Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

How a 99.99% Accurate Test Can Be Wrong Half the Time

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 30 May 2005 05:12 GMT
How a 99.99% Accurate Test Can Be Wrong Half the Time
By Christine Maggiore
 
“A new article in Popular Science explains how allegedly accurate HIV
tests can be dead wrong when performed on people with no risk factors…”
 
===
 
An article in the July 2002 issue of Popular Science magazine gives
readers some surprising food for thought: the allegedly accurate HIV tests
can be dead wrong when performed on people with no risk factors.

Here’s
the text from page 78:
 
"HIV testing is 99.99 percent accurate, a doctor might tell his patient.

That suggests that if you receive a positive result, you almost certainly
have HIV. But this is not necessarily the case. The chance of a straight
man with no known risk factors contracting HIV is roughly one in 10,000.

That is also the rate at which an HIV test returns an incorrect result.
So
if 10,000 men in this low-risk group get tested for HIV, an average one
positive will come back from the man with HIV, and another man will test
positive even though he is not infected.

Thus, in our statistically perfect world, only one of the two men who test
positive actually has HIV. 50 percent of positive HIV tests in the
low-risk group turn out to be false."
 
The article incorrectly assumes that HIV tests can diagnose HIV infection
and that the claimed accuracy rate of 99.99% has been established through
careful scientific studies.

In fact, HIV tests have not been approved by
the US Food and Drug Administration for use in diagnosing actual HIV
infection, and all claims of test accuracy are based on estimates and
assumptions.
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 31 May 2005 03:55 GMT
>How a 99.99% Accurate Test Can Be Wrong Half the Time
>By Christine Maggiore
...
>An article in the July 2002 issue of Popular Science magazine gives
>readers some surprising food for thought:

This phenomenon was well-known to mainstream scientists long ago.

The title of Maggiore's article is "How a 99.99% Accurate Test Can
Be Wrong Half the Time".  A better title would be, "How dissidents
can pretend something they didn't understand until Popular Science
dumbed it down enough for them is a 'new discovery'".

>The article incorrectly assumes that HIV tests can diagnose HIV infection
>and that the claimed accuracy rate of 99.99% has been established through
>careful scientific studies.

"In 1990, of 20.2 million HIV tests done in Russia only 112 were
confirmed and about 20000 were false positives.  1991 saw some 30,000
false positives out of 29.4 million tests, with only 66 confirmations."

Of 20.2 million ... 112 were confirmed.  That's 1 in 180,000 positive
after one HIV screening test and one HIV confirmation test.  Of 29.4
million ... 66 confirmations.  1 in 445,000 after HIV testing.
Even if *all* of those classified as positive after both tests were
really negative, the demonstrated accuracy of HIV tests 14 years ago
in Russia would still be much better than the level of accuracy you
claim is unattainable for HIV tests today.

By the way, I refuted this same sh.t before, in Aug 2004.
You responded thus:

"I suggest you learn basic statistics.  I am not about to waste time
teaching you."

Above a cut-and-paste of my refutation of your argument, I said:

"I'll make it easy for you.  What's the first claim in my argument
below that is wrong, and why is it wrong?"

And you never responded.

http://groups.google.ca/group/misc.health.aids/msg/b9add0dc278de005?dmode=source
&hl=en


I would think that if you had superior knowledge and intelligence
you would be glad to prove it.  Instead, you avoided this test of
your abilities like a psychic avoiding James Randi.

Signature

David Canzi

PaulKing - 01 Jun 2005 12:12 GMT
"I suggest you learn basic statistics."

Your idea of statistics, as you have stated before, is that two inaccurate
tests add up to one accurate one.

Two wrongs = one right.

Great logic Mr. Canzi.

I think I will decline your lessons in statistics, thank you very much.
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 01 Jun 2005 22:42 GMT
>"I suggest you learn basic statistics."

That's not something I said.  I was quoting you.

>Your idea of statistics, as you have stated before, is that two inaccurate
>tests add up to one accurate one.

14 years ago in Russia they used two tests, and classified about 1
person in 445,000 tested as positive.  The number falsely classified
as positive can't be larger than that.

http://groups.google.ca/group/misc.health.aids/msg/4f12e50f10afda6b?dmode=source

Signature

David Canzi

 
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.