- 1,471
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
This stuff is true, not bs
CDC REPORTS 39.2% OF BLACKS ARE INFECTED WITH HERPES! Vol. But I Cant FEEL nothing...
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by delete1234,
- Start date
- 1,352
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
Yeah, I am going to go out on a limb and say that their research practices introduced bias when the population was reviewed. How was the population compiled? Where was the sample located geographically? How were the study participants polled (i.e. was it through questionnaire mailings? (which introduces bias because certain pop. are more likely to participate/volunteer in research studies and respond to research questionnaires than other pop.)? How were they questioned (i.e. what was they specifically asked?)? So many questions.
- 8,140
- 5,318
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
Yeahhh...take this "report", and any like it, with a grain of salt...
.
I took a course called Pathogenic Microbiology a few years ago and it was chuck full of these kinds of statistics.
Being the only black undergraduate (along with 2 other black graduate students) in a class full of white people, listening to my professor talk about the high prevalence of STDs in the black community was definitely unnerving and occasionally, rather embarrassing. Simply stated, during many of these moments/revelations, I found myself thinking--"[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]damn my people, we gotta do better for ourselves...smh[/color]"...
But the more I thought about these statistics, the more it became clear that much of this had to be skewed, and/or possibly biased. I mean really, think about it. How is that a population that makes up no more than 12.5% of the entire U.S population, has the highest rates of incidence in numerous STD categories? Only after questioning my prof. did it become clear exactly what was going on and how these data were being achieved--which I'm now going to elaborate on.
Much, if not all, of the information/statistical data gathered to make reports such as this comes from [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]FREE PUBLIC HEALTH CLINICS[/color]. Many of these clinics can often be found in low income, urban, minority populated areas. At these various locales, these clinics serve their respective communities by providing a free and/or cheap health care service. They also work to educate the members within a given community about matters pertaining to, obviously, health related issues.
Now remember, many of these clinics are based in low income, minority dense areas. Add to that the fact that they hardly charge for their services and you can't help but wonder as to how and where the money needed to cover operational and educational costs comes from? Well, simply put, the money comes from the Federal Government.
Now how is this related to all these statistics?
Well here's how it all works. In order to receive and maintain funding, many of these community based free clinics must release statistical information to the Feds. It's one way of showing that the awarded funds are being used in the right capacity--education, direct health care treatment, bills...etc. These statistics which are released by these various clinics to the Feds, are then pooled together and form much of the basis for reports such as that released by CDC--a federal agency.
By now, I would hope a few of y'all would've realized the problems and potential for inaccuracy that can stem from this process of acquiring statistical data. The most obvious is the sample population from which said data is being gathered from. Essentially, the entire black population in America is being defined based on statistical data gathered from a small sample group composed of low income blacks living in low income areas; it can also be assumed that this sample group is uneducated, or lacking in education.
You should also realize that this method of gathering data, will only reflect upon certain racial populations. Why--because the truth is, while you will find whites, for example, living in low income urban areas, for the most part a greater percentage of this population will often belong to an income category that will allow them to live in a "not-so-low-income" area. Even more importantly, their income category will afford them a health-care that is private, and safe from scrutiny from Federal Agencies like the CDC. In other words, statistically speaking, a greater percentage of data concerning the prevalence of STDs amongst whites (for example) will NEVER be released to the Feds/CDC.
Correspondingly, data concerning the prevalence of STDs, or lack thereof, amongst blacks who have private doctors/health care will also NEVER be released to the Feds/CDC. Of course, this kind of data would work to correct some of the bias that is clearly present in the report.
In the end, what it boils down to is education. Educated Blacks and/or African-Americans hardly live in areas that would be defined as low-income. More importantly, as a result of their education, it can be stated that this particular demographic will more often than not, practice safe sex. Lastly, this group will tend to have access to private health care systems.
What does all this mean? Well, the overarching point is that, reports like the one released by the CDC (posted by the OP) will often exclude data from the previously mentioned-- "educated" black demographic; instead, such reports are comprised in large part, of data gathered from non-educated to minimally educated blacks who live in low income areas and lack access to private forms of health care.
This is why you should take these race based reports with a grain of salt.
...
I took a course called Pathogenic Microbiology a few years ago and it was chuck full of these kinds of statistics.
Being the only black undergraduate (along with 2 other black graduate students) in a class full of white people, listening to my professor talk about the high prevalence of STDs in the black community was definitely unnerving and occasionally, rather embarrassing. Simply stated, during many of these moments/revelations, I found myself thinking--"[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]damn my people, we gotta do better for ourselves...smh[/color]"...
But the more I thought about these statistics, the more it became clear that much of this had to be skewed, and/or possibly biased. I mean really, think about it. How is that a population that makes up no more than 12.5% of the entire U.S population, has the highest rates of incidence in numerous STD categories? Only after questioning my prof. did it become clear exactly what was going on and how these data were being achieved--which I'm now going to elaborate on.
Much, if not all, of the information/statistical data gathered to make reports such as this comes from [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]FREE PUBLIC HEALTH CLINICS[/color]. Many of these clinics can often be found in low income, urban, minority populated areas. At these various locales, these clinics serve their respective communities by providing a free and/or cheap health care service. They also work to educate the members within a given community about matters pertaining to, obviously, health related issues.
Now remember, many of these clinics are based in low income, minority dense areas. Add to that the fact that they hardly charge for their services and you can't help but wonder as to how and where the money needed to cover operational and educational costs comes from? Well, simply put, the money comes from the Federal Government.
Now how is this related to all these statistics?
Well here's how it all works. In order to receive and maintain funding, many of these community based free clinics must release statistical information to the Feds. It's one way of showing that the awarded funds are being used in the right capacity--education, direct health care treatment, bills...etc. These statistics which are released by these various clinics to the Feds, are then pooled together and form much of the basis for reports such as that released by CDC--a federal agency.
By now, I would hope a few of y'all would've realized the problems and potential for inaccuracy that can stem from this process of acquiring statistical data. The most obvious is the sample population from which said data is being gathered from. Essentially, the entire black population in America is being defined based on statistical data gathered from a small sample group composed of low income blacks living in low income areas; it can also be assumed that this sample group is uneducated, or lacking in education.
You should also realize that this method of gathering data, will only reflect upon certain racial populations. Why--because the truth is, while you will find whites, for example, living in low income urban areas, for the most part a greater percentage of this population will often belong to an income category that will allow them to live in a "not-so-low-income" area. Even more importantly, their income category will afford them a health-care that is private, and safe from scrutiny from Federal Agencies like the CDC. In other words, statistically speaking, a greater percentage of data concerning the prevalence of STDs amongst whites (for example) will NEVER be released to the Feds/CDC.
Correspondingly, data concerning the prevalence of STDs, or lack thereof, amongst blacks who have private doctors/health care will also NEVER be released to the Feds/CDC. Of course, this kind of data would work to correct some of the bias that is clearly present in the report.
In the end, what it boils down to is education. Educated Blacks and/or African-Americans hardly live in areas that would be defined as low-income. More importantly, as a result of their education, it can be stated that this particular demographic will more often than not, practice safe sex. Lastly, this group will tend to have access to private health care systems.
What does all this mean? Well, the overarching point is that, reports like the one released by the CDC (posted by the OP) will often exclude data from the previously mentioned-- "educated" black demographic; instead, such reports are comprised in large part, of data gathered from non-educated to minimally educated blacks who live in low income areas and lack access to private forms of health care.
This is why you should take these race based reports with a grain of salt.
...
- 21,776
- 15,828
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
Originally Posted by Roc Boy Jada
How often do people on here question an article from a legitimate site like CNN? Of course this one must be utter nonsense.
I mean they gave absolutely 0 information on how or where the study was conducted, sample size, how they chose the sample, absolutely nothing.
CDC is located in Chicago so it's likely they did it in their own community, but Chicago is one of those ****hole cities where you can't just assume the trend extrapolates through the entirety of the 40 million deep black community.
- 7,389
- 237
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
that X clip was on point
- 7,348
- 241
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
Originally Posted by anDown Goes Frasier
Soooo this would mean half da women in my family got herpes than? Right................
No, that's not at all what it means.
Just because half of the women in the country have herpes, doesn't mean half of any randomly chosen group of women has herpes
- 8,140
- 5,318
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
Originally Posted by DatZNasty
Originally Posted by Roc Boy Jada
How often do people on here question an article from a legitimate site like CNN? Of course this one must be utter nonsense.
I mean they gave absolutely 0 information on how or where the study was conducted, sample size, how they chose the sample, absolutely nothing.
CDC is located in Chicago so it's likely they did it in their own community, but Chicago is one of those ****hole cities where you can't just assume the trend extrapolates through the entirety of the 40 million deep black community.
FYI...the CDC is located in Atlanta, GA; interestingly enough, Atlanta is the black mecca of the United States...
...
- 14,388
- 243
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
Good stuff Antigen.
- 635
- 14
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
Originally Posted by DatZNasty
Originally Posted by Roc Boy Jada
How often do people on here question an article from a legitimate site like CNN? Of course this one must be utter nonsense.
I mean they gave absolutely 0 information on how or where the study was conducted, sample size, how they chose the sample, absolutely nothing.
CDC is located in Chicago so it's likely they did it in their own community, but Chicago is one of those ******** cities where you can't just assume the trend extrapolates through the entirety of the 40 million deep black community.
Um, no. It's based in in Atlanta. But the rest still applies.
sn00pee
Supporter
- 3,638
- 784
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2003
Once again, some of you "pro-black" advocates dodge the real problem, and blame "the man", or "the devil", or "the government".
- 21,776
- 15,828
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
Originally Posted by 5am6oody72
Originally Posted by anDown Goes Frasier
Soooo this would mean half da women in my family got herpes than? Right................
No, that's not at all what it means.
Just because half of the women in the country have herpes, doesn't mean half of any randomly chosen group of women has herpes
Atlanta? Where the !##% was I getting Chicago from. They did the last STD study out of there, I guess I got to thinking it was a locally based study.
- 21,947
- 1,374
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
Well you have to understand that every study uses a sample size, but the article doesn't share any information on it so you can't take the stats to heart.Originally Posted by DatZNasty
Originally Posted by Roc Boy Jada
How often do people on here question an article from a legitimate site like CNN? Of course this one must be utter nonsense.
I mean they gave absolutely 0 information on how or where the study was conducted, sample size, how they chose the sample, absolutely nothing.
CDC is located in Chicago so it's likely they did it in their own community, but Chicago is one of those ****hole cities where you can't just assume the trend extrapolates through the entirety of the 40 million deep black community.
Its just percentages based on a sample size in a specific area. If this were a nationwide study I'm sure it would have been in more detail, but then again this was conducted by a National study group so I can't speculate. These numbers are always just ballpark figures and estimations.
......but besides that, I would not be surprised if these stats were true. But I do not associate these things more with race, but rather financial/medical reasons (and location ie hoods).
sn00pee
Supporter
- 3,638
- 784
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2003
My manOriginally Posted by Mez 0ne
Well you have to understand that every study uses a sample size, but the article doesn't share any information on it so you can't take the stats to heart.Originally Posted by DatZNasty
Originally Posted by Roc Boy Jada
How often do people on here question an article from a legitimate site like CNN? Of course this one must be utter nonsense.
I mean they gave absolutely 0 information on how or where the study was conducted, sample size, how they chose the sample, absolutely nothing.
CDC is located in Chicago so it's likely they did it in their own community, but Chicago is one of those ****hole cities where you can't just assume the trend extrapolates through the entirety of the 40 million deep black community.
Its just percentages based on a sample size in a specific area. If this were a nationwide study I'm sure it would have been in more detail, but then again this was conducted by a National study group so I can't speculate. These numbers are always just ballpark figures and estimations.
......but besides that, I would not be surprised if these stats were true. But I do not associate these things more with race, but rather financial/medical reasons (and location ie hoods).
- 792
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
Ever since obama got in office every other race of people start hating and showing there hate with no remorse now this crap this is 2010 people where in the future when can this all end!!!!
- 8,065
- 118
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
Exactly. Instead of talking about the real problem (which is obviously the prevalence of herpes in the black community) people wanna talk about how the statistics are bias blah blah blah. I'm sure the numbers are not really that high, but come on guys.
- 14,388
- 243
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
WE KNOW we have things we need to work on and we must do better,however the reason why guys are busting up the METHOD in which these numbers are gathered is because our @+*# gets blown up so much and so often that it's sickening!Let's see these numbers for people other than us!I personally have NEVER seen these kinds of studieson anyone else and if they do exist (which they probably do),they sure as hell aren't blown up to the magnitude that these "studies" on black folks are!So NO,the purpose of these posts are not about trying to avoid the issue,but rather to say these "studies" are not THAT thorough to begin with and you should be aware as to HOW this data is gathered.
- 5,983
- 533
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
Ok browsed through most of your post and hope i didnt miss it but you say this data is being taken from low income African Americans because private docs wont release this info well then based on that can one not assume that the same data is from low income white Americans who are also most likely using these free health clinics? So how would that invalidate the study and shift it towards a bias against African Americans?Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
Yeahhh...take this "report", and any like it, with a grain of salt....
I took a course called Pathogenic Microbiology a few years ago and it was chuck full of these kinds of statistics.
Being the only black undergraduate (along with 2 other black graduate students) in a class full of white people, listening to my professor talk about the high prevalence of STDs in the black community was definitely unnerving and occasionally, rather embarrassing. Simply stated, during many of these moments/revelations, I found myself thinking--"[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]damn my people, we gotta do better for ourselves...smh[/color]"...
But the more I thought about these statistics, the more it became clear that much of this had to be skewed, and/or possibly biased. I mean really, think about it. How is that a population that makes up no more than 12.5% of the entire U.S population, has the highest rates of incidence in numerous STD categories? Only after questioning my prof. did it become clear exactly what was going on and how these data were being achieved--which I'm now going to elaborate on.
Much, if not all, of the information/statistical data gathered to make reports such as this comes from [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]FREE PUBLIC HEALTH CLINICS[/color]. Many of these clinics can often be found in low income, urban, minority populated areas. At these various locales, these clinics serve their respective communities by providing a free and/or cheap health care service. They also work to educate the members within a given community about matters pertaining to, obviously, health related issues.
Now remember, many of these clinics are based in low income, minority dense areas. Add to that the fact that they hardly charge for their services and you can't help but wonder as to how and where the money needed to cover operational and educational costs comes from? Well, simply put, the money comes from the Federal Government.
Now how is this related to all these statistics?
Well here's how it all works. In order to receive and maintain funding, many of these community based free clinics must release statistical information to the Feds. It's one way of showing that the awarded funds are being used in the right capacity--education, direct health care treatment, bills...etc. These statistics which are released by these various clinics to the Feds, are then pooled together and form much of the basis for reports such as that released by CDC--a federal agency.
By now, I would hope a few of y'all would've realized the problems and potential for inaccuracy that can stem from this process of acquiring statistical data. The most obvious is the sample population from which said data is being gathered from. Essentially, the entire black population in America is being defined based on statistical data gathered from a small sample group composed of low income blacks living in low income areas; it can also be assumed that this sample group is uneducated, or lacking in education.
You should also realize that this method of gathering data, will only reflect upon certain racial populations. Why--because the truth is, while you will find whites, for example, living in low income urban areas, for the most part a greater percentage of this population will often belong to an income category that will allow them to live in a "not-so-low-income" area. Even more importantly, their income category will afford them a health-care that is private, and safe from scrutiny from Federal Agencies like the CDC. In other words, statistically speaking, a greater percentage of data concerning the prevalence of STDs amongst whites (for example) will NEVER be released to the Feds/CDC.
Correspondingly, data concerning the prevalence of STDs, or lack thereof, amongst blacks who have private doctors/health care will also NEVER be released to the Feds/CDC. Of course, this kind of data would work to correct some of the bias that is clearly present in the report.
In the end, what it boils down to is education. Educated Blacks and/or African-Americans hardly live in areas that would be defined as low-income. More importantly, as a result of their education, it can be stated that this particular demographic will more often than not, practice safe sex. Lastly, this group will tend to have access to private health care systems.
What does all this mean? Well, the overarching point is that, reports like the one released by the CDC (posted by the OP) will often exclude data from the previously mentioned-- "educated" black demographic; instead, such reports are comprised in large part, of data gathered from non-educated to minimally educated blacks who live in low income areas and lack access to private forms of health care.
This is why you should take these race based reports with a grain of salt.
...
sn00pee
Supporter
- 3,638
- 784
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2003
how many reports on blacks with herpes have you read? hmm?
If it wasnt pointed out, people would've cried " where are the studies on blacks?","why are they ignoring blacks?", etc.etc.
The point is, there is a problem with STDs in the black community. What needs to be done about it should be questioning, not whether or not the statistics are "thorough" enough.
- 21,776
- 15,828
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
There are plenty of study of blacks and STDs, and not to mention crime, unemployment, and other negative things. The CDC released one less than a year ago. And nobody would ever complain about not being put under the microscope enough in negative fashion, you are really reaching there.
- 5,983
- 533
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
Also for all those saying they must be pretty lucky if 1/2 have it cause they have never had it. Well most people dont know they have it unless you specifically get tested for HSV2 and that is not a routine lab test. The majority of people either 1. never have an outbreak or 2. Have the intiial infection never to break out again and thus probably blow it off. Just because you have HSV does not mean you have recurrent outbreaks.
sn00pee
Supporter
- 3,638
- 784
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2003
That doesnt mean you should just brush off these numbers as being incorrect. Yes, there are plenty of studies on both white and blacks on negative things. And? You pass these numbers off as being skewed and/or blame racism, then you're hurting no one but yourself and your community.
- 7,000
- 408
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2007
When they throw blacks in a Valtrax commercial I'll believe this.
- 8,140
- 5,318
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
Of course you can make the assumption. But how would such data, pertaining to low income whites, come into play in a report that specifically addresses STD rates amongst blacks/the black population in America. Kinda pointless to include such data (that which concerns the rates of STDs within the white community) dont'cha think.
Furthermore, you DID miss it in my OP.
Why--because the truth is, whileyou will find whites, for example, living in low income urban areas,for the most part a greater percentage of this population will oftenbelong to an income category that will allow them to live in a"not-so-low-income" area. Even more importantly, their income categorywill afford them a health-care that is private, and safe from scrutinyfrom Federal Agencies like the CDC. In other words, statisticallyspeaking, a greater percentage of data concerning the prevalence ofSTDs amongst whites (for example) will NEVER be released to theFeds/CDC.
Even so, if a separate study was conducted in an attempt to determine the rates of STD incidence amongst whites in America and the sample group from which data was derived from consisted of low income individuals living in "trailer-park" communities, wouldn't you find that a bit concerning and deceitful. This was the point of my OP.
I don't have some surreptitious "pro-black" agenda like some of would like to think (). I'm also not telling you that these statistics are biased and/or misleading because of some vendetta against the "man". I'm telling you they're biased because I've studied the dynamics of how this kind of data is gathered. What I have is the desire to know truth from fiction--nothing more, nothing else. Take it how you will.
...
...
- 5,983
- 533
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
Umm this study didnt just report on the rates of herpes in the african american population. It was extrapolated from data including whites too its just that they pointed out the statistically significant fact regarding the rates in the african american populatio. ie whites had rates of 12.3 % etc. This wasnt a study aimed at obtaining the rates of herpes in the african american community they are just reporting the statistically significant facts.
Therefore according to your statment that this is taken from free health clinics it would mean that they were also sampling the low income white americans with the low income african americans. How do you know it was taken from urban environments? It could have been taken from free clinics in urban environments along with rural free clinics which would most likely have a much higher proportion of white patients.
Heres the link to the sampling criteria of participants in the survery from which they determine this info:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/n...7-2008/sampling_0708.htm
Therefore according to your statment that this is taken from free health clinics it would mean that they were also sampling the low income white americans with the low income african americans. How do you know it was taken from urban environments? It could have been taken from free clinics in urban environments along with rural free clinics which would most likely have a much higher proportion of white patients.
Heres the link to the sampling criteria of participants in the survery from which they determine this info:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/n...7-2008/sampling_0708.htm
- 3,169
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2008
Chicago is a !+@@ hole city? Have you ever been there?
