 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2005Well Blow Me Away (UNICEF tries hand at DHS in Swaziland)
Another mega-infection rate blown out of the water by a change in surveillance type. 1) " only six percent of girls aged from 15 to 19 were found to be HIV-positive, ... " 2) " The study was prompted by the results of the government's 2002 sero-surveillance study, which estimated that 32.5 percent of teenage girls between the ages of 15 and 19 were HIV-positive. " 3) Quite an admission from the UNICEF representative: "This is the first time we have had data from a scientifically accurate survey of randomly selected households. " I guess this is an admission that all the previous antenatal (ANC) surveys were so much chopped liver. An admission that ANC surveys ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE. Dr. Alan Brody continues: "We were baffled by the contradiction between the statistics and what we saw happening on the ground. The problem is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that. Because 40 percent of 20 year-old pregnant women were tested HIV positive, this suggested great havoc was taking place in the girls' teenage years," Brody said. " http://www.plusnews.org/AIDSReport.ASP?ReportID=3819&SelectRegion=Southern_Afric a&SelectCountry=SWAZ ILAND Alex Great bit of research Alex. 'AIDS' statistics are so full of holes and utter and complete B.S. I am amazed they dare to keep on putting the nonsense out. The 'AIDS' industry is shameless. A total bad joke! "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > Another mega-infection rate blown out of the water by a change > in surveillance type. > 1) " only six percent of girls aged from 15 to 19 were found to be HIV-positive, ... " > 2) " The study was prompted by the results of the government's 2002 > sero-surveillance study, which estimated that 32.5 percent of teenage > girls between the ages of 15 and 19 were HIV-positive. " > 3) Quite an admission from the UNICEF representative: > "This is the first time we have had data from a scientifically > accurate survey of randomly selected households. " I know Alan Brody. He'd be delighted that only 6% of girls between 15 and 19 were HIV positive if he honestly believed that 32.5% of them were HIV positive before the new information. However, remember that girls coming to an antenatal clinic will have a much higher percentage of HIV than the general societal norm. Firstly, an antenatal clinic is evidence that safe sex was not practiced. Pregnancy cannot occur when safer sex is practiced. > I guess this is an admission that all the previous antenatal (ANC) > surveys were so much chopped liver. An admission that ANC > surveys ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE. We've known that for years. > Dr. Alan Brody continues: > "We were baffled by the contradiction between the statistics and > what we saw happening on the ground. The problem is that all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > suggested great havoc was taking place in the girls' teenage years," > Brody said. " I have always said that antenatal clinics are not the place to draw general population statistics. Low risk people do not land up at antenatal clinics. Moira, the Faerie Godmother > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > remember that girls coming to an antenatal clinic will have a much > higher percentage of HIV than the general societal norm. Well all the more reason not to extrapolate to the general population. Which is what the WHO/UNAIDS have been doing for the last 20 years. Watch Peter Piot, head of UNAIDS, sing the praises of surveys from antenatal and std clinics: " But what are we doing - we're working with the national health ministries and using statistical tests taking samples of the population, particularly women who are pregnant and who come to antenatal services. There are studies being done, surveys in terms of population base in a community, also those who are more at risk like among sex workers, injecting drug users. And according this kind of statistical methodology we can come to quite accurate estimates of how many people are infected. I actually think that there is probably no other health problem in Africa certainly where we know so well what the situation is. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3248715.stm#1 (And just getting carried away with all the lies...) " Peter Piot: Well it's true that there are - it's possible to have a so-called false positive test but it's extremely rare. Also in these surveys that I just talked about in Africa the same scientific standards are being applied, initial positive tests are being verified with other tests. I really think that that's not the problem. I mean it could be that in South Africa instead of five million people infected - living with HIV - it could be a hundred thousand more or a hundred thousand less but the figure itself - the order of magnitude - is definitely correct. And by the way and South Africa has an excellent, what we call, epidemiological surveillance system for HIV and I would say now throughout most of African countries, except those like Angola who've just come out of conflict or Democratic Republic of Congo. And as far as tuberculosis is concerned there is no cross reaction with other infections, the tests are very accurate. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3248715.stm > Firstly, > an antenatal clinic is evidence that safe sex was not practiced. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > We've known that for years. Sorry, but that doesn't wash at all. See Peter Piot, the head of UNAIDS statements above. I guess that is why you've been petitioning the WHO/UNAIDS against their use for years? Also, antenatal clinics aren't std clinics. All it means is that the woman in question is pregnant. Now how they got pregnant. For all you know, they may have been mongamous for years. > > Dr. Alan Brody continues: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > suggested great havoc was taking place in the girls' teenage > > years," Brody said. " > I have always said that antenatal clinics are not the place to draw > general population statistics. Low risk people do not land up at > antenatal clinics. Actually, the biggest problem with using data from antenatal clinics... is all the pregant women who show up. Pregnancy is one of the many factors that will cause false positive antibody tests. So now you can tell the WHO/UNAIDS and dr. Peter Piot, who will not budge from their use. Alex snip >Well all the more reason not to extrapolate to the general population. >Which is what the WHO/UNAIDS have been doing for the last 20 years. More cognitive dissonance. HIV exists and causes AIDS. How prevalent is it? Estimations may be too high in some areas. If so--HURRAY!!!!! Let's pray it is not as bad as estimated. The rate may be as high or higher than estimated in other areas. It hardly suggests people stop being vigilant. Nor does this serve as an argument that HIV either doesn't exist or doesn't cause AIDS. George M. Carter > snip > > > >Well all the more reason not to extrapolate to the general population. > >Which is what the WHO/UNAIDS have been doing for the last 20 years. > > More cognitive dissonance. HIV exists and causes AIDS. Ohm-mani-padme-hummmm... Ohm-mani-padme-hummmm... [Gregorian Chanting:] hiv-cau-ses-a-haidsss... > How prevalent is it? Estimations may be too high in some areas. If > so--HURRAY!!!!! Let's pray it is not as bad as estimated. No, let's call the people who say HIV estimates make no sense, the heretics they are. > The rate may be as high or higher than estimated in other areas. Etc. Let me say it plainly. The surveys that the WHO/UNAIDS has relied on to throw these (literally) incredible numbers about HIV infection in Africa ARE FRAUDULENT. They are WRONG. There is no 33.3% HIV infection rate in Swaziland. There is no 25% HIV infection rate in Zimbabwe. And on, and on. Even though they give much lower numbers, the problem with the CDC's alternative, the DHS population surveys, is that EVEN THEY don't use proper (Western Blot) confirmation tests to confirm positive screening tests. Alex >> snip >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ohm-mani-padme-hummmm... Ohm-mani-padme-hummmm... Great chant! >[Gregorian Chanting:] hiv-cau-ses-a-haidsss... By George, I think she's got it! >> How prevalent is it? Estimations may be too high in some areas. If >> so--HURRAY!!!!! Let's pray it is not as bad as estimated. > >No, let's call the people who say HIV estimates make >no sense, the heretics they are. OK. You're a heretic! >> The rate may be as high or higher than estimated in other areas. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >relied on to throw these (literally) incredible numbers about HIV >infection in Africa ARE FRAUDULENT. They are WRONG. So you claim. Tell that to Nelson Mandela's son. >There is no 33.3% HIV infection rate in Swaziland. There >is no 25% HIV infection rate in Zimbabwe. And on, and on. You're sure? Where does your information derive? Perhaps you are channelling the spirits of Sirius? >Even though they give much lower numbers, the problem with >the CDC's alternative, the DHS population surveys, is that >EVEN THEY don't use proper (Western Blot) confirmation >tests to confirm positive screening tests. Not always--they're expensive. So the WHO recommendations include use of 3 ELISAs. Depends on what locality you're talking about. George M. Carter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.