Payday loans
Cialis
Car insurance

What’s Up (or Down) with AIDS?

 The prime beneficiaries of good AIDS epidemiology are homosexuals. How can it possibly be considered compassionate to pretend otherwise?

It’s a testament to something — well — not good, that 19 years after I first started debunking the “we’re all at risk” theory of HIV/AIDS there are still those who insist that contagious diseases must follow political ideologies. And they’re not shy about fabricating numbers to shoehorn them into the politically correct fit.

Thus I recently heard from a college student named Alex who “informed” me of certain startling “realities” of AIDS that he initially claimed he learned from a professor of his. Among them: “In the United States alone . . . 3,725,462 have died” of AIDS and “most experts say this number is far lower than reality,” wrote Alex. Further, if I had children, they “would have roughly a 25% chance to get AIDS before they die.”

He tossed in a few more numbers, but his conclusion showed his letter wasn’t really about science and health, but rather a Righteous Cause. “It doesn’t matter who is at risk for AIDS. It doesn’t matter if you believe only homosexuals get the disease. How many have to die before you care?”

Reality check.

There were 529,000 U.S. AIDS deaths through 2004, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest annual HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, a slightly more reliable source than Alex’s teacher. (Whom I discovered to be a professor of . . . philosophy.) Only one American in 6,666 was diagnosed with AIDS in 2004, which hardly supports the prediction that a fourth of us will get the disease.

Deaths fell 8% from 2000 to 2004. In sheer numbers, cases have risen slightly but no faster than the growth of the population.

Faced with these rather compelling numbers and their official source, Alex’s response was rather disquieting. “Those numbers I quoted, I came up with,” he explained. Um, right. But then even he seemed to realize that might not be good enough, so he amended that to say, “They are based off (sic) the spread of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) around the world. You’ll notice that every other STD has increased exponentially since 1990, and you are going to tell me AIDS hasn’t?”

So with U.S. AIDS data presented to him on a platter, he chose instead not only to use a surrogate (other STDs) but also one not from the U.S. but from the world as a whole. Rather like calculating the number of arthritic Americans based on worldwide use of aspirin.

Even his assertion about STDs was completely wrong. The three major STDs the CDC concerns itself with are Gonorrhea, syphilis, and Chlamydia. U.S. gonorrhea rates have fallen 60% since 1990 and are now at their lowest rate ever. Syphilis cases actually peaked in 1990 and have fallen almost 90% since.

Chlamydia diagnoses have shot up six-fold since 1987 but, as the CDC notes, “The increases in reported cases and rates likely reflect the continued expansion of screening efforts and increased use of more sensitive diagnostic tests, rather than an actual increase in new infections.”

Now to address Alex’s assertion that AIDS risk factors don’t matter, that the role of homosexual practices should not be emphasized, and that anybody who thinks otherwise has no compassion for the dead and dying.

Medical epidemiology is not meant to be a political tool. Its purpose is to tell us the extent of sickness and death from a given cause and to define the risks. If homosexuals are the prime risk group, that fact must be stated as plainly as saying that only infants get SIDS and that runners and other athletes are the prime risk group for shin splints. In the case of SIDS and shin splints, the beneficiaries of proper epidemiology are babies (and their parents) and runners.

The prime beneficiaries of good AIDS epidemiology are homosexuals. How can it possibly be considered compassionate to pretend otherwise?

Call Alex an ignorant freshman, but his modus operandi is routinely employed by special interest groups, politicians, the media, and even government health bureaucracies, on vital issues including disease and the environment. The day statistics became politically incorrect was a dark one for us all.

Share

4 comments to What’s Up (or Down) with AIDS?

  • angelo

    “There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.” — wish I could tell you who to whom to attribute the original quote.
    Spot on article.

  • Bob Stapler

    “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” was attributed to Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881, British statesman) by Samuel Clemmons (Mark Twain) in his autobiography. However, the words aren’t found in any of Disraeli’s written works. An alternative attribution is sometimes made to the radical journalist and politician Henry Labouchère (1831-1912).

    I often reference that one myself.

  • CaptDMO

    Wow…
    Sounds just like an exaustive arguement I made at ifeminist, in the face of rabid denial, just before the boards closed. The exception being the associated crossover communicable disease was hepetitis from intraveinous drug use, by the beligerant, in major city “party” communities.

  • Thomas

    4. I’m one of the religious right wingers and a conservative republican. I
    believe the political correct movement is a quasi “enlightenment” response
    to all such things as Katrina’s wrath, AID’s wrath and all the plagues and
    natural dissasters that were once called for what they are, merely, an “act
    of God”. To settle for this is ultra irritating and folly to those who put stock
    in the random acts of what they deem as ‘all the science we have behind
    these things’. To refute their science with religious beliefs is evidence, to
    them, of embiciles that can’t think. Your article was good. You showed
    that thier conclusions strive to redifine the causes of such and that in doing
    so it doesn’t benefit those who need truth and solutions the most. It is clear
    their primary cause is for neither. It is astonishingly clear. Reminds me of
    the bible proverb, “One may grind a fool to powder but the folly will not leave
    him.”

Leave a Reply

Articles Archived by Topic