Consensus Meeting on HIV/AIDS Incidence and Prevalence in California (pdf file)
Prepared by: Matthew Facer, M.S. Assunta Ritieni, M.P.H. Jennifer Marino, R.N. Paola Grasso, B.S. Social Light Consulting Group Office of AIDS HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Branch http://www.dhs.ca.gov/AIDS Juan Ruiz, M.D., Dr.P.H. Acting Chief HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Branch Kevin Reilly, D.V.M., M.P.V.M. Michael Montgomery, Chief Deputy Director Office of AIDS Prevention Services December 2001

This is an extraordinary document. The authorities in California actually vote on how many people are HIV positive instead of relying on actual measurement. The report says that, "HIV prevalence and incidence estimates are necessary to identify populations at greatest risk of HIV infection, develop prevention strategies, and prepare budgets for future services to HIV-infected individuals. This is particularly true for California, where HIV infection is currently not a reportable condition and only AIDS cases are systematically recorded." The dramatic decline in actual AIDS cases in December 2000 explains the tremendous urgency on the part of AIDS Inc. in December 2001 to show that the number of HIV positive people in California is substantial - even if it takes voting to do it and the HIV divinations have no bearing on AIDS. After 17 years of HIV antibody testing in California (the eighth leading economic power in the world if it were a country), how is it that they must decide by vote how many people in the state have antibodies to HIV? Here's the justification used: "During the first decade of the AIDS epidemic, HIV was monitored by the mandatory reporting of AIDS cases. However, AIDS surveillance can no longer effectively assess HIV incidence because the time between HIV infection and AIDS diagnosis has increased due to advances in HIV drug therapies [code for disappearing AIDS]. An alternative would be to bring together the results of HIV research projects conducted over the years among at-risk groups in California and use these to help estimate HIV incidence and prevalence. This was the focus of the May and June 2000 consensus meetings." Here's the method used to conjure up estimates: "Results from studies among MSM previously conducted in several areas of California are shown in Table 2.1. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 reflect Delphi estimates of the consensus group. The group voted on the estimates, and these tallies are shown in the Figure 2.1. Mathematical modeling was then used to help estimate MSM-IDU population size and HIV prevalence and incidence among MSM. These results are presented in Tables 2.4 -2.7."

TORONTO

tel/fax:(416) 778-4207

INDEX

Search our web site (400+ pages)

Site search Web search   search tips