>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