[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
As I said, the fastest-growing rate of HIV infections in the West is among hetero teenagers.

Mostly because said teenagers didn't receive proper sex ed and aren't even AWARE of the risk.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I'd like to see statistics of that. Honest ones. Without an agenda.

From what I have seen, statistic wise, It's still the homosexual community that has been hit the hardest here in the US.

You're both right. Amongst the hardest hit in the US is the homosexual male community, but in the US the heterosexual population has a higher growth rate for new HIV cases. In other words, the demographics are changing.

Eg. In Tennessee, between 1992-1996, 17% of new cases were from heterosexual contact. In 1997-2001, it was 26%.

[d4nth3m4n]

here we go again.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
You're both right. Amongst the hardest hit in the US is the homosexual male community, but in the US the heterosexual population has a higher growth rate for new HIV cases. In other words, the demographics are changing.

Eg. In Tennessee, between 1992-1996, 17% of new cases were from heterosexual contact. In 1997-2001, it was 26%.

That also dovetails with the increased population of Hispanics in TN (mostly illegals from Mexico), who have had very little education regarding safe sex.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
That also dovetails with the increased population of Hispanics in TN (mostly illegals from Mexico), who have had very little education regarding safe sex.

Right, and that is just one state.

I am speaking about the US as a whole. I want to see numbers for the US as a whole.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
That also dovetails with the increased population of Hispanics in TN (mostly illegals from Mexico), who have had very little education regarding safe sex.

Actually, one of the highest increases are in the US black population, too. Again, poverty and lack of education certainly doesn't help, but we can't attribute such numbers to illegal immigrants only.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Right, and that is just one state.

I am speaking about the US as a whole. I want to see numbers for the US as a whole.

Well, I have references from various recent books, but the text isn't online.

eg: Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease (7th ed. Copyright 2005).

In the past few years, even in the United States, the rate of increase of heterosexual transmission has outpaced transmission by other means.

However, it must be noted that a lot of the heterosexual transmission in the US is from those that are sexual partners of people with a history of IV drug abuse. Furthermore, the overall numbers are still higher in the homosexual/bisexual male group.

OTOH, in places such as Africa and Asia, heterosexual transmission in is the dominant mode of spread.

[Zimphire]

So no sources online huh? You'd think if it was factual. It would be there.

Anyhow, I found some links.


Sexual transmission and injection drug use (IDU) are the
primary modes of HIV transmission. Almost half (48%) of all
adult/adolescent AIDS diagnoses have been linked to sex
between men and 27% to injection drug use. Fifteen percent
have been linked to heterosexual sex, and 7% to men who have
sex with men and inject drugs. Injection drug use also indirectly
accounts for HIV transmission among the partners and children
of injection drug users

Despite declines in HIV infection rates among men who have
sex with men (MSM) since the early years of the epidemic, they
continue to be at high risk for infection, accounting for 55% of
estimated new AIDS diagnoses among men in 2002.

Recent
data indicate that risk behavior continues and that MSM are at
significantly greater risk for HIV infection than other groups in
the U.S.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...en%20target=nw


North America: In the US, 11% of all people reported with AIDS contracted HIV through heterosexual contact.

North America: Male-male sex remains the biggest single cause of new HIV infections in the US and for 46% of all AIDS cases in the US


http://www.thebody.com/aawh/wad2001/affected.html

[BRussell]

These are from the CDC. It says that of the 900,000 or so estimated cases of HIV/AIDS, 420,000 have been from gay male sex. The next biggest group, 240,000, come from IV drug use, and hetero sex has led to 135,000. There's also another group of 60,000 that they say is a combination of gay male sex and IV drug use, so the gay male sex group is probably over half of all HIV/AIDS cases - and that's not current cases, but all cases in the US ever.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am speaking about the US as a whole. I want to see numbers for the US as a whole.

You don't believe that heterosexuals are being infected at a faster rate? I wouldn't mind seeing numbers either, but in our society is it any surprise? Look at teens. They are all having sex at pretty young ages and surely are having multiple partners. You think they practice safe sex? I doubt it. Look at the pregnancy rate. With 90-95% of the population being heterosexual, I am not surprised that the rate of spreading is faster.

All I'm saying is that common sense of our situation in general is enough for me to believe that claim.


[edit] Here's something interesting. See, the percent of AIDS victims in homosexuals is declining and the percent of heterosexuals is increasing. The rate of new cases in heterosexuals is increasing.



Note that I am not disputing that homosexuals are the most likely in the population to get AIDS. The fact that there are still more homosexual male cases than heterosexual males is proof of that. If it were proportional, the percent of new cases should be similar to the percent of gays in the population, but this is greatly skewed.

Oh, this info is from here.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Xeo:
You don't believe that heterosexuals are being infected at a faster rate? I wouldn't mind seeing numbers either, but in our society is it any surprise? Look at teens. They are all having sex at pretty young ages and surely are having multiple partners. You think they practice safe sex? I doubt it. Look at the pregnancy rate. With 90-90% of the population being heterosexual, I am not surprised that the rate of spreading is faster.

All I'm saying is that common sense of our situation in general is enough for me to believe that claim.

The majority of AIDS victims in the US ARE homosexuals.

You'd think heterosexuals would be a majority of AIDS cases since homosexuals only make up 2 to 4% of the population here.

But that is not the case.

When 4% of the population has MOST cases of AIDS than any other "group" that says a lot.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So no sources online huh? You'd think if it was factual. It would be there.

You'd think, but I'd rather just quote from well-respected medical textbooks than spend an hour searching for details on this one point.

Anyhow, I found some links.

Sexual transmission and injection drug use (IDU) are the
primary modes of HIV transmission. Almost half (48%) of all
adult/adolescent AIDS diagnoses have been linked to sex
between men and 27% to injection drug use. Fifteen percent
have been linked to heterosexual sex, and 7% to men who have
sex with men and inject drugs. Injection drug use also indirectly
accounts for HIV transmission among the partners and children
of injection drug users

Despite declines in HIV infection rates among men who have
sex with men (MSM) since the early years of the epidemic, they
continue to be at high risk for infection, accounting for 55% of
estimated new AIDS diagnoses among men in 2002.

Recent data indicate that risk behavior continues and that MSM are at
significantly greater risk for HIV infection than other groups in
the U.S.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...en%20target=nw

Yes, they're no denying that the homosexual/bisexual male group is a very high risk group in the US. I even said so above. However, it's the rate of increase which is being argued here. The bottom line is that risky behaviour in general puts one at risk, obviously, whether that person is homosexual or heterosexual. The dominance of heterosexual transmission in Africa and Asia obviously support this.

I'm beginning to think you don't understand the math. There is a big difference between absolute transmission rates and increases in transmission rates.

ie. An increase from 20% to 30% is a huge increase, even if there is a larger group that has stayed flat at say 50%.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Yes, they're no denying that the homosexual/bisexual male group is a very high risk group in the US.

It's not just a high risk group. It's THE HIGHEST risk group.

I even said so above. However, it's the rate of increase which is being argued here. The bottom line is that risky behaviour in general puts one at risk, obviously, whether that person is homosexual or heterosexual. The dominance of heterosexual transmission in Africa and Asia obviously support this.

And I am not speaking about other countries.

I am sure heterosexual AIDS has gotten worse. There is no doubt. But the facts remain, the minority of people in the US, have a greater amount of AIDS victims.

It should be the other way around right? It's not.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's not just a high risk group. It's THE HIGHEST risk group.

And I am not speaking about other countries.

I am sure heterosexual AIDS has gotten worse. There is no doubt. But the facts remain, the minority of people in the US, have a greater amount of AIDS victims.

So you agree

It should be the other way around right? It's not.

Huh? Should what? I'm just listing the facts.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
So you agree

I don't disagree with you that more heteros are getting AIDS than before. Of course that is obvious. Facts still remain that homosexuals are most effected.

Huh? Should what? I'm just listing the facts.

As I am.

But don't you find it a bit odd that 4% of our population has half of the AIDS victims in America?

That should be saying a lot to those paying attention.

[PacHead]

The chances of me, or any other responsible-smart people getting HIV are about ZERO, so I'm happy.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The chances of me, or any other responsible-smart people getting HIV are about ZERO, so I'm happy.

I wouldn't say 0. But it is a slim chance. Being homosexual and sexually active would make someone a high risk. Only group that would be higher would be homosexual IV drug users.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The majority of AIDS victims in the US ARE homosexuals.

You'd think heterosexuals would be a majority of AIDS cases since homosexuals only make up 2 to 4% of the population here.

But that is not the case.

When 4% of the population has MOST cases of AIDS than any other "group" that says a lot.

Yes I completely agree. And I edited my post above with more info, but did include the same thing you just said. My point is that the percent of new infections per year is moving in the direction to even out with the population. The rates are changing. But I completely agree with what you just said.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
As I am.

But don't you find it a bit odd that 4% of our population has half of the AIDS victims in America?

That should be saying a lot to those paying attention.

I don't find it odd at all. Risky behaviour, along with high risk transmission with single contacts, leads to high numbers for transmission.

It is well known that certain groups of the homosexual/bisexual population in North America do not practice safe sex, and often have multiple sexual partners. This is reflected not only in HIV rates, but also in rates of other sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, there is a higher rate of transmission to the recipient in anal intercourse.

However, ANYONE who engages in this kind of behaviour is at high risk.

There are LARGE numbers of people from every population group that engages in this type of behaviour. Thus, education for all groups is necessary, esp. considering the increases in rates for heterosexuals.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I wouldn't say 0. But it is a slim chance. Being homosexual and sexually active would make someone a high risk. Only group that would be higher would be homosexual IV drug users.

I think his point is, even a sexually active homosexual male (since gender does matter in this) can have nearly zero risk if they are smart about it. Condoms + testing + monogamy would make relatively safe. Or even not having anal sex would lower the risk a lot.

The problem is, unsafe sex is practiced far too often. There is a reason why it's called "unsafe" and some people just don't get it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Being homosexual and sexually active would make someone a high risk. Only group that would be higher would be homosexual IV drug users.

Statistically, you are correct.

However, the point is a sexually active homosexual can be lower risk than a sexually active heterosexual, depending on the situation, which brings back my statement above that education needs to be available for all groups.

EDIT:



Thanks for the graph, Xeo.

[AKcrab]

From the December Popular Science

$150 billion Amount the U.S. spent on HIV/AIDS between 1982 and 2004

$100 billion Cost to date of the International Space Station

$120 billion Estimated amount the U.S. has spent on the war in Iraq

850,000 Estimated number of people infected with HIV in the U.S.

25 Estimated percentage that are unaware of their infection

7 Percentage of female AIDS patients in the U.S. in 1986

26 Percentage of female AIDS patients in the U.S. in 2002

25 Percentage of the female population in the U.S. that is black or Hispanic

82 Percentage of female AIDS patients in the U.S. who are black or Hispanic

40 million Number of people with HIV/AIDS worldwide

96 Percentage of AIDS cases that are in the developing world

14,000 Number of new HIV infections that occur every day, worldwide

$38 million Standard price for the Gulfstream 550

$38 million Cost of treating 271,428 Tanzanians with HIV drugs for a year

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clinton Center, Gulfstream, Kaiser Family Foundation, NASA, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Priorities Project, UNAIDS

Just thought some of the numbers were interesting, and maybe even pertinent.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Actually, one of the highest increases are in the US black population, too. Again, poverty and lack of education certainly doesn't help, but we can't attribute such numbers to illegal immigrants only.

But, we were only discussing the state of TN, and recent numbers indicate there has been an increase of illegals in the state of TN by 200,000 in only 8 years (the vast majority of which are Mexican).

This is only ancedotal, but my mother works for a medical center that caters to lower income individuals and she said that HIV infection among hispanics has increased over 600% in only 5 years. So, although we've seen a 300% increase in hispanic immigration (mostly illegal, as I said earlier), the AIDS infection rate is FAR exceeding it. That's very bad.