Re: Re: Americans More Ill than the English

[Guest guest]

But, Tony, just for discussion's sake, we just reviewed HFCS and it's almost the same as sugar. Is there a reason to condemn HFCS other than it's different source? Both will increase weight, sure, but how about the idea that HFCS is already digested and is not controlled by the body's digestion?

Can we say that's a factor? Is control of fructose going into fat a larger problem?

Of course, some think glycation is a problem with aging, and some have a problem with BG, but I think there may be a adipose tissue/adiponectin issue driven harder by the HFCS.

Just my take.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Americans "More Ill than the English"

The reports that the health of Americans is worse than the Englishlooked only at medical care and life style. The researchers could notfind an explanation for the health differences. What I have not seenmentioned in any of the reports is a comparison of the basic foodseaten by both groups. It would not be surprising if the worseAmerican health is due to the increased consumption of hydrogenatedfats and drinks with high-fructose corn syrup. Both of these syntheticingredients are so prevalent in American manufactured foods that theyare almost unavoidable.Tony

[Guest guest]

But, Tony, just for discussion's sake, we just reviewed HFCS and it's almost the same as sugar. Is there a reason to condemn HFCS other than it's different source? Both will increase weight, sure, but how about the idea that HFCS is already digested and is not controlled by the body's digestion?

Can we say that's a factor? Is control of fructose going into fat a larger problem?

Of course, some think glycation is a problem with aging, and some have a problem with BG, but I think there may be a adipose tissue/adiponectin issue driven harder by the HFCS.

Just my take.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Americans "More Ill than the English"

The reports that the health of Americans is worse than the Englishlooked only at medical care and life style. The researchers could notfind an explanation for the health differences. What I have not seenmentioned in any of the reports is a comparison of the basic foodseaten by both groups. It would not be surprising if the worseAmerican health is due to the increased consumption of hydrogenatedfats and drinks with high-fructose corn syrup. Both of these syntheticingredients are so prevalent in American manufactured foods that theyare almost unavoidable.Tony

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> Hi Ash:

>

> I doubt you offended anyone, but do you have a reason to suppose that

> the Rand organization - the US arm of that study - has some strong

> reason to ruin their reputation for objectivity by putting their

> name, jointly, to a paper that provides data which show DOUBLE the

> rate in the US among comparable people for diabetes, lung cancer,

> etc..

>

> Your rant about the UK national health system no doubt is entirely

> accurate. But the points you make seem to me to be a nearly

> irrelevant response to the data for disease incidence quoted in that

> article.

>

> Do you have reason to believe the disease incidence data that were

> quoted are mistaken?

>

> Rodney.

>

With tongue only partly in cheek, one might posit that lack of clinic

access for every sniffle, and less exposure to the health care system

might reduce lots of cross infections. Infections probably raise

inflammation level, etc.

A lot of medication addresses just the symptoms rather than root causes

so less medication could result in less harmful side effects, not to

mention incorrect diagnosis and harm from incorrect medication (too much

of a good thing is a bad thing).

Maybe, just maybe individuals might practice a little self help with

respect to their health... or not.

JR

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> Hi Ash:

>

> I doubt you offended anyone, but do you have a reason to suppose that

> the Rand organization - the US arm of that study - has some strong

> reason to ruin their reputation for objectivity by putting their

> name, jointly, to a paper that provides data which show DOUBLE the

> rate in the US among comparable people for diabetes, lung cancer,

> etc..

>

> Your rant about the UK national health system no doubt is entirely

> accurate. But the points you make seem to me to be a nearly

> irrelevant response to the data for disease incidence quoted in that

> article.

>

> Do you have reason to believe the disease incidence data that were

> quoted are mistaken?

>

> Rodney.

>

With tongue only partly in cheek, one might posit that lack of clinic

access for every sniffle, and less exposure to the health care system

might reduce lots of cross infections. Infections probably raise

inflammation level, etc.

A lot of medication addresses just the symptoms rather than root causes

so less medication could result in less harmful side effects, not to

mention incorrect diagnosis and harm from incorrect medication (too much

of a good thing is a bad thing).

Maybe, just maybe individuals might practice a little self help with

respect to their health... or not.

JR

[Guest guest]

I didn't think I ws ranting, but yes, the reason is the English public

themselves. They are voting on whether to put cardiac arrest monitors in

public locations (the mall, supermarkets, the high streets) so that the

British will not continue to die of so many heart attacks. It seems they

have a habit of going into cardiac arrest in public and then ambulances

don't show up due to lack of funding, so people are dying either in the

streets or before they reach the ER. So in addition to many initiatives in

today's general elections, there is an initiative on whether to install

these things, so that total strangers can learn to give each other electric

charges, in the streets, in case of a crisis. That's how bad heart disease

is here.

Then there's the fact that 1 in 4 Briton is obese. 30,000 die a year from

it, and they say it costs them £500m in NHS funding to fight their own

obesity. So that's where I was getting it. RAND is very well known...but the

BBC has a strong reputation, too, and these were their numbers.

Thanks again,

Ash

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Americans " More Ill than the English "

>Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:24:02 -0000

>

>Hi Ash:

>

>I doubt you offended anyone, but do you have a reason to suppose that

>the Rand organization - the US arm of that study - has some strong

>reason to ruin their reputation for objectivity by putting their

>name, jointly, to a paper that provides data which show DOUBLE the

>rate in the US among comparable people for diabetes, lung cancer,

>etc..

>

>Your rant about the UK national health system no doubt is entirely

>accurate. But the points you make seem to me to be a nearly

>irrelevant response to the data for disease incidence quoted in that

>article.

>

>Do you have reason to believe the disease incidence data that were

>quoted are mistaken?

>

>Rodney.

>

>

> >

> > Hi there,

> >

> > I've been reading this list for a few weeks, and really enjoy it.

>This is an

> > interesting article. Here I sit, an American in England, and I see

>a lot of

> > bias in this reporting. From what I see everyday, the UK, like

>France,

> > " looks " healthier when compared to the US because of their

>socialized health

> > care system. Yes, it's free to all, but it is so deep in

>bureaucracy that it

> > becomes self-exclusive.

> >

> > Basically, it takes ages to see a surgeon (general practitioner),

>and I mean

> > ages. I received my National Health Care card in January and am

>still on the

> > list to get just a basic physical and my surgeon is 20 minutes

>away. I am

> > told it will probably not happen until the late Fall. So many, many

>people,

> > weall-off and poor, don't go to the doctor until they're in a real

> > emergency. Some people have waited as long at 7 years for

>operations that

> > would take maybe three weeks to schedule in the US, tops? Forget

>getting

> > referred to a specialist. Average Brits can't really afford the

>time off

> > from work to see a doctor, so reports on their health issues may

>seem lower.

> >

> > The NHS is in major crisis financially, in that while there is

>plenty of

> > cash, there's been a great deal of mismanagement. Hospitals are

>closing,

> > nurses, NURSES, the most sought-after resource on the planet at the

>moment,

> > are being fired to cut costs. The Health Secretary was just booed

>by the

> > School of Nurses during a public address. wDentists have also been

>cut back

> > and many are dropping national care for private practice, which few

>Brits

> > can afford. Things aren't dire, the English are wealthy and will

>survive,

> > but I can't stomach the perception that they are healthier than the

>US.

> > There's plenty of super-sized folks here and they are growing, as

>the people

> > are serious about binge drinking and smoking. Not a strong

>comparative model

> > by any means.

> >

> > I know this group only values clinical study, but the articles'

>bias was so

> > blantant, I felt compelled to comment on the day-to-day experience.

>I

> > sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone.

> >

> > Ash

> >

> >

> > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

> > >Reply-

> > >

> > >Subject: [ ] Americans " More Ill than the English "

> > >Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 00:19:29 -0000

> > >

> > >Food for thought:

> > >

> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4965034.stm

> > >

> > >Rodney.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -

>it's FREE!

> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

> >

>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

I didn't think I ws ranting, but yes, the reason is the English public

themselves. They are voting on whether to put cardiac arrest monitors in

public locations (the mall, supermarkets, the high streets) so that the

British will not continue to die of so many heart attacks. It seems they

have a habit of going into cardiac arrest in public and then ambulances

don't show up due to lack of funding, so people are dying either in the

streets or before they reach the ER. So in addition to many initiatives in

today's general elections, there is an initiative on whether to install

these things, so that total strangers can learn to give each other electric

charges, in the streets, in case of a crisis. That's how bad heart disease

is here.

Then there's the fact that 1 in 4 Briton is obese. 30,000 die a year from

it, and they say it costs them £500m in NHS funding to fight their own

obesity. So that's where I was getting it. RAND is very well known...but the

BBC has a strong reputation, too, and these were their numbers.

Thanks again,

Ash

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Americans " More Ill than the English "

>Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:24:02 -0000

>

>Hi Ash:

>

>I doubt you offended anyone, but do you have a reason to suppose that

>the Rand organization - the US arm of that study - has some strong

>reason to ruin their reputation for objectivity by putting their

>name, jointly, to a paper that provides data which show DOUBLE the

>rate in the US among comparable people for diabetes, lung cancer,

>etc..

>

>Your rant about the UK national health system no doubt is entirely

>accurate. But the points you make seem to me to be a nearly

>irrelevant response to the data for disease incidence quoted in that

>article.

>

>Do you have reason to believe the disease incidence data that were

>quoted are mistaken?

>

>Rodney.

>

>

> >

> > Hi there,

> >

> > I've been reading this list for a few weeks, and really enjoy it.

>This is an

> > interesting article. Here I sit, an American in England, and I see

>a lot of

> > bias in this reporting. From what I see everyday, the UK, like

>France,

> > " looks " healthier when compared to the US because of their

>socialized health

> > care system. Yes, it's free to all, but it is so deep in

>bureaucracy that it

> > becomes self-exclusive.

> >

> > Basically, it takes ages to see a surgeon (general practitioner),

>and I mean

> > ages. I received my National Health Care card in January and am

>still on the

> > list to get just a basic physical and my surgeon is 20 minutes

>away. I am

> > told it will probably not happen until the late Fall. So many, many

>people,

> > weall-off and poor, don't go to the doctor until they're in a real

> > emergency. Some people have waited as long at 7 years for

>operations that

> > would take maybe three weeks to schedule in the US, tops? Forget

>getting

> > referred to a specialist. Average Brits can't really afford the

>time off

> > from work to see a doctor, so reports on their health issues may

>seem lower.

> >

> > The NHS is in major crisis financially, in that while there is

>plenty of

> > cash, there's been a great deal of mismanagement. Hospitals are

>closing,

> > nurses, NURSES, the most sought-after resource on the planet at the

>moment,

> > are being fired to cut costs. The Health Secretary was just booed

>by the

> > School of Nurses during a public address. wDentists have also been

>cut back

> > and many are dropping national care for private practice, which few

>Brits

> > can afford. Things aren't dire, the English are wealthy and will

>survive,

> > but I can't stomach the perception that they are healthier than the

>US.

> > There's plenty of super-sized folks here and they are growing, as

>the people

> > are serious about binge drinking and smoking. Not a strong

>comparative model

> > by any means.

> >

> > I know this group only values clinical study, but the articles'

>bias was so

> > blantant, I felt compelled to comment on the day-to-day experience.

>I

> > sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone.

> >

> > Ash

> >

> >

> > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

> > >Reply-

> > >

> > >Subject: [ ] Americans " More Ill than the English "

> > >Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 00:19:29 -0000

> > >

> > >Food for thought:

> > >

> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4965034.stm

> > >

> > >Rodney.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -

>it's FREE!

> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

> >

>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

At 12:22 PM 5/4/2006, you wrote:

>I didn't think I ws ranting, but yes, the reason is the English public

>themselves.

Hey--as someone who was married to a Brit for 15 years and who got to know

the vicissitudes of the English so-called public health system very well, I

was amening you the whole way through. The care is slow and often

atrocious; you might get a decent surgeon, or you might not, but the

free-market forces that raise prices here also provide a much greater

ability to find the best treatment in a timely fashion, so I didn't think

you were ranting in the least.

>They are voting on whether to put cardiac arrest monitors in

>public locations (the mall, supermarkets, the high streets) so that the

>British will not continue to die of so many heart attacks. It seems they

>have a habit of going into cardiac arrest in public and then ambulances

>don't show up due to lack of funding, so people are dying either in the

>streets or before they reach the ER. So in addition to many initiatives in

>today's general elections, there is an initiative on whether to install

>these things, so that total strangers can learn to give each other electric

>charges, in the streets, in case of a crisis. That's how bad heart disease

>is here.

>

>Then there's the fact that 1 in 4 Briton is obese. 30,000 die a year from

>it, and they say it costs them £500m in NHS funding to fight their own

>obesity. So that's where I was getting it. RAND is very well known...but the

>BBC has a strong reputation, too, and these were their numbers.

Yes.

Maco

[Guest guest]

At 12:22 PM 5/4/2006, you wrote:

>I didn't think I ws ranting, but yes, the reason is the English public

>themselves.

Hey--as someone who was married to a Brit for 15 years and who got to know

the vicissitudes of the English so-called public health system very well, I

was amening you the whole way through. The care is slow and often

atrocious; you might get a decent surgeon, or you might not, but the

free-market forces that raise prices here also provide a much greater

ability to find the best treatment in a timely fashion, so I didn't think

you were ranting in the least.

>They are voting on whether to put cardiac arrest monitors in

>public locations (the mall, supermarkets, the high streets) so that the

>British will not continue to die of so many heart attacks. It seems they

>have a habit of going into cardiac arrest in public and then ambulances

>don't show up due to lack of funding, so people are dying either in the

>streets or before they reach the ER. So in addition to many initiatives in

>today's general elections, there is an initiative on whether to install

>these things, so that total strangers can learn to give each other electric

>charges, in the streets, in case of a crisis. That's how bad heart disease

>is here.

>

>Then there's the fact that 1 in 4 Briton is obese. 30,000 die a year from

>it, and they say it costs them £500m in NHS funding to fight their own

>obesity. So that's where I was getting it. RAND is very well known...but the

>BBC has a strong reputation, too, and these were their numbers.

Yes.

Maco

[Guest guest]

Also, consider these:

(this is my last off-topic post on this subject)

for the US:

Death rate:

8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

for the Brits:

Death rate:

10.13 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Maco

[Guest guest]

Also, consider these:

(this is my last off-topic post on this subject)

for the US:

Death rate:

8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

for the Brits:

Death rate:

10.13 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Maco

[Guest guest]

I'd included it in a previous post that seems to have gotten eaten

somewhere along the packet pathways:

http://198.81.129.100/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

Maco

At 04:26 PM 5/4/2006, you wrote:

>Hi Maco:

>

>A source for your data below would be interesting, please!

>

>Also consider the following, folks. The world survey of health

>expenditures, linked below, found that, in the latest year they

>surveyed, 1996, the US spent 2.89 TIMES AS MUCH PER CAPITA on health

>than the UK did, yet the people live less long in the US than in the

>UK:

>

>www.who.int/docstore/bulletin/ pdf/2000/issue6/bu0585.pdf

>

>That is a pretty stunning commentary on the US health system, imo.

It might be a comment as well on the general utility, in terms of longevity

per se, of modern medical intervention beyond trauma and infectious disease

treatment. It's well known that during times of national doctor/hospital

strikes, the death rate goes _down_, and iatrogenic mortality and morbidity

are continually hushed up and minimized because it's the foxes who run and

profit from the hen-houses.

Maco

[Guest guest]

I'd included it in a previous post that seems to have gotten eaten

somewhere along the packet pathways:

http://198.81.129.100/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

Maco

At 04:26 PM 5/4/2006, you wrote:

>Hi Maco:

>

>A source for your data below would be interesting, please!

>

>Also consider the following, folks. The world survey of health

>expenditures, linked below, found that, in the latest year they

>surveyed, 1996, the US spent 2.89 TIMES AS MUCH PER CAPITA on health

>than the UK did, yet the people live less long in the US than in the

>UK:

>

>www.who.int/docstore/bulletin/ pdf/2000/issue6/bu0585.pdf

>

>That is a pretty stunning commentary on the US health system, imo.

It might be a comment as well on the general utility, in terms of longevity

per se, of modern medical intervention beyond trauma and infectious disease

treatment. It's well known that during times of national doctor/hospital

strikes, the death rate goes _down_, and iatrogenic mortality and morbidity

are continually hushed up and minimized because it's the foxes who run and

profit from the hen-houses.

Maco

[Guest guest]

Hi there,

I respect the authority of experts, but it has been recently admitted,

especially in regards to pandemics like AIDS and bird flu (which has hit the

UK by the way), that world health sources can be very flawed across vast

populations. (I am attaching such evidence in an artcle on Africa below).

I don't think that's gone on here to a massive degree, I just think the data

is not inclusive of all of England's true health care struggles. England is

a very good country, but one with very grave health issues and those issues

are overwhelming this population just as much as they have overwhelmed the

USA.

When considering spending, I always consider population size, so it it is

even more blatant. If I drive 4-hours in any direction from my current home

in Wiltshire, UK, I will hit the coast of Britain proper, on all sides, and

will need to fly or boat to Ireland or Wales or Scotland. The distance and

populations of all four lands combined still doesn't equal a 4-hour drive

from Los Angeles (where I used to live) to all points. If I go north, for

example, I can be in Carmel, California, with another 7 hours to go until I

actually leave the state. Not the country of the USA, just the state of

California. That's a lot of people and it makes a huge difference on who

spends what on healthcare.

My problem with the RAND report is basic. I'm in England getting a PhD in

History and accurate documentation is the crux of my career. Thus, I expect

good reporting from other academics and researchers, especially when heavily

funded. They have the time and resources to look at all factors, but for

some reason, the numbers in the RAND study simply do not reflect the reality

of what I see day-to-day. I can't say why that is, but given the NHS card

sitting in my wallet, I feel valid in taking full umbrage with that.

At any rate, thanks for the great dialogue, the text on world health

sources, along with the links to reports on British health care facilities

are all attached below. If you want to skip the Africa report, I think the

second British link is the most telling, as it is not a year old -- but I

must warn I don't like the ending of the article, as I don't buy the

doctor's ethnic self-profiling. Nothingis perfect.

Take care,

Ash

******************************************************************

_______________________________________________

NATAP HIV mailing list -- HIV@...

Does UN Overestimate AIDS Estimates

'How AIDS in Africa was overstated

Reliance on data from urban prenatal clinics skewed early projections'

By Craig Timberg

The Washington Post

Updated: 12:55 a.m. ET April 6, 2006

KIGALI, Rwanda - Researchers said nearly two decades ago that this tiny

country was part of an AIDS Belt stretching across the midsection of Africa,

a

place so infected with a new, incurable disease that, in the hardest-hit

places,

one in three working-age adults were already doomed to die of it.

But AIDS deaths on the predicted scale never arrived here, government health

officials say. A new national study illustrates why: The rate of HIV

infection

among Rwandans ages 15 to 49 is 3 percent, according to the study, enough to

qualify as a major health problem but not nearly the national catastrophe

once

predicted.

The new data suggest the rate never reached the 30 percent estimated by some

early researchers, nor the nearly 13 percent given by the United Nations in

1998.

The study and similar ones in 15 other countries have shed new light on the

disease across Africa. Relying on the latest measurement tools, they portray

an

epidemic that is more female and more urban than previously believed, one

that has begun to ebb in much of East Africa and has failed to take off as

predicted in most of West Africa.

Yet the disease is devastating southern Africa, according to the data. It is

in that region alone -- in countries including South Africa, Botswana,

Swaziland and Zimbabwe -- that an AIDS Belt exists, the researchers say.

" What we know now more than ever is southern Africa is the absolute

epicenter, " said , a senior AIDS analyst for the World Bank,

speaking from

Washington.

In the West African country of Ghana, for example, the overall infection

rate

for people ages 15 to 49 is 2.2 percent. But in Botswana, the national

infection rate among the same age group is 34.9 percent. And in the city of

Francistown, 45 percent of men and 69 percent of women ages 30 to 34 are

infected with

HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Most of the studies were conducted by ORC Macro, a research corporation

based

in Calverton, Md., and were funded by the U.S. Agency for International

Development, other international donors and various national governments in

the

countries where the studies took place.

Taken together, they raise questions about monitoring by the U.N. AIDS

agency, which for years overestimated the extent of HIV/AIDS in East and

West Africa

and, by a smaller margin, in southern Africa, according to independent

researchers and U.N. officials.

" What we had before, we cannot trust it, " said Agnes Binagwaho, a senior

Rwandan health official.

Years of HIV overestimates, researchers say, flowed from the long-held

assumption that the extent of infection among pregnant women who attended

prenatal

clinics provided a rough proxy for the rate among all working-age adults in

a

country. Working age was usually defined as 15 to 49. These rates also were

among the only nationwide data available for many years, especially in

Africa,

where health tracking was generally rudimentary.

The new studies show, however, that these earlier estimates were skewed in

favor of young, sexually active women in the urban areas that had prenatal

clinics. Researchers now know that the HIV rate among these women tends to

be

higher than among the general population.

The new studies rely on random testing conducted across entire countries,

rather than just among pregnant women, and they generally require two forms

of

blood testing to guard against the numerous false positive results that

inflated

early estimates of the disease. These studies also are far more effective at

measuring the often dramatic variations in infection rates between rural and

urban people and between men and women.

UNAIDS, the agency headed since its creation in 1995 by Piot, a

Belgian

physician, produced its first global snapshot of the disease in 1998. Each

year since, the United Nations has issued increasingly dire assessments:

UNAIDS

estimated that 36 million people around the world were infected in 2000,

including 25 million in Africa. In 2002, the numbers were 42 million

globally, with

29 million in Africa.

But by 2002, disparities were already emerging. A national study in the

southern African country of Zambia, for example, found a rate of 15.6

percent,

significantly lower than the U.N. rate of 21.5 percent. In Burundi, which

borders

Rwanda in central East Africa, a national study found a rate of 5.4 percent,

not the 8.3 percent estimated by UNAIDS.

In West Africa, Sierra Leone, just then emerging from a devastating civil

war, was found to have a national prevalence rate of less than 1 percent --

compared with an estimated U.N. rate of 7 percent.

Such disparities, independent researchers say, skewed years of policy

judgments and decisions on where to spend precious health-care dollars.

" From a research point of view, they've done a pathetic job, " said

Bennell, a British economist whose studies of the impact of AIDS on African

school

systems have shown mortality far below what UNAIDS had predicted. " They were

not predisposed, let's put it that way, to weigh the counterevidence. They

were

looking to generate big bucks. "

The United Nations started to revise its estimates in light of the new

studies in its 2004 report, reducing the number of infections in Africa by

4.4

million, back to the total four years earlier of 25 million. It also

gradually

decreased the overall infection rate for working-age adults in sub-Saharan

Africa,

from 9 percent in a 2002 report to 7.2 percent in its latest report,

released

in November.

Ghys, an epidemiologist who has worked for UNAIDS since 1999,

acknowledged in an interview from his office in Geneva that HIV projections

several

years ago were too high because they relied on data from prenatal clinics.

But Ghys said the agency made the best estimates possible with the

information available. As better data emerged, such as the new wave of

national

population studies, it has made revisions where necessary, he said.

" What has happened is we have come to realize that indeed we have

overestimated the epidemic a bit, " he said.

On its Web site, UNAIDS describes itself as " the chief advocate for

worldwide

action against AIDS. " And many researchers say the United Nations' reliance

on rigorous science waned after it created the separate AIDS agency in 1995

--

the first time the world body had taken this approach to tackle a single

disease.

In the place of previous estimates provided by the World Health

Organization,

outside researchers say, the AIDS agency produced reports that increasingly

were subject to political calculations, with the emphasis on raising

awareness

and money.

" It's pure advocacy, really, " said Jim Chin, a former U.N. official who made

some of the first global HIV prevalence estimates while working for WHO in

the

late 1980s and early 1990s. " Once you get a high number, it's really hard

once the data comes in to say, 'Whoops! It's not 100,000. It's 60,000.' "

Chin, speaking from Stockton, Calif., added, " They keep cranking out numbers

that, when I look at them, you can't defend them. "

Ghys said he never sensed pressure to inflate HIV estimates. " I can't

imagine

why UNAIDS or WHO would want to do that, " he said. " If we did that, it would

just affect our credibility. "

Ghys added that studies now show that the overall percentage of Africans

with

HIV has stabilized, though U.N. models still show increasing numbers of

people with the virus because of burgeoning populations.

Many other researchers, including from the World Bank and two

epidemiologists from the U.S. Agency for International Development who wrote

a study

published last week in the Lancet, a British medical journal, dispute that

conclusion, saying that the number of new cases in Africa peaked several

years

ago.

Some involved in the fight against AIDS say that tallying HIV cases is not

nearly as important as finding the resources to fight the disease. That is

especially true now that antiretroviral drugs are more affordable, making it

possible to extend millions of lives if enough money and health-care workers

are

available to facilitate treatment.

" It doesn't matter how long the line is if you never get to the end of it, "

said Francois Venter, a South African doctor and head of Johannesburg

General

Hospital's rapidly expanding antiretroviral drug program, speaking in an

interview in Johannesburg.

But to the researchers who drive AIDS policy, differences in infection rates

are not merely academic. They scour the world looking for evidence of

interventions that have worked, such as the rigorous enforcement of condom

use at

brothels in Thailand and aggressive public campaigns that have urged

Ugandans to

limit their sexual partners to one.

Programs deemed successful are urged on other countries and funded lavishly

by international donors, often to the exclusion of other programs.

Rwanda, a mountainous country of about 8.5 million people jammed into a land

area smaller than land, has relied on approaches similar to those used

in

Uganda, and may have produced similar declines in HIV. UNAIDS estimated in

1998 that 370,000 Rwandans were infected, equal to 12.75 percent of all

working-age adults and a substantial percentage of children as well. Every

two years

since, the agency has lowered that estimate -- to 11.2 percent in 2000, 8.9

percent in 2002 and 5.1 percent in 2004.

Dirk van Hove, the top UNAIDS official in Rwanda, said the next official

estimate, due in May, would show an infection rate of " about 3 percent, " in

line

with the new national study. He said the U.N. estimate tracked the declining

prevalence.

Rwandan health officials say their national HIV infection rate might once

have topped 3 percent and then declined. But it's just as likely, they say,

that

these apparent trends reflected nothing more than flawed studies.

Even so, Rwanda's cities show signs of a serious AIDS problem not yet tamed.

The new study found that 8.6 percent of urban, working-age women have HIV.

Overall, officials say, 150,000 Rwandans are infected, less than half the

number

estimated by UNAIDS in 1998.

Bruno Ngirabatware, a physician who has treated AIDS patients in Kigali

since

the 1980s, said he has seen no evidence of a recent decline in HIV infection

rates.

" There's lots of patients there, always, " he said.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Links to British Health

http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,,1531345,00.html

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/entertainment/filmandtv/tv/s/211/211944_h\

ealth_horrors_redressed.html

http://society.guardian.co.uk/healthmapping/story/0,,1507226,00.html

http://society.guardian.co.uk/healthmapping/story/0,,1708521,00.html

http://society.guardian.co.uk/healthmapping/story/0,,1506115,00.html

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/hlthsvyeng2004upd/2004trendcommentary.pdf/file

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1464-5491.19.s4.2.x

http://society.guardian.co.uk/healthmapping/story/0,,1708515,00.html

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Americans " More Ill than the English "

>Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 22:26:21 -0000

>

>Hi Maco:

>

>A source for your data below would be interesting, please!

>

>Also consider the following, folks. The world survey of health

>expenditures, linked below, found that, in the latest year they

>surveyed, 1996, the US spent 2.89 TIMES AS MUCH PER CAPITA on health

>than the UK did, yet the people live less long in the US than in the

>UK:

>

>www.who.int/docstore/bulletin/ pdf/2000/issue6/bu0585.pdf

>

>That is a pretty stunning commentary on the US health system, imo.

>

>Rodney.

>

>Maco wrote:

> > Also, consider these:

>

> > (this is my last off-topic post on this subject)

>

> > for the US:

> > Death rate:

> > 8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

>

>

> > for the Brits:

> > Death rate:

> > 10.13 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

>

> > Maco

>

>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Hi there,

I respect the authority of experts, but it has been recently admitted,

especially in regards to pandemics like AIDS and bird flu (which has hit the

UK by the way), that world health sources can be very flawed across vast

populations. (I am attaching such evidence in an artcle on Africa below).

I don't think that's gone on here to a massive degree, I just think the data

is not inclusive of all of England's true health care struggles. England is

a very good country, but one with very grave health issues and those issues

are overwhelming this population just as much as they have overwhelmed the

USA.

When considering spending, I always consider population size, so it it is

even more blatant. If I drive 4-hours in any direction from my current home

in Wiltshire, UK, I will hit the coast of Britain proper, on all sides, and

will need to fly or boat to Ireland or Wales or Scotland. The distance and

populations of all four lands combined still doesn't equal a 4-hour drive

from Los Angeles (where I used to live) to all points. If I go north, for

example, I can be in Carmel, California, with another 7 hours to go until I

actually leave the state. Not the country of the USA, just the state of

California. That's a lot of people and it makes a huge difference on who

spends what on healthcare.

My problem with the RAND report is basic. I'm in England getting a PhD in

History and accurate documentation is the crux of my career. Thus, I expect

good reporting from other academics and researchers, especially when heavily

funded. They have the time and resources to look at all factors, but for

some reason, the numbers in the RAND study simply do not reflect the reality

of what I see day-to-day. I can't say why that is, but given the NHS card

sitting in my wallet, I feel valid in taking full umbrage with that.

At any rate, thanks for the great dialogue, the text on world health

sources, along with the links to reports on British health care facilities

are all attached below. If you want to skip the Africa report, I think the

second British link is the most telling, as it is not a year old -- but I

must warn I don't like the ending of the article, as I don't buy the

doctor's ethnic self-profiling. Nothingis perfect.

Take care,

Ash

******************************************************************

_______________________________________________

NATAP HIV mailing list -- HIV@...

Does UN Overestimate AIDS Estimates

'How AIDS in Africa was overstated

Reliance on data from urban prenatal clinics skewed early projections'

By Craig Timberg

The Washington Post

Updated: 12:55 a.m. ET April 6, 2006

KIGALI, Rwanda - Researchers said nearly two decades ago that this tiny

country was part of an AIDS Belt stretching across the midsection of Africa,

a

place so infected with a new, incurable disease that, in the hardest-hit

places,

one in three working-age adults were already doomed to die of it.

But AIDS deaths on the predicted scale never arrived here, government health

officials say. A new national study illustrates why: The rate of HIV

infection

among Rwandans ages 15 to 49 is 3 percent, according to the study, enough to

qualify as a major health problem but not nearly the national catastrophe

once

predicted.

The new data suggest the rate never reached the 30 percent estimated by some

early researchers, nor the nearly 13 percent given by the United Nations in

1998.

The study and similar ones in 15 other countries have shed new light on the

disease across Africa. Relying on the latest measurement tools, they portray

an

epidemic that is more female and more urban than previously believed, one

that has begun to ebb in much of East Africa and has failed to take off as

predicted in most of West Africa.

Yet the disease is devastating southern Africa, according to the data. It is

in that region alone -- in countries including South Africa, Botswana,

Swaziland and Zimbabwe -- that an AIDS Belt exists, the researchers say.

" What we know now more than ever is southern Africa is the absolute

epicenter, " said , a senior AIDS analyst for the World Bank,

speaking from

Washington.

In the West African country of Ghana, for example, the overall infection

rate

for people ages 15 to 49 is 2.2 percent. But in Botswana, the national

infection rate among the same age group is 34.9 percent. And in the city of

Francistown, 45 percent of men and 69 percent of women ages 30 to 34 are

infected with

HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Most of the studies were conducted by ORC Macro, a research corporation

based

in Calverton, Md., and were funded by the U.S. Agency for International

Development, other international donors and various national governments in

the

countries where the studies took place.

Taken together, they raise questions about monitoring by the U.N. AIDS

agency, which for years overestimated the extent of HIV/AIDS in East and

West Africa

and, by a smaller margin, in southern Africa, according to independent

researchers and U.N. officials.

" What we had before, we cannot trust it, " said Agnes Binagwaho, a senior

Rwandan health official.

Years of HIV overestimates, researchers say, flowed from the long-held

assumption that the extent of infection among pregnant women who attended

prenatal

clinics provided a rough proxy for the rate among all working-age adults in

a

country. Working age was usually defined as 15 to 49. These rates also were

among the only nationwide data available for many years, especially in

Africa,

where health tracking was generally rudimentary.

The new studies show, however, that these earlier estimates were skewed in

favor of young, sexually active women in the urban areas that had prenatal

clinics. Researchers now know that the HIV rate among these women tends to

be

higher than among the general population.

The new studies rely on random testing conducted across entire countries,

rather than just among pregnant women, and they generally require two forms

of

blood testing to guard against the numerous false positive results that

inflated

early estimates of the disease. These studies also are far more effective at

measuring the often dramatic variations in infection rates between rural and

urban people and between men and women.

UNAIDS, the agency headed since its creation in 1995 by Piot, a

Belgian

physician, produced its first global snapshot of the disease in 1998. Each

year since, the United Nations has issued increasingly dire assessments:

UNAIDS

estimated that 36 million people around the world were infected in 2000,

including 25 million in Africa. In 2002, the numbers were 42 million

globally, with

29 million in Africa.

But by 2002, disparities were already emerging. A national study in the

southern African country of Zambia, for example, found a rate of 15.6

percent,

significantly lower than the U.N. rate of 21.5 percent. In Burundi, which

borders

Rwanda in central East Africa, a national study found a rate of 5.4 percent,

not the 8.3 percent estimated by UNAIDS.

In West Africa, Sierra Leone, just then emerging from a devastating civil

war, was found to have a national prevalence rate of less than 1 percent --

compared with an estimated U.N. rate of 7 percent.

Such disparities, independent researchers say, skewed years of policy

judgments and decisions on where to spend precious health-care dollars.

" From a research point of view, they've done a pathetic job, " said

Bennell, a British economist whose studies of the impact of AIDS on African

school

systems have shown mortality far below what UNAIDS had predicted. " They were

not predisposed, let's put it that way, to weigh the counterevidence. They

were

looking to generate big bucks. "

The United Nations started to revise its estimates in light of the new

studies in its 2004 report, reducing the number of infections in Africa by

4.4

million, back to the total four years earlier of 25 million. It also

gradually

decreased the overall infection rate for working-age adults in sub-Saharan

Africa,

from 9 percent in a 2002 report to 7.2 percent in its latest report,

released

in November.

Ghys, an epidemiologist who has worked for UNAIDS since 1999,

acknowledged in an interview from his office in Geneva that HIV projections

several

years ago were too high because they relied on data from prenatal clinics.

But Ghys said the agency made the best estimates possible with the

information available. As better data emerged, such as the new wave of

national

population studies, it has made revisions where necessary, he said.

" What has happened is we have come to realize that indeed we have

overestimated the epidemic a bit, " he said.

On its Web site, UNAIDS describes itself as " the chief advocate for

worldwide

action against AIDS. " And many researchers say the United Nations' reliance

on rigorous science waned after it created the separate AIDS agency in 1995

--

the first time the world body had taken this approach to tackle a single

disease.

In the place of previous estimates provided by the World Health

Organization,

outside researchers say, the AIDS agency produced reports that increasingly

were subject to political calculations, with the emphasis on raising

awareness

and money.

" It's pure advocacy, really, " said Jim Chin, a former U.N. official who made

some of the first global HIV prevalence estimates while working for WHO in

the

late 1980s and early 1990s. " Once you get a high number, it's really hard

once the data comes in to say, 'Whoops! It's not 100,000. It's 60,000.' "

Chin, speaking from Stockton, Calif., added, " They keep cranking out numbers

that, when I look at them, you can't defend them. "

Ghys said he never sensed pressure to inflate HIV estimates. " I can't

imagine

why UNAIDS or WHO would want to do that, " he said. " If we did that, it would

just affect our credibility. "

Ghys added that studies now show that the overall percentage of Africans

with

HIV has stabilized, though U.N. models still show increasing numbers of

people with the virus because of burgeoning populations.

Many other researchers, including from the World Bank and two

epidemiologists from the U.S. Agency for International Development who wrote

a study

published last week in the Lancet, a British medical journal, dispute that

conclusion, saying that the number of new cases in Africa peaked several

years

ago.

Some involved in the fight against AIDS say that tallying HIV cases is not

nearly as important as finding the resources to fight the disease. That is

especially true now that antiretroviral drugs are more affordable, making it

possible to extend millions of lives if enough money and health-care workers

are

available to facilitate treatment.

" It doesn't matter how long the line is if you never get to the end of it, "

said Francois Venter, a South African doctor and head of Johannesburg

General

Hospital's rapidly expanding antiretroviral drug program, speaking in an

interview in Johannesburg.

But to the researchers who drive AIDS policy, differences in infection rates

are not merely academic. They scour the world looking for evidence of

interventions that have worked, such as the rigorous enforcement of condom

use at

brothels in Thailand and aggressive public campaigns that have urged

Ugandans to

limit their sexual partners to one.

Programs deemed successful are urged on other countries and funded lavishly

by international donors, often to the exclusion of other programs.

Rwanda, a mountainous country of about 8.5 million people jammed into a land

area smaller than land, has relied on approaches similar to those used

in

Uganda, and may have produced similar declines in HIV. UNAIDS estimated in

1998 that 370,000 Rwandans were infected, equal to 12.75 percent of all

working-age adults and a substantial percentage of children as well. Every

two years

since, the agency has lowered that estimate -- to 11.2 percent in 2000, 8.9

percent in 2002 and 5.1 percent in 2004.

Dirk van Hove, the top UNAIDS official in Rwanda, said the next official

estimate, due in May, would show an infection rate of " about 3 percent, " in

line

with the new national study. He said the U.N. estimate tracked the declining

prevalence.

Rwandan health officials say their national HIV infection rate might once

have topped 3 percent and then declined. But it's just as likely, they say,

that

these apparent trends reflected nothing more than flawed studies.

Even so, Rwanda's cities show signs of a serious AIDS problem not yet tamed.

The new study found that 8.6 percent of urban, working-age women have HIV.

Overall, officials say, 150,000 Rwandans are infected, less than half the

number

estimated by UNAIDS in 1998.

Bruno Ngirabatware, a physician who has treated AIDS patients in Kigali

since

the 1980s, said he has seen no evidence of a recent decline in HIV infection

rates.

" There's lots of patients there, always, " he said.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Links to British Health

http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,,1531345,00.html

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/entertainment/filmandtv/tv/s/211/211944_h\

ealth_horrors_redressed.html

http://society.guardian.co.uk/healthmapping/story/0,,1507226,00.html

http://society.guardian.co.uk/healthmapping/story/0,,1708521,00.html

http://society.guardian.co.uk/healthmapping/story/0,,1506115,00.html

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/hlthsvyeng2004upd/2004trendcommentary.pdf/file

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1464-5491.19.s4.2.x

http://society.guardian.co.uk/healthmapping/story/0,,1708515,00.html

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Americans " More Ill than the English "

>Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 22:26:21 -0000

>

>Hi Maco:

>

>A source for your data below would be interesting, please!

>

>Also consider the following, folks. The world survey of health

>expenditures, linked below, found that, in the latest year they

>surveyed, 1996, the US spent 2.89 TIMES AS MUCH PER CAPITA on health

>than the UK did, yet the people live less long in the US than in the

>UK:

>

>www.who.int/docstore/bulletin/ pdf/2000/issue6/bu0585.pdf

>

>That is a pretty stunning commentary on the US health system, imo.

>

>Rodney.

>

>Maco wrote:

> > Also, consider these:

>

> > (this is my last off-topic post on this subject)

>

> > for the US:

> > Death rate:

> > 8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

>

>

> > for the Brits:

> > Death rate:

> > 10.13 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

>

> > Maco

>

>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Politics being what it is, it illustrates another thing to which we must adapt.

Perhaps more informative is a movie "men with guns". They migrate to a jungle habitat. Not feasible for millions, of course.

I'd like to see an article that tells me what to eat, how to cook it, etc, of existing available resources such as pasture grass (bahia).

I haven't the foggiest how to select mushrooms, tree leaves, for nutrients.

I actually grew some herbs for something, I forgot what, because they looked like weeds.

But the wolfberries would not grow.

I mention this to point out how lucky we are.

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Americans "More Ill than the English"

[Guest guest]

Politics being what it is, it illustrates another thing to which we must adapt.

Perhaps more informative is a movie "men with guns". They migrate to a jungle habitat. Not feasible for millions, of course.

I'd like to see an article that tells me what to eat, how to cook it, etc, of existing available resources such as pasture grass (bahia).

I haven't the foggiest how to select mushrooms, tree leaves, for nutrients.

I actually grew some herbs for something, I forgot what, because they looked like weeds.

But the wolfberries would not grow.

I mention this to point out how lucky we are.

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Americans "More Ill than the English"