 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / April 2007Final Proof That There Is No HIV Epidemic In South Africa
I have two questions. If their answer is negative, there is no HIV epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 years from infection to death, after 10 years, we can finally compare the predictions and infection data published ten years ago. 1) If there were 600,000 new HIV infections in 1996 (2.4 million in 1996 and 1.8 million in 1995), that means that about 600,000 will die of AIDS this year in South Africa. So how come this is much higher than the total mortality figures in 2006? 2) In 1998, 9 years ago, 1/3 of the people of KwaZulu-Natal were HIV positive. So by now, 1/3 of the people of Kwazulu-Natal should be dead of AIDS. Or just dead. Question: has 1/3 of the 1998 population of Kwazulu Natal died? Or is the population of KwaZulu-Natal today larger than it was 9 years ago? Has the population of KwaZulu-Natal declined? Or has it increased? Source 1: South Africa says 2.4 million people infected with HIV. South Africa's Health Ministry said the HIV infection rate had risen to 6% of the population from about 4.6% a year ago. Rose Smuts, Health Ministry AIDS expert, said that the estimated number of people infected with HIV was up to 2.4 million at the end of 1996 from 1.8 million a year earlier. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui ds=12320874&dopt=Abstract Source 2: 1: Womens Health Wkly. 1999 Mar 15;:13. Links One in eight South African adults has HIV. PIP: The 1998 South African national HIV/AIDS survey revealed that 3.6 million people, or 1 in 8 South African adults, had HIV; this constitutes a 33% increase from the end of 1997. This survey was based on 15,300 blood samples taken from pregnant women attending antenatal clinics. The survey showed a 21% rise in HIV infection among pregnant teenage girls. The rate of infection varied among the 9 provinces of the country, from 32.5% in KwaZulu-Natal to 5.2% in the Western Cape. Health Minister Nkosazana Zuma stated that the government would prioritize its AIDS awareness campaign and that AIDS awareness should be an issue in the national elections on June 2, 1999. PMID: 12295193 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&c md=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12295193 I have two questions. If their answer is negative, there is no HI epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 year from infection to death, after 10 years, we can finally compare th predictions and infection data published ten years ago 1) If there were 600,000 new HIV infections in 1996 (2.4 millio in 1996 and 1.8 million in 1995), that means that about 600,00 will die of AIDS this year in South Africa. So how come this is muc higher than the total mortality figures in 2006 2) In 1998, 9 years ago, 1/3 of the people of KwaZulu-Natal wer HIV positive. So by now, 1/3 of the people of Kwazulu-Natal shoul be dead of AIDS. Or just dead. Question: has 1/3 of the 1998 populatio of Kwazulu Natal died? Or is the population of KwaZulu-Nata today larger than it was 9 years ago? Has the population o KwaZulu-Natal declined? Or has it increased Source 1 South Africa says 2.4 million people infected with HIV South Africa's Health Ministry said the HIV infection rate had risen to 6 of the population from about 4.6% a year ago. Rose Smuts, Health Ministr AIDS expert, said that the estimated number of people infected with HIV wa up to 2.4 million at the end of 1996 from 1.8 million a year earlier Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_u ds=12320874&dopt=Abstrac Source 2 1: Womens Health Wkly. 1999 Mar 15;:13. Link One in eight South African adults has HIV PIP: The 1998 South African national HIV/AIDS survey revealed that 3. million people, or 1 in 8 South African adults, had HIV; this constitutes 33% increase from the end of 1997. This survey was based on 15,300 bloo samples taken from pregnant women attending antenatal clinics. The surve showed a 21% rise in HIV infection among pregnant teenage girls. The rate o infection varied among the 9 provinces of the country, from 32.5% i KwaZulu-Natal to 5.2% in the Western Cape. Health Minister Nkosazana Zum stated that the government would prioritize its AIDS awareness campaign an that AIDS awareness should be an issue in the national elections on June 2 1999. PMID: 12295193 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed& md=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=1229519 > I have two questions. I only have one: "why do you keep repeating the same assertions, even though they've been debunked thoroughly and showing your mathematical errors, over and over again?" B/ As Noble has said, your derivation of the 600k new infections is an estimate that may be innacurate. You also assume it takes 10 years between infection and death. The figure is more likely to be 15 years. So how many "new" infections were there in 1991? Lets say 300k........ You agree there will be 300k deaths in 2006 then? (Glad you agree - after all its your model) Fast Forward wind 15 years....... Data for estimated mortality from HIV in 2005/6 give the following- MRC - 336k ASSA2003 - 345k UNAIDS/WHO- 320 (2005) Its so nice when all the numbers agree so well, isn't it Alex? BTW - As regards your under-reporting misinformation, You will of course be aware that an MRC team went to SA in 2001 and analysed 12% of all deaths. They concluded that over 60% of deaths due to HIV had been wrongly attributed to other causes. >I have two questions. If their answer is negative, there is no HIV > epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 years [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > today larger than it was 9 years ago? Has the population of > KwaZulu-Natal declined? Or has it increased? HIV stats are a load of bollocks "The numbers have been greatly inflated. For example, the WHO/UNAIDS says that there has been 2.2 million AIDS deaths in Uganda so far, but the Ugandan Ministry of Health records a cumulative total of only 56,000 AIDS deaths since the beginning of the epidemic. The WHO's report is 33 times higher than the actual number of recorded, verified deaths. As of the end of 2001, official government bodies in the developing world have managed to account for only 7 percent of the cumulative AIDS deaths that the WHO/UNAIDS claim have occurred. The Russian Federation can only account for only 3 percent of the UNAIDS estimate of AIDS deaths. India has 2 percent of the UNAIDS estimate. China has only 1 percent."-- Dr. Rodney Richards [2003] Africa: Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs By Liam Scheff >HIV stats are a load of bollocks Another brilliant and braindead commentary from the aluminum hat man himself. > >I have two questions. If their answer is negative, there is no HIV > > epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 years [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > UNAIDS estimate. China has only 1 percent."-- Dr. Rodney Richards [2003] > Africa: Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs By Liam Scheff And the standard reply of course is... they are underreporting. But isn't it odd that all these countries underreport to the same massive extent? That they have all independently decided to report only 1-3% of all AIDS deaths? Alex >>I have two questions. If their answer is negative, there is no HIV >> epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 years [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> today larger than it was 9 years ago? Has the population of >> KwaZulu-Natal declined? Or has it increased? Hey: 1) They are only stats, subject to all kinds of variables that no one could've considered in earlier stages of the epedemic. 2) If you have ever stood in the middle of the complete AIDS quilt and or lived with the disease you would know better. 3) Anti-HIV medications have become available which have greatly improved survival rates, even in third world countries. 4) If you're going to use statistics as proof of your assumption, it would be only right to gather all of the statistics put together, not just your own select few. 5) If you're so sure you're right, then why does everyone with HIV progress to AIDS and why does everyone who dies of aids have HIV? 6) Finally, I have been taking anti-HIV medications for twenty years now. I have gone on the so-called vacations from the meds many times and each time have had drops in vital T-Cell counts and exponentially rising rates of the HIV virus. Have you? Shut up. /Doug > >>I have two questions. If their answer is negative, there is no HIV > >> epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 years [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 1) They are only stats, subject to all kinds of variables that no one > could've considered in earlier stages of the epedemic. Oh, ok. I'll remember that the next time anyone says that 'x number of people are living with HIV in South Africa'. Which reminds me of watching 'dire predictions' being made for Uganda in the late 1980s, only to see Uganda having the highest growth rate on the continent. I remember watching the documentary, with young Ugandan kids dancing close, and this was used to explain why 33% of Ugandans were HIV positive. And why Uganda was doomed. They're only stats, who cares? Ten percent of the country is positive, no it's 32.5 percent, who cares? > 2) If you have ever stood in the middle of the complete AIDS quilt and or > lived with the disease you would know better. I would have understood nothing relevant to this debate. It still would have me puzzled why the infection figures given by UNAIDS and the WHO for South Africa still haven't led to the mortality figures of a similar size. I have not yet heard why Uganda's population doubled between 1980 and 2000, from 12 million to 24 million. I would think about all the factors that make an ELISA HIV antibody test false positive. I would also think about the fact that nearly all of these huge predictions are derived from blood taken from pregnant women at antenatal clinics. A method that has proven to give hugely overblown results, when compared to the Demographic and Health Survey that uses samples that are statistically representative of the general population. But then, standing in the middle of the AIDS quilt, I would forget about all those questions. I would be 'feeling', instead of thinking. > 3) Anti-HIV medications have become available which have greatly improved > survival rates, even in third world countries. Arvs have become available, food and water haven't. > 4) If you're going to use statistics as proof of your assumption, it would > be only right to gather all of the statistics put together, not just your > own select few. > > 5) If you're so sure you're right, then why does everyone with HIV progress > to AIDS and why does everyone who dies of aids have HIV? You mean except for the ones that don't? The 'long term non-progressors'? I would be sure of what you're sure of, if anything about this disease in Africa made sense. It doesn't. > 6) Finally, I have been taking anti-HIV medications for twenty years now. I > have gone on the so-called vacations from the meds many times and each time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > /Doug I guess you don't want to have a conversation about this? Alex >> Hey: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Oh, ok. I'll remember that the next time anyone says that >'x number of people are living with HIV in South Africa'. LOL...it won't matter what anyone says. The numbers dancing in your head like sugar plum fairies will whisper the answer you wish to hear. All is well...no HIV or AIDS to worry about! snip >I guess you don't want to have a conversation about this? You don't. You just want to wave your hands and scream pointlessly. George M. Carter Your information is so screwed up, so selective and just plain wrong. I know you won't answer but how old are you? Are you ugly? Do you think about sucking cock while you're beating off at night? Do you try to glance down at the aparatus of the man/boy standing next to you at the urinal or; do you always make sure to use a privy with a door on it? Have you ever had sex? If you had sex was it protected? If not why haven't you been tested? Or have you had a lot of unprotected sex thus explaining why you wouldn't want to be tested. Alex, have you ever taken it up the a.s? Those are my questions. /Doug >> >>I have two questions. If their answer is negative, there is no HIV >> >> epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 years [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Alex > I have two questions. If their answer is negative, there is no HIV > epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 years [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=p... > md=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12295193 Very good point. I agree completely. HIV drugs dont work, so sending them to Africa is actually a form of genocide. Please inform Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. Or perhaps they already know. rocket science |
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.