 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / March 2005South African Death Certificate Data Released
From: http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/publicationsearch.asp?PN=fqtqz.t&PM=&PY=&PS=1 HIV/AIDS as an official cause of death in the year 2001 as available: <1 year of age: 1.6% (1999) 1-4 years: 3.0% (down from 3.5% in 1999) 15-24 years: 3.0% 0-18 years: not available (1.5% in 1997) - In table 4.10, no province has a cause of death from HIV/AIDS listed as greater than 3.6% among the leading causes of death. - Also, in table 4.12, note the large numbers of deaths from "Complications of Medical and Surgical Care" - 7.2% in the under 14's, and 6.7% in the over 65's. Just an interesting aside, considering the recent death of Makhato Mandelo after gall bladder surgery - named AIDS. The beef is in Appendix E - "All underlying causes of death, 1997-2003, by single years" Human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] diseases (B20 - B24) Year - number of deaths - (% of total deaths) 1997 6,234 (2.0%) 1998 7,266 (2.0) 1999 9,925 (2.6) 2000 10,926 (2.6) 2001 9,212 (2.0) 2002 10,425 (2.1) 2003 (----) (2.1) So, consistently, 2.0% to 2.6% of death certificates mention "HIV diseases" as the cause of death in South Africa. In STARK contrast to the released numbers, WHO/UNAIDS puts the estimated number of AIDS deaths in South Africa in 2003, at *370,000*. (Source: HIVInsite, http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr09-sf-00 ) Using the 2002 figures, that would mean that there was an underreporting death from AIDS to the extent of 97%, if you believe that. (10,425 / 370,000) I find it very hard to believe that because of a social stigma, people would balk at mentioning AIDS as a cause of death, but not Tuberculosis (the highest number of deaths). On the other hand, this death certificate data has the HUGE advantage of not being based on estimates. Alex From: David I have downloaded the latest Stats SA report on mortality for 1997-2003. It is 744 kb. I will happily send the pdf on request. You can also download it yourself at http://www.statssa.gov.za/ I have plotted deaths from all causes and compared it to previous data from Stats SA. The mortality is a linear for 1997-2003, and no different from what I had plotted previously. No sign of anything unusual mortality. Dave ** Real numbers and not editorials for patent medicine supporters. George > From: David > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ** Real numbers and not editorials for patent medicine supporters. Hi George, I hope president Mbeki is going to get an apology. Alex >From: http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/publicationsearch.asp?PN=fqtqz.t&PM=&PY=&PS=1 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >- In table 4.10, no province has a cause of death from HIV/AIDS listed >as greater than 3.6% among the leading causes of death. The problem, as you may be aware, is that because of the horrific stigma and discrimination people with HIV face, most of the time the death is NOT recorded as related to HIV. So these figures are misleading. See, e.g., http://www.statssa.gov.za/news_archive/18feb2005_1.asp In short, I think you're lying to suit your denialist insanity. George M. Carter ** Abstract portion below: Mortality and causes of death in South Africa, 1997-2003 Findings from death notification Tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia, and cerebrovascular diseases emerged as the leading causes of death amongst South Africans from a study of death notification forms. This is one of the key findings contained in the statistical release by Statistics South Africa today. The release is based on Stats SAs recently completed capturing and coding of approximately 3 million death notification forms (DNFs) received by the Department of Home Affairs for deaths from 1997 to 2003. According to Statistician-General Pali Lehohla, the data gathered provide indirect evidence that the HIV epidemic in South Africa is raising the mortality levels of prime-aged adults, in that associated diseases are on the increase. However, stressed Lehohla, the data provided in the death notification forms do not allow determination of HIV infections or AIDS-related mortality. To do this, analysis of the data needs to be combined with other sources of information, population projections and demographic modeling. Key findings of the mortality and causes of death study show that: * The number of reported deaths has been increasing steadily, which is partly associated with population growth and with improved notification. The number of deaths increased by 57% from 318 287 in 1997 to 499 268 in 2002. * The proportion of deaths in the age group 20-49 is increasing. * The number of adult deaths (persons aged 15 years and above) increased by 62% from 272 221 in 1997 to 441 029 in 2002. * Over the period 1997 to 2002, 53% of all deaths were male. However, this proportion declined from about 56% in 1997 to about 51% in 2002. The insanity is your blind faith in this silly myth. Nothing ever adds up. Nothing ever makes any sense, everything adds up to billions of dollars in profits and nothing more. Cents not sense. >The insanity is your blind faith in this silly myth. LOL. Blind faith means believing in something without question or evidence. I did question the theory in the early 90s tho i was pretty sure that HIV existed and caused AIDS even then. The arguments of the denialists even then were lame. What you believe is more akin to the bullshit propounded by the "intelligent design" crowd--a set of principles based on no questions, no evidence, no means of testing the hypothesis. In short, faith. >Nothing ever adds up. Nothing ever makes any sense, everything adds up to >billions of dollars in profits and nothing more. > >Cents not sense. LOL. That's because your mind is diseased, dear. I hope you find healing! George M. Carter 1997 6,234 (2.0%) 1998 7,266 (2.0) 1999 9,925 (2.6) 2000 10,926 (2.6) 2001 9,212 (2.0) 2002 10,425 (2.1) 2003 (----) (2.1) Only GM Carter could claim that 2.1% is greater than the 2.6% in 1999 and 2000. Some increase! A 19.75% DECREASE >1997 6,234 (2.0%) >1998 7,266 (2.0) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Only GM Carter could claim that 2.1% is greater than the 2.6% in 1999 and >2000. I made no comment or reference to these figures. I said that HIV or AIDS is NOT listed as the cause of death due to severe stigma and discrimination. Starting with Mbeki! >Some increase! > >A 19.75% DECREASE Here's another stellar example of your misuse of figures. George M. Carter "Misuse' does not mean using them correctly. You must have a misprint in your dictionary. >Only GM Carter could claim that 2.1% is greater than the 2.6% in 1999 and >2000. > >Some increase! > >A 19.75% DECREASE >1999 9,925 (2.6) >2002 10,425 (2.1) 500 more deaths were attributed to HIV in 2002 than in 1999. By your method of figuring, this increase is actually a 19.75% decrease. Get professional help on your taxes. The IRS does not appreciate revolutionary new mathematical paradigms.  SignatureDavid Canzi > >Only GM Carter could claim that 2.1% is greater than the 2.6% in 1999 and > >2000. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 500 more deaths were attributed to HIV in 2002 than in 1999. You admit that 10,425 isn't anywhere near the 370,000 predicted by the WHO/UNAIDS. Alex >> >1999 9,925 (2.6) >> >2002 10,425 (2.1) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You admit that 10,425 isn't anywhere near the 370,000 predicted >by the WHO/UNAIDS. It's not an admission. And 370,000 is the wrong target. It would be absurd to expect any combination of the 1992 Stats SA figures to equal the 1993 UNAIDS estimate with total deaths rising this fast: 2000 All causes 413,969 2001 All causes 451,936 2002 All causes 499,268 Death rates are rising even faster from several infectious conditions: 1998 17,019 Influenza and pneumonia 2002 37,637 Influenza and pneumonia 1998 8,780 Intestinal infectious diseases 2002 19,836 Intestinal infectious diseases 1998 28,487 Tuberculosis 2002 59,951 Tuberculosis To you that may seem curious and unexplained, to me it's a smoking gun. I think AIDS is being underreported, you think otherwise. If i can't convince you, that won't change what I believe. If you can't convince me, I know it won't -- and shouldn't -- change what you believe. Stalemate, for now. SignatureDavid Canzi > >> >1999 9,925 (2.6) > >> >2002 10,425 (2.1) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be absurd to expect any combination of the 1992 Stats SA figures to > equal the 1993 UNAIDS estimate with total deaths rising this fast: You mean 2002 and 2003, not 1992 and 1993 (a typo, that's ok) but... you can't really believe that HIV/AIDS deaths went: 2002 10,425 2003 370,000 If you think that the 370,000 number of AIDS deaths alone in 2003 is the wrong target, you should inform the WHO/UNAIDS, because they are the ones who came out with that projection. > 2000 All causes 413,969 > 2001 All causes 451,936 > 2002 All causes 499,268 In 1996, the population of South Africa was 40.6 million. In 2001, the population was 44.8 million. That means an average annual population growth in this 5 year period, of 1.98%. ( 44.8/40.6 ^ 1/5 ) If you project from that the population growth of the following year, that means that the population in 2002 would be 1.0198 x 44.8 million, which is 45.68 million. An increase of 880,000 people in one year. For the same year, deaths (registered) increased 47,332. Population increase (average): 880,000. I don't see where the problem is, or where it says that this increase in deaths "must be" due to AIDS. > Death rates are rising even faster from several infectious conditions: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > To you that may seem curious and unexplained, to me it's a smoking gun. Twenty years after the discovery of HIV/AIDS, aren't we a supposed to be long passed the smoking gun phase? Generally speaking, what > I think AIDS is being underreported, you think otherwise. If i can't > convince you, that won't change what I believe. If you can't convince > me, I know it won't -- and shouldn't -- change what you believe. It isn't a matter of belief. It is about where the evidence is. The high HIV infection numbers that are still believed in worldwide (including at HIV Ininsite) are based on WHO/UNAIDS numbers that are based on extrapolations from small, unrepresentative population samples (the ANC or antenatal clinic surveys). When the CDC population surveys (DHS) came around, all of a sudden all over Africa, estimates were lowered dramatically. Instead admitting to it, the WHO/UNAIDS set out to attack the CDC method, and failed to change it's own. The problem I have with these high estimates, is that there is no coinciding slowdown (let alone decline) in population size in any African country. The usual argument that huge population losses from AIDS are made up by higher fertility and therefore Africa has the highest population growth in the world makes no sense to me whatsoever. Alex avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl wrote: > You admit that 10,425 isn't anywhere near the 370,000 predicted > by the WHO/UNAIDS. > Alex Great w3ng3114@duskmail.com > >From: http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/publicationsearch.asp?PN=fqtqz.t&PM=&PY=&PS=1 > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > George M. Carter That is, unfortunately, because you don't know much about statistics (or logic - at least you don't use it in your arguments). I am not aware of a "horrific stigma" that would make doctors and civil servants record a different cause of death than what the person in question actually died of. In fact, with all the brainwashing about the alleged huge epidemic in South Africa, you would expect them to label all kinds of conditions as HIV/AIDS, instead of the ordinary diseases of poverty they really are. But if you want to prove that doctors in South Africa routinely record the wrong cause of death to spare the family embarassment, please go ahead. Alex snip >That is, unfortunately, because you don't know much >about statistics (or logic - at least you don't use it >in your arguments). LOL...I readily admit my limitations with regard to statistics--but having seen you mangle them, I sure as hell don't trust your interpretations. >I am not aware of a "horrific stigma" There ya go--you're not aware. So I guess gee it must not exist, huh? George M. Carter ".I readily admit my limitations with regard to statistics' Now ain't that the truth. Your idea of statistics is one person said to have a new strain (of B.S) is a new epidemic of global proportions. Actually you may be right. AIDS is a global epidemic of utter garbage, fear and hysteria. |
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.