1) Isn't giving blood the same thing as taking an HIV test. I read
that they test it so is it a good idea to give blood as a way to
diagnosis?

2) What are the flu like symtoms exactly? I understand they are
pretty severe and long lasting and occur a couple weeks after you
supposedly get HIV? Or is this another of those "maybe" symtoms?

"Locdog" <jim122232@hotmail.com> wrote in message

No. Giving blood is giving a unit (a pint or thereabouts). HIV
tests can involve anything from saliva tests to finger-pricks or a
test-tube sample. The blood transfusion people in South Africa
specifically request people *not* to donate blood to determine
whether they are HIV positive or not because of the window period
problem where someone may have acquired the virus but not yet have
reacted by forming the antibodies.

As I understand it, human bodies just simply refuse to act in a
certain way just because some other peoples' bodies react like that
resulting in "maybe" symptoms.

Moira, the Faerie Godmother

Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What's in the Fine Print

Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test
has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the
actual diagnosing of HIV infection.

Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all
current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests
(for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and
are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.

The FDA's lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can
directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV
antibodies in human blood.

Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little
known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the
role of HIV in AIDS.

From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain
statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new
test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal
link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and
pre-AIDS

are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test,
OraSure Technologies, Inc)
Now it appears we've gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to
something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG
CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a
retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."

This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test
(Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June
2003.

The entire package insert can be downloaded from
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P020066.htm

According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and
co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA
approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for
the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in
just the last three years.

Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there
is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose
infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and
genotyping clearly state they are 'NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV
infection.'

Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual
virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy
for people who doctors assume are infected.?

Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test
manufacturers mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and
"aid in the diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests
cannot do (diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.
At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the
manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be
confirmed with follow up testing. This emphasis is due to the fact that
the accuracy of the rapid tests? is widely known to be more questionable
than the already dubious HIV ELISA or Western Blot. But the notion that
medical personnel will await confirmation of results before insisting
patients take action is entirely misguided since the true market for rapid
tests is pregnant women in labor

Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor
comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester
M Crawford. The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in
identifying pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not
tested during pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block
their newborns from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7,
2002)

These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy
AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment
for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother
not to breastfeed.

Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal feeding are based
on preliminary results from a test never approved for detecting HIV
infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks losing custody of
her child.

Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a
disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a
history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test.
Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn't even
evaluate their product in multiparous women.
Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be
routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on
the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection,
doctors may want to retest women in labor who?ve previously come up
negative just to be sure they haven't seroconverted in the mean time."

Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers
who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact
with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora?s box of
potential life-altering situations.

"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the
impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with
HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start
prophylactic chemotherapy right away. Of course, if the needle scores
positive, hospitals would most likely feel an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start 'saving their lives'
with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles
sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and
treatment manufacturers."

The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health
policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that
the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.

Locdog wrote:

No.

No.

Like the flu.

B/

"Moira de Swardt" <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> wrote...
In the U.S. they now use that new DNA/PCR test (whatever its called) that
detects even the most minute traces of HIV DNA. Still, there is a window
of at least 48 hours, before that the amount of virus in the bloodstream
is so minute that the chances of getting sufficient virus to PCR is very
unlikely. And even after the window neither the antibody or PCR test is
100% accurate, there are always false negatives. That is why the blood
banks still screen donors with questionnaires, rejecting all those who
might have been infected within the window period. The ONLY time I might
recommend that potential infectees donate blood is if their request for
a PCR test has been rejected and they've been told that an antibody test
is sufficient and all they're going to get (like might occur in
socialistic countries with government-run medical systems). But there is
no excuse if they live in the USA and have access to private testing
clinics, though it won't be cheap (last time I checked it was ~$200).

Oh, and I forgot to mention that from what I know it is possible - in very
rare cases - for a human to successfully neutralize an HIV infection, IF
the amount of introduced virus is very very small AND the person is very
lucky. I would think that in such cases the lucky person might register
a PCR positive, as the destroyed viruses' DNA fragments would be present,
but not actually be infected with live virus. Such a person might
register both PCR and antibody positives, yet be disease-free. I would
think that after time the DNA would disappear and the PCR test show
negative while the antibody test might show positive indefinitely.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 06:22:22 GMT, "Zim" <zim@irk.gov> wrote:

snip
I don't donate blood because I have Hepatitis C. Now, of course, the
BLOOD BANKS should be treating the plasma in any event due to all the
potential infections that might not be tested for and or might be
missed. There were HUGE scandals around this issue in the 80s and 90s
when Red Cross was just too cheap to take the tests. (Too busy padding
CEO salaries and golden parachutes, I guess.)

The other BIG problem is that they say gay men should not give blood.
That's just bullshit discrimination. Yes, some gay men are
promiscuous. Many, many more are not. Same with heterosexuals. It is
just bigotry to try to target groups based on orientation rather than
people who have high risk factors.

George M. Carter

Thanks. Does anyone have any information or theories on the flu-like
illness or is that just kinda something that is not really known
about?

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote...
The problem is that even when gay men are not promiscuous, so many are already
HIV+ and anal sex so conducive to transmission that each sexual encounter is
hundreds of times riskier than a typical heterosexual encounter.

The numbers for actual HIV infection rate among homosexual men are very hard to
come by. Several months ago I was listening to an NPR program describing the
comeback of gay bathhouses and the wild sexual orgies that take place within.
Health officials are very concerned though their hands are tied because they
any attempts to control either bathhouses or the sexual activity that goes on
with them is likely to be met with screams of homophobia and discrimination.
Nonetheless, they did manage to get some bathhouse patrons to submit to
voluntary HIV tests and found a 7% infection rate. I think that number's
far too low, I suspect the "low" figure is due to the fact that the tests were
voluntary and only those more confident of their safe sex practices submitted
to the tests (ignorance is bliss, those at highest risk don't want to know
their HIV status). But earlier this year or last police in Taiwan raided a
popular gay sex club in Taipei and forcibly tested ALL patrons and discovered
30% were infected. Nothing short of raids and forced testing of gay men
will reveal the true extent of HIV infection among American gay men, but I
see no reason to believe it would be less than the 30% found in Taiwan.

The CDC has lots of numbers but breaks them up to confuse analysis. Looking
at them I see numbers for "30 selected areas", but not suprisingly the
total population of those 30 selected areas is not given, making calculation
of HIV infection rate impossible. Another CDC page does give the rate per
100,000 population, but only breaks the numbers down based on race, not
mode of transmission. That page also conveniently uses the phrase
"Diagnoses and rates of AIDS" so as to make unclear whether HIV infections
which haven't progressed to the now-rare AIDS stage are included. But
just in case, that rate is given as a Total of 14.1/100,000 (which
translates as 0.0141% of the general population has "AIDS").

This damn CDC website is shit. For every table with pretty numbers, at
least one key data figure is missing that would make interpretation
possible. The other problem is that they constantly interchange the
terms "HIV" and "AIDS", not to mention "HIV/AIDS" so that for any
given set of numbers it is most unclear whether they are talking about
HIV infections or the now-fairly-rare AIDS cases (the terminal stage
of HIV infection which now rarely occurs due to the new drug treatments).
Yet another problem is that CDC relies on numbers from voluntary
reporting from areas that choose to report HIV/AIDS cases, so it is
likely those numbers do not reflect national trends.

This message is getting long and rambling. I think I'll post a followup
after digging up necessary data, such as going to Census and calculating
the total population for the "30 selected areas" (one would think CDC
would have included that little bit of information, as the number of
HIV/AIDS cases they do report mean nothing if not put into context).

On 8 Sep 2004 15:05:32 -0700, jim122232@hotmail.com (Locdog) wrote:

Not sure what you mean, but when a person is exposed to HIV and
becomes infected, in some cases, it may cause flu-like symptoms
(aches, fever) or sometimes a rash. Other people may have no symptoms.
Is that what you mean?

George M. Carter

Okay, y'all got me pissed off with your propaganda that HIV rates among gay
males are no higher than among heterosexual males or the average national
rate for all males and females.

It took me ALL fucking day finding the numbers on the CDC HIV/AIDS website,
and they conveniently omitted population numbers so as to make analysis
impossible, so I combined the CDC numbers with the Census 2000 numbers and
this is what I got (HIV/AIDS data is from 30 selected regions - 29 U.S.
states and the U.S. Virgin Islands - that report HIV infections to the CDC;
one may assume they represent a sufficient cross-section of the U.S.
population as to fairly accurately represent the national HIV rate). I
created a long set of tables and calculations which will be posted as a
followup to this message. I am using the University of Chicago sexual
survey figure of a 2.8% homosexual rate for American men:

Homosexual male HIV infection rate: 10.7134%
Heterosexual male HIV infection rate: 0.0661%
Heterosexual female HIV infection rate: 0.1240%
Average rate for both genders: 0.2079%

Make sure you read the followup with all my pretty data tables and
the calculations I hope I performed correctly. I did not include
children, as they were statistically insignificant and I excluded
those over age 65, another statistically insignificant group. The
CDC numbers were for 2002 and the population numbers were for 2000.

In another thread in this group I ranted about the homosexual HIV
rate being "thousands" of times the heterosexual rate, then in a
followup I admitted I exaggerated and that it was only "hundreds"
of times the hetero rate. Lo and behold, crunching the numbers I
just quoted above, the actual rate for homosexual males is
*** 162 *** times the rate for heterosexual males! I thought I
was exaggerating for effect and just pulled the "hundreds of times"
estimate out of my ass, but it was right on the mark!!!

To repeat what I wrote in the prior message, voluntary HIV testing
of gay bathhouse patrons in San Francisco revealed a rate of 7%,
and forced testing of patrons at a Taipei, Taiwan gay sex club
revealed a rate of 30%. The 10.7% estimated average U.S. rate I
just computed certainly fits in nicely with the other numbers. I
should also mention that 10.7% is only the average for all U.S.
gay males; those like myself who have dropped out or are very
careful and not promiscuous would have a much lower rate, and
the stereotypical gay male disco sex trash slutpuppies would have
a far higher rate. Does anyone want to venture a guess on what
infection rate might be found among patrons of a typical popular
gay bar/disco in a typical large U.S. city?

Forget the followup...here are my data tables - mind-numbing, but
accurate as far as I can tell:

================================================== ======================
CDC - HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 2002
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr140...anceReport.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
================================================== ======================

"Zim" <zim@irk.gov> writes:

My guess is that you screwed up big time. Less than 1/2 the new
infection rates in the CDC statistics are in the "men who have sex
with men" (MSM) catagory (which includes both gays and
bisexuals). Even if you assume that 1/2 of infection rate is in the
MSM catagory (an overestimate) and that all those are gay (only a
fraction are), you'd estimate that gays are just under 18 times more
likely to be infected per year than the remainder, and that number is
probably more like a factor of 6 and possibly less. If you take out
the drug users, you'll get a somewhat higher number for gays versus
straights. You won't get a factor of 162 (10.7134/.0661).

You might consider that the transmission rate for unprotected anal
sex is about 4 times worse than for unprotected vaginal sex.

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 06:00:44 GMT, "Zim" <zim@irk.gov> wrote:

First, no one said this--presuming by "national" you mean the U.S.
Plus, the way you are framing this comment seems skewed at the outset.
The community of males who have sex with males has indeed been one of
the hardest hit in the U.S. That continues to be the case. However,
there is an increase among heterosexuals. Part of the problem is
people get so hung up about identifying orientation and it is more
fluid/flexible for many.

You conflate data by including global data in your post. The last
table in your post indicates that high numbers of heterosexuals
elsewhere in the world are the primary populations being hit.

In the end--it is compassion for all humans that is important, isn't
it?

George M. Carter

<flame groups trimmed>

Zim wrote:
What is the rate they give for bi-sexual men?

How many in that 10.7134% figure are bi-sexual males? The CDC lumps
both gays and bi-sexuals into the MSM category and does not provide
separate figures for each category thus your figures are probably wrong.

<snip balance>

--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================= ===============+

"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote...
I'll admit I never took statistics, but I do know how to use a calculator.
And I don't care what the new infection rates for other categories has
increased recently, I was only trying to determine the CURRENT number of
homosexual American men infected, and the CDC numbers were given as
125,268 cases out of 281,933 total population (Census2000) = 44.4% of
all those living with HIV or AIDS as of 2002. I did omit drug users,
both heterosexual IV drug users and the MSM+IV category. If anything,
I would have gotten an even higher rate had I included MSM+IV, but I
felt it wouldn't be fair to include a group who although technically
homosexual likely were infected through needles.

You are trying to play statistical games to obsfucate the issue. Yes,
new infections in some groups may increase, but that doesn't necessarily
mean anything. Last year 1 Eskimo caught HIV, this year 2 Eskimos caught
it. Now the Eskimo infection rate has jumped by 100%, certainly a crisis
in your eyes (naturally, a crisis that can only be remedied with several
billion tax dollars). But it's just a statistical blip, come back in
10 years and the average HIV rate among Eskimos will still be 0.0001%.
As I said, I'm not great with statistics, but even if the rate of new
HIV infections among gay men were to decrease significantly, the actual
incidence of those carrying the virus would still INCREASE (remember
that those infected no longer die and they continue to infect others,
no matter how careful they say they are). So 10.7% infected today WILL
rise to 20% in 10 years or so, regardless of how much you reduce new
infections among that group.


And where did you get that number? I certainly didn't see it on the CDC
site, in fact offhand I can't seem to recall having ever seen a study
which determined the actual transmission risks for each type of sexual
activity. And whatever the anal sex transmission risk is, it becomes
infinitely riskier when there is a 10.7% chance your partner is infected.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote...
That's so nice, I don't care. The CDC numbers were for the *** USA ***
and that's the country I was trying to determine HIV rate for. The
heterosexual male HIV rate for Africa may be close to 50%, but in the
U.S. that rate is 0.0661%. I was prepared to present my numbers and
have you all respond with "yes, but..." and then throw sets of
completely unrelated numbers at me to divert attention.

I won't claim the numbers I calculated are gospel truth. They are
based on incomplete data because there is no nation-wide reporting,
so only 30 regions that do report are included. It is just an
assumption that those 30 regions roughly represent the entire nation.
I should point out that New York and California - two states with
some of the highest numbers of HIV/AIDS cases, not to mention
homosexual men - are not included. Since these two states were at
the center of the initial outbreak of the early-1980s, I would
think that including them the average national rate would be MUCH
higher than the 10.7% I computed. This is for another research
project, though. But I am certain that some regions of the U.S.
have far greater MSM-HIV rates than average. It is not at all
unreasonable to expect to find 50%+ infection rates for NYC, L.A.,
and S.F.

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> wrote...
Alas, we'll never know. The CDC does not differentiate between homosexual
and bisexual men - all are "MSM" or "men who have sex with other men." I'm
not sure if it would even mean anything to break it down, as it doesn't
matter whether a male is exclusively homosexual or bisexual - each time he
has sex with another male he faces the same risk of being infected. It is
possible that a practicing bisexual male MIGHT contract HIV from his
female partner, but the odds against it are so low as to be insignificant.

I need to find a link, but I've read several sources that have reported on
the recent increase in HIV infections among heterosexual females. That
number is often used by the activists to divert attention from the huge
homosexual infection rate; they wave it around as "proof" that heterosexual
are at the same risk as homosexuals. But if you're lucky enough to find
a source that tells the whole story, you will discover that among these
new heterosexual female infections, MOST are caught from those women's
BISEXUAL male partners. Their partners fuck other men, get infected, then
fuck the women and infect them. Naturally, the activists manage to
airbrush this little factoid out of the numbers they present...


Okay, I'll concede you're right. I really should not have used "homosexual"
when the data I used was only for MSM. I don't see how to break it down,
as data for sexual preference is hard to come by and almost always biased
in favor of either pro- or anti-homosexual agenda (the gay activists will
say 75% of Americans are gay/bisexual and thus perfectly "normal," while the
xian rightards will say it's 0.00001% and thus a perverted aberration of
nature). I used the UofC 1995 statistics, as from what I've read it seems
to have gotten good reviews of its methodology from across the board.

Regardless of errors I may have made in my calculations, even if you adjust
them up or down by several times they are still shocking. If I were to
use Kinsey's fabulous "10%" statistic instead of the UofC 2.8% figure, the
infection rate would be "only" be 3% instead of 10.7%, more politically
correct but still perhaps 40x the heterosexual rate.

I'm having fun here! It's time for me to learn Excel and start entering
every data I can find, then crunch it in various ways. I am surprised
no one else seems to have even attempted computing these numbers - I
imagine that there is serious political pressure for them to avoid doing
so, any professional who researched it and discovered the truth would
be promptly fired and blacklisted.

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 06:00:44 GMT, Zim <zim@irk.gov> wrote:
Okey dokey. Let's see if we can get you all riled up about other groups too...

Dammit! Those Floridians!! Not only are they mentally incapable
of voting, but they are ELEVEN TIMES as sinful as the normal Iowa
resident. Let's have them shot, or quarantined, or SOMETHING!

And here we can see very easily that WSW don't get HIV at all from
their sexual practices (if it ain't in the table, it doesn't exist,
right?), proving that all straight women are sinful and should be
locked up since they are performing sexual acts which spread HIV
at an infinitely-larger rate than those good, honest, law-abiding
lesbians we all love. Let's have those sick heterofemales shot,
or quarantined, or SOMETHING!

These are the only attitudes which can be considered to be loving,
given the statistics on the matter, right?

--
"Do you sell your underwear to strangers too Bill? Most homo's does."
-- Lurlean Tucker offers advice on which items sell best on Ebay.

"Zim" <zim@irk.gov> writes:

A calculator won't help you when you don't know what to compute.

It was reported in the 1990s in our area newspapers, in an article
about some basic research. They included a table giving the
probability of transmitting the virus, broken down by sex act.

Zim wrote:

That is indeed correct... however it *does* distort your figures and
invalidates your claim that the numbers you have give reflect infection
rates in homosexuals because bi-sexuals are *included* in those figures.
At best, you figures reflect the rates of infection amongst MSM and
give that you have the figures for the total MALE population, at best
your can provide the infection rate amongst MEN only [without reference
to their sexual orientation].

<snip>

Exactly! You have provided *incorrect* figures on the rate of HIV
infection in homosexual males.

<snip>

--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================= ===============+

"Zim" <zim@irk.gov> wrote in message
news:gkS%c.12888$Vl5.9074@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
(snip)
One small fact you did not take into account is that there are more then 30
states in the US. The CDC does not accept the HIV reporting data from states
like Washington that while they did follow CDC guidelines and require that
doctors report all new HIV infections they did not follow the CDC guideline
in regards directly connecting the name of the patient to the HIV infection
report. Thus 60% of the states in the US do not have there HIV data as a
part of any of the tables above. Now I make no claim that this would
significantly change the specifics of the arguments you are making in your
post it is none the less worth making note of.

Again it must be noted that you seem to be using just one (un-referenced
study) to arrive at a percentage figure for the homosexual population of the
US. You have chosen to use one of the lowest estimates I have seen. Now I
understand that you might have purposely done so in an attempt to prevent
anyone from arguing that you used an artificially large number. However one
could also argue that you used the smallest estimate in order to artfully
increase the number you arrive at bellow.

I have not looked at the census data but there were questions on the long
form that would have allowed some quantitative statistics on at least the
number of people living in self identified gay households I would be curious
to see how those numbers compare to your 4.2% number.

Gary Stein