>>34
That number means jack without knowing how many people in the HIV negative population would develop one of the "AIDS indicator" diseases under the same circumstances.
There's diagnostic circularism to HIV/AIDS. You got a HIV load and URI? Congratulations, you've got AIDS! You've got a HIV load and no symptoms? Congrats, you're stage I AIDS! You've got a URI and no HIV load, well then you've just got a URI. Your CD4 count is too low and you've got HIV? AIDS again! Winnar! Your CD4 count is too low and no HIV? It's just Neutropenia.
Seriously, the fact that they almost never look for HIV infection until something like PML pops up means that the statistics on HIV and the infections associated with AIDS are crap, as are most of the survival analysis been done- they're doing it on people who are already infected with debilitating diseases... no wonder they don't live long.
Besides, even if HIV does cause AIDS, do you have any idea how much more good we could do if we took the money from all the druggies and faggots and spent it on treating, say, cholera? Why the fuck do we throw so much money at something that EVEN IF YOU BUY WHAT THEY SAY is brought on by their own irresponsible behavior?