CDC Definition of 'AIDS cases' is based on test results NOT full blown
'AIDS'.

The Apologists are caught lying once again.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4813a2.htm


Appendix: Revised Surveillance Case Definition for HIV Infection*


This revised definition of HIV infection, which applies to any HIV (e.g.,
HIV-1 or HIV-2), is intended for public health surveillance only. It
incorporates the reporting criteria for HIV infection and AIDS into a
single case definition. The revised criteria for HIV infection update the
definition of HIV infection implemented in 1993 (18); the revised HIV
criteria apply to AIDS-defining conditions for adults (18) and children
(17,19), which require laboratory evidence of HIV. This definition is not
presented as a guide to clinical diagnosis or for other uses (17,18).

I. In adults, adolescents, or children aged greater than or equal to 18
months**, a reportable case of HIV infection must meet at least one of the
following criteria:

Laboratory Criteria

*

* Positive result on a screening test for HIV antibody (e.g., repeatedly
reactive enzyme immunoassay), followed by a positive result on a
confirmatory (sensitive and more specific) test for HIV antibody (e.g.,
Western blot or immunofluorescence antibody test)

or
* Positive result or report of a detectable quantity on any of the
following HIV virologic (nonantibody) tests:
* HIV nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) detection (e.g., DNA polymerase chain
reaction [PCR] or plasma HIV-1 RNA)***
* HIV p24 antigen test, including neutralization assay
* HIV isolation (viral culture)




OR

Clinical or Other Criteria (if the above laboratory criteria are not met)

*

* Diagnosis of HIV infection, based on the laboratory criteria above, that
is documented in a medical record by a physician

or
* Conditions that meet criteria included in the case definition for AIDS
(17-19)


*

II. In a child aged less than 18 months, a reportable case of HIV
infection must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Laboratory Criteria

Definitive

*
* Positive results on two separate specimens (excluding cord blood) using
one or more of the following HIV virologic (nonantibody) tests:
* HIV nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) detection
* HIV p24 antigen test, including neutralization assay, in a child greater
than or equal to 1 month of age
* HIV isolation (viral culture)




or

Presumptive

A child who does not meet the criteria for definitive HIV infection but
who has:

*
* Positive results on only one specimen (excluding cord blood) using the
above HIV virologic tests and no subsequent negative HIV virologic or
negative HIV antibody tests


OR

Clinical or Other Criteria (if the above definitive or presumptive
laboratory criteria are not met)

*

* Diagnosis of HIV infection, based on the laboratory criteria above, that
is documented in a medical record by a physician

or
* Conditions that meet criteria included in the 1987 pediatric
surveillance case definition for AIDS (17,19)


*

III. A child aged less than 18 months born to an HIV-infected mother will
be categorized for surveillance purposes as "not infected with HIV" if the
child does not meet the criteria for HIV infection but meets the following
criteria:

Laboratory Criteria

Definitive

*
* At least two negative HIV antibody tests from separate specimens
obtained at greater than or equal to 6 months of age

or
* At least two negative HIV virologic tests* from separate specimens, both
of which were performed at greater than or equal to 1 month of age and one
of which was performed at greater than or equal to 4 months of age


AND

No other laboratory or clinical evidence of HIV infection (i.e., has not
had any positive virologic tests, if performed, and has not had an
AIDS-defining condition)

or

Presumptive

A child who does not meet the above criteria for definitive "not infected"
status but who has:

*
* One negative EIA HIV antibody test performed at greater than or equal to
6 months of age and NO positive HIV virologic tests, if performed

or
* One negative HIV virologic test* performed at greater than or equal to 4
months of age and NO positive HIV virologic tests, if performed

or
* One positive HIV virologic test with at least two subsequent negative
virologic tests****, at least one of which is at greater than or equal to
4 months of age; or negative HIV antibody test results, at least one of
which is at greater than or equal to 6 months of age


AND

No other laboratory or clinical evidence of HIV infection (i.e., has not
had any positive virologic tests, if performed, and has not had an
AIDS-defining condition).

OR

Clinical or Other Criteria (if the above definitive or presumptive
laboratory criteria are not met)

*

* Determined by a physician to be "not infected", and a physician has
noted the results of the preceding HIV diagnostic tests in the medical
record


AND

NO other laboratory or clinical evidence of HIV infection (i.e., has not
had any positive virologic tests, if performed, and has not had an
AIDS-defining condition)

*

IV. A child aged less than 18 months born to an HIV-infected mother will
be categorized as having perinatal exposure to HIV infection if the child
does not meet the criteria for HIV infection (II) or the criteria for "not
infected with HIV" (III).


* Draft revised surveillance criteria for HIV infection were approved and
recommended by the membership of the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) at the 1998 annual meeting (11). Draft versions of
these criteria were previously reviewed by state HIV/AIDS surveillance
staffs, CDC, CSTE, and laboratory experts. In addition, the pediatric
criteria were reviewed by an expert panel of consultants. [External
Pediatric Consultants: C. Hanson, M. Kaiser, S. Paul, G. Scott, and P.
Thomas. CDC staff: J. Bertolli, K. Dominguez, M. Kalish, M.L. Lindegren,
M. Rogers, C. Schable, R.J. Simonds, and J. Ward]

** Children aged greater than or equal to 18 months but less than 13 years
are categorized as "not infected with HIV" if they meet the criteria in
III.

*** In adults, adolescents, and children infected by other than perinatal
exposure, plasma viral RNA nucleic acid tests should NOT be used in lieu
of licensed HIV screening tests (e.g., repeatedly reactive enzyme
immunoassay). In addition, a negative (i.e., undetectable) plasma HIV-1
RNA test result does not rule out the diagnosis of HIV infection.

**** HIV nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) detection tests are the virologic
methods of choice to exclude infection in children aged less than 18
months. Although HIV culture can be used for this purpose, it is more
complex and expensive to perform and is less well standardized than
nucleic acid detection tests. The use of p24 antigen testing to exclude
infection in children aged less than 18 months is not recommended because
of its lack of sensitivity.

Disclaimer * All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions
from ASCII text into HTML. This conversion may have resulted in character
translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users should not rely on
this HTML document, but are referred to the electronic PDF version and/or
the original MMWR paper copy for the official text, figures, and tables.
An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO),
Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for
current prices.
**Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed
to mmwrq@cdc.gov.



Page converted: 12/8/1999

In article <cca2519e63f3ccfbb0ab93f84258f0c0@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
You're trying to prove something about the case definition for *AIDS*
by quoting the case definition for *HIV* *infection*. You really
don't care how obvious you are, do you?

If AIDS dissidents are letting *you* represent them, they're dumber
than I thought.

--
David Canzi "Do not let superstition inhibit your actions."
-- Jeane Dixon, horoscope for Virgo, May 17, 1990.

YOU ARE FULL OF B.S. MY FRIEND.

This is the CDC definition of what constitutes 'Teen AIDS' cases.

THEY CLEARLY SAYS SO.

YOU ARE DISHONEST AND A LIER.

THIS ON THE CDC SITE

1993 Revised Classification System for HIV Infection and Expanded
Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents and Adults
The classification system for HIV infection among adolescents and adults
has been revised to include the CD4+ T-lymphocyte count as a marker for
HIV-related immunosuppression. The revised CDC classification system for
HIV-infecte...


Takes you to the definition I posted.

CLEAR NOW?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm

To put it simply for Mr Dmcanzi the CDC statistic publiched as Teen AIDS
cases include both those HIV infected and those who have full blown
'AIDS'.

If you compare their figures for the total of BOTH groups they equal the
published teen figures labeled as 'AIDS cases'.

The CDC ignore their own definitions and use the words 'AIDS cases for
BOTH groups'.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:14:41 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

Gee, so what's the data for non-caucasian teens?

Oh, but perhaps they're of no importance....

because some populations have less HIV (currently) does not mean HIV
does not exist or does not cause AIDS.

Nothing you have offered remotely suggests a causative agent or
agents. Not poverty. Not recreational drug use. Nothing.

George M. Carter

In article <922dc24bf1a379d4be2720d1f73f7717@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
The URL you gave originally, and quoted from, was
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4813a2.htm

The text you quoted from that URL starts thus:

|Appendix: Revised Surveillance Case Definition for HIV Infection*
|
|This revised definition of HIV infection, which applies to any HIV (e.g.,
|HIV-1 or HIV-2), is intended for public health surveillance only. It
|incorporates the reporting criteria for HIV infection and AIDS into a

The two words "reporting criteria" in that text are not found at
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm.

People using threaded news-readers can back up from this article to
the two of your articles quoting different texts from different URLs
that you are now trying to pretend are the same.

If the dissident position you support is the truth, why do you need
to resort to deception?

Your dissident followers need to do some rethinking -- about you.

--
David Canzi "Nonconformists travel as a rule in bunches. You rarely find
a nonconformist who goes it alone. And woe to him inside a
nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity."
-- Eric Hoffer

"Gee, so what's the data for non-caucasian teens?"

The point is that 'AIDS' is the result of poverty and related conditions
NOT sex.

Do you really think African Americans are having 200 times more sex than
Caucasians?

Use you head for once.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:28:21 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

I see! There are no poor white kids. All people of color are poor.
Poverty causes AIDS. Ah! Now there's a well supported theory that has
SO much evidence to support it that we can abandon 20+ years of
research in clinical studies, molecular biology, immunology, virology
as well as discount the experiences of millions of people, many poor,
many in DIRE poverty, many with decent incomes and access to food and
medicine....yes...and the data you have provided, that ONE PAPER that
PROVES poverty causes AIDS is there (somewhere?) so we can embrace
this idea based on virtually no evidence whatsoever and a good deal of
data that contradict it and indeed just a wee bit of common sense.

Don't worry. Fred Shaw will come to your rescue and show how you are
correct, I am sure! He agrees with all you say, it would seem!

Nope.

George M. Carter

If you actually look at a World map of poverty and a World map of 'AIDS'
they look like one and the same.

In EVERY country it is the poorest sectors of the community that get so
called AIDS.

This is true in America, Europe and the rest of the World.

Countries with no real poverty like Denmark, Switzerland and Japan have NO
AIDS.This is true across the entire map.

Open your eyes and see the truth.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:25:17 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

Poverty exists all OVER the planet. Something like half the worlds
population makes under $1 per day.

If poverty caused AIDS, there would be BILLIONS of cases.

No, it's not. While the poor are disproportionately represented, many
people with HIV/AIDS have (or have had) good jobs, decent incomes.

That is absolutely untrue and a complete fabrication. ALL those
countries have HIV and AIDS. They also have lower incidence, thank
heavens. And the lower people work together to impede incidence, the
better.

An excellent suggestion! Feel free to take the advice.

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:72q1g0lmhe20ka3a6t79uvle36ijq1o67r@4ax.com...
I would go so far to say that only in the last 5 to 7 years have the poor
been disproportionately represented in the US. From the begining until the
mid to late 90's middle and upper middle class gay men were the largest
group of AIDS cases in the US.

Gary Stein

"If poverty caused AIDS, there would be BILLIONS of cases"

Don't be so silly. It is not poverty but the effects of poverty that cause
'AIDS' defining conditions and diseases.

This is true of almost every disease in the Third World.

'AIDS' being simply those diseases mislabelled it is a no brainer.

USE YOUR BRAIN

I agree it is getting worse but it has been true for a lot longer.

Look at NY in the 70's.

Very high poverty. Very high so called "AIDS' in those poor communities in
the following decade.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:22:39 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

No, it is not. The effects of poverty ARE dire--and at least here I
hope we agree that there is an urgency to END poverty. Sadly,
approaches like 'free trade' appear only to exacerbate the problem.

However, there is a problem with your theory. Poverty does not CAUSE
disease--it contributes to it mightily of course. Whether it is a
disease like malaria or tuberculosis. Close/crowded living conditions
foster the spread of TB.

However, you don't have to be poor to get sick. From ANY of these
diseases--however, you DO have to be immune suppressed in a rather
specific way to have certain infections develop into disease, such as
cytomegalovirus, Kaposi's sarcoma or PML.

No, it is not. HIV is a cause of immune system destruction. This leads
people to be MORE susceptible to diseases. Thus, the outcome of a
disease like TB in a person without HIV is in the aggregate less dire
than when a person gets TB with the suppression of immunity that comes
with HIV infection.

Poverty can have an influence on the spread of HIV. People go into the
sex or drug trades for lack of better income-generating opportunities.
These are vectors for the spread of sexually transmitted infections
like HIV, syphilis, etc. Poverty can lead to malnutrition and protein
calorie malnutrition ALONE bears remarkable similarities to HIV damage
to immune function. While they are similar, they aren't identical: CD4
counts don't just drop away to zero. But you add starvation to a
disease that causes wasting and loss of micronutrient levels even in
well-fed people, then you have a much more rapid progression. (Which
is why Fawzie's recent study showed such a good benefit just using a
multivitamin; not a cure, but certainly an important piece of
treatment.)

In the meantime, you make the claim that poverty causes AIDS. Where is
your ONE PAPER that proves that? I take it you must have one, yes?

George M. Carter

"

No, it is not. HIV is a cause of immune system destruction.'

Same old stale myth.

NO IT IS NOT