Retired professor Henry Bauer writes a blog called "HIV/AIDS Skepticism." He explains why on his homepage: "my current work has to do with the fact that HIV is not the cause of AIDS." His prior interests include "Genuine Facts About 'Nessie,' the Loch Ness 'Monster.'"
Bauer recently posted an entry entitled "STOP PRESS: 40% DECREASE in HIV in Washington DC." This was the posting cited recently on Open Salon by resistanceisfruitful, along with the disclaimer: "please remember that no one is denying that HIV or AIDS exists." Bauer actually is denying that HIV exists, as he explains in this post, "The Debilitating Distraction of 'HIV'":
"Every now and again, Martin chides me for writing about “HIV” (which doesn’t exist), “infection” (which doesn’t occur), and the like. My standard response has been that I don’t know how to write about HIV/AIDS doings without using the terminology that everyone’s familiar with. In my book, I tried to address the issue by saying that by HIV I would always mean, “Whatever it is that HIV tests detect”, but that repeating this every time, or always putting scare quotes around “HIV”, would get tiresome, for readers as well as the writer. "
But to return to the main point, is Bauer's claim about a 40% decline in DC's HIV prevalence accurate? He quotes the number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the District in 2006 at the beginning of his post, from an article in Newsday:
"The District’s report found a 22 percent increase in HIV and AIDS cases from the 12,428 reported at the end of 2006."
One paragraph later, he quotes a January 2008 article about the 2006 figures, which says the following: "One in 20 Washington, D.C., residents is HIV-positive." From this he concludes the rate was 5%, apparently without contemplating the fact that if the total was 12,428 and the rate was 5%, then roughly half of DC's population must have gone missing. He also does not consider it odd that a rate of 5% would have gone unmentioned by any other media, instead he just leaps to the erroneous conclusion that there has been a 40% decline in the prevalence of HIV in DC.
The reality, of course, is that the writer of the January 2008 article erred, and Bauer hasn't noticed or thought to check his sources. Helpfully, though, the article also includes a link to The District of Columbia HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Annual Report, which confirms that the 2006 figure was 12,428 - as Henry has already written - out of a population of 498,817. This is a rate of 2.49%.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ablonde
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
It's too bad people need to resort to smear campaigns against other scientists instead of rational debate of the data. What has science come to? It's starting to seem more like dirty politics each day.
Can you show me that calculation and explain it? Thanks!
I read that Germany's hiv numbers have "soared" by 20% for instance. That's true technically but the total number it "soared" to is still only about 1, 600 a year. In total. And this in country with very low condoms sales since 1980...2 per person per year "soaring" up to 2.3 per person per year by 1995... and lots of prostitutes. That makes me find the possibility that the media here is also using misleading stats and fearmongering to shift papers much more plausible.
I'll see if I can find out the number of tests given and if my pitiful math skills are up to the division.
the Washington Post reports. According to the initial results, released three months into the HIV testing drive, nearly 3% of the more than 7,000 district residents who have been tested are HIV-positive (Levine, Washington Post, 9/20)
on August 17, 20052005 The Washington Post reported a 5% prevalence. "1 in 20"
I find that a bit confusing obviously. I'm having trouble finding the prevalence data for 2008. Any suggestions?
http://www.dchealth.dc.gov/doh/lib/doh/pdf/dc_hiv-aids_2008_updatereport.pdf
Also, as you wrote: "People should check out Dr. Bauer's analysis, it takes all factors into consideration. "
You should visit http://snoutworld.blogspot.com/
and explain to Snout why his criticisms of Bauer's analyses are in error. I'd also note that Bauer did not take into consideration the possibility of a journalist making an error when he claimed that the DC HIV rate had declined 40%, nor did he bother to check the primary sources.
Where's the increase in prevalence? I'm so fed up with the media and their distortions and contradictory information. It's so aggravating.
One thing I found maybe a little naive in that blog, just skimming through... is this comment...Are there any ladies who have spent time in the vicinity of high-risk males in, say, the Castro district of San Francisco circa 1980-95 who can let us in on their secret as to how they managed to remain uninfected by these high-risk males? Even despite getting in their vicinity?
There are a lot of bisexual males and closeted males on the DL. I can imagine any number of scenarios which would put females at risk for std's living in the vicinity of high risk males.
I haven't actually read Dr. Bauer's book so it would be even more pointless for me debate over it than it is for me to debate the stats for even one city. I do find the contradictions and scare mongering in the media suspect as always though.
Anyway...this is off topic. Sorry. I just had some questions about the incidence vs prevalence and then the conflicting reports I found in the media.
Sorry , I don't mean to be a pain but am I missing something again? If I can't separate the hiv only cases from the hiv/aids cases then I can't see how hiv prevalence has changed.
This was reported on Nightline
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/11/1-in-20-dc-resi.html
This the link to the Washington Post article...I should have posted this before
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601429.html
And this is from a completely orthodox blog
http://aidsblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/dc-1-in-20-residents-may-be-hiv.html
Dr. Bauer is right. The RATE of hiv infection has Decreased by 40%
The media is so aggravating. You have to doublecheck every word out of their lying mouths
The report that found an estimated 5% was considered credible enough to be picked up by Nightline and the Washington Post. I think this is the media playing fearmonger/sell papers as they enjoy so much. It really does remind me of the German fearmongering. Good news doesn't sell as many papers, sad but true.
Do you know what page from the 2008 report I can find the hiv cases alone so I can check?
The 2008 DC HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Report gives the 2007 numbers: 15, 120 out of a population of 506,722, a prevalence of 2.98%.
Although Henry Bauer would tell you otherwise, people with AIDS also have HIV infection (if that was the issue you were struggling with when you asking about "HIV alone").
That would be a relief.
There are also an unknown number, perhaps 10,000, who have HIV but have yet to be diagnosed. (Some of those might actually fit the CDC criteria for AIDS (low CD4 count) but have yet to show up with an AIDS-defining illness. Unfortunately, about 25% of HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the US are first made when people who didn’t know they had HIV rock up to hospital with PCP or cerebral toxo or one of the other AIDS-defining illnesses.)
To simplify things a bit, the 3% figure refers to the cumulative number to 2007 of actual diagnoses of HIV infection (including people who have also been diagnosed with AIDS but not including those who have died). The 5% figure is a 2005-ish guesstimate of the number who actually have HIV infection – all those diagnosed so far, plus all those who have HIV but have not been diagnosed yet. Note that the AIDS Combat Zone page you linked to was dated August 2005.
Beware of the word “rate” particularly when reading Bauer’s “analysis”. He continually confuses several quite distinct parameters, and then exploits that confusion to make his argument. I don’t think it’s deliberate: I think he simply doesn’t understand what he’s doing, and doesn’t listen to people who do. Duesberg does the same, if you look at his epidemiology closely.
Does he mean the actual prevalence of HIV (or HIV antibodies) in a community? Or the prevalence of diagnosed HIV? Or is he talking about the incidence of new actual HIV infections? Or the incidence of new HIV diagnoses? These are four completely different “rates”, and you need to be clear which you are talking about.
In DC there is a relatively large backlog of undiagnosed HIV, which means firstly that the cumulative prevalent diagnoses are only a fraction (perhaps 60%) of the actual numbers of people walking round with HIV. Secondly, it also means that the case rates (incident diagnoses) are probably higher than the rate of new actual infections.
To make matters worse, though, Bauer takes the proportion of positive versus negative tests in individual studies, combines these together in a big pot, gives it a stir and then calls it “F(HIV)”.Then he uses the term to refer variously to each of those four “rates”. It’s nonsense. The proportion of positive versus negative tests in a given set of tests gives you a “rate” that depends on how you select the population being tested. For example, one of the obvious selection factors is that as you identify more and more old infections, the proportionate yield of positive results gets less and less with each subsequent round of screening. Bauer takes this to mean that prevalence is falling, which is rubbish.
No. I'm not his spokesperson so you should go to the source and read carefully and with an open mind if you really want to know his views. But I'm quite certain that he does not think HIV is the cause of AIDS, or that HIV is sexually transmitted. That's the main subject of his book where he gives his reasons for his views.
As to whether or not HIV is some real "thing" that exists, you already quoted him (your link is broken) as saying HIV is "Whatever it is that HIV tests detect". So he thinks HIV is something. In the sentence where he says ""Every now and again, Martin chides me for writing about “HIV” (which doesn’t exist), “infection” (which doesn’t occur),...", I think the parts in parentheses are Martin's views (whoever that is), but I agree that is not particularly clear.
Anyway, my purpose is not to defend or promote Bauer's ideas about HIV and AIDS. He has his book and his web site for that.
I do like the guy, and I think he deserves to have his ideas accurately represented by his critics (even if it turns out that he is wrong). Unfortunately that rarely happens.
The 3% (actually 2.98%) prevalence rate is the percentage of the whole population currently living with an HIV diagnosis in 2007, not the percentage of tests done in 2007 that resulted in an HIV diagnosis. As I pointed out above, prevalent diagnoses is less than actual prevalent infections, which some estimates put at 5%.
The rise in those living with HIV/AIDS from 12,428 in 2006 to 15,120 in 2007 doesn't mean that there were 2692 new actual infections that year. It includes infections that year diagnosed that year, plus infections from previous years first diagnosed that year.
In fact there were more than 2692 new diagnoses recorded, because the total prevalence figures do not include deaths. So the case rate (incident diagnoses in the year) will be 2692 plus however many deaths there were between 2006 and 2007.
http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/the-debilitating-distraction-of-“hiv”/
Open Salon does not like quotation marks in URLs, so it removes them.
If you think Snout is not representing Henry Bauer's views accurately on his blog, I'd urge you to visit and point out where the inaccuracies are. It'd be even better if Henry himself had the wherewithal to defend his writings. None of his fans ever seem to wonder why he doesn't.
Bauer has so many critics that he could spend all his time defending himself against and still only deal with a small fraction of them. It should be no surprise that he doesn't show up in person on some anonymous blogger's site.
Maybe you and/or snout could try engaging Bauer on his own blog. You might get him to change his mind on some things (but it could work the other way around).
You were also wrong when you said Henry was being sarcastic, as is evidenced by this recent comment he wrote on his blog:
"The official estimates were given as 5% at the end of 2007 and 3% now. "
Apparently Henry cannot distinguish between the official DC Epidemiology Report (which isn't an estimate) and the estimate that the DC Appleseed Center produced several years ago.
NOT....It IS 3%...they didn't test everyone so they have no idea what percentage of the whole population is. It's just the media playing their little games again
All you're doing now is encouraging people to go and see what happened for themselves which I think is a good thing actually.
This is just a taste
HERE is EXACTLY where the so-called recently noted “JUMP” in HIV positives in DC came from: In mid-2006, DC officials launched a massive campaign to test everyone in DC with the Oraquick Rapid Test.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062301685.html
The very same Oraquick Rapid Test that was BANNED IN 2005 from being used in San Francisco City clinics because of a VERIFIED 25% false-positive rate.
I don't know what CDC figures you're referring to, the DC data comes from the DC DOH. It's not an estimate - 15, 120 people out of a population of 506,722, have tested HIV positive, a prevalence of 2.98%. There almost certainly are undiagnosed HIV infections among people that have not tested (note the number of people diagnosed only when they develop their first opportunistic infection), hence the use of the term "at least."
I agree that if people go and read the DC epidemiology reports, they'll learn a lot more than they'll get from the media reports.
Second..the population of DC according to Wiki is 591, 833...you posted two different numbers for the population of DC and both were low
Third...They WERE using a type of test that has been banned in both San Francisco and New York City. You should read the article.
No wonder so many people are living so much longer "with aids". No kidding, 62% of them don't even have disease anyway.
I haven't noticed that, but I only visit Bauer's blog intermittently and very rarely post anything. I didn't realize the Snout was already known there.
"You were also wrong when you said Henry was being sarcastic, as is evidenced by this recent comment he wrote on his blog:
"The official estimates were given as 5% at the end of 2007 and 3% now. "
I really think you are focusing on individual sentences, ignoring their context, and missing the big picture. I thought it was obvious that "STOP PRESS: 40% DECREASE in HIV in Washington DC." is a poke at the media's habit of sensationalist reporting of bogus numbers, and that Bauer isn't actually claiming a 40% decrease in HIV prevalence in DC because (for one thing) he doesn't think either the 3% or 5% numbers are reliable.
I could be wrong (but I'm not).
Second..the population of DC according to Wiki is 591, 833...you posted two different numbers for the population of DC and both were low"
I can see why you're a fan of Henry Bauer.
First, the population figures are from the DC HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Reports 2007 and 2008, which contain both HIV infection and population numbers for 2006 and 2007, respectively. Links to both reports are in this thread, one in the original post and one in a comment, above. I'll leave you to try and figure out why the current number in Wikipedia might be different from the number in 2007, and why the number in 2007 was different from the number in 2006.
Second, in 2007, 15, 120 people living in DC had tested positive, out of a population of 506,722. That's 2.98% of the total population, not 2.98% of the number of people tested. You're right that the entire population hasn't been tested, but testing more people could not possibly reduce the 15,120 number, it could only potentially increase it by capturing undiagnosed infections. Therefore, at least 15,120 DC residents are HIV infected.
Many plaudits to both of you for trying so hard.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html
It doesn't matter how many people live in DC. It matters what percentage of those people were tested.
It was NOT 100% of the population so you can't say it was 3% of the whole population. It was at best 3% of whatever % was tested.
There were 506,722 adults and adolescents living in DC in 2007, 15,120 of whom (2.98%) had been diagnosed with HIV infection up till 2007. There were 498,817 adults and adolescents living in DC in 2006, of whom 12,428 (2.49%) had been diagnosed with HIV up till 2006.
The percentages are numbers of adults and adolescents actually diagnosed, as a proportion of ALL adults and adolescents resident in DC in the relevant year, not a proportion of only those who have been tested.
Three per cent of all adult/adolescent residents have been diagnosed with HIV up till 2007. The true prevalence of HIV will be higher than that, though, because the numbers that make up the three per cent don’t include those who have HIV but have yet to be diagnosed.
Note: the wikipedia population figure of 591,833 is the July 1st 2008 US Census Bureau estimate for adults, adolescents AND CHILDREN 12 and under.
I can see I'm not going win this one. I'm certain you are missing the point Bauer was making, and that you are seeing what you want to see not what's really there. From your perspective I imagine it looks like I'm doing the same thing. So let's drop it.
Maybe I shouldn't have chided you for not getting the sarcasm in Bauer's mock headline declaring a 40% decrease in HIV. I completely missed the humor in one of his later blog entries until someone else pointed it out, so I feel like a bit of a hypocrite. But I got a humbling little lesson in how one's mind set can affect his ability to understand someone else's intended meaning, and that's a good thing.