of the later, chronic stages of the illness when you actually develop AIDS.
 

dskillzhtown

keep your strippers out of my American football
Whatever, the CDC admitted to inflating numbers in order to scare the public when HIV first appeared. At this point I won't believe anything they say.
 

ShadowRed

Banned
OmniGamer said:
Speaking as a gay black man, the whole "DL" bullshit really PISSES me off! Without getting too deep into it, there's just a really serious identity crisis there, a constant worry about their perceived masculinity...and unfortunately the other side of it is just as troublesome, just last week here in Brooklyn, NY(Brownsville), a group of black guys beat up another guy just on the suspicion that he was gay...and one of the neighborhood guys said on camera, rather blase, regarding the attack, "Yo on the real, we don't like that gay stuff here".

Are black gay men more prone to being closeted and DL because of how anti-gay a lot of black communities can be? I dunno....I just know as much of a turn off a fem/flamer black guy(fem guys in general, but a lot of black fem guys try too hard to be their sister's ghetto beautician) is to me sexually, I applaud the ones that are comfortable in their own skin and are "out"(unless they are of the obnoxious variety). I wish more would have the balls to be real and put an end to this DL crap...acting like thugs in the streets and a queen between the sheets. The homo-thugs need to realize a pair of Timbs, talking about smokin' trees, and overuse of slang doesn't make you "masculine". H-h-h-h-h-how u doin'[/Wendy Williams]




I have a problem with it because it allows certain type of malicious black people to slander another black person and fuck up their reputation over BS. I have a close friend who's going through this exact shit right now and he was almost jumped twice by a bunch of red neck white dudes, and some black dudes because of it. They called two of his jobs an got him fired from one and he had to quit the other after getting threatened by the rednecks. Someone called his family and now they are acting strange about it even though he went to them and told them what was up. Even his nieces, 11-8 years old are talking shit behind his back.
 
One thing I don't understand is if I WERE to have sex, my partner would be a 14 year old boy who is my age and in all likelyhood is a virgin also so how could there be anything unsafe about that at my age besides the possibility of pregnancy. If I were to make that choice I don't see how someone my age could be a big risk factor for STDs ages 13-17. What does the study show when devided up by age and not just race.
 

ShadowRed

Banned
Lemurnator said:
One thing I don't understand is if I WERE to have sex, my partner would be a 14 year old boy who is my age and in all likelyhood is a virgin also so how could there be anything unsafe about that at my age besides the possibility of pregnancy. If I were to make that choice I don't see how someone my age could be a big risk factor for STDs ages 13-17. What does the study show when devided up by age and not just race.




There is nothing unsafe about that senerio, but when you increase your partners you increase your risk. You are not going to always have sex with 14 year old virgins till you die. At some point you will have sex with people who have had sex before you and you don't know what they did and what that other person has. Also your senerio is statisticly low. Most people tend to lose there virginity to someone old and more experienced so a 14 year old virgin has just as much chance manyslightly lower than someone who's 17 and been around.
 

DJ_Tet

Banned
Lemurnator said:
One thing I don't understand is if I WERE to have sex, my partner would be a 14 year old boy who is my age and in all likelyhood is a virgin also so how could there be anything unsafe about that at my age besides the possibility of pregnancy. If I were to make that choice I don't see how someone my age could be a big risk factor for STDs ages 13-17. What does the study show when devided up by age and not just race.


You should watch Kids, tonight, go rent it right now.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Lemurnator said:
One thing I don't understand is if I WERE to have sex, my partner would be a 14 year old boy who is my age and in all likelyhood is a virgin also so how could there be anything unsafe about that at my age besides the possibility of pregnancy. If I were to make that choice I don't see how someone my age could be a big risk factor for STDs ages 13-17. What does the study show when devided up by age and not just race.

Whoa, slow down there. You have to remember that some people are born with AIDS. Everyone in my group started getting really sexually active at 16. You know how it is. You get the car, you cna go out freely now to parties and stuff like that...and 17 for damn sure.
 

DJ_Tet

Banned
I'm sure someone will tell you about it. The shock factor will be ruined though if you don't watch it first.
 
It hasn't been 20 years since it was anounced Maghic was infected... I still remember the announcment, and I know for sure I wasn't 3 or 4 years old at the time... More like 10-13 years?
 
Grizzlyjin said:
Whoa, slow down there. You have to remember that some people are born with AIDS. Everyone in my group started getting really sexually active at 16. You know how it is. You get the car, you cna go out freely now to parties and stuff like that...and 17 for damn sure.

I'm not sexually active and I don't plan to be for a while. When I do I don't plan to be promiscuous so there's not much I need to slow down with. Not to be offensive but wouldn't someone who's born with AIDS be dead by the time they reach their teenage years? What's the life expectency for someone who is born HIV positive? I don't think that's very likely but I do see how the older you get up into 17 and 18 the danger becomes greater and greater. I just meant for people around my age specifically, which is unrealistic I suppose since people DO grow up as well as their possible partners.
 

DJ_Tet

Banned
Like I said, watch Kids.

You don't know who your partner has slept with, or even if he's telling the truth.
 
DJ_Tet said:
Like I said, watch Kids.

You don't know who your partner has slept with, or even if he's telling the truth.

Yeah because women get it a lot easier than men.

Always know who you are fucking but sometimes we all (note: me) need to practice what they preach.
 
How does the aids transfer to the guy anyway in heterosexual intercourse? Do the... fluids... go into the guys hole and the guy gets it that way, or is it through skin.

That also seemed weird to me when learning about the AIDS.
 

alejob

Member
themadcowtipper said:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that between 1,039,000 and 1,185,000 people in the United States were living with HIV in December 2003.

In 2003, the rates of AIDS cases were 58 per 100,000 in the black population, 10 per 100,000 Hispanics, 6 per 100,000 whites, 8 per 100,000 American Indian/Alaska native population, and 4 per 100,000 Asian/Pacific Islanders.

1 per 1,724 blacks
1 per 10,000 hispanics
1 per 12,500 indian
1 per 16,666 whites
1 per 25,000 asians
You know what gets me in medical statistics? The numbers never make sense.

1 million people have AIDS and there are 300 million people in this country. Thats 1 out of every 300 so whats up with does other ratios?

And every other disease is the number 1 or 2 killer in America.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
alejob said:
You know what gets me in medical statistics? The numbers never make sense.

1 million people have AIDS and there are 300 million people in this country. Thats 1 out of every 300 so whats up with does other ratios?

And every other disease is the number 1 or 2 killer in America.
Keep in mind that there's different amounts of asians, blacks, whites, hispanics, and native americans living in America.

Of course, the ratios still are quite off, even when you factor that in.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Lemurnator said:
How does the aids transfer to the guy anyway in heterosexual intercourse? Do the... fluids... go into the guys hole and the guy gets it that way, or is it through skin.

That also seemed weird to me when learning about the AIDS.

Usually through sores on the skin. The penis has very thin skin, so it doesn't take much of an irritation to increase the risk of infection. The risk is lower female->male than male->female, but not so much so that it's not worth being safe. Circumsized men also apparently have a lower risk than uncircumsized.

The thing to keep in mind is that the risk factors are just statistics. Every time you do something unprotected, you're rolling the dice. A long string of unprotected sex with no infection does not reduce the odds of being infected the next time. Further, a 1 in 100 chance of infection does not mean that if you have sex less than 99 times, you're not likely to get infected.

And a 14 year old can easily be infected. All it takes is for them or someone they've had sex with (or, for that matter, shared a needle with, gotten a blood transfusion from, etc) to have had sex with someone who has HIV. And really, if you're having sex with him, what makes you think that others haven't. And how many degrees do you really think he is from the local slut, drug user, or older 'experienced' person having sex with people younger than them. Don't trust *your* health on what *he* says.
 

Brannon

Member
How does the aids transfer to the guy anyway in heterosexual intercourse? Do the... fluids... go into the guys hole and the guy gets it that way, or is it through skin.

Micro-tears from both partners can result in infection sometimes (friction creates them). Tears too small to be seen or felt, but on the microscopic level, it matters a lot. If blood or other infected fluids come in contact with those tears and manage to make it through the bloodstream and multiply, that's it.

EDIT; beaten
 

Odnetnin

Banned
Most leading scientists agree that there is virtually no proof that AIDS is a transmitted disease of any sort, much less that there is an "HIV" virus that causes it - in fact, this so-called "HIV" virus itself has never been isolated. Not once! Furthermore, "HIV" tests are notoriously unreliable, and many (or all) AIDS diagnoses are actually mistaken diagnoses of other, well-established diseases. The degree of credibility given to this shoddy "evidence", as well as the sheer amount of money spent on combating an AIDS "epidemic" spread by the "HIV virus" clearly indicate the presence of another force in play here, one that stands to gain from such a situation.

This force is, of course, the gay community. The AIDS hoax has been perpetrated in order to levy a sort of "gay tax": all public and private funding for AIDS research over the past ten years has gone straight to the coffers of the gay community, where it has then been used to perpetuate the AIDS hoax, to sap and weaken our childrens' moral fiber with massive hedonistic insults to public morality, and, as jsm puts it, to buy Hello Kitty oven gloves (among other things).

Countering this, the real "gay tax," is no easy task. The gay community is large and powerful, and loath to give up its ill-gotten gains. I therefore suggest that we learn from the examples of the three nations most successful in combating this threat, the three nations where this AIDS foolishness never managed to gain a foothold: China, Cuba, and North Korea. These are the three last truly socialist nations left in the world, and all three have a negligible per-capita incidence of AIDS - a correlation clearly beyond mere coincidence, and with socialism's myriad benefits, it's hard not to see why this is so. Socialist states have the advantages of medical establishments untainted by corporate greed, harsh punishments for traitors to the revolutionary people, and strong, upstanding leaders who can provide clear guidance to the masses in time of need.

Therefore, it is clear that socialism is obviously the only reasonable response to this gay capitalist conspiracy. Our gay opressors know this, and it is only because of our unorganized and uninformed state that they dare to bully us. Make no mistake, we can win - but our war is a war of the masses; it can be waged only by mobilizing the masses and relying on them.

So what are we waiting for?

http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.6.29.101547.295.html

I watched a doco about this group and organisation that believes that AIDS is not a real disease. I think Anthony Kiedis is one of those people who really believe that it. I think it was him.

Anyone else heard about this and what do you think


http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/controversy.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom