HIV, AIDS cases rise among U.S. gay, bisexual men


#1

ATLANTA, Dec. 1–A rise in new cases of AIDS and HIV infection among gay and bisexual men in many U.S. states, reported in a federal study Wednesday, has given support for concerns the disease is resurgent in the country.

The report by the Centers for Disease control and Prevention, released in connection with World AIDS Day, said new HIV and AIDS diagnoses in 32 U.S. states rose 11 percent among gay and bisexual men between 2000 and 2003.

Rates were stable among most other population sectors, and the overall infection rate rose to 19.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2003 from 19.5 per 100,000 people in 2000.

Gay and bisexual men are believed to account for a majority of the estimated 850,000 to 950,000 Americans living with HIV, the virus that causes the disease.

In the United States public health experts have been warning of a possible resurgence of the epidemic, which eased in the early 1990s following the development of antiretroviral drugs targeting the disease.

   Since the late 1990s, when U.S. deaths from AIDS stabilized at 16,000 per year and new HIV infections stabilized at 40,000 per year, the disease has shown signs of a comeback, particularly among gay and bisexual men. 

Between 2000 and 2003, a total of 125,800 people were diagnosed with HIV or AIDS in the 32 states, according to the new report.

Forty-four percent of these cases occurred among gay and bisexual men. ‘‘Men who have sex with men continue to constitute a substantial proportion of HIV/AIDS cases,’’ said the CDC.

   It said blacks, who represent about 13 percent of the U.S. population, made up 51.3 percent of all HIV and AIDS cases diagnosed in the same period. 

famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/reuters12-01-104341.asp?t=renew&vts=12120041116


#2

[quote=gilliam]ATLANTA, Dec. 1–A rise in new cases of AIDS and HIV infection among gay and bisexual men in many U.S. states, reported in a federal study Wednesday, has given support for concerns the disease is resurgent in the country.

The report by the Centers for Disease control and Prevention, released in connection with World AIDS Day, said new HIV and AIDS diagnoses in 32 U.S. states rose 11 percent among gay and bisexual men between 2000 and 2003.

Rates were stable among most other population sectors, and the overall infection rate rose to 19.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2003 from 19.5 per 100,000 people in 2000.

Gay and bisexual men are believed to account for a majority of the estimated 850,000 to 950,000 Americans living with HIV, the virus that causes the disease.

In the United States public health experts have been warning of a possible resurgence of the epidemic, which eased in the early 1990s following the development of antiretroviral drugs targeting the disease.

Since the late 1990s, when U.S. deaths from AIDS stabilized at 16,000 per year and new HIV infections stabilized at 40,000 per year, the disease has shown signs of a comeback, particularly among gay and bisexual men.

Between 2000 and 2003, a total of 125,800 people were diagnosed with HIV or AIDS in the 32 states, according to the new report.

Forty-four percent of these cases occurred among gay and bisexual men. ‘‘Men who have sex with men continue to constitute a substantial proportion of HIV/AIDS cases,’’ said the CDC.

It said blacks, who represent about 13 percent of the U.S. population, made up 51.3 percent of all HIV and AIDS cases diagnosed in the same period.

famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/reuters12-01-104341.asp?t=renew&vts=12120041116
[/quote]

Here’s the portion of thre article you didn’t post:

New York, California and other states that had not used confidential, name-based reporting of HIV and AIDS cases for at least four years were excluded from the study.

A number of health departments across the nation also have reported a worrying surge in syphilis and some other sexually transmitted diseases among gay and bisexual men. Sexually transmitted diseases are known to increase the likelihood of contracting HIV.

To combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic in America, the U.S. government decided last year to emphasize programs that focus on testing and counseling people who are already infected.

Some AIDS activists, however, fear the new approach will lead to reduced funding for many programs that emphasize condom use and other safe-sex practices for uninfected people.

The CDC, which hopes to cut the number of new annual HIV infections in half within five years, also has recommended routine HIV testing be expanded to include pregnant women, intravenous-drug users and anyone who engages in unsafe sex.


#3

BHAHAHAHA like people who engage in “unsafe sex” will just walk in off the street to be tested 'cause they wanna know. IV drug users make sense obviously but while obviously pregnant women have engaged in sexual relations, IMO that’s a ridiculous group to test unless there are other factors (IV drugs, history of other STD, Hep).

Back in the dark ages before the homosexual activists took over, STDs were considered a public health hazard. People who tested positive for gon or syph were called into county health, treated, and requested that their partner be identified so they could stop the potential epidemic. To get a marriage license you had to have blood test to be sure you didn’t have any of those diseases.

Unfortunately now you can’t force ANYONE to be tested, to divulge their partners or any other reasonable means of stopping the spread of a deadly disease. So that STDs are running wild and AIDS is increasing should come as no surprise.

Ridiculous IMO.

Lisa N


#4

[quote=Lisa N]Unfortunately now you can’t force ANYONE to be tested, to divulge their partners or any other reasonable means of stopping the spread of a deadly disease. So that STDs are running wild and AIDS is increasing should come as no surprise.

Ridiculous IMO.

Lisa N
[/quote]

Exactly. Public health is now politics. We see the same thing with SSA. It used to be treated by doctors. Now, it is not considered a disease by many. Once again we see that science is not pure.


#5

[quote=fix]Exactly. Public health is now politics. We see the same thing with SSA. It used to be treated by doctors. Now, it is not considered a disease by many. Once again we see that science is not pure.
[/quote]

What is pure?


#6

[quote=Zoot]What is pure?
[/quote]

Certainly not science. Statistics, in particular, can be forced in almost any direction to draw any conclusion one desires.


#7

Lisa N.–you reply seems glib at best–heartless and detached at worst. Aside from the mind-numbing statistics posted here earlier, do you realize that in the US this epidemic is the leading cause of death for African American and Hispanic women between the ages of 25-35?! Representing less than 1/4 of the US population, they make up 80% of female cases of HIV infection. This is no longer a skid row, red-light district disease. If you still want to point fingers, these are prime ages for reproduction–meaning there is huge potential for impacting thousands of innocent children.

60% of AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa are females. There, cultural issues present a dramatic challenge to preventing spread of the disease. For example, marriage, normally thought of as a “safe” realm for sexual expression from a disease-containment perspective in this country, is actually a risk factor for contracting HIV for young African women.

This is a profoundly complex social, cultural, moral and public health challenge. You seem willing to write off sectors of the population with a toss of your head and the word “ridiculous.” You clearly have never had to absorb the painful jolt of reality this condition can inject into a person’s life.


#8

[quote=Island Oak]Lisa N.–you reply seems glib at best–heartless and detached at worst. Aside from the mind-numbing statistics posted here earlier, do you realize that in the US this epidemic is the leading cause of death for African American and Hispanic women between the ages of 25-35?! Representing less than 1/4 of the US population, they make up 80% of female cases of HIV infection. This is no longer a skid row, red-light district disease. If you still want to point fingers, these are prime ages for reproduction–meaning there is huge potential for impacting thousands of innocent children.

60% of AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa are females. There, cultural issues present a dramatic challenge to preventing spread of the disease. For example, marriage, normally thought of as a “safe” realm for sexual expression from a disease-containment perspective in this country, is actually a risk factor for contracting HIV for young African women.

This is a profoundly complex social, cultural, moral and public health challenge. You seem willing to write off sectors of the population with a toss of your head and the word “ridiculous.” You clearly have never had to absorb the painful jolt of reality this condition can inject into a person’s life.
[/quote]

Interesting. Would you say the spread of this disease is primarily through healthcare avenues like transfusions and such or through immoral behavior?


#9

Yes, it is much different in Africa than it is in the US, where AIDS can is pretty much a problem in the community of gays & drug users.


#10

I don’t know. Maybe we could ask an AIDS orphan if he misses his mother less given that she engaged in immoral sexual relations before she contracted and died of AIDS.


#11

[quote=Island Oak]I don’t know. Maybe we could ask an AIDS orphan if he misses his mother less given that she engaged in immoral sexual relations before she contracted and died of AIDS.
[/quote]

How does that answer my question? You know the answer, yet you obfuscate. Here is the answer…follow the moral law. It is not some complex political issue. It is only complex to moral relativists who excuse perversion. To the rest of society that controls themselves it is a sickening trend that needs to be stopped through public education about vice, virtue, heaven and hell.

Some poor woman who contracts the disease from her husband is not to blame, that is not the issue.


#12

[quote=Island Oak]I don’t know. Maybe we could ask an AIDS orphan if he misses his mother less given that she engaged in immoral sexual relations before she contracted and died of AIDS.
[/quote]

chances are, if the orphan is in the US, it is his dad he needs to ask.

also, chances are, in the US, there is no orphan


#13

[quote=gilliam]chances are, if the orphan is in the US, it is his dad he needs to ask.

also, chances are, in the US, there is no orphan
[/quote]

How does the emotional state of an orphan enter the picture. The authentic question would be to ask the parent who is committing immoral acts why they love physical pleasure more than their child?


#14

[quote=Island Oak]Lisa N.–you reply seems glib at best–heartless and detached at worst.
60% of AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa are females. There, cultural issues present a dramatic challenge to preventing spread of the disease. For example, marriage, normally thought of as a “safe” realm for sexual expression from a disease-containment perspective in this country, is actually a risk factor for contracting HIV for young African women.

This is a profoundly complex social, cultural, moral and public health challenge. You seem willing to write off sectors of the population with a toss of your head and the word “ridiculous.” You clearly have never had to absorb the painful jolt of reality this condition can inject into a person’s life.
[/quote]

Apparently you didn’t get the point. I think it’s ridiculous that a communicable FATAL disease is not treated as a public health issue IN THIS COUNTRY. That was what I referred to specifically. The problem is that it’s been shoved underground and thus an infected person can spread the disease, possibly unknowingly for years. He/she cannot be compelled to come in for testing. He/she cannot be compelled to assist public health by identifying sexual partners or fellow IV drug users. A single carrier of a FATAL disease can wreak havoc. One of the initial AIDS carriers was thought to have infected over 1000 people on his own. There was nothing public health could do as “Patient Zero” would not cooperate in informing partners or encouraging them to be tested. I work for a group of doctors. We cannot ask nor can we obtain information regarding whether our patients have any sort of communicable blood borne diseases because of the politics surrounding AIDS. Our doctors have to hope that taking extraordinary precautions will prevent their being infected because we have no right to know our patients’ status.

Also ridiculous is the idea that people will self identify as engaging in “unsafe sex” and voluntarily come in for testing and treatment. In the meantime they want to test 100% of pregnant women on the off chance that some will have AIDS? THis is an area where “profiling” makes sense but we can’t have that can we?

As to the African situation, that was not at issue here. In Africa because apparently there is a great deal of promiscuity among men, the disease IS spreading among heterosexual married couples. It’s a fact. But that has very little to do with our own public health issues.

Finally your conclusion regarding my lack of understanding of the “jolt” of this disease is unfounded.

Lisa N


#15

I am not ignorant to the fact that some hard-nosed, morally based abstinence education has a place here. I also am in total agreement that the approach of advocating “safe-sex” as a back up position for those who refuse for whatever reason to follow a strict moral code is a fallacy and a fraud in many cases. However, what I bristle at is the tendency to dismiss those who suffer from this horrible affliction as immoral or corrupt, and suffering the fruits of their own sin. I’m just not a believer that episode(s) of sexual immorality necessitate a death sentence. I think posts written in the tone of Lisa N. evince exactly what I’m talking about. Frankly, the challenge presented by this plague is to change hearts as well as minds. Pointing a crooked finger of accusation and blame is no way to make inroads.


#16

Lisa N

Thank you for your reply and clarification. I aplogize if I mistook the target of your frustration. I agree there are gaps in logic regarding confidentiality and protecting the public health. I wish I had a better solution to offer but tend to agree with the usual justification that if you brand the positive results publicly, you actually discourage voluntary testing. As far as testing pregnant women–I was tested with each of my pregnancies despite no risk factors–I think given even the slight the chance of passing this on to an infant justifies the simple blood test.


#17

There, but for the grace of God…


#18

Romans 6:23:
‘For the wages of sin is death…’

If people were not acting in an immoral manner, this disease would have virtually no effect. Yes, innocent people are dying, but that is again, the direct result of the sinner inflicting his/her disease on the innocent. Or, in very rare cases, someone getting infected through blood contact or transfusion.

I know that its not very ‘Catholic’ of me, but I have a hard time giving sympathy and pity to those that bring evil upon themselves.

If only people would obey the natural law…


#19

I’m just not a believer that episode(s) of sexual immorality necessitate a death sentence. I think posts written in the tone of Lisa N. evince exactly what I’m talking about.

Sadly, that is the case. You may not appreciate Lisa N.'s “tone” but science would say it even more coldly. Having sex with multiple partners leaves a person good chance of causing death. Not only from HIV , but Hep. B and Hep C. By the way are you aware there are more people with Hep C than HIV in this country? It’s just as deadly and just as easily transmitted.Yes, in Africa it is mainly amoung the heterosexual population, it’s a tragedy.
Also, do you know the number one cause of cervical cancer in women is caused by the HPV virus? This virus is caused by sexual contact, CONDOMS DO NOT lessen the spread of HPV.
So, Lisa N. is stating a fact, sadly our behavior can cause death. It’s like saying eating at McDonalds, every day, will cause heart disease, eating a diet high in cholesteral will cause heart disease and death. Am I cold by stating this?
Why can the government state a diet high in fat will cause obesity which leads to heart disease and diabetis, but can’t say having casaul sex, even when using a condom, will cause STDS which will lead to death???


#20

[quote=Island Oak]Lisa N

Thank you for your reply and clarification. I aplogize if I mistook the target of your frustration. I agree there are gaps in logic regarding confidentiality and protecting the public health. I wish I had a better solution to offer but tend to agree with the usual justification that if you brand the positive results publicly, you actually discourage voluntary testing. As far as testing pregnant women–I was tested with each of my pregnancies despite no risk factors–I think given even the slight the chance of passing this on to an infant justifies the simple blood test.
[/quote]

True IF the results were made public well that would be a real problem. But there have been HUGE changes in confidentiality rules with respect to medical information. I do think that if someone is diagnosed with a communicable disease, particularly one that could be fatal, that the person should be “encouraged” to assist public health in tracking down partners who also could be approached in a confidential manner for testing and treatment.

To some extent I think it’s silly to test ALL pregnant women although as you said, the test is relatively innocuous and apparently not expensive. But IMO the money would be better spent focused on at risk populations, attempts to track down contacts of infected people and getting them in the door as soon as possible.

I think we still have a “Philadelphia” attitude and people are loathe to admit they have AIDS or Hep C. OTOH certainly there have been great advances in AIDS treatment and we are more aware of how it’s spread. So say a child who has AIDS (eg another Ryan White) would not represent a major risk to the public. OTOH an IV drug user would represent a major risk and would need to be treated accordingly. I just think rational thinking and reason needs to overcome the emotions surrounding AIDS and other STDs.

Getting back to the original thread, I suspect the reason for the increase in HIV/AIDS is that the more successful treatments have probably resulted in lax precautions in comparison to the days when AIDS was quick and invariably fatal.

Lisa N


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.