Government Research, Statistics And Damned Lies

Has the AIDS epidemic grown or shrunk. Are the numbers up or are they down? Those potentially affected might care which is not to mean those that may contract AIDS, but those that are ideologically or financially invested in AIDS.

How are we to know who to believe? We can't know, at least from what are considered traditional sources because they bend studies to their own means. Many are kind and say the different groups "interpret" data. I'm not kind. They lie about data.

U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic
Population With Virus Overstated by Millions

The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week
that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic,
which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N.
documents prepared for the announcement.

So, I guess that the numbers were fudged wrong in East Timbucktu for years.

Estimate of AIDS Cases In U.S. Rises
New Test Places the Rate Of Infection 50 Percent Higher

New government estimates of the number of Americans who become infected with the AIDS virus each year are 50 percent higher than previous calculations suggested, sources said yesterday.

So, I guess that the numbers will be fudged wrong in the U.S. for years.

How does the average citizen decide who or what effort they should believe in? Traditionally, people have trusted a source, like St. Lukes, and have answered their plea for funds. Some causes, such as children's cancer, elicit private financial support as well as demands for public funds. This is so because people want to trust and have learned to trust certain groups. Now, I think people are generally beginning to no longer believe, especially anything related to government sources and sources perceived to be aligned with the government.

To many people, CDC and NIH, as examples, are nothing more than extensions of rich special interest groups and taxpayer paid bureaucrats that have agendas they want to foist on American society. That they are using our taxes to try to socially engineer us into their vision of what society should be. It is also fabulous job security, saving us from ourselves using our money to pay for their jobs.

Personally, I think AIDS has become a cash cow, much like race and poverty, for special interests and most governmental departments and agencies. To them, conquering AIDS, racism and poverty may be laudable goals, but a lot of money can be made while those goals are sought. More profitable though, would be if they're not conquered, but just contained to certain levels that constantly give a smaller profit, but over a longer term. Including advertising revenue.

Anymore, I wouldn't believe The Washington Post if they wrote that night is dark and day is light. I'd believe in a heartbeat that they had spiked or hyped a story in hopes of profit. And I'd laugh at their denial.