UN Admits to Long-term Alarmism over AIDS

[Ace Pace]

Link

A new report from the United Nations acknowledges the agency has routinely overstated both the size and growth rate of the AIDS epidemic. The new figures reduce the number of worldwide AIDS cases from 40 to 33 million, cuts the number of new cases by 40%, and reveal that the rate of new cases has been, contrary to past reports, slowing for many years.

The pattern of exaggeration may date back as far as 1995, the year UNAIDS was founded. Just last year, the UN reported infections were rising faster than "even our worst estimates," and warned of the "dangers of inaction."

Critics have long maintained the U.N. overstated cases to gain political and financial support. "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda" said author and AIDS expert Helen Epstein. James Chin, a former AIDS researcher for the World Heath Organiztion, says even these revisions are higher than the actual number of worlwide cases, which he estimates at 25 million.

In the past ten years, spending on AIDS has grown by 3,000 percent, topping $10B a year, much of that funding going to the UN itself. But reports commissioned by private governments continued to contradict the official UN stance. One study in India revealed cases less than half the official figure, and a another China study showed growth of new cases may have been overstated by as much as a factor of 10.

The scandal is eerily similar to the current state of the UN IPCC climate reports, where outside researchers (and even some IPCC panel members) have criticized the official reports as exaggerated and unrealistic.

Climatologist and IPCC expert reviewer Vincent Gray has called the IPCC process "fundamentally corrupt" and its predictions a fraud. Dr. Madhav Khandekar, another IPCC expert reviewer, has called the review process scientifically unsound, and notes the latest report fails to acknowledge a growing number of scientists now question the theory of greenhouse gas-based climate change.

Is there a linkage between the UN's handling of AIDS and global warming? According to journalist Claudia Rosett, the UN routinely overstates crises to generate funding, then uses it to fund a massive system of kickbacks, payoffs, and lavish expense accounts. According to Rosett, IPCC climate pronouncements are just part of this long-standing pattern.

Rosett says the world should take a long, hard look at what the UN has become.

UN officials in Geneva declined comment.

Ignoring the entire tangent into global warming bullshit, this sounds rather interesting.

[ArmorPierce]

Well I wouldn't be surprised that they made such a humbug about it to raise public awareness for it being a problem for everything besides just the gays and perverts.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I am worried that this will set the organization back, but more importantly, diminish the credibility of scientists in the eyes of the public. People have leaped on this already on other forums to try to discredit global warming. Whether they deliberately or unintentionally inflated the problem, it's going to create some problems and feed the skeptics. This will just be ammo for people to claim you can't believe scientists.

I hope it doesn't. I am pessimistic about it. Mistakes, but also lying for a greater goo (if that's the case), can sometimes backfire.

[Darth Wong]

Is there any evidence that they actually lied, as opposed to simply extrapolating from a trend which subsequently began to slow down? And if there's a conspiracy of lies among scientists, then whose figures are they using in order to show that these estimates were wrong?

[brianeyci]

I heard UN guy talking about it on CBC Newsworld.

The result is because they used extrapolative techniques, and now more real data is coming in from India and other regions to lower their estimates. So it's not proof of a deliberate policy of overstatement at all but probably using too much statistics instead of real data points which slowed because it's real life and there's any number of independent variables not accounted for.

If that's even fucking possible, to overstate it. I don't particularly care if they got more support because of an overstated AIDS. What, so 40 million is bad and 33 million is ok? Come on. The core argument for massive AIDS funding has never been extreme numbers of dead, but the fact it destroys an entire country's worth of working class, a subtle but important difference. Entire countries are left barren, because everybody who's working age is dead. That happens if it's 3 million or 4 million.

Maybe AIDS is going down because everybody is fucking dying off.

[wolveraptor]

If the number of AIDS cases is going down worldwide, doesn't that mean UN awareness programs were fucking working, and that the data changed as a result of their efforts?

By the way these assholes draw a completely unwarranted connection between this and global warming. As if the UN provide the only data on global warming. Who the hell are these Daily Tech guys?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Fortunately, the mass hunger and energy shortages will rectify this hiccup in the model. Heaven will be chock full of happy families for years to come.

[Darth Wong]

You can just smell the stink of right-wing spin-doctoring coming from that article in the OP. I called their scam right away.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Worse than right-wing bullshit is ignorant complacency. The cases are going up in Western nations because young people, being the doofuses they can be, think there is a cure for AIDS and it's okay to fuck like rabbits. Because, hey, you can always go on HAART therapy for £125k a year off the NHS and be tied to that for the rest of your life if you do happen to be unlucky. No worse than genital warts.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I don't think the UN did anything wrong. They reported what they believed to be true with the facts that they had at hand. Does anyone really think HIV rates would be slowing and reducing if they HADN'T raised such a massive alarm?

Good on them, they probably saved a dozen million lives.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Worse than right-wing bullshit is ignorant complacency. The cases are going up in Western nations because young people, being the doofuses they can be, think there is a cure for AIDS and it's okay to fuck like rabbits. Because, hey, you can always go on HAART therapy for £125k a year off the NHS and be tied to that for the rest of your life if you do happen to be unlucky. No worse than genital warts.

\

Here it is worse because there is no NHS. Not only do they not realize the cost is crippling, but they dont go in to get tested, not just for the normal reasons (denial, etc) but because of the cost of the test. I am barely sexually active and always use protection, but I still get tested once a year. And that is on World AIDS day when the Rapid Test is free through the campus health service

[PainRack]

If the number of AIDS cases is going down worldwide, doesn't that mean UN awareness programs were fucking working, and that the data changed as a result of their efforts?

Not necessarily. India and China doesn't have the most advanced health surveillance programs in the rural areas after all.
It could be a case of numbers and guesstimates that proved wrong when the capacity to monitor HIV got better later.
There's a news article I read a year back which shows the complacency of Chinese men with regards to HIV. Multiple sex partners, thinks may have gotten HIV, but still goes around fucking anyway.

Here it is worse because there is no NHS. Not only do they not realize the cost is crippling, but they dont go in to get tested, not just for the normal reasons (denial, etc) but because of the cost of the test. I am barely sexually active and always use protection, but I still get tested once a year. And that is on World AIDS day when the Rapid Test is free through the campus health service

How much is the test?

[Metatwaddle]

Is there any evidence that they actually lied, as opposed to simply extrapolating from a trend which subsequently began to slow down?

It looks like some of the numbers that were incorrect were not just predictions.

The new figures reduce the number of worldwide AIDS cases from 40 to 33 million, cuts the number of new cases by 40%, and reveal that the rate of new cases has been, contrary to past reports, slowing for many years.

That's not a statement about what people expect for the AIDS epidemic in the future; it's about what's already happened. I'd like to see some more specifics and citations about what the UN said and what "many years" means, but it's certainly possible that the UN said "The rate of new AIDS cases is growing every year" when that was not the case. I would also like to know how long ago the 40 million estimate was made, and how rough an estimate it was said to be.

Anyway, only a right-wing asshole could turn "Hey, good news: AIDS isn't as bad as we thought!" into "THE UN LIED TO US, WHAT ASSHOLES, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?"

[K. A. Pital]

Anyway, only a right-wing asshole could turn "Hey, good news: AIDS isn't as bad as we thought!"

There's lots of them and they do control - I'd even give the qualifier "most" - of mass-media, especially those directed at a larger audience. The commentaries offered can be very well in the "UN LIARS!" style.

[Lancer]

Anyway, only a right-wing asshole could turn "Hey, good news: AIDS isn't as bad as we thought!"

There's lots of them and they do control - I'd even give the qualifier "most" - of mass-media, especially those directed at a larger audience. The commentaries offered can be very well in the "UN LIARS!" style.

It's much more likely that it's due to the mass-media being sensationalist assholes rather than being right-wing assholes. After all, "UN Issues Correction to AIDS Trend" isn't anywhere near as attention grabbing (and thus, profitable) as "UN LIARS!", even if the latter may not be as accurate as the former.

[Darth Wong]

It's much more likely that it's due to the mass-media being sensationalist assholes rather than being right-wing assholes. After all, "UN Issues Correction to AIDS Trend" isn't anywhere near as attention grabbing (and thus, profitable) as "UN LIARS!", even if the latter may not be as accurate as the former.

It's both. Social conservatism is based on fear of change, fear of the unknown, etc. Sensationalist news is based on taking advantage of those same fears.

[Zixinus]

Why would a right-wing conservative think that the idea (I dare not say "fact" around here) that AIDS, which is "God's Wrath on gay people" for them, are declining a good thing?

[Darth Wong]

Why would a right-wing conservative think that the idea (I dare not say "fact" around here) that AIDS, which is "God's Wrath on gay people" for them, are declining a good thing?

It depends on WHY it's declining. If it's declining because people are abstaining from sex or converting from homosexuality to heterosexuality (remember that they believe this is possible), then he would no doubt be pleased.

[K. A. Pital]

Indeed so. Or, if his puny mind thinks this is because gays are dying, that's clearly good for him.

[Baal]

You can just smell the stink of right-wing spin-doctoring coming from that article in the OP. I called their scam right away.

I am sure we are just moments away from finding proof that this was all inspired by Dick Cheney!!!!

[Darth Wong]

You can just smell the stink of right-wing spin-doctoring coming from that article in the OP. I called their scam right away.

I am sure we are just moments away from finding proof that this was all inspired by Dick Cheney!!!!

Gee, you must think you're fucking hilarious. Maybe you should go on a comedy tour.

[Kuja]

You can just smell the stink of right-wing spin-doctoring coming from that article in the OP. I called their scam right away.

I am sure we are just moments away from finding proof that this was all inspired by Dick Cheney!!!!

Gee, you must think you're fucking hilarious. Maybe you should go on a comedy tour.

As my dad would put it: You should be on a stage. There's one leaving for the west coast in fifteen minutes.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Is your dad, like, 150 years old?