Testing and race
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2010/10/25
The good news:
“More than 70% of people getting care at a major Midwest clinical center had never been tested for HIV despite numerous encounters with the healthcare system”
How to make matters worse?
“The low numbers persisted despite 2006 CDC recommendations for universal HIV testing . . . . ‘there are no teeth in the recommendations and, in fact, in some states in the U.S. it’s still illegal to follow them, because you need informed written consent.’”
How long before a reason is found not to require informed consent? In the interests of public health, perhaps?
In the meantime, “a solution might be to make patient knowledge of HIV status a measure of quality of care”.
The orthodoxy has achieved something, though, if not yet universal testing. The incessant propaganda that minorities (blacks and Latinos) are especially at risk seems to be paying off:
“Black and Hispanic men were more likely to have been tested than white men, with odds ratios of 1.34 in 2008 and 1.41 in 2009. . . .
Black and Hispanic women were also more likely to have been tested than white women, with odds ratios of 1.46 in 2008 and 1.56 in 2009.”
So the absolute numbers of blacks and Hispanics testing “HIV-positive” will rise far more than those of white Americans, confirming the propaganda. And so the predictable results will be used for another twirl of the vicious cycle by which blacks and Hispanics will be subjected to toxic “medications” in ever-increasing numbers.
Yet that “HIV” tests are racially biased is known to anyone who has looked at the literature. No matter what the condition may be that produces a positive “HIV”-test-result — pregnancy, TB, whatever — blacks are 5-to-≥20 times more likely to test poz than are whites.
There will come a time when historians of medicine rank this episode with the Tuskegee and Guatemalan syphilis trials.