 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2003BBC **LIES** About HIV TESTS
Sent To newsgroups: uk.media.radio.bbc-world-service,uk.media.radio.bbc-r5,misc.health.aids READ IT. A second shot, in case anyone missed the first one. On their Talking Point programme, the director of the WHO/UNAIDS, dr. Peter Piot, flat out LIED when he stated the following in this BBC Worldservice show (in their transcript of the 1st hour): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3248715.stm and also here, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3276893.stm#1 From the Talking Point radio programme: " Robin Lustig: Peter Piot there are people, aren't there, who worry that, for example, tuberculosis, which can often be a manifestation of HIV infection but isn't necessary so and that can muddle up the figures sometimes. 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. " ----------------------- Now let ME become a good journalist, and supply the refutation of Piot's OUT AND OUT FALLACIES. From three, independent and unassailable sources. LIE one. "SO-CALLED FALSE POSITIVE TESTS, BUT IT'S EXTREMELY RARE." Well obviously Peter Piot, director of WHO/UNAIDS is not even familiar with his own organisation's data. Because in a population with a low occurrence of HIV infection, false positives are THE NORM. 1) The WHO ITSELF. http://www.who.int/bct/Main_areas_of_work/BTS/HIV_Diagnostics/ Evaluation_reports/Operational%20Characteristics_HIV%20Report9_10.pdf " When a single screening assay is used for testing in a population with a very low prevalence of HN infection, the probability that a person is infected when a positive test result is obtained (i.e., the positive predictive value) is very low, since the majority of people with positive results are not infected. " I will repeat for the slow of understanding that in low prevalence populations using one elisa, "THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WITH POSITIVE RESULTS ARE NOT INFECTED". 2) The Paul Ehrlich Institute for tropical medicine in Munich. http://www.pei.de/themen/hivdiasa.htm#stoer To quote: "Diese unspezifischen Reaktionen werden durch die Bestätigungs-Testung fast immer als falsch-positiv erkannt. " In translation: "These unspecific reactions are almost always recognized as false positive by confirmatory tests." 3) HIV Screening in a Military Blood Transfusion Centers This is Italian data from the general population (blood donors). http://www.certi.org/CMA/newsletter/v03n01.pdf Table II Number of dontations: 25,562 Number of blood donations ELISA positive: 31 Number of blood donations after confirmation test: 2 This means that of 25,562 people tested with a single ELISA, 31 tested positive, and after further testing, only 2 *remained* positive. This means that in the field, ELISA had a ppv (positive predictive value) of 2/31 or 6.45%. LIE two, testing standards for Africa. "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." - PIOT Wow. That makes my job really easy, because he said SURVEYS, not just diagnosis of individual patients in well-off clinics. 1) The WHO http://www.who.int/bct/Main_areas_of_work/BTS/HIV_Diagnostics/ Evaluation_reports/Operational%20Characteristics_HIV%20Report9_10.pdf In countries with an assumed prevalence of greater than 10% (South Africa), the WHO recommends using "strategy I" for survey purposes (see table A at page 7). Strategy I means (page 8): "Strategy I All serum/plasma is tested with one ELISA or simple/rapid assay. Serum that is reactive is considered HIV antibody positive. Serum that is non-reactive is considered HIV antibody negative." So that is: one elisa, no confirmation at all, not even with a second elisa (that would be strategy II). Also, the very existence of strategies I, II and III means the same scientific standard IS NOT BEING APPLIED everywhere, unlike Peter Piot stated above. 2) THE SOUTH AFRICAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH From this paper/report: http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/reports/2000/hivreport.html#methodology " The laboratory co-ordinators ensured the effective running of the Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) used for HIV testing and Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) tests for syphilis. Using the bar-code label on each data-capture sheet, the results for each test were filled-in and the data capture sheet sent back to the provincial co-ordinator for data entry. " No mention whatsoever of confirmation tests of positive results before the results are sent off to the provincial co-ordinator. No mention of Western Blot as a confirmation test. ---------- How long is the BBC going to keep criticism of the HIV/AIDS theory and the massive figures the WHO throws around off the air? What happened to the traditional evenhandedness that was supposed to be the BBC hallmark? Alex > Sent To newsgroups: uk.media.radio.bbc-world-service,uk.media.radio.bbc-r5,misc.health.aids > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tuberculosis, which can often be a manifestation of HIV infection but > isn't necessary so and that can muddle up the figures sometimes. I was the guy who asked him the question in the programme broadcast. I doubt these biblically sized figures and after 20 odd years it appears that AIDS is still more a matter of faith than fact. For the time being I remain agnostic, especially as the BBC figures published for the UK show 247 heterosexual HIV cases for 2002 (figures from jan to sept) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3233018.stm . The 247 may even be drug users or lied about their sexual habits so even that figure is dodgy. Is 247 new cases really an epidemic? If they spent the money on sanitation rather than aids drugs in africa, Would HIV reduce? > Peter Piot: > Well it's true that there are - it's possible to have a so-called false positive [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > Alex > I was the guy who asked him the question in the programme broadcast. I doubt > these biblically sized figures and after 20 odd years it appears that AIDS [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > users or lied about their sexual habits so even that figure is dodgy. Is 247 > new cases really an epidemic? Probably not, in the UK at least. They _do_ try to take things into account when assigning risk exposure (eg lying). But then in the UK we're paranoid about HIV and AIDS and have changed society in response. > If they spent the money on sanitation rather than aids drugs in africa, > Would HIV reduce? No, drugs aren't the answer in Africa. Far, far too many infected and far too late. A changed society or a vaccine might make more of a difference. A few years ago I might have said that clean water would save more lives though, and it still might in some areas, but where there are 10-20% or more of young adults infected? Well, I can't see 10-20% of young adults dying due to unclean water (that's largely responsible for childhood deaths I think), so now I think even that's not enough. Bennett > > Sent To newsgroups: > uk.media.radio.bbc-world-service,uk.media.radio.bbc-r5,misc.health.aids [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I was the guy who asked him the question in the programme broadcast. Too cool. Congrats for getting through. > I doubt > these biblically sized figures and after 20 odd years it appears that AIDS [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > users or lied about their sexual habits so even that figure is dodgy. Is 247 > new cases really an epidemic? I'd have to look up the definition of epidemic. But I can say that there was a phenomenon in the beginning of the outbreak in the USA that many individuals blamed their status on sex with Haitian prostitutes. So, I guess people will lie. > If they spent the money on sanitation rather than aids drugs in africa, > Would HIV reduce? My bet: Absolutely. Consider Uganda. It came out of the Amin/Obote dictatorships with it's people in poor health. Now it is growing and improving all the time. AIDS was supposed to have infected 50% of the population in the 1980s. Now it's 5%. Meanwhile, rather than half the population dying, the population has practically _doubled_ between 1980 and 2000. Population Uganda: 1980 12.3 million 2000 23.5 million 2003 25.6 million Source: US census bureau. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=ug There is nothing to suggest that Uganda was hit by an epidemic of a lethal STDs at all. So much for "Africa, the dying continent" to paraphrase Gore Vidal. The same thing for South Africa. It's population grew 10.3% between 1996 and 2001. It is now estimated at 44.8 million. Population South Africa: 1996 40.6 million 2001 44.8 million Source: HSRC population census of 2001 While the "family planning" lobby wants to claim that an increase in condom use is to thank for the huge drop in people testing positive, the religious right also wants it's share of the pie. They claim it isn't condoms, but abstinence that did the trick. (How abstinence explains the population doubling is beyond me.) Read more at: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jul/02072201.html "Much of the program's success," reports said, "is due to the nation's willingness to look beyond the sexual revolution to the past, before the adoption of corrupt Western sexual mores. The study found Ugandan adults were less promiscuous from 1989 to 2000: of women 15 and older, those reporting multiple sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent to 2.5 percent. Promoters of promiscuous sex and condoms tried to discredit the findings. "Ugandans really never took to condoms," said Dr. Vinand Nantulya, an infectious disease advisor to Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni, in the New Republic magazine. To read coverage in the New Republic: http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020527&s=allen052702 I guess everyone wants in on the action. Alex > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3248715.stm > From the Talking Point radio programme: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > populations using one elisa, "THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE > WITH POSITIVE RESULTS ARE NOT INFECTED". [snip] > 3) HIV Screening in a Military Blood Transfusion Centers > This is Italian data from the general population (blood donors). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > This means that in the field, ELISA had a ppv (positive predictive > value) of 2/31 or 6.45%. This means that there are (31 - 2) / 25,562 = 0.11% false positives. Only 2 / 25,562 = 0.008% turned out to be HIV+. It IS relevant whether <0.008%> or <0.008% + 0.11%>, but it is totally irrelevant whether <around 20%> or <around 20% + 0.11%>. > LIE two, testing standards for Africa. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Wow. That makes my job really easy, because he said SURVEYS, > not just diagnosis of individual patients in well-off clinics. A limited number of representative cases is enough to determine the percentage of false positives. In South Africa there are regions where 30% of the adult population are HIV+. So in a sample of 100 random adult persons, there are around 30 HIV+. It is feasable and not too expensive to use all the existing methods to detect HIV antibodies or HIV fragments in the case of only 100 persons. Alex, who are you, and for whom do you work? Why don't you point out the real contraditions of the AIDS paradigm? Why do you weaken the honest AIDS dissident movement by propagating the theses (for instance: "HIV does not exist") of the false "dissidents" working in fact for the AIDS establishment? I'm actually shocked by the stupidy of the mass media in cases such as AIDS, Ebola, BSE or SARS. How is it possible that AIDS as "gay cancer" could have been subtly transformed into AIDS as a simple redefinition of poverty diseases, people always been dying of in huge quantity in Africa, and until not too long ago also in Europe (e.g. tuberculosis)? If an organisation has so much money as the AIDS establishment, every contradiction and every lie can be transformed into truth, and unfortunately many potential critics can be bought. Isn't it true that African AIDS activists earn several times more than normal teachers or health workers? The perpetuation of the HIV-AIDS belief system is essentially based on a huge number of subtle cases of bribery. Cheers, Wolfgang The AIDS establishment: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8tp8mm$4a8$1@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net Manipulation of public opinion by PR: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ai6n8s$1mg$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net Conflicts of Interest & AIDS & 10/00 A & U Magazine: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=59674@sci.med.aids > This means that there are (31 - 2) / 25,562 = 0.11% false > positives. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It IS relevant whether <0.008%> or <0.008% + 0.11%>, but it is > totally irrelevant whether <around 20%> or <around 20% + 0.11%>. Nicely done - but why do _you_ persist in some of your own thought and ideas on HIV and AIDS that can also be shown to be wrong? > Alex, who are you, and for whom do you work? Why don't you > point out the real contraditions of the AIDS paradigm? Why > do you weaken the honest AIDS dissident movement by propagating > the theses (for instance: "HIV does not exist") of the false > "dissidents" working in fact for the AIDS establishment? It's the dissidents who weaken their own arguments every time ;-) The dissident arguments seem to need multiple supports to exist, and yet the simple "HIV infected leads to AIDS" theory, with no contradictions, gets ignored. I'm amazed. I said to my wife just last week that I was arguing this case 5 years ago, and the newsgroup misc.health.aids was established to discuss this topic 5 years before that! Despite the evidence from protease inhibitors, viral load, immune dysfunction studies and lymph node investigations in the last 10 years that have pretty much nailed the thing, the debate blathers on. Some things really do never change... > I'm actually shocked by the stupidy of the mass media in cases > such as AIDS, Ebola, BSE or SARS. Now that I can agree with. Bloody journalists. > How is it possible that AIDS as "gay cancer" could have been > subtly transformed into AIDS as a simple redefinition of > poverty diseases, people always been dying of in huge quantity > in Africa, and until not too long ago also in Europe (e.g. > tuberculosis)? Young adults _never_ died in the numbers they are now, except in times of war. Simple demographic changes in places like SA point that out for all to see, well, those who care to look anyway. It is NOT a simple relabelling for those who bother to investigate. Duesberg, who stated this hypothesis originally, simply stated it. The same as he stated that AZT was rejected as a too-toxic cancer drug when one of the drug's original investigators has said that it was rejected because it wasn't toxic enough!!! Check out Google groups archives for that tidbit. I found it posted to a Dissident mailing list, of all places. > If an organisation has so much money as the AIDS establishment, > every contradiction and every lie can be transformed into > truth, and unfortunately many potential critics can be bought. > > Isn't it true that African AIDS activists earn several times > more than normal teachers or health workers? <chuckle> Not if Bush and his cronies have their way. He's just removed funding to any sexual health clinics in Africa that promote condom use. I mean, it was nice of the US to give the funding in the first place, sure, but to remove it based on a rather warped sense of moral values just sucks. > The perpetuation of the HIV-AIDS belief system is essentially > based on a huge number of subtle cases of bribery. Wow! I wish I was on that bandwagon. I mean, jeez, you'd have thought that with all the time I've spent online talking about this topic I'd be a millionaire by now! Maybe I should've mentioned to my funding body what I was working on? Yours in minor sarcasm Bennett :o) > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3248715.stm > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Only 2 / 25,562 = 0.008% turned out to be HIV+. Both of those are interesting, but they don't matter. The question has always been how many of the people who test positive on their first ELISA remain positive after further testing. The reason this is relevant, is because the "30%" number you go on to quote, is based on these single ELISAs. So it is irrelevant that the majority of the population in Italy doesn't test positive on ELISA. What is important is that 93.55% who do, DO NOT REMAIN POSITIVE AFTER FURTHER TESTING. So, when one then goes on to South Africa, tests only pregnant women, and then does not follow up these single positive ELISAs, it is highly dubious that the numbers you get accurately reflect the national HIV prevalence in that country. As has been shown by the HSRC, who also used single unconfirmed ELISAs (as recommended by the WHO paper I gave the URL for), and by merely testing a representative sample of the population, came up with not 19% HIV infection, but 11.4% HIV infection. If these single ELISAs had been followed up with say Western Blot testing, who is to say that number would not have been cut in half again? Cut by half, or even more? I find it odd that no one, regardless of the WHO recommendation or guideline, goes on to check these single positive tests. > It IS relevant whether <0.008%> or <0.008% + 0.11%>, but it is > totally irrelevant whether <around 20%> or <around 20% + 0.11%>. No it isn't. What is relevant is how many of the original single ELISAs remain positive after confirmation with Western Blot. It doesn't matter how many Italians don't test positive on ELISA, but how many South Africans (or Italians) remain positive on further and more sophisticated tests AFTER they test positive on their first ELISA. And the answer at least in Italy, is _very few_. Alex <snip> > So, when one then goes on to South Africa, tests only pregnant > women, and then does not follow up these single positive ELISAs, > it is highly dubious that the numbers you get accurately reflect > the national HIV prevalence in that country. You make a valid point, but why don't you take on board what I've posted about how the single tests are NOT the ordinary ELISAs that we use in the UK, but are specially developed for single-use in the field in rural areas (they're fast, cheap, accurate) and, from what I've seem, some of these "single tests" are in fact the "confirmatory" tests that we use here in the UK (e.g. the INNO-LIA confirmatory test). If they were using single normal ELISAs in a low prevalence population you might, well you would, have a point. But you're comparing apples and oranges. > As has been shown by the HSRC, who also used single unconfirmed > ELISAs (as recommended by the WHO paper I gave the URL for), > and by merely testing a representative sample of the population, > came up with not 19% HIV infection, but 11.4% HIV infection. If you select your population (eg pregnancy clinics - by definition almost you're going to be testing a higher risk group since they're proven to have had sexual contact and women are more likely to contract HIV from men than vice versa) then you're bound to get a higher figure. This is recognised and noted in all the UNAIDS reports: they clearly state where they get their survey data from, both in terms of location and literature sources. > If these single ELISAs had been followed up with say Western > Blot testing, who is to say that number would not have been cut > in half again? Cut by half, or even more? > > I find it odd that no one, regardless of the WHO recommendation > or guideline, goes on to check these single positive tests. But they do when they introduce the testing methods, as recommended by the WHO. Please read my posts. Bennett > Wolfgang wrote: > > > 3) HIV Screening in a Military Blood Transfusion Centers > > > This is Italian data from the general population (blood donors). [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It IS relevant whether <0.008%> or <0.008% + 0.11%>, but it is > > totally irrelevant whether <around 20%> or <around 20% + 0.11%>. > The question has always been how many of the people > who test positive on their first ELISA remain positive after [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 93.55% who do, DO NOT REMAIN POSITIVE AFTER > FURTHER TESTING. No, your figure of 93.55% is a completely meaningless number. Let us test again the 25,560 Italians who are HIV-negative. We will again get around 30 false positives. So we could get for instance this result: Number of dontations: 25,560 Number of blood donations ELISA positive: 29 (or 25, or 33) Number of blood donations after confirmation test: 0 Percentage of non-confirmation: 29/29 = 100.0% In this case not a single person remains positive after further testing and your 93.55%-figure becomes 100%. If we add 1000 HIV+ persons to the above 25,560 HIV- negative persons, we get something like this: Number of dontations: 26,560 Number of blood donations ELISA positive: 1029 Number of blood donations after confirmation test: 1000 Percentage of non-confirmation: 29/1029 = 2.8% Your example actually is strong evidence for the contrary your are claiming, namely it is evidence for a very low percentage of false positives and therefore for the high quality of such tests (at least in Italy): 25,531 out of 25,560, i.e. 99.98% have not resulted in false positives! Cheers, Wolfgang Why do "skeptics" believe in disinformation? (was: AIDS Claims 650,000 in Zambia in 1996-1999): http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ri8m4$m7q$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net > > Wolfgang wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Number of blood donations after confirmation test: 1000 > Percentage of non-confirmation: 29/1029 = 2.8% Nice, except that your number of true positives is completely grabbed from thin air and the number of false positives is kept the same. The numbers I provided are from actual measurements from an actual survey. There is no reason to assume that just adding 1000 true positives is valid. However, what is even less valid, is assuming is that when you do, the number of false positives will stay (roughly) the same (at 29). The problem for Africa, is that there are many, many more factors around that can cause false positive results, than there are in Europe or North America. 1) Malaria. Almost unheard of in Europe and the US, while 90% of all malaria cases occur in Africa. 2) Tuberculosis. Almost extinct in Europe and the USA, but rampant in places where living conditions are cramped. 3) DDT. Illegal in Europe and the USA, still frequently used in Africa to the extent that the WWF made the following statement: "Investigations in Mexico and South Africa reveal that human breast milk contains DDE (the breakdown product of DDT) at concentrations that exceed the acceptable guidelines for infant intake set by the WHO. " http://www.worldwildlife.org/toxics/progareas/pop/ddt.htm 4) The near exclusive use of pregnant women in surveys. The problem is that (multiple) pregnancy is one factor that causes false positive tests (single elisa, of course). In fact, there are about 70 known factors that can cause a false positive single elisa. A couple of which are listed here by the Paul Ehrlich Institut in München ("Bundesamt für Sera und Impfstoffe" - another source of disinformation??): http://www.pei.de/themen/hivdiasa.htm#stoer They list as causes for false positive single elisas: Antikörper gegen andere virale Erreger (z.B. anti-HAV-IgM , anti-HCV, anti-Rubella) Proben mit Antikörpern gegen Herpesviren (anti-EBV, anti-HCMV, anti-HSV) Bakterielle Infektionen unspezifische B-Zell Stimulationen Autoimmun-Antikörper Rheumafaktoren Proben mit Hypergammaglobulinämien Proben von Schwangeren, besonders nach mehreren Schwangerschaften vorangegangene Impfungen (z.B. HBV, Influenza) > Why do "skeptics" believe in disinformation? > (was: AIDS Claims 650,000 in Zambia in 1996-1999): > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ri8m4$m7q$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net Estimated number of AIDS deaths. Population of Zambia (divided by 1000): 1980 5,700 2000 9,799 2003 10,307 Source: US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=za In other words, between 1980 and 2000, the population of Zambia increased 72%. Alex > > Why do "skeptics" believe in disinformation? > > (was: AIDS Claims 650,000 in Zambia in 1996-1999): [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Alex Oh Alex, Alex! I tried to teach you simple epidemiology earlier in the year. You are still mystified and obsessed by the fact that in the developing world population size can increase despite the presence of epidemics of AIDS? Fertility rates are very high, and birth rates high. Is your point that because Zambia's population has grown, there cannot be HIV? (Presumably there are no other fatal illnesses either, I guess. No malnutrition, no TB, zilch). > > > Why do "skeptics" believe in disinformation? > > > (was: AIDS Claims 650,000 in Zambia in 1996-1999): [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Oh Alex, Alex! > I tried to teach you simple epidemiology earlier in the year. That phrase presumes you have something to teach me about epidemiology, Dave. > You are still mystified and obsessed by the fact that in the > developing world population size can increase despite the presence of > epidemics of AIDS? Absolutely. Haven't you heard that every day, 1000 people in South Africa die of AIDS? Apparently no one dies of anything else anymore, because the registered deaths for 2001 were about 362,000. You have to wonder why their population increased 10.3% in 5 years, according to the HSRC 2001 population census. (40.6 million in 1996, to 44.8 million in 2001.) > Fertility rates are very high, and birth rates high. Now you go and think about the implications of that sentence, Dave. This would imply that the most sexually active people are not at all stopped from giving birth by... illness and death? If 1000 people a day are dying of AIDS in South Africa, why aren't women between 15 and 35 dying fast enough to slow population growth? > Is your point that because Zambia's population has grown, there cannot > be HIV? If the population of Zambia is growing at such a fast pace, obviously the most sexually productive section of society hasn't died of AIDS. The nice thing about population statistics, is that they can't really be influenced by the AIDS orthodoxy too much, because this booming population still needs to have more and more housing, jobs, cars, etc. which _have_ to be planned for. AIDS estimates can undermine their integrity only for so long. Alex As is the norm Alex failed to see the forest for the tree's in Dave's post. You might try a remedial reading and comprehension course Alex you need one. Gary Stein > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > news:<3fcb844d$0$56504$1b62eedf@news.wanadoo.nl>... > > > > Why do "skeptics" believe in disinformation? > > > > (was: AIDS Claims 650,000 in Zambia in 1996-1999): http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ri8m4$m7q$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net > > > Estimated number of AIDS deaths. > > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Alex > As is the norm Alex failed to see the forest for the tree's in Dave's post. > > You might try a remedial reading and comprehension course Alex you need one. Well if you're as brilliant as you apparently think, Gary, then you can start and show me the math of how the population of South Africa can lose 80% of it's citizens who annually die, to AIDS. And at the same time, have an average population growth of 1.98% per year. (The annual growth resulting in 10.3% population growth in 5 years. At this rate, in 100 years South Africa will have the population of Japan today.) But of course you can't, because you have just shown you have run out of reasoned arguments and can only resort to personal insults. Perhaps you should get back in the sandbox and leave the real thinking to the adults? Alex > > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > news:<3fcb844d$0$56504$1b62eedf@news.wanadoo.nl>... [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > > > Alex > > As is the norm Alex failed to see the forest for the tree's in Dave's post. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can start and show me the math of how the population of South > Africa can lose 80% of it's citizens who annually die, to AIDS. Well the last I recall the AIDS rate for South Africa was somewhere between 20% and 27% so even if they all die each year (which of course they do not do) your still along way from the 80% figure you quote above. As Dave stated SA has a very high birth rate so it is entirely possible to be loosing 100's of thousands to AIDS and still show the very modest (for an underdeveloped nation) 1.98% population growth you quote. One needs only look at other 2nd and 3rd world nations population growth figures to see that most of them are in the double digits to see that while AIDS is certainly reducing population growth in heavily impacted nations, It is not ending it entirely which you seem to think should be the case. Gary Stein > And at the same time, have an average population > growth of 1.98% per year. (The annual growth resulting [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > > > Why do "skeptics" believe in disinformation? > > > > > > (was: AIDS Claims 650,000 in Zambia in 1996-1999): http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8ri8m4$m7q$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net > > > > > Estimated number of AIDS deaths. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > > > > > Alex > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > news:<3fcb844d$0$56504$1b62eedf@news.wanadoo.nl>... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > That phrase presumes you have something to teach me > about epidemiology, Dave. I won't bother trying - you have a lot to learn, and from your posts over the last year or so you have beautifully demonstrated your inability to understand simple interplays between birth rates, death rates, population growth and fertility rates, despite several attempts to point you in the right direction. > > You are still mystified and obsessed by the fact that in the > > developing world population size can increase despite the presence of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Now you go and think about the implications of that sentence, Dave. scratches head..... Zambia fertility rate 5.25; Birth rate 39.5/1000 (ie 395000 pa)........ You have a problem comprehending this....? > This would imply that the most sexually active people are not at all > stopped from giving birth by... illness and death? If 1000 people a day > are dying of AIDS in South Africa, why aren't women between 15 and > 35 dying fast enough to slow population growth? In SA, population growth has slowed and is actually stable - currently estimated at 0.01% per annum. In Zambia, it is higher, but dropping still, at 1.5% pa > > Is your point that because Zambia's population has grown, there cannot > > be HIV? > > If the population of Zambia is growing at such a fast pace, > obviously the most sexually productive section of society > hasn't died of AIDS. Who said all the women had died of AIDS? Only 15-20% of them have HIV for starters. Are you reading from some made-up text here? FYI, women with HIV are still fertile and still have babies (where do you think all the infants with HIV come from?) > The nice thing about population statistics, is that they can't > really be influenced by the AIDS orthodoxy too much, because [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Alex The integrity of the denialists disappeared long ago with their ridiculous flat earth concepts of AIDS pathogenesis. |
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
|
©2009 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.