Worst disease of all time [Archive] - Student Doctor Network Forums

Thundrstorm

04-21-2006, 08:24 AM

I guess it depends on your definition of worst.

I would think HIV/AIDS for sheer loss of life and potential loss of life in the future, plus the tie-ins with with economic issues, leaving a generation of orphans, and relationship to increased occurrence of other diseases (e.g. multi-drug-resistant TB). Despite the vast amt. of research going into HIV treatments, at the heart of the problem is that HIV (like many infectious diseases) disproportionately affects the world's poor, and good science is not sufficient to tx it; there has to be a combination of education, prevention, and cooperation b/t nations, drug companies, scientists, and NGOs to get affordable, practical treatments to the places that are most affected. Sure, people who can get optimal tx might live for decades, but the multiple drug cocktail, take with food, must refrigerate kinds of drugs are not gonna solve the problem in Sub-Saharan Africa. For this reason, and because HIV is complicated by other issues of poverty, corruption, and war/unrest, I believe that HIV/AIDS will continue to be THE major public health problem on a global scale.

Which is the worst to have? My vote goes for Ebola. Up to a 90% mortality rate, and you die bleeding from every orifice, with your organs liquifying, spewing up black vomit, along with other nasty side-effects like sloughing of your gut. But as LizzyM pointed out, it is really "too good" at its job, and is not an efficient pathogen because it kills too quickly to spread to epidemic proportions.

captaintripps

04-21-2006, 08:32 AM

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Main_Page

riceman04

04-21-2006, 08:57 AM

I think it is important to consider diseases that continue to thrive despite major advances in modern medicine. Diseases like the Spanis Flu and Bubonic Plague (which becomes contagious only after it turns into the pneumonic plague) are easily controlled, and thus relatively non existent.

But diseases like Ebola and especially HIV/AIDS are crazy and almost ensure death.

browniegirl86

04-21-2006, 08:58 AM

Yeah that's what we think...is any else a little paranoid about this bird flu thing? I am

YES. Only because 2 years before it was in the news, every single one of my micro/pub health teachers talked about how "it's only a matter of time before the Spanish Flu happens again" and "there are already new strains in birds, as soon as they can spread to and between people we will see a pandemic the likes of which the world has never seen."

It's going to be so much worse this time because of the "global community" and whatnot.

:scared:

don juan

04-21-2006, 09:21 AM

It has to be Aids. Out of the all the diseases listed Aids is the only one where those infected with the virus can't be readily detected and isolated from society. Infected people can live for years and pass on the virus to others before they even know they have it. Aids is much quieter and grows more slowly than the other diseases but nevertheless it's histories most potent epidemic.

Depakote

04-21-2006, 09:31 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

don juan

04-21-2006, 09:34 AM

If someone were to engineer the perfect disease - HIV would be it's precursor. It's stealthy, often taking years before diagnosis, allowing multiple transmissions. It makes the infected vulnerable to EVERY other pathogen. Oh yeah, we can't figure out how to stop it either.

The only thing it doesn't have: Airborn transmission.

The fact that it doesn't have airborn transmission is actually a good thing from the perspective of the virus. No airborn transmission means it's unable to be contained and eradicated. Airborn diseases will kill a large number of people initially but over time they become contained and eventually go away. Aids works more slowly but over time will kill many more people than the major airborn illnesses. Kind of like financing a car: paying $300 per month seems like so much less than paying $30000 up front, but over time they end up soaking you for way more than thirty thou.

punkindrublic

04-21-2006, 09:44 AM

TB.

It's killed untold billions through the course of history (inc. over 2 million annually today) and 2 billion are carriers. Perhaps the worst part is that here in Boston, a full course of meds to treat LTBI (the precursor to disease) is a whopping $27. It's not as sexy as HIV or Ebola, but over the course of history it's impact has eclipsed anything mankind has ever encountered.

Shredder

04-21-2006, 09:44 AM

Bubonic Plague wiped out 1/3rd of Europe. i think it was 250 million people killed at the time! (someone correct me here)

The disease continues to haunt innocent souls...haww yeah im with you, i cant believe all these ppl voting for AIDS. plague was just terrifying, AIDS at least can be avoided to a large extent. ppl tend to be biased towards their own eras--AIDS for us. dunno about continuing to haunt ha, but it certainly had its day

Hoberto

04-21-2006, 09:50 AM

If you want to read more about these diseases and how public health is vital in containing them, encouraging the search for vaccines (and rarely, cures) and so much more, I recommend this book, Betrayal of Trust: the Collapse of Global Public Health by Laurie Garrett. It is a big eye opener and has led me to seriously consider working in Public Healthi n the future.

colt

04-21-2006, 11:40 AM

In the grand scheme of things, HIV/AIDS isn't a problem for the heterosexual population in the USA. If you look at the transmission rates from male to female or female to male, it is very difficult to pass on and would probably wipe itself out if not for the gay community(male to male).---not trying to blame any specific community though.

maver1ck84

04-21-2006, 11:46 AM

ebola hands down..it's not even a contest.

Law2Doc

04-21-2006, 11:46 AM

Is cancer not a choice? Heart disease? These are the big killers these days, not freak pockets of ebola.

Thundrstorm

04-21-2006, 12:42 PM

Is cancer not a choice? Heart disease? These are the big killers these days, not freak pockets of ebola.
I think what the OP really meant was worst infectious disease. You're right of course that heart disease is a big killer, but infectious diseases account for something like 5 of the top 10 causes of death worldwide (respiratory infections, AIDS, TB, Malaria, diarrheal diseases).

Law2Doc

04-21-2006, 12:47 PM

I think what the OP really meant was worst infectious disease. You're right of course that heart disease is a big killer, but infectious diseases account for something like 5 of the top 10 causes of death worldwide (respiratory infections, AIDS, TB, Malaria, diarrheal diseases).

I don't know -- by saying "worst disease of all time" the OP seems to be including the pervasively long term stuff too. All these infectious disease epidemics come and go, wreaking havoc for "relatively short" periods of time. Our grandparents didn't have AIDS, ebola, etc. Only the chronic stuff affects generation after generation.

NapeSpikes

04-21-2006, 01:08 PM

Havarti, you just ruined my breakfast.
You don't like spaghetti? :D

don juan

04-21-2006, 02:03 PM

NCF145

04-21-2006, 02:12 PM

jebus

04-21-2006, 02:14 PM

...llars
There are reports of people in New York who got on the subway completely normal and literally dropped dead in the subway before they even got to their stop.
I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.

Thundrstorm

04-21-2006, 02:17 PM

I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.
:laugh: You just made me snort.

Nice avater btw.

angietron3000

04-21-2006, 02:26 PM

this reminds me of this book i read called "Killer Germs"
pretty gory stuff, excellent book tho :)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071409262/qid=1145650973/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0052825-2431962

colt

04-21-2006, 03:10 PM

In countries where they lack education and resources to obtain sexual protection it's incredibly problematic.Some of those countries don't want to use protection and they are involved in high-risk sexual activies.

riceman04

04-21-2006, 03:21 PM

haww yeah im with you, i cant believe all these ppl voting for AIDS. plague was just terrifying, AIDS at least can be avoided to a large extent. ppl tend to be biased towards their own eras--AIDS for us. dunno about continuing to haunt ha, but it certainly had its day

Ok so what do you think AIDS would have done to those europeans had it erupted before people in society became socially & physically conscious about with what they had contact.

If bubonic plague/black death/etc...was so bad then it would still thrive today like AIDS despite the research attention that it is being given

SpeedRacer

04-21-2006, 03:25 PM

i can't believe more people didn't vote for AIDS! i guess it's because the full extent of how fukced we are isn't apparent yet...

LizzyM

04-21-2006, 04:14 PM

Ok so what do you think AIDS would have done to those europeans had it erupted before people in society became socially & physically conscious about with what they had contact.

If bubonic plague/black death/etc...was so bad then it would still thrive today like AIDS despite the research attention that it is being given

There were deadly sexually transmitted diseases in Europe in the Middle Ages (such as syphilis) but they did not wipe out the population because it isn't easy to spread unless you are having sex with an infected partner and then another partner. The mores and lack of tranportation from one place to another would have reduced the odds that if a disease like HIV-AIDS had been introduced into Europe in the Middle Ages that it would have taken off like wildfire.

On the other hand, a disease like bubonic/pneumonic plague spread by an organism carried by rodent infested fleas can spread quickly by land and sea. Once it becomes pneumonic plague and can be spread by infected humans. No disease in the 20th century wiped out 1/3 of the population of a continent. The Black Death did.

reylting

04-21-2006, 04:15 PM

I voted for AIDS. I believe that part of the problem is that we cannot regulate/legislate equality amongst the sexes of the world and thus we cannot control the spread of AIDS.

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 04:18 PM

I voted for AIDS. I believe that part of the problem is that we cannot regulate/legislate equality amongst the sexes of the world and thus we cannot control the spread of AIDS.

I don't see the connection.

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 04:20 PM

i can't believe more people didn't vote for AIDS! i guess it's because the full extent of how fukced we are isn't apparent yet...

AIDS isn't a good gauge of the extent of copulation in our species, because there are multiple transmission vectors for HIV, many of which aren't sexual. :D

NapeSpikes

04-21-2006, 04:23 PM

I voted for AIDS. I believe that part of the problem is that we cannot regulate/legislate equality amongst the sexes of the world and thus we cannot control the spread of AIDS.
Come again? :confused:

IAMS

04-21-2006, 04:28 PM

I'm surprised more people didn't vote for Leprosy. This is a horrible thing that is still rampant in many impoverished areas of India, Asia and Africa. Although it is virtually painless, because the nerves degenerate, the worst part is the isolation. Anyone who is found to be a leper is completely cut off from society. They go completely ignored and abandoned, very few people will even treat them because it is contagious... the stigma is 100X worse than AIDS.

dbhvt

04-21-2006, 04:30 PM

There were deadly sexually transmitted diseases in Europe in the Middle Ages (such as syphilis) but they did not wipe out the population because it isn't easy to spread unless you are having sex with an infected partner and then another partner. The mores and lack of tranportation from one place to another would have reduced the odds that if a disease like HIV-AIDS had been introduced into Europe in the Middle Ages that it would have taken off like wildfire.

On the other hand, a disease like bubonic/pneumonic plague spread by an organism carried by rodent infested fleas can spread quickly by land and sea. Once it becomes pneumonic plague and can be spread by infected humans. No disease in the 20th century wiped out 1/3 of the population of a continent. The Black Death did.

Ever see the film short on world population? They show a light for every x number of people and start it some terrifically long time ago. The lights build slowly and slowly, and then start expanding geographically, and building some more. Then, all of a sudden, poof, they start disappearing--the plague. No other disease has made lights disappear. Period. Untill HIV starts making lights disappear, it's just no question. (freaky, too-- noone knew what the hell was going on).

Oh, and then the lights take over and the screen explodes, but that's another issue.

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 04:32 PM

reylting

04-21-2006, 04:32 PM

I'll try again...

reylting

04-21-2006, 04:33 PM

Come again? :confused:

I meant...where the societal norms dictate that women are second class citizens, the spread of AIDS is difficult to control. Meaning that women are at the mercy of whatever the men do with thier sexual health because they cannot speak up without fear of reprisal.

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 04:39 PM

I meant...where the societal norms dictate that women are second class citizens, the spread of AIDS is difficult to control. Meaning that women are at the mercy of whatever the men do with thier sexual health because they cannot speak up without fear of reprisal.

In societies where women are oppressed, they are generally not promiscuous (due to the constraints of social interaction). I would think that if women in these countries were as free and liberal as the men, the HIV situation would be even worse. I think the more important factors in the prevalence of HIV in these countries are socioeconomic and educational in nature.

NapeSpikes

04-21-2006, 04:44 PM

...Meaning that women are at the mercy of whatever the men do with thier sexual health because they cannot speak up without fear of reprisal.

Ahh, gotcha, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think fear of reprisal is enough to force a woman to be promiscuous. It's her choice.

Or am I missing the boat again? What's the "being at the mercy" you speak of?

reylting

04-21-2006, 04:44 PM

In societies where women are oppressed, they are generally not promiscuous (due to the constraints of social interaction). I would think that if women in these countries were as free and liberal as the men, the HIV situation would be even worse.

I agree with this statement.

I think the more important factors in the prevalence of HIV in these countries are socioeconomic and educational in nature.

I think that societal norms play a very important role in the spread of AIDS and I would argue that they are as equally important as socioeconomic status and education.

riceman04

04-21-2006, 04:46 PM

There were deadly sexually transmitted diseases in Europe in the Middle Ages (such as syphilis) but they did not wipe out the population because it isn't easy to spread unless you are having sex with an infected partner and then another partner. The mores and lack of tranportation from one place to another would have reduced the odds that if a disease like HIV-AIDS had been introduced into Europe in the Middle Ages that it would have taken off like wildfire.

On the other hand, a disease like bubonic/pneumonic plague spread by an organism carried by rodent infested fleas can spread quickly by land and sea. Once it becomes pneumonic plague and can be spread by infected humans. No disease in the 20th century wiped out 1/3 of the population of a continent. The Black Death did.

but you are still only considering one of many factors in your decision of what disease you think has been the worst.
Even if AIDS does not spread like wildfire, the fact that no cure has been found makes it a dangerous disease.
And I do not think that AIDS would die out due to lack of transportation. All it takes is one infected person to have some kind of open flesh contact with another and a new person has the disease.
For its time, the bubonic plague was massive. But considering how its severity is now comparable to a very bad cold (before it transforms) suggests that it, as a disease is not that menacing after all.

I thought advancements in technology and science are supposed to close all holes...well it has closed the bubonic plague hole. Unfortunately the AIDS hole is exponentially increasing in size.

reylting

04-21-2006, 04:47 PM

Ahh, gotcha, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think fear of reprisal is enough to force a woman to be promiscuous. It's her choice.

I didn' t mean fear of reprisal is stiopping a woman from being promiscuous, rather it prevents her from objecting to any such behaviour on the part of her mate.

NapeSpikes

04-21-2006, 04:50 PM

I didn' t mean fear of reprisal is stiopping a woman from being promiscuous, rather it prevents her from objecting to any such behaviour on the part of her mate.
And so women, you are saying, allow promiscuity of their mate because of social norms?

Sure, it's socially acceptable for a man to whore around, but that doesn't mean a woman has to DO that man-whore.

The spread of HIV then has more to do with these careless sex acts, not the inequality of the sexes. Each man and woman has the choice to avoid infection through this route (barring rape, etc.).

dbhvt

04-21-2006, 04:53 PM

but you are still only considering one of many factors in your decision of what disease you think has been the worst.
Even if AIDS does not spread like wildfire, the fact that no cure has been found makes it a dangerous disease.
And I do not think that AIDS would die out due to lack of transportation. All it takes is one infected person to have some kind of open flesh contact with another and a new person has the disease.
For its time, the bubonic plague was massive. But considering how its severity is now comparable to a very bad cold (before it transforms) suggests that it, as a disease is not that menacing after all.

I thought advancements in technology and science are supposed to close all holes...well it has closed the bubonic plague hole. Unfortunately the AIDS hole is exponentially increasing in size.

There is a fairly well accepted theory that AIDS is a disease of globalization. Something about trucking routes, don't really remember anymore. I'm not saying you should believe it because of this, just know that a lot of people believe the spread of AIDS was transportation dependent.

Also, if we're looking at the worst disease of all time, I don't think it matters that during this particular time, the plague is no longer a threat.

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 04:54 PM

I think that societal norms play a very important role in the spread of AIDS and I would argue that they are as equally important as socioeconomic status and education.

If that is the case, then why do countries in which women are oppressed have more of a problem than countries were women are on equal status with men? If countries with oppressed women that have a dampening mechanism (as discussed above) toward the spread of HIV have a worse HIV problem than those without female oppression, doesn't that indicate that societal norms are not a major contributing factor?

reylting

04-21-2006, 04:54 PM

And so women, you are saying, allow promiscuity of their mate because of social norms?

Yes...when women are second class citizens they have no say in matters affecting their sexual health.

Sure, it's socially acceptable for a man to whore around, but that doesn't mean a woman has to DO that man-whore.

A woman can only reject the premise if their are laws in place that allow her to do so.

sakura181

04-21-2006, 04:55 PM

Another rare disease thats truly awful is the Naeglera Fowleri or Acanthamoeba. You get these bugs by swimming in fresh water lakes, say Lake Michigan. The bugs penetrate your cribriform plate into your brain and you are dead within a few days. Not a damn thing anybody can do about it either.

This isn't really a disease, but I think it would be horrible to have that ridiculous urine-drinking fish from the Amazon. It's a tiny little fish that darts up your urethra, grow spiky projections to anchor itself to the urethral walls, and then lives in your urethra while feeding off your urine. Yikes.

Moral of the story: Don't piss in the Amazon River. Your peep will be on the fritz.

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 04:58 PM

This isn't really a disease, but I think it would be horrible to have that ridiculous urine-drinking fish from the Amazon. It's a tiny little fish that darts up your urethra, grow spiky projections to anchor itself to the urethral walls, and then lives in your urethra while feeding off your urine. Yikes.

Moral of the story: Don't piss in the Amazon River. Your peep will be on the fritz.

Or put one of those bubbling stones in aquariums at the end of your doohickey.

reylting

04-21-2006, 04:58 PM

If that is the case, then why do countries in which women are oppressed have more of a problem than countries were women are on equal status with men?

I believe that this agrees with my point.

If countries with oppressed women that have a dampening mechanism (as discussed above) toward the spread of HIV have a worse HIV problem than those without female oppression, doesn't that indicate that societal norms are not a major contributing factor?

What countries are these?

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 04:59 PM

What countries are these?

Compare Nigeria with the United States. Or Kenya, or India.

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 05:06 PM

Socioeconomics and education are the major factors:

from http://www.handsonnetwork.org/vca/hiv-aids-faqs/#hiv10

What factors contribute to the differences in the spread of HIV/AIDS in developing countries compared with more developed countries?

There are many factors that contribute to the differences in the prevalence and spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide, including the stark contrast between developing and developed countries. Many organizations and governments have proposed reasons for these inequities, which vary by region, society, culture, and over time. Some of the ideas include a lack of proper testing for HIV/AIDS in Africa, as well as a reluctance to be tested. This is especially true in many countries where there is an enormous stigma related to being HIV-positive, making many reluctant to be tested because of the fear and shame associated with the disease.

Also, more people in developing countries may be uneducated about how HIV/AIDS is spread and how to protect against transmission. In some societies, contraception -- including condoms -- is taboo and therefore cannot help protect against HIV. Misconceptions persist in some cultures about how HIV is transmitted, including the 'virgin myth' – a belief that an HIV-positive man can be cured if he has sex with a virgin.

Another difference between developed and developing countries is access to antiretroviral drugs, especially for pregnant women to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV to their child during pregnancy, delivery, or through breastfeeding. In many developing countries, there is a severe shortage of properly trained health care workers to administer and dispense antiretroviral drugs and to educate about HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. Also, cultural factors -- such as arranged marriage, violence against women, a lack of educational or economic opportunities for women -- can increase the spread of HIV because women cannot voluntarily abstain from sex or negotiate the use of condoms.

War and conflict also contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS through widespread rape (used as a weapon of war in some areas), the displacement of people who have little or no access to health care or condoms, and the increase of commercial sex workers who follow soldiers. Countries embattled in civil wars or conflicts with neighboring nations often experience an increase in HIV prevalence.

reylting

04-21-2006, 05:06 PM

Compare Nigeria with the United States. Or Kenya, or India.

In Nigeria...
"the rights of women and girls
continue to be violated with impunity, further deepening their
vulnerability to infection and stigma;"

http://www.nigeria-aids.org/eforum/MsgRead.cfm?ID=5743

Where there are issues of women rights it will be harder to control the spread of AIDS.

reylting

04-21-2006, 05:11 PM

reylting

04-21-2006, 05:11 PM

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 05:15 PM

I am NOT saying that Socioeconomics and education are NOT major factors, just that societal norms are also important. I am a third world country, I am speaking from experience when I say that societal norms contribute greatly to the spread of AIDS.

I recognize that. However, there is no mention of societal factors in the spread of HIV in those countries.

Also, the citation to which you referred also says nothing about societal factors. The closest I could find is

6. Women's Rights and Gender Equality
* Through policy, institutional and legal frameworks, develop a policy,
legislative and administrative environment in which the rights of African
women and girls, especially those living with HIV are actively promoted,
fully enjoyed and protected within and through the ratification and
domestication of international instruments such as CEDAW, the Protocol to
the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the rights of Women in
Africa; Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa (2004);

7. Human Rights
* Create enabling environments through policy, institutional and legal
frameworks at national level that promote and protect the human rights of
those living with and affected by HIV and AIDS, and that further reduces
their vulnerability to stigma and discrimination through the enactment of
Human Rights legislation;
* Ensure that the rights of orphans and vulnerable children are promoted
and protected through the massive scaling up of efforts aimed at providing
children with the protections outlined in the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, to which all African states are signatories;

which doesn't mention oppression or societal norms or anything of the like. Absence of proof is not proof of absence (sorry, I stole that phrase from someone else on SDN), but it is curious that I can't find anything authoritative regarding a connection between societal norms and the HIV epidemic.

NapeSpikes

04-21-2006, 05:15 PM

I am [from] a third world country, I am speaking from experience when I say that societal norms contribute greatly to the spread of AIDS.

Ohhhhhh, okay. Disregard my previous posts. If these man whores are forcing the women to have sex with them, then yes, I agree that social norms can spread HIV.

angietron3000

04-21-2006, 05:16 PM

Ahh, gotcha, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think fear of reprisal is enough to force a woman to be promiscuous. It's her choice.

Or am I missing the boat again? What's the "being at the mercy" you speak of?
It's not that the women are promiscuous, but there's nothing stopping their husbands from frequenting prostitues, and bringing HIV home to their wives, who are afraid to ask their mate to wear a condom.. for fear of reprisal..

http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=6733&t=19

reylting

04-21-2006, 05:19 PM

reylting

04-21-2006, 05:21 PM

I recognize that. However, there is no mention of societal factors in the spread of HIV in those countries.

Also, the citation to which you referred also says nothing about societal factors. The closest I could find is

6. Women's Rights and Gender Equality
* Through policy, institutional and legal frameworks, develop a policy,
legislative and administrative environment in which the rights of African
women and girls, especially those living with HIV are actively promoted,
fully enjoyed and protected within and through the ratification and
domestication of international instruments such as CEDAW, the Protocol to
the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the rights of Women in
Africa; Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa (2004);

7. Human Rights
* Create enabling environments through policy, institutional and legal
frameworks at national level that promote and protect the human rights of
those living with and affected by HIV and AIDS, and that further reduces
their vulnerability to stigma and discrimination through the enactment of
Human Rights legislation;
* Ensure that the rights of orphans and vulnerable children are promoted
and protected through the massive scaling up of efforts aimed at providing
children with the protections outlined in the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, to which all African states are signatories;

which doesn't mention oppression or societal norms or anything of the like. Absence of proof is not proof of absence (sorry, I stole that phrase from someone else on SDN), but it is curious that I can't find anything authoritative regarding a connection between societal norms and the HIV epidemic.

Societal norms can directly contribute to gender inequality.

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 05:24 PM

It's not the women that are promiscuous, but there's nothing stopping their husbands from frequenting prostitues, and bringing HIV home to their wives, who are afraid to ask their mate to wear a condom.. for fear of reprisal..

http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=6733&t=19

I'm getting off track here. What I don't understand is how the situation where women get HIV from their husbands who schtupp prostitutes contribute to prevalence of the epidemic, when they are themselves not promiscuous? If that situation doesn't lend itself to the faster spread of HIV as compared to in countries where women are equal and liberal (and so go out and schtupp other people themselves), how can their being oppressed be a factor in having a larger HIV crisis than the other countries?

Maybe I'm having difficulty in articulating my puzzlement. Am I getting my question across?

NapeSpikes

04-21-2006, 05:24 PM

OctoDoc

04-21-2006, 05:25 PM

Societal norms can directly contribute to gender inequality.

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I don't see how either one is connected to the HIV epidemic.

austinap

04-21-2006, 05:44 PM

I'd have to divide the 'worst diseases' into categories. Historically, I'd say the plague would have to be the most devastating. Quotes on the death toll have been anywhere from 30%-90% of the total population in europe. It got to the point where people wouldn't talk to their familes anymore for fear of being infected. It would also have to be one of the worst in how it was handled: one of the first measures was the required extermination of all household pets. This in turn caused the rat population to explode (the fleas on the rats were the cause), which made the epidemic just that much worse.

On a personal level, I'd say that ebola would be one of the worst things to die of, but there are quite a few diseases that I really hope I don't die of (dengue hemorrhagic fever, leprosy, etc...). However, ebola isn't much of a public health risk as it kills its host too quickly and doesn't allow for widespread transmission.

As far as future health problems, HIV would almost certainly come in at #1, mainly because of the inability to treat the disease, and the fact that that vaccination is not a feasible course of action against HIV. Since HIV specifically targets the immune system, immune response against the virus doesn't help much (in fact, the common test for HIV infection is the presence of antibodies). HIV also doesn't kill its host very quickly which helps ensure the survival of the virus. Hosts also don't show obvious symptoms much of the time, so more people become infected. Added to all of this, HIV mutates so rapidly that current treatments probably won't last that long and new methods will have to be continually developed to fight the virus.

I do have one point to argue: if HIV somehow became airborn, that would not be a good thing at all. It wouldn't act to 'eventually contain the infection.' This is true in faster-acting diseases, but as stated above people infected with HIV are asymptomatic much of the time, and they typically live for quite a while after infection (compared to, say, ebola patients). If the virus was airborne, people could become infected without knowing it, travel to some other part of the world before they know they're infected, and infect other people without direct contact. I almost guarantee that if the virus becomes airborn, 90+% of the global population will become infected within weeks or months. One of the only things we have on our side right now is that the disease is relatively hard to spread. It doesn't have a very long halflife outside of the body (~7 minutes I believe) and otherwise has a fairly low transmission rate even during 'risky' behavior. If this changes, we'll really have a problem.

LizzyM

04-21-2006, 07:55 PM

I do have one point to argue: if HIV somehow became airborn, that would not be a good thing at all. It wouldn't act to 'eventually contain the infection.' This is true in faster-acting diseases, but as stated above people infected with HIV are asymptomatic much of the time, and they typically live for quite a while after infection (compared to, say, ebola patients). If the virus was airborne, people could become infected without knowing it, travel to some other part of the world before they know they're infected, and infect other people without direct contact. I almost guarantee that if the virus becomes airborn, 90+% of the global population will become infected within weeks or months.

Currently there is a disease that is spread by contact with droplets (airborne), and the bacterium can live outside of the body for 10 years! The infected individual can live for years before dying of the infection. It became curable in the 20th century. What is the disease? (and it hasn't infected 90% of the global population - even before a cure was discovered).

Zoom-Zoom

04-21-2006, 08:14 PM

I think spanish flu is definitely one of the worst in our history. According to epidemiologists today, they think the spanish flu killed around 80-100 million people worldwide. There are reports of people in New York who got on the subway completely normal and literally dropped dead in the subway before they even got to their stop. The flu would cause such severe cyanosis that you couldn't tell if a person was black or white anymore. It would also impair a victim so badly that they would lay in bed next to their child/spouse/parent who had already died from the flu for days without moving them. Unfortunately, the spread of the flu was exacerbated by the US government's unwillingness to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. The book "The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History" offers great insight into the disease.

And that is why the bird flu thing is so scary. People can't seem to wrap their heads around the potential danger. Plus anyone in a position of power to make policy decisions will also be in a position of power to get their hands on a vaccine. And as for the millions of others, our "treatment" will consist of mass containment. So if you and your town happen to be shipped off to the wrong stadium and an outbreak happens there, you're all just SOL. :scared:

novawildcat

04-21-2006, 08:30 PM

The spanish flu killed 80-100 million people in 1 year and the total population on earth in 1918 was about 1.8 billion, in other words it killed off about 5% of the earth's total population. Think of how many people would have to be infected just to kill off that many people if the flu killed only about 3-5 out of every 10 people it infected. Probably at least half of the world's population would have had to have had exposure to the flu. It is scary to think a disease could spread that fast in only 1 year.

dnw826

04-21-2006, 08:35 PM

I don't see the connection.

I believe what is meant is the fact that women are still so oppressed in many areas, as well as economic and social repression still rampant. This has a direct impact on education of the disease, medication, and also cases of rape. I know that there is at least one region where having sex with a VERY young virgin (think 9 or under) is believed to be the "cure" to AIDS, so men rape them like crazy. Scary.

dnw826

04-21-2006, 08:40 PM

And so women, you are saying, allow promiscuity of their mate because of social norms?

Sure, it's socially acceptable for a man to whore around, but that doesn't mean a woman has to DO that man-whore.

The spread of HIV then has more to do with these careless sex acts, not the inequality of the sexes. Each man and woman has the choice to avoid infection through this route (barring rape, etc.).

From what I have seen and read, yes. It is allowable, justified, and even required in some societies for men to have oogles of mistresses, and prositutes are an everyday adventure. The women have no say. Unless of course you like to be beaten, stoned, have your family tortured, or yourself tortured, sold into slavery or prostitution, exiled from your religious center, exiled from your home, or killed. Think Taliban among many.

And rape is a HUGE cause of AIDS/HIV in many parts of the world. As well as congenital HIV from being borne the child of a rape or from being exposed via other sources (blood exposure, transfusion, etc.) because you live in a dirty area with almost no money or real medical help. Or is this too far from Suburbia for you to imagine?

austinap

04-21-2006, 08:44 PM

Currently there is a disease that is spread by contact with droplets (airborne), and the bacterium can live outside of the body for 10 years! The infected individual can live for years before dying of the infection. It became curable in the 20th century. What is the disease? (and it hasn't infected 90% of the global population - even before a cure was discovered).

I'm not sure, what IS the disease? I'm guessing its some sort of a endospore forming bacteria, maybe a Clostridium? I'm sure there's some reason it hasn't spread to more of the population if it does everything you say it does. Maybe it just isn't that infectious? Maybe only a certain fraction of the population is succeptible to it?

dbhvt

04-21-2006, 09:34 PM

dbhvt

04-21-2006, 09:40 PM

I'm gonna guess TB. Now I'm going to look it up and see if I'm right.

OK, can't find how long TB lives outside a host.

Also, if by 'hasn't infected 90% of the population', you mean it's only infected 10%, then it's not TB. If you mean the proportion of people it has infected is less than 90%, than we're still good there.

LabMonster

04-21-2006, 09:58 PM

I guess when I made the poll i wanted people to think about the disease in

1.) the historical context in which it was prominent

2.) how long did it take to kill off X number of people

3.) how easily is it spread

4.) how many people did/does it infect

5.) social impact/psychological impact of the disease

Probably would have been a good idea to delineate the parameters BEFORE posting the poll :laugh:

colt

04-21-2006, 10:33 PM

Gut Shot

04-22-2006, 07:51 AM

HIV can be contained/almost eliminated(in the US) if the gay population will use protection. Heteros are are like the wall that keeps HIV from spreading like wildfire. Bisexual men also cause a lot of infection in straight women. A straight male that doesn't do drugs is a rarity for HIV(even if they sleep around a lot). A straight woman that doesn't use injection drugs is also pretty rare.

Michael Fumento writes great articles on the hype of HIV http://www.fumento.com/pozaids.html

Here is one about Africa: http://www.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html

In Africa, like the US, anal sex seems to be why people are getting HIV.

Michael Fumento? You gotta be kidding me. That guy isn't a scientist. He isn't even a thoughtful critic of the status quo. He's an idealogue with an agenda to promote. You might as well be posting links to virusmyth.com.

Of interest, Mr. Fumento has written a series of glowing columns about Monsanto over the last few years. In January, however, Scripps Howard News Service terminated their relationship with him after learning he had not informed them of a little $60,000 "grant" that Monsanto gave him in 1999. So apparently he's up for sale, as well.

If you're interested in rescrutinizing HIV transmission home and abroad, stick to critical appraisals of the peer-reviewed literature. Stay away from the shills and hacks.

ny skindoc

04-22-2006, 07:58 AM

The worst disease of all time..is the one You get.

MollyMalone

04-22-2006, 08:29 AM

dnw826

04-22-2006, 09:18 AM

captaintripps

04-22-2006, 10:05 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw2.html
www.virusmyth.com

Gut Shot

04-22-2006, 10:54 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw2.html

Thanks for the laugh. I really needed it. I especially enjoyed the following passages:

A few individuals kindly suggested that I inject myself with the blood of a late-stage AIDS patient. While such an act might sensationalize my viewpoint, there are a number of problems with such an "experiment." First, I can only imagine the non-HIV contaminants that might be found in such blood.

Strange, considering that thousands of blood transfusions are given every day. Somebody sounds a little chicken.

Second, the data and results contained in the literature are sufficient to cast doubt on HIV. But most importantly, such an "experiment" would hardly settle anything, given the "latency period" of 10-15 years for progression to "AIDS."

Sounds like a job for super-AIDS! "Just one teaspoon of super-AIDS in your butt and you're dead in three years."

colt

04-23-2006, 03:03 PM

Michael Fumento? You gotta be kidding me. That guy isn't a scientist. He isn't even a thoughtful critic of the status quo. He's an idealogue with an agenda to promote. You might as well be posting links to virusmyth.com.

Of interest, Mr. Fumento has written a series of glowing columns about Monsanto over the last few years. In January, however, Scripps Howard News Service terminated their relationship with him after learning he had not informed them of a little $60,000 "grant" that Monsanto gave him in 1999. So apparently he's up for sale, as well.

If you're interested in rescrutinizing HIV transmission home and abroad, stick to critical appraisals of the peer-reviewed literature. Stay away from the shills and hacks.Please, attack the information and not the author! If you did any research on HIV, you would know that HIV IS a gay disease. Link (http://www.sfaf.org/aboutaids/statistics/transmission.html) As you can see, we have 923,583 cases of HIV transmissions in the US. Of these cases, 755,026 are amoung the homosexual/IDU population. 159,114 are cases involving heterosexuals! That is a little over 17% and as I said, women are at a pretty high risk of being infected by bisexual parners. Also as Michael Fumento pointed out Yet then, as now, while even the CDC’s statistics didn’t show the epidemic the alarmists repeatedly claimed they did, the data nevertheless suffered a huge flaw which the agency has clearly acknowledged – and even proved – internally but never acknowledged outwardly. Its definition of "heterosexual transmission" actually means nothing more than that’s how the person claimed to have gotten the disease. If a man diagnosed with AIDS has had anal sex with 1,000 men and shared needles on 500 occasions, and he tells his local health department he had no risk factors other than sex with a woman, he would go straight into the heterosexual transmission category. Again, it hardly takes the proverbial rocket scientist to know that a lot of men are going to be embarrassed to admit to homosexual activity or worried about admitting to illegal drug usage and would simply deny these risk factors.

The CDC knows this from common sense and from history. At the turn of the century, it was common to blame contracting syphilis on touching doorknobs, using public toilets, or drinking from cups left at public fountains. The CDC also knows it from the New York City experience back when its health department still conducted individual interviews with men, and it knows it from its own research.

Florida’s heterosexual AIDS epidemic proved groundless.

It was the CDC itself that sent epidemiologists to Florida to find out why that state contributed so many cases to the heterosexual transmission category. Their study, published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1993, described how they analyzed the cases categorized as "heterosexual transmission" in two southeastern Florida counties and found, just by going through the patient files, that about a fifth had been misclassified. For example, a diagnosis of anal gonorrhea in a man is a pretty good presumptive indicator of homosexual activity, and many of the male "heterosexual transmission" cases had medical records indicating treatment for this. Although some were unavailable for interview (presumably having died), most were and some of these were also reclassified based on their own admissions. Ultimately, of the non-Haitians, slightly over half of the presumed heterosexual men were reclassified, as were over ten percent of the women. An additional third of the men re-interviewed but not reclassified had evidence of anal disease that may or may not have been caused by sex with another man.

There is no reason to believe that Florida’s recording system is any poorer than that of most states, therefore no reason to believe that if the CDC looked closely at cases categorized as heterosexual transmission in the other 49 it wouldn’t come up with similar findings. This would be more consistent with the evidence from Nancy Padian’s study. There ought to be a big fat asterisk next to the "heterosexual transmission" category in the CDC’s semi-annual HIV/AIDS reports, with the footnote stating: "This is based strictly on the assertions of the diagnosed person and has not been confirmed."

dbhvt

04-23-2006, 03:13 PM

Please, attack the information and not the author!

It is perfectly reasonable to not believe something simply because you don't trust the immediate source.

If you did any research on HIV, you would know that HIV IS a gay disease.

WAS a gay disease. Your source is from 1993. A RADICALLY different period in the history of HIV, both in terms of transmission and treatment.

lord_jeebus

04-23-2006, 03:15 PM

Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

I'm pretty serious about this.

colt

04-23-2006, 03:57 PM

Wow. You aren't going into medicine, right? Because if you believe this kind of BS, I am wondering how you are going to treat your patients. This is disgusting. "Let's blame the gays!". Give me a break.I hope you don't believe everything the media pours down your mouth :D Also, no one is "blaming the gays" as you put it. I'm just looking at the imformation that is provided by the CDC. To understand a disease, you must look at the evidence. You sound like those poor people that get mad when you talk about how those in poverty are more likely to contract HIV or commit crimes etc. They take that as a personal attack on themselves. :rolleyes: Facts are facts buddy!

Also, here is more information: http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html

As you can see, mode of transmisson amoung men is 10% heterosexual sex and for women 75%. If all these men & women are telling the truth about their sexual history/drug use than that is a very, very, very small percentage of HIV cases in the US. It's hardly an epidemic for EVERYONE.

Again, refer here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table20.htm

and here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table22.htm

Look at the totals from heterosexual contact. For men, 1% is from sex with an IDU. Form women, 12% is from contact with bisexual men or IDUs.

Overall, I'm not blamming homosexuals, but in order to fight a disease, you must look at the central cause and educate those that are a part of the cause. If HIV/AIDS were evenly distributed amoung straight/gay/IDUs etc, than it wouldn't even show up on the radar.

colt

04-23-2006, 03:58 PM

WAS a gay disease. Your source is from 1993. A RADICALLY different period in the history of HIV, both in terms of transmission and treatment.Refer to -2004 information just posted. Besides you cannot get around the per episode risk percentages that backed by scientific studies. I'll see if I can find those.

dbhvt

04-23-2006, 04:09 PM

Refer to -2004 information just posted. Besides you cannot get around the per episode risk percentages that backed by scientific studies. I'll see if I can find those.

While it is true that men who have sex with men are still the largest cohort of HIV+ patients in my area of the united states, in terms of recent transmission and new diagnoses, they are no longer the biggest group. The fact that receptive anal sex is the activity with the biggest risk doesn't make HIV a gay disease. From what I recall, internationally, women are the fastest growing group of new transmissions.

Your posts lead me to believe that you have some kind of a personal problem with msm, and because of that I'm not interested in spending my time following the links and reading the material you post. The one source you put text up for was clearly old, so I thought I'd call you on it.

colt

04-23-2006, 04:23 PM

. Your posts lead me to believe that you have some kind of a personal problem with msm, and because of that I'm not interested in spending my time following the links and reading the material you post. The one source you put text up for was clearly old, so I thought I'd call you on it.It is your choice to turn a blind eye to the statistics. For some, getting to the heart of a disease is considered *mean* :rolleyes:

The per episode risk for receptive vaginal sex is 0.1-0.2% and for receptive anal it is 0.1-3%. The % for insertive males is also higher for anal because of the tendency for bleeding in that area.

Oh, and a source for that info: http://www.thebody.com/step/spring02/jeff.html

dbhvt

04-23-2006, 04:31 PM

It is your choice to turn a blind eye to the statistics. For some, getting to the heart of a disease is considered *mean* :rolleyes:

The per episode risk for receptive vaginal sex is 0.1-0.2% and for receptive anal it is 0.1-3%. The % for insertive males is also higher for anal because of the tendency for bleeding in that area.

Oh, and a source for that info: http://www.thebody.com/step/spring02/jeff.html

My friend, I'm not turning a blind eye to the statistics, I'm just choosing not to get them from you because I don't trust you as a direct source and don't trust you as a filter of other sources. I've seen the patients, done the chart review, gone to the conferences, and Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. I thought, as a courtesy, I would explain to you that you are not going to educate anyone by presenting information with a biased attitude.

jebus

04-23-2006, 04:42 PM

Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.
I like you, bensten.

rgerwin

04-23-2006, 05:09 PM

The flu pandemic of 1918, which killed 5% of the world's population, was not from Spain. That's a misconception.

browniegirl86

04-23-2006, 05:24 PM

dnw826

04-23-2006, 07:09 PM

I hope you don't believe everything the media pours down your mouth :D Also, no one is "blaming the gays" as you put it. I'm just looking at the imformation that is provided by the CDC. To understand a disease, you must look at the evidence. You sound like those poor people that get mad when you talk about how those in poverty are more likely to contract HIV or commit crimes etc. They take that as a personal attack on themselves. :rolleyes: Facts are facts buddy!

Actually I am quite poor, always have been. And I don't trust the media one bit. I don't even watch tv. And that info is WAY outdated for what we know today.

liverotcod

04-23-2006, 07:16 PM

Huntington's would suck.

LizzyM

04-23-2006, 07:22 PM

OK, can't find how long TB lives outside a host.

Also, if by 'hasn't infected 90% of the population', you mean it's only infected 10%, then it's not TB. If you mean the proportion of people it has infected is less than 90%, than we're still good there.

Right you are dbhvt! Someone claimed that if AIDS mutates and can then be spread by airborne droplets then 90% of the population within months. My point: even with the long period that TB can remain alive outside of a host (it has a waxy coating that keeps it safe for years), it never infected 90% of the world's population.

austinap

04-23-2006, 07:40 PM

Right you are dbhvt! Someone claimed that if AIDS mutates and can then be spread by airborne droplets then 90% of the population within months. My point: even with the long period that TB can remain alive outside of a host (it has a waxy coating that keeps it safe for years), it never infected 90% of the world's population.

But only 10% of people infected with the bacterium develop TB, and those that don't develop the disease don't spread more of the bacterium. Added to this, even though only 10% of the population get sick from it, over 30% of the global population have been infected with the bacterium. If every one of these cases were infectious, then 90%+ of the population would be infected.

The fact that the bacterium can live for 10 years is also somewhat misleading. Considering that it is transmitted by water droplets, it isn't truely airborn (they'll settle out eventually... airborn viruses are carried for long periods of time). Only those in relatively close contact with infected persons are at high risk of infection. Also, since after the droplets settle out of the air, it really doesn't matter much that the bacterium are still infectious as the only infectious pathway is through the respiritory tract, so infected countertops, etc, are of little risk. We're comparing apples to oranges here when comparing this situation to that of an airborn HIV strain.

MDCali

04-23-2006, 08:58 PM

I give my vote to malaria. It is such a preventable disease and it underscores the differences in healthcare between developed and underdeveloped nations. It's really pathetic that humans should suffer from a disease such as this because of where they were born.

nikibean

04-23-2006, 09:21 PM

Coxsackievirus.

Say that out loud, and unleash your inner 13 year old male.
:laugh:
My friend who's in Paramedic school is writing a paper on this- it's hand, foot and mouth disease that affect primarily in young children.
You just gotta let that one run its course. Anyone who's been around 3 year olds with discomfort will know how hellish it is.

colt

04-23-2006, 10:19 PM

Colt:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

The first table shows that heterosexual transmission is almost as prevalent as homosexual transmission now. In 2004, heterosexual transmission was about 1.5 times more prevalent than IV-drug-use-related transmission. Browniegirl, do you consider 13,128 and 17,691 to be *almost* the same? :laugh: 11,072 of the cases are from gay/IDUs or IDUs. With some quick math, that is 28,763 cases from homosexuals and/or IDUs compared to 13,128 for females and males engaging in heterosexual sex. Of those 13k, I wonder how many women had anal sex with their male partner OR had a bisexual partner OR did drugs didn't admit it OR had sex with a male IDU OR the males told the honest truth and had never had sex with a man(very unlikely)? To top it off, what...about 95% of the population is hetero? That Brownie, is a lot more sex! ;) The fact that you consider 1 year of information to be definitive is also funny. The numbers that you CANNOT run away from are the actual per episode risk anal sex vs. vaginal---you can look the stats up at the CDC or whereever you choose. The 0.1-0.2% risk factor for vaginal sex will not allow for HIV to take off in the straight community. That 0.1-0.2% is the odds of a woman contracting HIV when having sex with someone of KNOWN HIV+ status. For straight men, the odds are an astounding 0.0005% per act of vaginal sex with someone HIV+. These numbers come via the CDC. The numbers you provided just support my point.

UPON REVEIW Brownie, the numbers you gave are for AIDS CASES in 2004! That would mean those people were infected many years before 2004....takes a while to develope AIDS! I can't believe I didn't catch that at first! ha THAT LIST doesn't say how many were infected in 2004.

Anyway, here is a good stat sheet for ya: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2003report/table1.htm Notice how HIV/AIDS cases stay the same for hetersexuals FOR 4 YEARS! '00-'03. The homosexual cases actually went up during these years.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table1.htm This list includes 2004 and heterosexual cases actually went down for men and women. So in conclusion, this is 5 years with stable rates of infection for heterosexuals. You can also see the male-to-male cases went up by 1500!

The second table shows that, overall, more homosexual men have AIDS. However, this is inclusive of all reported cases in the United States prior to 2004, which includes the ENTIRE epidemic. While AIDS was, in its earliest years, a largely homosexual epidemic I'll stop you right there because it still is. this misconception is obviously (from your posts) still around today and is very likely one of the reasons that heterosexual transmission is on the rise.On the rise? Awareness is crucial to saving your life and the lives of others. Get your **** straight before posting insensitive, offensive, inaccurate information. Pot meet kettle. :laugh:

Geez. :mad:Don't be mad. The stats support my original claim. It is not my fault that you consider talking about the AIDS "epidemic" to be "insensitive" I provide CDC information and I'm inaccurate.....maybe by claims based on evidence don't support your thoughts on the matter, but please don't turn it into a personal attack. You do a disservice to those with the disease and also to those trying to understand its growth.

colt

04-23-2006, 10:23 PM

Double post oops.

FutureDocDO

04-23-2006, 10:29 PM

I didn't bother trying to read through every posts so my apologies if I duplicate other posts. My vote for the worst disease of all time is AGING itself. It has killed millions and has continued and will continue to do so. We have learned to live with it and so it has since been considered a normal part of the life-cycle.

colt

04-23-2006, 10:34 PM

My friend, I'm not turning a blind eye to the statistics, I'm just choosing not to get them from you because I don't trust you as a direct source and don't trust you as a filter of other sources. I've seen the patients, done the chart review, gone to the conferences, and Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. I thought, as a courtesy, I would explain to you that you are not going to educate anyone by presenting information with a biased attitude.My friend, the information I present is from the CDC in which I trust to honest with their findings. I you feel this information is not accurate, I accept you opinion. For the record, I have no reason to be biased. HIV is a disease that affects the human race so it also has an impact on me. I believe it is important that we reach the most at-risk groups and educate them(homosexuals and IDUs). The media has slanted the information in a way that people think that everyone is at an equal risk for HIV. Obviously this isn't true, and the message hasn't helped.

Smilemaker100

04-23-2006, 10:45 PM

There are many terrible chronic or terminal illnesses in existence but I can't think of anything worse than fully retaining your mental faculties and having your body waste away in front of your eyes to the point that you lose control over performing simple tasks in your day to day life such as eating, breathing and walking. I am referring to Lou Gehrig's disease, otherwise known as Amytrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

I am personally touched by this disease as an uncle of mine, who was a cardiovascular surgeon, died from it about 7 years ago. :( I can't think of anything worse than being a doctor and knowing so many details about the illness which is going to kill you. :scared: In his case, the initial symptoms were fasciculations in his fingers. As a result of this problem, he was heartbroken since he was forced to retire from the practice of surgery and devote more time to teaching. He wasn't able to do activities he enjoyed such as swimming and playing the violin. He eventually lost control over his emotions and had random fits of laughter or crying not triggered by any specific event. Towards the end, he wasn't able to hold up his head and had to wear a neck brace. He also started to depend on others to feed him and he easily chocked on his food . He wasn't able to control his breathing. One day, as he was walking down the staircase, he fell and lost consciousness. He was placed on a respirator and our family had to make the difficult the decision of taking him off of it. He wanted to lead a life of dignity and never wanted to be "burden" to his family.

It seems like my uncle's case was a sporadic one as we don't recall ever having another relative affected by the disease. Fortunately, for him, he died about 1 1/2 years after the diagnosis was made.

Signs & Symptoms of ALS:

"Once a motor neuron degenerates completely, the muscle that it controls no longer receives impulses from the brain. Approximately 60% of ALS patients experience muscle weakness and stiffness as the initial symptom. Usually the first muscles affected are those in the arms and legs. Walking or climbing stairs may be difficult. The patient may drop things, fall, experience muscle cramps, and laugh or cry uncontrollably. The arms and legs may feel especially tired. If the hands are affected, the patient may have difficulty picking up small objects or turning keys. Speech problems, such as slurring, hoarseness, or decreased volume may also occur.

Absence of spinal reflexes (areflexia)
Loss of muscle tone (hypotonia)
Muscle twitching (fasciculations)
Muscle wasting (atrophy)

The signs that the upper motor neurons are affected include the following:

Excessive salivation
Extension of the big toe and abduction of the rest of the toes in response to lightly stroking the sole of the foot (Babinski's sign)
Reduced muscle tone, or hypotonia, and rigidity (spasticity)
Hyperactive tendon reflexes
Impaired speech (dysarthria)
Impaired swallowing (dysphagia)
Rapidly alternating muscle contractions and relaxations (clonus)

As symptoms progressively worsen, the patient's muscles atrophy causing spasticity, stiffness, abnormal movements, and alterations in gait and manual dexterity. Twitching may occur in the tongue and in affected limbs. The patient may experience muscle pain and muscle cramps. Some patients experience more difficulty swallowing saliva and liquids than solid food. Excessive salivation and difficulty swallowing may cause drooling. When respiratory muscles weaken, the patient may require a ventilator.

ALS patients often experience fear, anxiety, and depression. "

The ALS association
http://www.alsa.org/

docB

04-24-2006, 03:51 PM

Diabetes. Causes obesity, CAD, renal disease and dialysis. Clogs the ERs.

dnw826

04-24-2006, 07:50 PM

Aseptic

04-25-2006, 04:58 AM

Let me guess, they save the day by discovering the patient was eating something or had done something that would have been discovered in any routine patient history?

Dr. Zebra strikes again... y'all should just go ahead and when you hear hooves... think horsey, not zebra lol

Gut Shot

04-25-2006, 04:41 PM

Please, attack the information and not the author! If you did any research on HIV, you would know that HIV IS a gay disease. Link (http://www.sfaf.org/aboutaids/statistics/transmission.html) As you can see, we have 923,583 cases of HIV transmissions in the US. Of these cases, 755,026 are amoung the homosexual/IDU population. 159,114 are cases involving heterosexuals! That is a little over 17% and as I said, women are at a pretty high risk of being infected by bisexual parners. Also as Michael Fumento pointed out

Also of interest from your cute little link, from 1987 to 2002 the MSM exposure category dropped by 33.75% (from 80 to 53%) while the heterosexual exposure category increased by 550% (from 2 to 11%).

The trend continued into 2003, with 18% of new infections attributable to heterosexual contact and 34% attributable to MSM.

Bearing this in mind, at what ratio of hetero/homo transmission can we call HIV a non-gay disease?

Gut Shot

04-25-2006, 05:21 PM

Here is one about Africa: http://www.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html

In Africa, like the US, anal sex seems to be why people are getting HIV.

No, Fumento is parroting Gisselquist, Potterat and Brody's assertion that (in sub-Saharan Africa) contaminated medical equipment is the primary source of transmission, and anal intercouse causing the majority of the remainder.

The WHO held a conference in Geneva in 2003 to examine the proposed role of contaminated medical equipment, and found that the vast majority of evidence did not support this conclusion. Among the reasons were that HIV prevalence rates are low in youngsters who are not sexually active, and that there is no apparent correlation between contamination rates and HIV incidence in different regions.

Brody published an article in 2003 about assessing anal intercourse's contribution to African HIV transmission (Int J STD AIDS. 2003 14:431-6.), and it likely raised some good points. Alan Ferguson and Chester Morris, however, wrote an interesting comment on that article (Int J STD AIDS. 2003 14:856.). They work on HIV projects in Nairobi, Kenya, and had themselves attempted to quantify anal sex practices in Kenyan female sex workers. Their baseline survey found that only 20% answered yes to having ever had anal sex, and that answering yes also increased the odds of having engaged in other confounding behaviors that increase transmission risk (forced sex, dry sex, lack of condom use).

In summary, please drop this Fumento guy and head straight to PubMed.

hippocrateze

04-25-2006, 08:09 PM

I'd have to say LEPROSY because

1.it made outcasts of the sufferers and still does so today in some third world countries
2.unlike many of the infectious diseases listed (in the poll) it isn't fatal, so that person must endure the condition and it's social effects for a very long time
3.the only thing worse than a sudden, painful death is a slow, excruciating (at least psychologically) one

Tiki

04-25-2006, 08:32 PM

No one mentioned Measles. According to WHO, 850,000 people a year died from complications of Measles in the pre-MMR era (with over 30,000,000 cases per year). The disease was first noted over six hundred years ago.

600 x 850,000 = 510,000,000 dead.

NCF145

04-25-2006, 09:48 PM

Vox Animo

04-25-2006, 10:34 PM

Here in the midwest there is about one aids/hiv case per 10,000 accoording to the micro professor. so there are 10,000 students at my school. the odds are looking pretty good.

colt

04-27-2006, 06:01 PM

Also of interest from your cute little link, from 1987 to 2002 the MSM exposure category dropped by 33.75% (from 80 to 53%) while the heterosexual exposure category increased by 550% (from 2 to 11%).

The trend continued into 2003, with 18% of new infections attributable to heterosexual contact and 34% attributable to MSM.

Bearing this in mind, at what ratio of hetero/homo transmission can we call HIV a non-gay disease?It seems like you are trying to go back to the "it's everyones diesease" read all the links provided please. This one in particular:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table1.htm

As you can see, heterosexual transmission has went down between 2001-2004(keep in mind, a gay/bi man is probably more likely to admit contracting HIV via hetero sex because of the social stigma/family reasons). MSM transmission has went up from 01-04. Basically, if you are not an IDU or homosexual, your odds of contracting HIV are VERY rare. Why should we assume that that the Africa HIV issue is any different than the US? Obviously we see from the US where 95% of people are heterosexual that HIV is not easily spread through the straight community.

Gut Shot

04-28-2006, 06:01 PM

It seems like you are trying to go back to the "it's everyones diesease" read all the links provided please.

I was just pointing out data from the link you provided that you conveniently omitted. No one on this thread, including me, has argued that HIV transmission is not most efficient via IVDU and anal sex. No one has argued that gays in this country are not disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS.

What has been argued, however, is that with 32.8% of new HIV cases in 2004 (from your most recent CDC link) attributable to heterosexual transmission, HIV is, indeed, a disease that affects us all.

If 32.8% of a disease's sufferers were women, would you call it a "male disease"? No.

If 32.8% of a disease's sufferers were children, would you call it an "adult disease"? No.

If you were playing Russian Roulette with two bullets (just over a 32.8% chance of dying), would you feel happy with your chances? No.

As you can see, heterosexual transmission has went down between 2001-2004(keep in mind, a gay/bi man is probably more likely to admit contracting HIV via hetero sex because of the social stigma/family reasons).

Speculation.

Why should we assume that that the Africa HIV issue is any different than the US?

You honestly can't think of a single thing that might make Africa and the US different when it comes to HIV? So, in essence, you're proposing that there is some hidden population of gay/bi Africans who have been singlehandedly fueling the entire AIDS epidemic on that continent for decades.

Suuuuuuure. That sounds much more likely than Nyindo's crazy suggestion that "there are many reasons why the spread of HIV-1 in SSA has not been declining over the years. Main risk factors for HIV-1 infection and AIDS disease in SSA were found to include poverty, famine, low status of women in society, corruption, naive risk taking perception, resistance to sexual behaviour change, high prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STI), internal conflicts and refugee status, antiquated beliefs, lack of recreational facilities, ignorance of individual's HIV status, child and adult prostitution, uncertainty of safety of blood intended for transfusion, widow inheritance, circumcision, illiteracy and female genital cutting and polygamy." (East Afr Med J. 82:40-6, 2005)

colt

04-29-2006, 03:46 AM

I was just pointing out data from the link you provided that you conveniently omitted. No one on this thread, including me, has argued that HIV transmission is not most efficient via IVDU and anal sex. No one has argued that gays in this country are not disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS.

What has been argued, however, is that with 32.8% of new HIV cases in 2004 (from your most recent CDC link) attributable to heterosexual transmission, HIV is, indeed, a disease that affects us all.

If 32.8% of a disease's sufferers were women, would you call it a "male disease"? No.

If 32.8% of a disease's sufferers were children, would you call it an "adult disease"? No.

If you were playing Russian Roulette with two bullets (just over a 32.8% chance of dying), would you feel happy with your chances? No. I like how you spin the numbers----"32.8" chance of dying, touche! On a serious note, your percentage includes MALES and FEMALES the make up 95% of the population. To put this in perspective, 95% of the population makes up 32% of the disease while 5% make up the rest. Yeah, I'd say it is mostly a gay/IDU disease. To top this off, if you look at the numbers even closer: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2003report/table17.htm you can see that of the 8651 heterosexual cases in 2004, 1557 cases were in the transmission category of sex with a IDU or bisexual man. Assuming that all of the "risk not specified" people were telling the truth about being infected heterosexually, that would leave you with 7,094 heterosexual cases.

Hmm, 7,094...considering about 40,000 people a year DIE in car wrecks...with those odds, I may take the risk with your HIV Russian Roulette senario. (Note: always use protection. Although the risk for HIV among straight people is extremely low, there are other STDs out their.)

Speculation.or not. http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/2004/C11026.html
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/1994/PD0357.html
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/1993/WSC062.html

You honestly can't think of a single thing that might make Africa and the US different when it comes to HIV? So, in essence, you're proposing that there is some hidden population of gay/bi Africans who have been singlehandedly fueling the entire AIDS epidemic on that continent for decades. Not only gay/bi do anal sex.

Suuuuuuure. That sounds much more likely than Nyindo's crazy suggestion that "there are many reasons why the spread of HIV-1 in SSA has not been declining over the years. Main risk factors for HIV-1 infection and AIDS disease in SSA were found to include poverty, famine, low status of women in society, corruption, naive risk taking perception, resistance to sexual behaviour change, high prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STI), internal conflicts and refugee status, antiquated beliefs, lack of recreational facilities, ignorance of individual's HIV status, child and adult prostitution, uncertainty of safety of blood intended for transfusion, widow inheritance, circumcision, illiteracy and female genital cutting and polygamy." (East Afr Med J. 82:40-6, 2005)I believe I said that HIV in America is mostly a gay/IDU disease and based on the per-sexual-act odds, it makes sense---0.0005% for straight men having sex with a known HIV+ partner. 0.1-3% for anal sex. Unscreened blood transfusions involve mixing of blood so of course that is a risk factor. "Dry sex" with women stuffing themselves with herbs and such is basically the same as anal sex. Although it is vaginal, drying out the vagina makes it MUCH more likely to tear and bleed. Cutting off the female sex parts is obviously going to produce open wounds thus, allowing mixing of fluids during sex. Women having their Vagina sewn shut and being forced to perform anal sex is also a risk. Rape is usually pretty brutal causing tears and cuts. These are all high-risk behaviors with similar-greater odds of contracting HIV compared to MSM.

Gut Shot

04-29-2006, 08:01 AM

I believe I said that HIV in America is mostly a gay/IDU disease

No, what you said (in post #111) is this:

If you did any research on HIV, you would know that HIV IS a gay disease.

Now that you've changed your tune to "mostly a gay/IDU disease" I will declare victory and move on.

Incidentally, one of the two HIV+ autopsies I've done this year was on a very young man who picked it up by heterosexual contact. I'm sure he would have been delighted to hear your statistics.

mshheaddoc

04-29-2006, 08:15 AM

smallpox was the #1 killer in the world

The worse disease ... I think that is a poorly worded question b/c you can't look back in time in reference to diseases we now have a cure for. I do not like comparing those diseases from the past. Currently, obviously AIDS is the worst and I think its actually the worst all time.

Due to a few things. ITs just recently gone to teh #2 ALL TIME death list. Its preventable and we KNOW its preventable right now. (previously they were not sure how to prevent some of these disease when they happened) Additionally, it mutates and has over 20 different subtypes as well as RCF's. Just my opinion though.

mshheaddoc

04-29-2006, 08:18 AM

I like how you spin the numbers----"32.8" chance of dying, touche! On a serious note, your percentage includes MALES and FEMALES the make up 95% of the population. To put this in perspective, 95% of the population makes up 32% of the disease while 5% make up the rest. Yeah, I'd say it is mostly a gay/IDU disease. To top this off, if you look at the numbers even closer: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2003report/table17.htm you can see that of the 8651 heterosexual cases in 2004, 1557 cases were in the transmission category of sex with a IDU or bisexual man. Assuming that all of the "risk not specified" people were telling the truth about being infected heterosexually, that would leave you with 7,094 heterosexual cases.

Hmm, 7,094...considering about 40,000 people a year DIE in car wrecks...with those odds, I may take the risk with your HIV Russian Roulette senario. (Note: always use protection. Although the risk for HIV among straight people is extremely low, there are other STDs out their.)

or not. http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/2004/C11026.html
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/1994/PD0357.html
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/1993/WSC062.html

Not only gay/bi do anal sex.

I believe I said that HIV in America is mostly a gay/IDU disease and based on the per-sexual-act odds, it makes sense---0.0005% for straight men having sex with a known HIV+ partner. 0.1-3% for anal sex. Unscreened blood transfusions involve mixing of blood so of course that is a risk factor. "Dry sex" with women stuffing themselves with herbs and such is basically the same as anal sex. Although it is vaginal, drying out the vagina makes it MUCH more likely to tear and bleed. Cutting off the female sex parts is obviously going to produce open wounds thus, allowing mixing of fluids during sex. Women having their Vagina sewn shut and being forced to perform anal sex is also a risk. Rape is usually pretty brutal causing tears and cuts. These are all high-risk behaviors with similar-greater odds of contracting HIV compared to MSM.

Please get your facts right. Actually 60% of contact is homosexuals, BUT african americans are currently the highest ethnic group with 70% of all new cases and currently about half of all current cases. Additionally the subtype B which is prodominantly in the US (and is your GAY disease) is actually starting to mutate.

Ignorance is bliss. IF you want some really info about this disease I can give you a host of websites. But PLEASE do not try to interpret statistics if you don't understand where they come from. To state this is a GAY disease is ridiculous and IGNORANT!

logos

04-29-2006, 09:11 AM

mshheaddoc

04-29-2006, 09:33 AM

Good point ...

Why Is Malaria Reemerging?

In the last decade, the prevalence of malaria has been escalating at an alarming rate, especially in Africa. An estimated 300 to 500 million cases each year cause 1.5 to 2.7 million deaths, more than 90% in children under 5 years of age in Africa (1). Malaria has been estimated to cause 2.3% of global disease and 9% of disease in Africa (1); it ranks third among major infectious disease threats in Africa after pneumococcal acute respiratory infections (3.5%) and tuberculosis (TB) (2.8%). Cases in Africa account for approximately 90% of malaria cases in the world (1). Between 1994 and 1996, malaria epidemics in 14 countries of sub-Saharan Africa caused an unacceptably high number of deaths, many in areas previously free of the disease (2). Adolescents and young adults are now dying of severe forms of the disease. Air travel has brought the threat of the disease to the doorsteps of industrialized countries, with an increasing incidence of imported cases and deaths from malaria by visitors to endemic-disease regions. The estimated annual direct and indirect costs of malaria were US$800 million in 1987 and were expected to exceed US$1.8 billion by 1995 (3).

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no3/nchinda.htm

But even so, in reference to pandemic AIDS is more concerning. As 90% of all cases of malaria happen in Africa. I do believe that there needs to be more than "world malaria day" which actually was just this past week. But that is the problem with developing countries ... how can we industrialized them to get rid of these diseases?

Gut Shot

04-29-2006, 09:55 AM

Not only gay/bi do anal sex.

Very true, my friend. From a 2002 CDC survey: (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf)

"For males, the proportion who have had anal sex with a female increases from 4.6 percent at age 15 to 34 percent at ages 22–24; for females, the proportion who have had anal sex with a male increases from 2.4 percent at age 15 to 32 percent at age 22–24."

In terms of sheer volume, the amount of anal intercourse going on between heterosexuals (95% of the population, according to you) dwarfs that going on between homosexuals.

This MMWR report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/RR/RR5402.pdf) breaks down the risks nicely:

Chances of a receptive partner acquiring HIV:
Oral sex - 1:10,000 acts
Vaginal sex - 10:10,000 acts
Anal sex - 50:10,000 acts

Bearing these numbers in mind, I'm not very comfortable calling heterosexuals a "wall that keeps HIV from spreading like wildfire." (post #104)

So help me out. Is HIV a gay disease or an anal sex disease?

colt

04-29-2006, 11:59 AM

colt

04-29-2006, 12:06 PM

No, what you said (in post #111) is this: And I stand by that comment. As you can see from the statistics a large group is IDU/MSM. That is why I must include IDUs.

Now that you've changed your tune to "mostly a gay/IDU disease" I will declare victory and move on. When I said "it's a gay disease", did you think I meant 100% of cases were gays? Cute. Hopefully you could read between the lines and realize that I was talking about the overall history and heart of HIV in America :rolleyes:

Looking at the statistics(I know you hate when I do that :laugh: ) It looks like in 2004 19,575 cases were in the MSM/MSM&IDU categories. This is more than all other categories combined! So, when I say HIV is a gay disease, I am correct and will steal the 7th game and win the series.

Incidentally, one of the two HIV+ autopsies I've done this year was on a very young man who picked it up by heterosexual contact. I'm sure he would have been delighted to hear your statistics.I never claimed that a heterosexual couldn't get HIV. I just said that it is very rare 0.0005% per act. Obviously, this must be why heterosexual males are a small minority in the HIV community.

Anyway, trying to relate this back to the OP, HIV in America is a disease thats wrath is felt bt MSM and IDUs. That fact that the disease is confined within these small populations, I don't think it can be consided for a "worst disease" award. Heterosexuals that don't do IDs or have sex with bisexual partners are rare. In comparison, 40,000 per year die in automobile wrecks while 7,000 per year contract HIV in the above mentioned category.

Gut Shot

04-29-2006, 12:33 PM

When I said "it's a gay disease", did you think I meant 100% of cases were gays?

No, I never thought that, but what myself and several others on this thread have been trying to bash into your head is that labeling HIV in America a "gay disease" is applying a counterproductive misnomer to the situation.

One in seven sufferers of cystic fibrosis, a condition most common in Caucasians, is African American. Would it help to call it a "white disease"? No. Despite the statistical correlation and the remote likelihood of any individual African American baby having CF, giving it such a label is misleading at best.

There is nothing wrong with applying HIV-reduction measures where they are most needed, but why imply that heterosexuals in America have no risk of contracting HIV?

So, when I say HIV is a gay disease, I am correct and will steal the 7th game and win the series.

All you're doing is putting a name on an arbitrary threshold that you've decided on. Sorry, but if there's a game here you're playing with yourself.

P.S. Is it a gay disease in Africa, too? How about Asia? South America?

colt

04-29-2006, 01:06 PM

Very true, my friend. From a 2002 CDC survey: (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf)

"For males, the proportion who have had anal sex with a female increases from 4.6 percent at age 15 to 34 percent at ages 22–24; for females, the proportion who have had anal sex with a male increases from 2.4 percent at age 15 to 32 percent at age 22–24."

In terms of sheer volume, the amount of anal intercourse going on between heterosexuals (95% of the population, according to you) dwarfs that going on between homosexuals. Hmm, that is interesting. I wonder why heterosexual transmission among 95% of the population is so low. I mean 95% of America is straight and 30%+ have engaged in anal sex(according to your stats), yet the gay community--5% of US still make up 1.5x more HIV transmission. That is a HUGE gap.

This MMWR report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/RR/RR5402.pdf) breaks down the risks nicely:

Chances of a receptive partner acquiring HIV:
Oral sex - 1:10,000 acts
Vaginal sex - 10:10,000 acts
Anal sex - 50:10,000 acts The numbers I recieved from the CDC were 0.1-3% for anal sex http://www.aegis.com/pubs/jhopkins/1998/JH980304.html Obviously, 3% is pretty high!

Bearing these numbers in mind, I'm not very comfortable calling heterosexuals a "wall that keeps HIV from spreading like wildfire." (post #104) With your stats in mind, how would you explain HIV among heteros not taking off and easily supassing MSM? Lets see, 95% is hetero and 30% are having anal sex, yet MSM(5%) still makes up 1.5x more transmission from sex. Interesting.

So help me out. Is HIV a gay disease or an anal sex disease?It seems like its a gay disease, as you have pointed out. If it was a strictly anal sex disease, A LOT more people in the straight community would have HIV--based on your 30% #. Without question, all heterosexual male cases could not include anal sex~not possible. So, that leaves us with 7,979 cases of female HIV from heterosexual/possible anal contact http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table3.htm

Going out on a limb here, if we say 30% of those women contracted HIV from anal, that would be 2,393 cases of anal trasmission in the heterosexual female population. Obviously, (from your data) there is a link between homosexuals and HIV and without that link, HIV is a non-issue in the US---think 40,000 die in car crashes vs. about 1/4 of that contract HIV per year(heterosexuals).

mshheaddoc

04-29-2006, 01:16 PM

holy ****. why do you care so much?

Its not a gay disease if half of those afflicted are gay. Actually its quite sad that this is how the disease first spread rampantly. yes. 50% of those with HIV are gay ... but why are you discounting the other 50%?

mshheaddoc

04-29-2006, 01:18 PM

Obviously, (from your data) there is a link between homosexuals and HIV and without that link, HIV is a non-issue in the US---think 40,000 die in car crashes vs. about 1/4 of that contract HIV per year(heterosexuals).
Its funny how close minded people are to a virus that is the top 10 killer in ALL ethnicity and age groups from the ages of 20-54.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

Great link there.

Why should you select out the gay population when they are people too? I'm going to make a suggestion that you don't derail this thread and take your discussion elsewhere. Thanks :D

colt

04-29-2006, 01:49 PM

No, I never thought that, but what myself and several others on this thread have been trying to bash into your head is that labeling HIV in America a "gay disease" is applying a counterproductive misnomer to the situation. Obviously labeling it a "everyones disease" hasn't worked. In fact, MSM cases have went up. I would never tell a heterosexual person to not use protection, but in reality, the odds of them contracting HIV are FAR FAR FAR less than dying in a car crash. A homosexual on the other hand, they make up most sexual transmission and it is contained within that 5% of the population----much more likely to meet a gay male with HIV.

There is nothing wrong with applying HIV-reduction measures where they are most needed, but why imply that heterosexuals in America have no risk of contracting HIV? They have no risk in relation to HIV being one of the worst diseases in the US. Everything we do have risk involved. If I tell you that you're 6x more likely to die driving home than contracting HIV---are you going to stop driving?

P.S. Is it a gay disease in Africa, too? How about Asia? South America?Unfortunately, I don't know the prevalence of homosexuality in Africa, but as you've pointed out, they are involved in many "not normal" sexual activities.

Asia: http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=12043

South & central America: http://www.avert.org/southamerica.htm

colt

04-29-2006, 01:54 PM

MoxieDO

04-29-2006, 02:33 PM

Bubonic Plague wiped out 1/3rd of Europe. i think it was 250 million people killed at the time! (someone correct me here)

The disease continues to haunt innocent souls...

It can also mutate into 2 other forms, so when bubonic plague goes dormant during the winter months, you still have pneumonic [air-borne] and systemic [fluid] (hmmm, cant remember spelling...its along those lines) plague to worry about...I'm a history minor ;)

tequila_farm

04-29-2006, 03:01 PM

"Locked-in Syndrome" or Large Bowel Obstruction with Feculant Emesis

Yep, both of those would really suck.

vtucci

04-29-2006, 07:43 PM

Any of the hemorrhagic fevers are nasty and quick- Ebola, VEE, Hanta, Lassa

The HIV variants are equally nasty but much slower.

However, for its long-term devastating effects, I would vote for small pox or the bubonic plague. Small pox, in particular, was not just fatal but deforming.

Another consideration of course is the flu. For a good read- the Great Influenza

toofache32

04-29-2006, 09:54 PM

...One in seven sufferers of cystic fibrosis, a condition most common in Caucasians, is African American. Would it help to call it a "white disease"? No....
Then how would you define a white disease? That's about as close as it gets to a "white disease."

toofache32

04-29-2006, 09:55 PM

What's MSM and IDU stand for?

aphistis

04-29-2006, 10:43 PM

IDU is probably IVDA/intravenous drug abuser, but MSM has me stumped too.

MollyMalone

04-29-2006, 10:48 PM

I'm guessing MSM is men who have sex with men, but I could be wrong on that.

All4MyDaughter

04-30-2006, 12:34 AM

I was shocked when I read this today in my Immunology class. According to our textbook diarrhea diseases kill more people per year than AIDS/HIV. The estimated annual mortality rate of diarrheal diseases is 4-6 million; whereas, HIV/AIDS has an estimated annual mortality rate of 3.1 million. :eek:

A very good friend of mine lost his brother last week to diarrhea. My friend is one of the Lost Boys of the Sudan who has resettled in the United States. He hasn't seen his some of his family in years, as they were scattered by the civil war. His father and brother are living in southern Sudan and have no access to medical care. Now my friend fears his ill father will die as well. THe brother was the able bodied one who was taking care of dad.
It's heartbreaking. In America, diarrhea is an inconvenience. In Africa it can be a death sentence.

Gut Shot

04-30-2006, 06:11 AM

Then how would you define a white disease? That's about as close as it gets to a "white disease."

One in seven is nowhere close to a racial predilection.

Ethnicity - CF carrier frequency (Chance two parents are carriers):

Caucasian - 1:29 (1:841)
Hispanic - 1:46 (1:2,116)
African American - 1:65 (1:4,225)
Asian - 1:90 (1:8,100)

As you can see, the difference between caucasian and asian is within an order of magnitude. If you want something a little stronger, try sickle cell disease.

Ethnicity - SC carrier frequency (Chance two parents are carriers):

African American - 1:14 (1:196)
Hispanic - 1:183 (1:33,489)
Caucasian - 1:625 (1:390,625)
Asian - 1:1,336 (1:1,784,896)

It is therefore 9,106 times more likely that an African American baby will have sickle cell than an asian baby. THAT is a racial predilection.

Gut Shot

04-30-2006, 07:14 AM

Obviously labeling it a "everyones disease" hasn't worked.

And if we had a parallel universe to compare ours to, one where GRID never went out of vogue, this statement would mean something.

but in reality, the odds of them contracting HIV are FAR FAR FAR less than dying in a car crash. A homosexual on the other hand, they make up most sexual transmission and it is contained within that 5% of the population----much more likely to meet a gay male with HIV.

Again, this is just your arbitrary threshold for calling something significant vs. not significant. A person's chances of dying in a car crash drop precipitously if he/she is not very young, intoxicated, speeding, talking on a cell phone, and happens to be wearing a seatbelt. By your logic we should start referring to MVA deaths as a "disease of young, drunk, leadfooted blabbermouths who aren't buckled in."

You seem fixated on how unlikely it is for a heterosexual male to contract HIV from heterosexual sex. If you look at any individual, however, it is inherently unlikely that he/she will contract any specific, fatal disease. Does this mean said diseases are insignificant? No, absolutely not, and one would be doing disservice to public health to say otherwise.

Everything we do have risk involved. If I tell you that you're 6x more likely to die driving home than contracting HIV---are you going to stop driving?

Non sequitur.

mshheaddoc

04-30-2006, 07:36 AM

I'm guessing MSM is men who have sex with men, but I could be wrong on that.
Nope you are rights.

And about the diarrhea. You have to also know that isn't the disease, the disease is an infection by various bacteriaparasite that usually cause diarrhea. And in developing countries could be prevented (like it can be here in the US). Sad part is if it was an organism, one might expect it to naturally be expelled in large amounts of diarrhea. Another cause is malnutrition. And although many in developing countries can have many bouts per year, it is on the severe cases lasting over 2 weeks and necessitate hospitalization which become the killer. Dehydration sets in :( Although alot of this could be prevented with education (disposal and proper sanization techniques) This is a pretty good article here (http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/diarrhea/stats-country.htm)

Gut Shot

04-30-2006, 07:50 AM

Hmm, that is interesting. I wonder why heterosexual transmission among 95% of the population is so low. I mean 95% of America is straight and 30%+ have engaged in anal sex(according to your stats), yet the gay community--5% of US still make up 1.5x more HIV transmission. That is a HUGE gap.

No, not 30% of 95%. Do you think 95% of the population is engaging in sex with potentially HIV-infected partners? The data presented showed 32-34% by age 22-24. Perhaps you should dig up the percentage of the population that is engaging in heterosexual activity outside of stable, long-term monogomous relationships. I'm willing to bet that it's significantly lower than 95%.

With your stats in mind, how would you explain HIV among heteros not taking off and easily supassing MSM? Lets see, 95% is hetero and 30% are having anal sex, yet MSM(5%) still makes up 1.5x more transmission from sex. Interesting.

For one, refer to your 30/95 error above.

For two, the level of public awareness in this country, the public health infrastructure, and the availablilty of quick, accurate HIV testing have held HIV at bay in the heterosexual population.

When AIDS decimated many gay populations in the early 1980's, they responded by reducing unsafe behaviors. MSM cases declined from 80% in 1987 to 53% in 2002. During that same period the heterosexual population failed to respond with the same vigor, and their contribution went from 2% to 11%.

Fast forward 20-25 years and memory is fading. With HAART, the public perception is that HIV is becoming a chronic disease rather than a death sentence, and this is reflected in the numbers.

It seems like its a gay disease, as you have pointed out.

No, among males in the US it seems like a predominantly gay disease, the likelihood of which depends one's geographic location and level of indulgence in risk-bearing activities.

colt

04-30-2006, 11:49 PM

Again, this is just your arbitrary threshold for calling something significant vs. not significant. A person's chances of dying in a car crash drop precipitously if he/she is not very young, intoxicated, speeding, talking on a cell phone, and happens to be wearing a seatbelt. By your logic we should start referring to MVA deaths as a "disease of young, drunk, leadfooted blabbermouths who aren't buckled in." Upon further reveiw, gay men make up 0.5% of the US population according to the 2000 census: http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000Census_national_townsize.htm

Now with this in mind, lets crush the numbers again. :) When it comes to sex, MSM made up 18,203 cases in 2004. Heterosexual contact made up 12,683. So, 0.5% of the population made up 1.5x more HIV caes! If we only had 12,500 cases of HIV in the US(per year), would it receive the funding and attention that it does now? NO, it would not. Adding to this is the fact that many gay males will report heterosexual activity as the cause. The studies I linked above show this.

If 0.5% of the population made up 60% of car crashes(the group you mentioned), I would say it is a "disease of young, drunk, leadfooted blabbermouths who aren't buckled in" :laugh: I would also stay very far away from these people when driving!

You seem fixated on how unlikely it is for a heterosexual male to contract HIV from heterosexual sex. If you look at any individual, however, it is inherently unlikely that he/she will contract any specific, fatal disease. Does this mean said diseases are insignificant? No, absolutely not, and one would be doing disservice to public health to say otherwise. If one(you) checks out the title of this thread, it would be apparent that the thread is entitled, "worst disease of all time". When throwing out that title, I must take into account how likely someone is to catch the disease. As I have pointed out numerous times, if you are not a gay male or IDU, HIV should be on the bottom of your list. However, in the gay male population, HIV may rank very very high.

Non sequitur.=If you look at any individual, however, it is inherently unlikely that he/she will contract any specific, fatal disease. Does this mean said diseases are insignificant? No, absolutely not, and one would be doing disservice to public health to say otherwise.

colt

05-01-2006, 12:18 AM

No, not 30% of 95%. Do you think 95% of the population is engaging in sex with potentially HIV-infected partners? What does this have to do with anything? :confused: Perhaps you should dig up the percentage of the population that is engaging in heterosexual activity outside of stable, long-term monogomous relationships. I'm willing to bet that it's significantly lower than 95%. Of course it would be, but this isnt relative. A LOT more sex outside of stable relationships goes on in the herterosexual population. I wonder how many gay males are in "long-term monogomous" relationships? Considering only 0.5% identify themselves as gay males, that would leave us with what...0.3...0.4% that aren't in stable relationships?

For one, refer to your 30/95 error above. "For males, the proportion who have had anal sex with a female increases from 4.6 percent at age 15 to 34 percent at ages 22–24; for females, the proportion who have had anal sex with a male increases from 2.4 percent at age 15 to 32 percent at age 22–24."I assume the "34%" for males and "32%" for females by age 24 refers to 100% of the population? For example, that would be about 33 people out of every 100 in the US....correct me if I'm wrong!

For two, the level of public awareness in this country, the public health infrastructure, and the availablilty of quick, accurate HIV testing have held HIV at bay in the heterosexual population. The same things are available for the homosexual population.

When AIDS decimated many gay populations in the early 1980's, they responded by reducing unsafe behaviors. MSM cases declined from 80% in 1987 to 53% in 2002. During that same period the heterosexual population failed to respond with the same vigor, and their contribution went from 2% to 11%.If the heterosexual population didn't have the same vigor, why didn't the cases shoot through the roof like homosexual cases in the '80's? It also seems that the vigor is slipping because that same 0.5% of the population has HIV on the increase while heterosexual cases have went down. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table1.htm

No, among males in the US it seems like a predominantly gay disease, the likelihood of which depends one's geographic location and level of indulgence in risk-bearing activities.Why just males? It seems like MSM are more than heterosexual sex for men and women combined. Like I have said, 0.5% make up most cases.

Gut Shot

05-01-2006, 07:18 AM

Upon further reveiw, gay men make up 0.5% of the US population according to the 2000 census: http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000Census_national_townsize.htm

That site is about couples, not individuals. I'm afraid you're going to have to rework you use of 0.5%. Try reading next time. :laugh:

If one(you) checks out the title of this thread, it would be apparent that the thread is entitled, "worst disease of all time". When throwing out that title, I must take into account how likely someone is to catch the disease. As I have pointed out numerous times, if you are not a gay male or IDU, HIV should be on the bottom of your list. However, in the gay male population, HIV may rank very very high.

Our little sub-discussion never really revolved around the topic of this thread. Hence, I will take at least half the blame for the ongoing hijack.

In any case, how is that HIV suddenly falls to the bottom of your list if you're not a gay male or an IDU? If we accept that 32.8% of HIV cases are attributable to heterosexual contact, HIV remains a top 10 cause of death among those age 25-44 (and many of those cases are likely contracted in the 15-24 age group).

I can see the slogan now:

"It's a top-10 killer of straight people in your age group, but don't worry. In fact, put it at the bottom of your list!"

What would that accomplish?

colt

05-01-2006, 10:24 AM

That site is about couples, not individuals. I'm afraid you're going to have to rework you use of 0.5%. Try reading next time. :laugh: Err....0.7% http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html :laugh: In any event 0.5 or 0.7% is a small amount of the population which makes up most HIV cases.

....and the footnote 5. 1.51% of the total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. These numbers are based on figures provided by a broad-based coalition of gay rights organizations and homosexual advocacy groups. The primary source cited was the The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), published in the book The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels. "

In any case, how is that HIV suddenly falls to the bottom of your list if you're not a gay male or an IDU? If we accept that 32.8% of HIV cases are attributable to heterosexual contact, HIV remains a top 10 cause of death among those age 25-44 (and many of those cases are likely contracted in the 15-24 age group).

I can see the slogan now:

"It's a top-10 killer of straight people in your age group, but don't worry. In fact, put it at the bottom of your list!"

What would that accomplish?Actually, if we go by the stats: http://encarta.msn.com/media_701508606_761557270_-1_1/Leading_Causes_of_Death_in_the_United_States_by_Ag e.html 6,879 people between 25 and 44 died in 2003 from AIDS. If we look at the total number of AIDS deaths in 2003, we can see that 76% were gay males and/or IDUs(probably more because some wont report those causes). Now, if we apply this to 6,879---that gives us 1650 deaths per year for heterosexual non drug users 25-44. That puts AIDS at #10 on the top-10 list....Pneumonia and influenza are right on its heels though! :laugh: It would also knock AIDS off the top-10 list of any other age group. How many 25-44 year olds are worried about any of the top-10 cause though? It's the most health group of adults! As I have said many many times....if you subtract the 0.7% of gay males from our population and IDUs, AIDS is not a big deal---in fact, it would be #10(if on it at all) on the 25-44 cause of death list and wouldn't even make the list in any other age group. Even without subtracting IDUs, AIDS deaths would only be #8 for 25-44(a group that is pretty healthy)....still wouldn't be on list for other age groups.

It is funny that you picked the 25-44 age group...this is a group of adults that aren't likely to die of causes related to aging, so it would make sense that AIDS makes the list---I mean 3 of the top-5 causes aren't even disease related. 1. accidents 4. suicide 5. homicide :meanie:

Josh L.Ac.

05-01-2006, 11:47 AM

AIDS is winning?...youve gotta be kidding me....

My vote is for malaria...huge preventable cause of human misery. Therefore putting Rachel Carson in the competition with Hitler and Stalin for greatests mass murderer of the 20th century.

Not my field but I think the proper rebuttal is that mosquito resistance to DDT is easily developed so more has to be used BLAH BLAH BLAH so that increased use of DDT wouldn't save all of those that died from malaria anyway (not to mention all the side-effects from its continued use).

Thanks for making me dig to get your reference. If you have a rebuttal, I would love to hear it (honestly - I'm not a hippie, I'm not a hippie). Debates on issues like these tend to become dogmatic instantly, but hopefully we can hear both sides on this.

mshheaddoc

05-02-2006, 11:33 AM

Guys, if you want the HIV/AIDS debate, feel free to take this over to that topics in health care thread. But this is worst disease thread, not the argument over HIV/AIDS thread.

logos

05-02-2006, 04:35 PM

Not my field but I think the proper rebuttal is that mosquito resistance to DDT is easily developed so more has to be used BLAH BLAH BLAH so that increased use of DDT wouldn't save all of those that died from malaria anyway (not to mention all the side-effects from its continued use).

Thanks for making me dig to get your reference. If you have a rebuttal, I would love to hear it (honestly - I'm not a hippie, I'm not a hippie). Debates on issues like these tend to become dogmatic instantly, but hopefully we can hear both sides on this.

Haha ...had to throw that in there and see if anyone would pickup.

Yes, resistance would probably develop to DDT eventually, but how many lives could be saved before resistance became widespread?. There isnt really any good evidence that DDT is harmfull. DDT is particularly suited to fighting malaria because it is cheap and not easily broken down...that is it stays where you spray it for a long time. People just spray about $1 worth on their house and it lasts something like a year.

Now, it wouldnt be murder in my mind if when she wrote the book she honestly thought DDT was harmful, but she essentially lied by twisting the studies she cited to get the result she wanted. The council set up to study the issue and make a recommendation to the EPA recomended that it was safe and should stay in use. However the (now admittedly) political decision decision was made to ban the stuff. Fine, no big deal here in the US of A. But, we also put pressure on other countries to ban DDT, both political and monitary, like not permitting aid to be used to buy DDT.

I think its very interesting to see how such a simple lie could progress into countless millions of dead people....by witholding a technology from them.

Putting Carson up there with Hitler and Stalin may be a bit of an exageration, as she didnt directly intend to kill people. At the same time, just like Hitler and Stalin, many people died in order to advance her (ultimately flawed) politics.

Another plug for malaria as the worst disease ever: Can anyone think of any other disease for which there are multiple specific mutations in the human genome to combat.

For malaria there is sickle cell, G6PD deficiency, and B-Thalessemia.

theloneranger08

07-14-2007, 06:20 PM

Luba Licious

07-15-2007, 07:53 PM

My vote is diabetes. Sure, other diseases may have knocked out more people, but diabetes sucks with quality of life (can't eat what you want) AND with effects, plus it affects a LOT of people.

hye345

08-05-2007, 02:30 AM

I think that Ebola is the worst disease ever even though there have not been many deaths. I believe though that it has the most potential to kill than all of the others. Ebola does to your immune system in 10 days which takes AIDS ten years.

Was your last sentence derived from The Hot Zone?

Anyway, as far as the worst diseases go:

The worst one for the individual person would be a tie between Ebola and leprosy, since the former gives you horrible pain physically, while the other one gives you horrible pain mentally.

On the other hand, the worst disease for society would be Spanish/avian flu, since

it spreads easily, it can mutate relatively easily, it would mandate the formation of quarantine facilities, which would ruin the local economy, and it would halt international travel, which would devastate the global economy.

Miami_med

08-05-2007, 06:17 AM

I'd have to go with influenze in general. The overall morbidity and mortality throughout history is unmatched.

misfit

08-06-2007, 04:38 PM

The worst disease of all time in human history is, without a doubt...

IGNORANCE

kronickm

08-07-2007, 09:03 AM

Despite the fact that it is quite uncommon as yet in humans, CJD and vCJD, as well as other Prion diseases (transmissable spongiform encephalopaties) are pretty nasty. We are as yet unsure of the full spectrum of how they are transmitted. They can have up to like 35-50 year incubation period. Once you get it you are dead, usually within a year of symptom onset. Not only are there no treatments, there aren't even any tests, the only way to know if you have it is an autopsy on your brain. Lucky for us, I believe the number of human cases lies somewhere in the hundreds, and the CDC claims its prevelance to be 1 in a million.

ActiveDutyMD

08-15-2007, 02:31 PM

Fibromyalgia.

Just kidding

How about trauma?

docB

08-15-2007, 11:31 PM

How about trauma?
Good point. It's a "disease" that kills and maims the world over. It disproportionatly affects young, healthy people (which is an argument used for Spanish flu being the worst of all time). In many instances it is "transmitted" if you consider violence often leading to more violence. It has a greater effect on poor, less educated populations. It can be prevented in many case but not all. Has been with us since the dawn of time and if considered a disease might vie for the earliest recorded. Food for thought.

Miami_med

08-16-2007, 05:46 PM

Good point. It's a "disease" that kills and maims the world over. It disproportionatly affects young, healthy people (which is an argument used for Spanish flu being the worst of all time). In many instances it is "transmitted" if you consider violence often leading to more violence. It has a greater effect on poor, less educated populations. It can be prevented in many case but not all. Has been with us since the dawn of time and if considered a disease might vie for the earliest recorded. Food for thought.

The Biblical scholars might argue that in the Cane vs. Abel altercation, it was responsible for the first death.

Factor VIII

10-26-2007, 07:19 PM

Must give this one the award. Most of you list things that have either vaccines or other prevention aids not to mention if you life a non risky life style you dont really have to worry about AIDs. ALS is sneeky and can be hard to identify in the early stages. It can progress fast.

Factor VIII

10-26-2007, 07:24 PM

Now that i think about it.. maybe liberalism..... it is a serious and sometimes fatal mental disorder.

Factor VIII

10-26-2007, 07:36 PM

docB

10-27-2007, 02:14 PM

My vote is diabetes. Sure, other diseases may have knocked out more people, but diabetes sucks with quality of life (can't eat what you want) AND with effects, plus it affects a LOT of people.

specify what type of diabetes. As a diabetic Type I, I can eat anything I want.. of course i must add insulin to compensate.

I agree that it’s DM, either type. I would say it’s not because of the “eating what you want” thing. As Factor correctly points out that is not a big issue and there are many other diseases where you should observe dietary restrictions (hypertension, heart disease, etc.)

I say it’s DM because of the squealae it causes. Blindness, renal disease, heart disease, strokes, PVD, etc. I see all the consequences of poorly treated DM in the ED every day and that’s what led to my opinion.

Arguments against DM as the worst disease of all time would be that it is treatable and kills far fewer than more historically important diseases like malaria.