 |
 | 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 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 HIV > epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 years [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > will die of AIDS this year in South Africa. So how come this is much > higher than the total mortality figures in 2006? How can someone make so many mathematical mistakes in so few words? Estimating incidence is extremely difficult. HIV "rethinkers" continually harp on about the uncerntainty in prevalence estimates. Yes the figures for HIV prevalence in any given year are estimates and have confidence intervals or errors. HIV "rethinkers" will claim that prevalence estimates are totally meaningless but lets give the estimates relatively small errors ie 1.8+-0.3 million and 2.4+-0.3 million. To take the difference between these two estimates you have to add the errors hence the estimate for the incidence is 0.6+-0.6 million - ie it includes zero! You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't on the one hand beat up the uncertainties in the prevalence estimates and at the same time calculate an exact incidence from these estimates. Even if we accept this estimate it does not imply that in the tenth year the same number of people will die from AIDS. All of your attempts at mathematics appear to be the result of a) starting with your conclusion that HIV does not cause AIDS and b) inventing specious arguments to support this conclusion. Chris Noble > > 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 - 30 lines] > > Chris Noble There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty If you don't believe me and the president , he say so !! snip >There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty > >If you don't believe me and the president , he say so !! Apparently, then, Mbeki doesn't seem to give a sh.t about solving the problems of poverty, preferring instead to suck up to the liars, cheats, thieves and murders in Washington DC and thus letting millions suffer and die needlessly. HIV can be treated. Poverty can be ameliorated. Poverty doesn't cause AIDS, HIV does. Neither are being very well addressed, due in large measure to the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, among other factors. George M. Carter >snip >>There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >HIV can be treated. Poverty can be ameliorated. Poverty doesn't cause >AIDS, HIV does. that's what the labs want you to believe for you to buy their expensive poisons. www.duesberg.com >Neither are being very well addressed, due in large measure to the >greed of the pharmaceutical industry, among other factors. > > George M. Carter >>snip >>>There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >that's what the labs want you to believe for you to buy their >expensive poisons. >www.duesberg.com Duesberg is an idiot. He's just dead cold wrong. At least he knows HIV exists which some people don't believe. The meds are toxic. They WAY overpriced. But they have kept many of my friends alive. And the ones that don't use them wind up dying of AIDS. Cause by HIV. The idea that "drugs" cause AIDS is about all he has to offer--they don't. Drugs can kill you, no doubt. But they don't cause AIDS. George M. Carter >>>snip >>>>There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >offer--they don't. Drugs can kill you, no doubt. But they don't cause >AIDS. it's hard to deny that drugs can and do cause an "acquired immune defficiency syndrome". > George M. Carter btw, you're pushing those drugs but you're not directly personally concerned. How can you tell? As long as your body is not on the line, you shouldnt advise toxic stuff I think. then, there is the track record of the med industry. Nothing incredible or even weird in the theory that the whole aids thing is a scam, a murderous one and very profitable too. > >>>snip > >>>>There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > it's hard to deny that drugs can and do cause an "acquired immune > defficiency syndrome". I guess it's hard for you to deny. But that's you. > > George M. Carter > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > incredible or even weird in the theory that the whole aids thing is a > scam, a murderous one and very profitable too. Again, you would be the expert on weird. Also the expert on implausible, unlikely, laughable, etc. And you're the poster boy for gullibility, as long as it fits your beliefs. BDK >>>>snip >>>>>There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >it's hard to deny that drugs can and do cause an "acquired immune >defficiency syndrome". Not in the slightest. Drugs do not cause AIDS. Provide evidence to the contrary. >btw, you're pushing those drugs but you're not directly personally >concerned. How can you tell? As long as your body is not on the line, >you shouldnt advise toxic stuff I think. LOL...what do you know about me, anonymous person? I advise people to not be deluded by bullshit. HIV is a serious disease. The meds have their place in the treatment of the disease. >then, there is the track record of the med industry. Nothing >incredible or even weird in the theory that the whole aids thing is a >scam, a murderous one and very profitable too. There is a LOT to be said about the current industry that's negative. They've f.cked things up big time. Many want to say HIV causes AIDS and was developed as a weapons program. I seriously doubt that this is the case--but still, one can quite CLEARLY indict governments and corporations for their failure to respond to the HIV pandemic vigorously, comprehensively and humanely. Meantime--provide the evidence that drugs cause AIDS. A question you might consider: Why don't HIV negative drug users develop AIDS? George M. Carter >>>>>snip >>>>>>There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Provide evidence to the contrary. http://www.duesberg.com/quiz.html wasnt hard to find in the duesberg.com link i gave above the other day;-) i encourage everyone to have a look (i dont need duesberg, except to argue with drug pushers) >>btw, you're pushing those drugs but you're not directly personally >>concerned. How can you tell? As long as your body is not on the line, >>you shouldnt advise toxic stuff I think. > >LOL...what do you know about me, anonymous person? what you wrote in here. you said you knew someone with aids, implying you were not affected. >I advise people to not be deluded by bullshit. HIV is a serious >disease. a serious moneymaking scam, and a deadly one for those who buy the bullshit and take the drugs. > The meds have their place in the treatment of the disease. No, they have their place in the business. They're what's being sold. The commodity. BTW, if you translate disease by cure, guess what "treatments" are made for. Right, to prevent the cure. (the body heals itself and we call that a disease because it's painful) >>then, there is the track record of the med industry. Nothing >>incredible or even weird in the theory that the whole aids thing is a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >corporations for their failure to respond to the HIV pandemic >vigorously, comprehensively and humanely. what pandemic? it's like the avian flu. It's a business, a virtual pandemic, a mediatic pandemic. It's big business and it's wholly made by the industry. You get diagnosed for it? You're through. http://nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=10614 children used as guinea pigs, tortured and killed by big pharma. >Meantime--provide the evidence that drugs cause AIDS. big pharma forges evidence by the ton. evidence is a commodity. It's public relations. "Science" is a catch-notion to fool the gullible. It's not about science, at all. Just money, and power. > A question you >might consider: Why don't HIV negative drug users develop AIDS? > George M. Carter > >>>>>snip > >>>>>>There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > > George M. Carter Wow Quintal, whacked even for you, and that's pretty whacked. Please don't screw around without a rubber, it would be a shame to prove your own beliefs totally wrong, and then have to take the evil drugs you condemn to keep your crazy a.s alive. It would be ironic as hell though. BDK snip >>>it's hard to deny that drugs can and do cause an "acquired immune >>>defficiency syndrome". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >wasnt hard to find in the duesberg.com link i gave above the other >day;-) Except that's NOT evidence--just a lot of handwaving bullshit. Indeed, all the data show that recreational drugs, for example, do NOT cause AIDS or a sustained and profound depletion of CD4 cells. You have provided nothing new--just a lot of denialist handwaving and crap. The sad thing is that as a result, the GENUINE issues are missed in that haze of bullshit. How HIV causes AIDS, for one. How pharma screws us all with their drug pricing, causing a form of economic genocide. How they've destroyed the intent of patent law. How governments have failed people with AIDS. Stigma and discrimination against lesbians, gays, transgendered, women, people with HIV, people of color, etc. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > How they've destroyed the intent of patent law. > How governments have failed people with AIDS. > Stigma and discrimination against lesbians, gays, transgendered, > women, people with HIV, people of color, etc. Damn Carter, every-one except the straight white man, go figure. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Damn Carter, every-one except the straight white man, go figure. Wrong, impotent coward. One of my dearest friends who died of AIDS was a straight white man. I've known lots of straight white people with HIV. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > I've known lots of straight white people with HIV. Sure you have. That must have been right after aliens probed you in the a.s. U-nhuman f-aggot O-bject > "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>school at the sixth grade? >>>By the way, didn't you know? I am in the sixth grade. /D "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message > >>>Did you just forget to capitalize the "F" I never capitalize the f, but thanks for playing. It wod seem that you're the only one playing. I only speak the truth and correct erors when I cee them....that is much like yui lol /DH > "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message >> > >> >>>Did you just forget to capitalize the "F" > > I never capitalize the f, but thanks for playing. "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote childishly > It wod seem that you're the only one playing. I only speak the truth and > correct erors when I cee them....that is much like yui Poor attempt to cover a mis-spent life in ignorance. P.S. I forgot to call you a muff diver. By the way, what are all those blood stains doing around your mouth and chin? c.nt lapper. LOL /DH > "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message >> > >> >>>Did you just forget to capitalize the "F" > > I never capitalize the f, but thanks for playing. >P.S. I forgot to call you a muff diver. By the way, what are all those >blood stains doing around your mouth and chin? c.nt lapper. Doug! Please don't do that to him. He's only a 17-year-old pimply virgin with fantasies of getting a big cock inside him...but he's resisting them mightily! Now talk about muff-diving and such will merely discombobulate him. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > Doug! Please don't do that to him. He's only a 17-year-old pimply > virgin with fantasies of getting a big cock inside him...but he's > resisting them mightily! Pedophile phantasy ? >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Pedophile phantasy ? Precisely the response one might expect from the conflicted adolescent. No, dear. I'm not a pedophile. For me, a guy has to be at least 30. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Precisely ... snip snip >> Precisely ... >snip LOL...we may add "dishonest" to the litany of your charming characteristics. Seriously, how old are you now? Best of luck, dear. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > Seriously, how old are you now? Older than I was yesterday, younger than I'll be tomorrow. "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message > P.S. I forgot to call you a muff diver. Mike the Muff Diver Mike the Muff Diver © 1987 by Jim Morris The condition was urgent, the place in a panic and everyone feared for her life Stranded at home and always alone was one very frustrated wife She turned to her friends to get some relief Some tried but nobody could With no place to go they called on a pro before they had lost her for good And here to revive her is Mike the Muff Diver He's anxious to shoulder the load A little thrashing and splashing, one prolific tongue lashing And one little kiss for the road Yeah, here to revive her is old Mike the Muff Diver They say he's the best he's a pro His head's been in places that most other faces would never consider to go Now Lucy was desperately looking for something to help her jump-start her man So as he lay sleeping she checked out his weenie and developed one masterful plan She'd make a penis sundae with whipped cream and cherries Chocolate syrup and everything else But to her great surprise when he opened his eyes, It looked so good that he ate it himself Her sister she found her about two hours later, unconscious and barely alive Well she was a nurse so she ran to the phone and called 1-800-MUF-DIVE Mike got the call to come in a hurry and hopefully most of them do Make way, stand clear, we need some beer over here Oh Mike we're depending on you Cause here to revive her is old Mike the Muff Diver He's anxious to shoulder the load In less than a minute he's completely within it And buried clean up to his nose Oh here to revive her is old Mike the Muff Diver The say he's the best, he's a pro His head's been in places that most other faces would never consider to go Now she was a pig-dog, ain't no doubt about it; how could anyone ever get like this She frightened her husband, he wouldn't go near her let alone give her a kiss She was mired in a deep, dark depression She didn't want to live anymore Mike was facing his greatest challenge as the Muffmobile stopped at her door Well Mike quickly surveyed the damage with his nose mounted Muff Diver light This called for some radical treatment and it might take him most of the night Early the next morning she asked, "Is it hopeless?" He picked up his head and he grinned He gave her a wink, took a big gulp of air, hell it looks like he's going back in Cause here to revive her is old Mike the Muff Diver He's anxious to shoulder the load He's quick and he's thorough; he'll lick and he'll burrow With one little kiss for the road Yeah, here to revive her is old Mike the Muff Diver They say he's the best, he's a pro Cause his head's been in places that most other faces will never consider to go Now men let me tell you this sh.t can happen so you'd better start getting prepared The positions are awkward, you might get a neck cramp, And don't let that smell make you scared Just learn to do something different Try something new now and then If you take care of her, she'll take care of you Cause Mike doesn't do men, no sir Yeah here to revive her is old Mike the Muff Diver He's anxious to shoulder the load He's the big Sex Kahuna, he'll face-dive that tuna With one little kiss for the road Oh here to revive her is old Mike the Muff Diver The say he's the best, he's a pro His head's been in places that most other faces would never consider to go Yeah his head's been in places that most other faces would never consider to go > >You said: ?Duesberg is an idiot......? ----- No Carter! Your speech is a very provocative one indeed! Peter Duesberg is one of the best Microbiologists in the World and, as a renowned scientist, we expect him and his peers to find us other interpretations of AIDS facts free from the dictatorial brain wash and pseudo science that only helps money interests of Big Pharma and anything else. The HIV Theory is a complete Hoax mainly after 1998 discoveries of CD4 differentiated sub populations namely Th1 and Th2. The debate around AIDS has changed profoundly ever since. Besides that, the HIV antibodies are polyspecific, and so, we never know how many false positive seroconvertions are we dealing with; 10%? , 50% ? , 100% ? Who knows. So PWA may or may not have HIV, but what they have for sure is a very high level of polyspecific antibodies making Elisa test positive, while eventually showing low levels of CD4s because Th2 have migrate from peripheral blood vessels to hematopoietic organs to help B cells in antibody production owing to an hyperactive Immunologic Sistem trying to deal with a multitude of stressors(drugs, several infections, foreign sperm, etc). Actually, what is really a concern endangering thousands of PWA is that these last scientific findings showing us that the lowering of CD4 has nothing to do directly with a virus destroing them, is something that AIDS bureaucrats simply make an ultimate effort to ignore. ?But they have kept many of my friends alive...? ----- I believe that what kept your friends alive was good nutrition and unpolluted air for sure. After all, there is nothing except anecdotic evidence among all the HAART drugs as they lack the FDA homologated double blind trials as you must know. Meanwhile, there are lots of Seropositives either with or without AIDS that have never taken HAART drugs but have tried Ozone Therapy instead plus Vitamin therapy plus Herbal therapy and other personalized alternatives out of antiviral Pharma business and they are alive too with (above all), their money savings untouched, which is fundamental for keeping on staying alive, we must not forget that. ? Cause by HIV. The idea that "drugs" cause AIDS is about all he has to offer--they don't. Drugs can kill you, no doubt. But they don't cause AIDS.? ---- Carter, I'm sorry, you offer us so little... TH1 > >>snip > >>>There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > George M. Carter >> >You said: «Duesberg is an idiot......» ----- > > No Carter! Your speech is a very provocative one indeed! Peter >Duesberg is one of the best Microbiologists in the World and, LOL...based on what do you make that claim? I take it then, that you're a denialist that agrees with him that HIV most definitely exists at least. > as a >renowned scientist, we expect him and his peers to find us other >interpretations of AIDS facts free from the dictatorial brain wash and >pseudo science that only helps money interests of Big Pharma and >anything else. Darling, the only thing Petey came up with is that "Drugs cause AIDS" and there is NO evidence of that whatsoever. To the contrary, studies of drug users show only those with HIV develop AIDS. >The HIV Theory is a complete Hoax mainly after 1998 discoveries of CD4 >differentiated sub populations namely Th1 and Th2. The debate around >AIDS has changed profoundly ever since. Besides that, the HIV >antibodies are polyspecific, and so, we never know how many false >positive seroconvertions are we dealing with; 10%? , 50% ? , 100% ? What in the WORLD are you babbling about here? Th1 and Th2 are an interesting way of understanding how the specific immune system responds to infections--like HIV. It works great in mice but the picture is a wee bit more complex in humans. Just the same, whether a Th1 or Th2 response has an impact, it's due to the effect that HIV has on the immune system. As to the humoral response--again, the reason it is perturbed is due to the infection by HIV. Which IS an important question: How does HIV cause AIDS? http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/314974&erFrom=60 68846162408100045Guest >Who knows. >So PWA may or may not have HIV, but what they have for sure is a very >high level of polyspecific antibodies making Elisa test positive, What in the world induces those antibodies? >while eventually showing low levels of CD4s because Th2 have migrate >from peripheral blood vessels to hematopoietic organs to help B cells >in antibody production owing to an hyperactive Immunologic Sistem >trying to deal with a multitude of stressors(drugs, several >infections, foreign sperm, etc). LOL...there is no evidence that ANY of these stressors--faced by humanity for millenia--cause specific loss of CD4 cells. Your little immunology primer suggests some awareness of the issues but a paucity of specific evidence to support the ideas. Why do ONLY drug users or gay men develop AIDS who have HIV infection? Yet plenty of people can get lots of semen, lots of drugs, lots of whatever stressors and not lose their CD4 count? >Actually, what is really a concern >endangering thousands of PWA is that these last scientific findings >showing us that the lowering of CD4 has nothing to do directly with a >virus destroing them, is something that AIDS bureaucrats simply make >an ultimate effort to ignore. Ah! An important issue--and one that is indeed downplayed. Some suggest that the primary loss of CD4+ memory cells happens early after initial infection with massive depletion seen in the gut (GALT). But I don't buy it--there is a LOT of evidence showing that the ma jority of CD4 cells undergoing apoptosis are uninfected. And the reason for that? HIV. And the immune response to HIV that is hyperactive. The sooty mangabey is an instructive model of a pathogenic virus that does not result in the development of AIDS. Why? Because the immune system basically ignores it and doesn't essentially "freak out" as it does with HIV disease or as SIV causes havoc in other simians. >«But they have kept many of my friends alive...» ----- > > I believe that what kept your friends alive was good nutrition and >unpolluted air for sure. Oh bullshit. BOTH of those are important for ALL humans. Good nutrition is definitely a cornerstone to HIV care--but it is not a cure. >After all, there is nothing except anecdotic >evidence among all the HAART drugs as they lack the FDA homologated >double blind trials as you must know. What the hell is homologated? But that's absolutely wrong. There are many trials, many double blind, if not the vast majority, of HIV antiretrovirals. >Meanwhile, there are lots of Seropositives either with or without AIDS >that have never taken HAART drugs but have tried Ozone Therapy instead >plus Vitamin therapy plus Herbal therapy and other personalized >alternatives out of antiviral Pharma business and they are alive too >with (above all), their money savings untouched, which is fundamental >for keeping on staying alive, we must not forget that. Yep. I have known MANY over the years. I think ozone is sh.t but I may be wrong. The other stuff has definitely helped many, no question in my mind. NONE of it prevented people from dying of AIDS. Not even ARV necessarily--but the risk of dying of AIDS with ARV and some combination of good nutrition,, etc., is rapidly approaching the point that people can foresee a normal lifespan. Not one, yet, without challenges and complications. > « Cause by HIV. The idea that "drugs" cause AIDS is about all he has >to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >TH1 I'm sorry you've offered absolutely nothing but some handwaving nonsense with regard to that. Th1 what? Would you say leprosy is a disease of Th1/Th2? What's the proximate cause? The perturbations in immune function are caused by what, in your view, if not HIV? snip >> Duesberg is an idiot. He's just dead cold wrong. At least he knows HIV >> exists which some people don't believe. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> offer--they don't. Drugs can kill you, no doubt. But they don't cause >> AIDS. Deserves reiteration. George M. Carter Doug sez: One thing you must remember. Any treatment not approved by the FDA is not covered by any insurance policy in this country. You are wrong Mr. Th1. Not only that but you are ignoring every single piece of evidence to the contrary. C'mon, you must have something better to do than chase pariahs and innuendo and so-called test results that have no backing! /Doug >>> >You said: «Duesberg is an idiot......» ----- >> [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > > George M. Carter Has she Got Aids or is she Poor ???? Manto weer in die hospitaal opgeneem Feb 21 2007 09:59:34:807PM - (SA) Druk artikel E-pos storie aan 'n vriend Deon de Lange Dr. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, minister van gesondheid, is eergister wéér in die hospitaal opgeneem. Mnr. Themba Maseko, regeringswoordvoerder, het dit bevestig. Mnr. Sibani Mngadi, Tshabalala-Msimang se woordvoerder, het gisteraand gesê sy het 'n ernstige geval van vog op die longe. "Daar is 'n oormaat vog en haar longe is geswel, maar haar toestand is stabiel." Hy kon nie sê of die minister aan 'n ventilator gekoppel is nie. 'n Verpleegster by saal 389, die waaksaal in die Felatong-vleuel van die Johannesburgse Hospitaal, wat nie haar naam wou gee nie, wou vroeër nie bevestig of ontken dat die minister daar opgeneem is nie. "Daar is vir ons streng opdrag gegee om nie oor die aangeleentheid te praat nie," het sy wel gesê. Tydens 'n media-inligtingsessie oor gesondheid verlede week het Tshabalala-Msimang verbouereerd voorgekom. Sy is op 5 Oktober weens 'n "longinfeksie" in dieselfde saal opgeneem. Ná haar ontslag het sy sowat vier maande lank tuis aangesterk. > Mnr. Sibani Mngadi, Tshabalala-Msimang se woordvoerder, het gisteraand > gesê sy het 'n ernstige geval van vog op die longe. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hy kon nie sê of die minister aan 'n ventilator gekoppel is nie. Sounds more like cardiac failure than AIDS. But the report could be a red herring. Speaking of which, old Gatscha Buthelezi looks more like a classical african AIDS case at the moment: very skinny, weak.  Signaturefirst world medicine only for countries with first world birth rates >> No Carter! Your speech is a very provocative one indeed! Peter >>Duesberg is one of the best Microbiologists in the World and, And just what in the hell would make you think that???!!! /Doug >>> No Carter! Your speech is a very provocative one indeed! Peter >>>Duesberg is one of the best Microbiologists in the World and, >> >And just what in the hell would make you think that???!!! The funny thing is that the denialists womble back and forth between this guy, who knows at least that HIV exists, and the screwballs of the "Perth Group" who claim it doesn't exist. A clear example of cognitive dissonance and it fills me with agony to see just how stupid humans can be. George M. Carter >> > 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 - 34 lines] > >If you don't believe me and the president , he say so !! www.duesberg.com > > > 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 - 7 lines] > > > > How can someone make so many mathematical mistakes in so few words? Name one. > > Estimating incidence is extremely difficult. I thought it was a certainty? I am sure you will take this opportunity and slap the wrists of anyone who claims with certainty any concrete infection figures in Africa or South Africa. 'X-million people will die of AIDS in Africa this year.' That sort of thing. > > HIV "rethinkers" > > continually harp on about the uncerntainty in prevalence estimates. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > estimates relatively small errors ie 1.8+-0.3 million and 2.4+-0.3 > > million. Oooooohhhh... So you are saying that there might have been no increase in HIV infections at all, from 1995, to 1996. Now who is dancing around the facts? But South Africa is in the middle of a raging HIV/AIDS epidemic, remember? One that started as soon as the ANC started including rural dwellers and 'non-citizens' (the majority of the population) in South Africa's population statistics. Which happened around 1996-1998, two years after they came to power in 1994. Very very odd that the HIV/AIDS epidemic in South Africa began 2 years after the ANC came to power, isn't it? > > To take the difference between these two estimates you have > > to add the errors hence the estimate for the incidence is 0.6+-0.6 > > million - ie it includes zero! > > You can't have your cake and eat it too. Only Chris Noble can do that. Raging epidemic or no new infections at all. > > You can't on the one hand > > beat up the uncertainties in the prevalence estimates and at the same > > time calculate an exact incidence from these estimates. Yes I can. I simply presume the same level of certainty that the HIV believers have. > > Even if we accept this estimate it does not imply that in the tenth > > year the same number of people will die from AIDS. Ceteris Paribus. All things remaining equal. You can presume that as many new infections are added to the total, as are subtracted from the total by them dying before the ten year period. After all, the number of infections is supposed to be expanding, so if anything, the new infections 10 years ago would be an underestimate of AIDS deaths today. I will state the numbers again. 1) If there were 600,000 new HIV infections in 1996 (2.4 million total plwhivaids 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? It is not unreasonable to presume that the new HIV infections of 10 years ago, will die this year, all things remaining equal. 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? You see Chris, I have just blown the claims of the orthodoxy out of the sky. If HIV is a deadly infection that leads to AIDS, and the average progression from infection to death is 10 years, then you should be able to get a good estimate from new infections in one year, and deaths from AIDS 10 years later. Vice versa, you will be able to have a good estimate of new infections 10 years ago, from the number of AIDS deaths today. If you cannot, then HIV/AIDS is just a chimera, a mirage if you wish. As someone said, a new name for old diseases. Diseases that do not run their cycle in 10 years. Even more so, if the numbers are wrong, and they are based on ELISA tests, then you can say with great certainty that the ELISA tests that are used for testing for HIV antibodies, are highly unspecific in Africa. And just plain wrong. Alex And just to follow up on the population of KwaZulu-Natal. Population of KwaZulu-Natal: 1996: 8 417 021 2001: 9 426 017 (2006: to be determined shortly) Source: http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/default.asp And just to sum up what I am saying: the workable hypothesis on testing the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, is to look at new infections at the beginning of the cycle, and deaths at the end of the cycle. For example, if you have 10,000 new infections one year, 10 years later, you should have 10,000 HIV/AIDS deaths. Or something very very close to that. And if you don't, then HIV doesn't cause AIDS deaths, or the cycle length isn't ten years (re-calculate using the new cycle length), or the 10,000 new infections are an underestimate or OVERESTIMATE. Or, there were no HIV infections to begin with. > > > > 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 - 16 lines] > claims with certainty any concrete infection figures > in Africa or South Africa. You thought wrong. Even in countries such as the US it is difficult to get good estimates of incidence. They certainly don't just take two prevalence estimates and subtract one form the other. Typically they use other methods such as STARHS to estimate how many positive HIV tests are recent infections and how many are old infections. All methods have uncertainties and are extrapolated from only a fraction of the total population. Epidemiologists do the best they can to reduce these uncerntainties but they still remain estimates. > 'X-million people will die of AIDS in Africa this year.' > That sort of thing. These are estimates and if you read past the headline and get to the actual study from which these estiamtes are derived you will find they have large confidence intervals. > > > HIV "rethinkers" > > > continually harp on about the uncerntainty in prevalence estimates. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Now who is dancing around the facts? No, I am just indicating that any estimate has errors. In this case the estimates of incidence or new infections in a given year have large errors. > But South Africa is in the middle of a raging HIV/AIDS > epidemic, remember? One that started as soon as the ANC [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Only Chris Noble can do that. Raging epidemic > or no new infections at all. ??? > > > You can't on the one hand > > > beat up the uncertainties in the prevalence estimates and at the same > > > time calculate an exact incidence from these estimates. > > Yes I can. I simply presume the same level of certainty > that the HIV believers have. You give no error estimates at all. What are the uncerntainties in the prevalence estimates you provided? Again if you read the actual studies you will find that confidence intervals are given. > > > Even if we accept this estimate it does not imply that in the tenth > > > year the same number of people will die from AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so if anything, the new infections 10 years ago would be > an underestimate of AIDS deaths today. Things aren't remaining equal and you've gotten your maths around the wrong way. > I will state the numbers again. Repeating the same bullshit again won't make it true. If you are going to claim that the HIV incidence from ten years ago is inconsistent with the AIDS deaths from 2006 then provide a) error analysis and b) a mathematical analysis relating HIV incidence to AIDS deaths. You have done neither. Why is it that scientifically illiterate and enumerate fools believe that with their meager skills they can arrive at "Final Proofs" that somehow elude the best scientific minds? Chris Noble > > > > > 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 - 118 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Come on guy's, Aids is a social disease caused by poverty , Mbeki say's so1 , so why should we argue HIV does no exist And Beetroot and lemon juice will cure all your ills <snip> > Come on guy's, Aids is a social disease caused by poverty , Mbeki > say's so1 , so why should we argue > HIV does no exist > > And Beetroot and lemon juice will cure all your ills Well, I can outdo Alex in the "Final Proof" game. You can look at average income and average life expectancy over time for a given country using this tool. http://tools.google.com/gapminder/ For most countries there is a rough relationship between average income and life expectancy. However, South Africa can be seen as the blue circle at 10,000 on the GNI axis and 45 on life expectancy. Click on it and press play. You can see that life expectancy starts of at 55 years in 1975 and increases up to 63 in 1992. After that it rapidly falls down to 45 in 2004. During this time the average income remained fairly constant. There is no correlation between the two. There is something that occurred in this time - AIDS. Chris Noble > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Chris Noble I am just puning around , aint no fan of Mbeki. I am a bit concerned with the ARV thing; It could blow up in our faces. My reasoning is that a lot of people will view it as a free ticket to conduct business as usual and resume the behavior trends that got them infected in the first place. If this becomes common placed , with the false scene of security created by ARV and drug resistant form could take the stage and flourish If XRTB is running out of control, the possibility of XRHIV is just as good. > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I am just puning around , aint no fan of Mbeki. I understood the sarcasm. Mentioning the standard "rethinker" line about poverty and AIDS made me think of the gapminder tool. Chris Noble > > > > > > 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 - 20 lines] > > get good estimates of incidence. They certainly don't just take two > > prevalence estimates and subtract one form the other. At some point, the 'deadly disease that kills 10 years after infection and for which there is no cure' will have to kill the people it has infected. That is the orthodox theory. So go and prove that the people you said were infected, have died within the expected time frame. And if you find them alive and thriving, you owe me and the world an apology. And move along. > > > Oooooohhhh... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > the estimates of incidence or new infections in a given year have > > large errors. And I'm pointing out to you that you should not all of a sudden stop seeing these data outside of the accepted theory, namely that South Africa is 'in the grip' of a 'raging' epidemic, and one that is only increasing in intensity, not decreasing. Within that context, you cannot argue that there could be an error of +/- 300,000 people, which would make it possible for there to have been 0 new infections in 1996 compared to 1995. Nor is 300,000 a small error, it is 16.67% of 1.8 million (the number of total HIV infections in South Africa in 1995). > > > Ceteris Paribus. All things remaining equal. You can presume > > > that as many new infections are added to the total, as are [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > analysis and b) a mathematical analysis relating HIV incidence to AIDS > > deaths. There is a point where you have to take your own bullshit figures seriously. If 1/3 of KwaZulu-Natal is infected with a deadly disease for which there is no cure, you are going to have to see a lower population sooner or later, but certainly not after the disease has run it's course for those who were infected in that place and at that time. The 1/3 of the population of KwaZulu-Natal that was infected in 1998 (9 years ago) must have died somewhere along the line. If they have not, then the number was wrong. How many survive, determines how wrong the number was. You cannot explain why 1/3 of the population of KwaZulu-Natal has not died. The reason is, that you do not have the guts to admit that data derived from the tests that you put so much faith in, ARE WRONG. If you believe that 1/3 of any population can be infected with HIV and then walk away as if nothing happened to them, you are the illiterate, unscientific fool. Which is why you are the one who resorts to namecalling when you cannot argue your corner. Thank you. 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 - 107 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear , Oh dear I have lost 3 gardeners to the disease in the last 16 years, James( Confirmed , died in 2002) Vusi ( got sick and just vanished) , Domingo ( died in Mozambique after we sent him back). I have also watched as the whole workforce on my dads farm slowly succumbed to the disease , then finally the remaining children and old people moved away. > I have lost 3 gardeners to the disease in the last 16 years, > James( Confirmed , died in 2002) Vusi ( got sick and just vanished) , > Domingo ( died in Mozambique after we sent him back). You lost 'your' gardeners? Well that makes it official then. Did they have last names? What was the average wage on your fathers farm? Alex But it's a better quality anecdote than those the denialists resort to. > > I have lost 3 gardeners to the disease in the last 16 years, > > James( Confirmed , died in 2002) Vusi ( got sick and just vanished) , [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Alex It's now as per goverment spec, only problem for them is that we use to have a crew of about 15 , now its down to 2 , no loss in productivity . Bummer this minimum wage thing , we just stoped replacing folk's If minimum wage had any thing to do with it consider people like Cohen, Liberace, Hudson, Magic Johnson....haha what a charade you are. /Doug >> > I have lost 3 gardeners to the disease in the last 16 years, >> > James( Confirmed , died in 2002) Vusi ( got sick and just vanished) , [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bummer this minimum wage thing , we just stoped replacing folk's Dear Young Mr. Alex: Your bullshit is so deep we'd need plastique to break through it. You refuse to consider any information but your own skewed statistics. Statistics change and and new information is found every day in spite of your efforts to cling to same jibberish which has been refuted by almost every knowing person in this group. Consider this - if I may George (thanks): A 25-year-old diagnosed with HIV and treated with HIV therapy can expect to live to his 60s, Danes show Thomas Kristensen, Friday, January 19, 2007 In settings where there is easy and free access to HIV medication and care, a young adult diagnosed with HIV has an estimated median survival rate of more than 35 years. However, this median survival rate is significantly lower than that of an HIV-negative person, according to a Danish study published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The study also found that HIV-positive individuals who were coinfected with hepatitis C virus, and patients who were older at the time of HIV diagnosis could expect to have poorer survival than younger, hepatitis C-uninfected HIV-positive patients. The objective of the study was to estimate survival time and age-specific mortality rates of HIV positive people and compare the estimates with that of the general population. The study included data from all HIV-positive individuals treated in Danish HIV clinics from January 1995 until May 2005. A total of 3,990 HIV-positive individuals and 379,872 people from the general population of Denmark were included in the investigators' analysis. The study sample was taken from the Danish HIV Cohort Study and the Danish Civil Registration System. The first includes all HIV-positive people treated in Danish HIV clinics from 1995 and the latter includes all people registered as living in Denmark. Survival among HIV positive people increased significantly during the study period. In the five-year period from 2000 to 2005, the median survival rate for HIV positive people rose to 33 years. Survival was even better (39 years) when the investigators excluded the 16% of HIV-positive patients who were coinfected with hepatitis C virus. According to the investigators' estimates, an individual diagnosed with HIV aged 25 could expect to survive until they were 64, compared to 76 years of age for the HIV-negative control group. However, the mortality rate was significantly higher amongst HIV-positive patients than their HIV-negative peers. Mortality amongst individuals with HIV was 43 per 1000 person years compared to 4.7 per 1000 years in the general population. Mortality fell significantly amongst patients with HIV following the introduction of potent HIV therapy. A mortality rate of 124 per 1000 person years was observed in 1995-96, but this fell to 38 per 1000 person years between 1997 and 1999 and 25 per 1000 person years in the five years after 2000. Individuals who were coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C had significantly higher mortality rates than patients who only had HIV (59 per 1000 versus 38 per 1000 person years between 1997 and 1999), and this difference became even more marked after 2000 (mortality rate 57 per 1000 person years versus 19 per 1000 person years). The investigators also established that age was an important determinant of survival. Mortality amongst HIV-positive, but hepatitis C-uninfected individuals aged between 25 and 50 was 12 per 1000 person years between 2000 - 2005, increasing gradually to 54 per 1000 person years in individuals aged between 65 -70 years. Changes in the cause of death were observed by the investigators. The proportion of deaths related to HIV fell from 76% between 1995 - 1996 to 57% between 19997 and 1999 and to 43% between 2000 and 2005. "We estimate a median remaining lifetime of more than 35 years for a 25-year-old, HIV-positive person without HCV infection who receives care in the twenty-first century", write the investigators. However, "despite the encouraging survival expectations, the study shows large, age-dependent excess mortality in the HIV-infected cohort compared with the general population." Chronic HIV infection is often compared to diabetes, but when the investigators compared the mortality among patients with type 1 diabetes with mortality amongst HIV-positive individuals, they found higher mortality rates amongst people with HIV. "Our study suggests that most young people with the HIV infection can expect to survive for more than 35 years, but an ongoing effort is still needed to further reduce mortality rates amongst infected people," conclude the investigators. Reference Lohse N et al. Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995-2005. Annals of Internal Medicine:146: 87-95, 2007. Why don't you just admit that you are DEAD wrong. /Doug >> I have lost 3 gardeners to the disease in the last 16 years, >> James( Confirmed , died in 2002) Vusi ( got sick and just vanished) , [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Alex "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message > > A total of 3,990 HIV-positive individuals and 379,872 people from the > general population of Denmark ... > Survival was even better (39 years) when the investigators excluded the 16% of > HIV-positive patients who were coinfected with hepatitis C virus. Kewl, exclude 16% from 3,990 people and things look great for a 5 year time span, assume-ing no more co-infections. And after another 5 years exclude another percentage from those still alive, assume-ing no more co-infections. Can't let a little co-infection (AIDS) get in the way of the number. Thanks again Carter, lol "kewl" Doug Houge did not write this. P.S. Just goes to show how pea brained your stupid litttle mind really is. /Doug > "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Thanks again Carter, lol "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message > "kewl" Doug Houge did not write this. Are you saying that was a forgery? Will the Doug Houge who thanked George please stand up. You are easily confused. It must be your nutritious diet. /Doug > "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Will the Doug Houge who thanked George > please stand up. "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message > You are easily confused. It must be your nutritious diet. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Will the Doug Houge who thanked George > > please stand up. Piss-poor dodge of the question. Indeed, you did thank George. Still waiting for you to prove you would be dead by now if it hadn't been for your free doses of AZT. snip >So go and prove that the people you said were infected, >have died within the expected time frame. > >And if you find them alive and thriving, you owe me >and the world an apology. And move along. Some people are getting treatment and living longer. When did the pandemic in KwaZulu Natal begin to spread most dramatically? Is there anyone on ARV there? How many have died already? Oh, but it will never ever matter in the very tiniest slightest little bit to you, will it, Alex? George M. Carter ** http://www.africa.upenn.edu/afrfocus/afrifocus021606.html They note here that "As at mid-2005, the proportion of AIDS cases on antiretroviral treatment ranged from 15% in KwaZulu-Natal to 50% in the Western Cape." ** http://www.refer.sn/rds/IMG/pdf/15VANHOUTEN.pdf They note that your dates are also a bit off: "(2) 1995-1998 The number of reported HIV-positive persons began to increase significantly. This was largely due to the fact that the government had implemented the primary health care model, and patients who were previously limited to a few specialist clinics now attended community clinics. Training was now in demand, and organisations began to focus on high incidence prevention, treatment, and care input. Trainees reported that they felt overwhelmed by the increasing number of patients and the lack of resources within the healthcare system. This period was experienced as a time of accelerated skill acquirement and crisis management." ** In your world, it doesn't matter how many kids die of AIDS, does it Alex? (Perhaps just as long as they're black ones??? I hope you're not a racist to boot.) http://unicef-irc.org/research/ESP/aids/chapter1.pdf ** Try this one: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Initiatives/GHI_HIV_DCSA_AppendixD.pdf --This is a survey of workers at Daimler-Chrysler, which indicated a prevalence range, in 1997, of 12-18% in KwaZulu Natal's office. *** (Next references Mozambique): http://www-ilo-mirror.cornell.edu/public/english/protection/trav/aids/publ/mozam biquemay05.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1124kv65h446103/ From treatment to prevention: The interplay between HIV/AIDS treatment availability and HIV/AIDS prevention programming in Khayelitsha, South Africa Journal Journal of Urban Health Publisher Springer Boston ISSN 1099-3460 (Print) 1468-2869 (Online) Subject Humanities, Social Sciences and Law and Medicine Issue Volume 82, Number 3 / September, 2005 DOI 10.1093/jurban/jti090 Pages 498-509 SpringerLink Date Saturday, May 13, 2006 Nomi C. Levy1, Rebecca A. Miksad2 and Oliver T. Fein3, 4 (1) Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 445 East 69th Street, 10021 New York, NY (2) WEill Cornell Medical Center of the New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York (3) Department of Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York (4) Department of Public Health, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York Abstract There is a paucity of research that illustrates the interplay between HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs. We describe the central role that public access to antiretroviral (ARV) medication has played in the development and efficacy of HIV/AIDS prevention programming in Khayelitsha, a resource-poor township in the Western Cape of South Africa. We document the range of preventive interventions and services available in Khayelitsha since the early 1990s and explore the impact of ARV availability on prevention efforts and disease stigma on the basis of extensive indepth interviews, supplemented by data collection. The information gathered suggests that the introduction of the mother-to-child-transmission (MTCT) prevention programs in 1999 and the three HIV treatment clinics run by Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in 2000 were turning points in the regions response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. These programs have provided incentives for HIV testing, galvanized HIV/AIDS educators to reach populations most at risk, and decreased the HIV incidence rates in Khayeltisha compared to other areas in the Western Cape. Lessons learned in Khayelitsha about the value of treatment availability in facilitating prevention efforts can inform the development of comprehensive approaches to HIV/ AIDS in other resource-poor areas. > > > > > > > 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 - 76 lines] > There is a point where you have to take your own bullshit figures > seriously. I take the figures very seriously. Even allowing a large confidence interval they are still very high and they have been increasing steadily over time. Incidence estimates are just that estimates. They have uncerntainties. Likewsie unless there is perfect reporting then the figures for AIDS deaths are also estimates and most likely underesimate the actual number. You have to wonder why "rethinkers" continually play these bizarre mathematical games with these estimates in an attempt to prove that HIV does not cause AIDS. In cohorts where the HIV status of people is known (not estimated) and followed over time and AIDS deaths are recorded (not estimated) then it is very clear that almost all people infected with HIV will progress to AIDS with a median time of approximately 10 years. Rather than deal with the evidence from these cohorts "rethinkers" instead use population based estimates without acknowledging the fact that they are estimates. Chris Noble > The 1/3 of the population > of KwaZulu-Natal that was infected in 1998 (9 years ago) > must have died somewhere along the line. Now you are starting to believe your own lies. IF, and I mean if, the average survival after HIV acquisition is 10 years as you claim (in fact it is more like 15), then only HALF of those infected will have died within 10 years, NOT ALL OF THEM. I hate shouting in upper case on the internet, but sometimes one just can't help it. > If 1/3 of KwaZulu-Natal is infected with a deadly disease for > which there is no cure, you are going to have to see a lower [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > is why you are the one who resorts to namecalling when > you cannot argue your corner. Lets not make this so complicated, the maths is simple.. If HIV has an average killing time of 10 years and the average zulu mama has a doubling time of 1 year, she can have 10 kids between contracting HIV and her death. If 30% of them die of AIDS etc before they reach reproductive age this still leaves the population with an overwhelming PLUS in numbers.. Add to that the picannins produced before she went HIV+ and you see why its an uphill battle for the 'poor' HIVirus to even dent the demographics.. Signaturefirst world medicine only for countries with first world birth rates snip >Lets not make this so complicated, the maths is simple.. If HIV has an >average killing time of 10 years and the average zulu mama has a >doubling time of 1 year, she can have 10 kids between contracting HIV >and her death. Yes, I hear this is true of those white colonialist women that screw their philandering husbands. Isn't that what you meant? Oh those heterosexuals and their vile, sick lifestyle. > snip > >Lets not make this so complicated, the maths is simple.. If HIV has an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Isn't that what you meant? > Oh those heterosexuals and their vile, sick lifestyle. You heard wrong, white colonialist women don't breed like rabbits. Its got nothing to do with philandering, just simple arithmetic. Signaturefirst world medicine only for countries with first world birthrates Doug sez: Now all we need is first world medicine for forst world idiots. /Doug >> snip >> >Lets not make this so complicated, the maths is simple.. If HIV has an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You heard wrong, white colonialist women don't breed like rabbits. > Its got nothing to do with philandering, just simple arithmetic. "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message > Now all we need is first world medicine for forst world idiots. lol, forst world idiots. > "Doug Houge" <d_houge@charter.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >>/Doug snip >You heard wrong, white colonialist women don't breed like rabbits. You mean they just f.ck like rabbits? Oh dear. Humans are so vastly different due to changes in pigment! > >You heard wrong, white colonialist women don't breed like rabbits. > > You mean they just f.ck like rabbits? in your dreams maybe.. Signaturefirst world medicine only for countries with first world birth rates >first world medicine only for countries with first world birth rates Boy, you are a stupid bigot ain't ya? Offsetting poverty and improving access to food, shelter, healthcare and medicine reduces population growth. And then even countries like Iran have instituted voluntary policies that have helped stabilize their population, including widespread condom use and availability. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > Offsetting poverty and improving access to food, shelter, healthcare > and medicine reduces population growth. Poverty, no/little food, poor shelter, lack of health-care and no meds increase population growth? Get a grip Carter, next you'll be whining poverty causes aids. faggot behavior causes aids > >first world medicine only for countries with first world birth rates > > Boy, you are a stupid bigot ain't ya? Whats bigoted about linking medicine to the birth rate (except your bigoted way of seeing things)? There are 1st world/wealthy countries with high birthrates (catholics, islamic countries) and there are 3rd world countries that have low birth rates. > Offsetting poverty and improving access to food, shelter, healthcare > and medicine reduces population growth. some rich oil states (NO poverty) show you up as a generalizing liar. Bin Laden was one of 50 kids of some randy sheikh. 45 would have died without modern medicine (and saved the world a lot of hassle). > And then even countries like Iran have instituted voluntary policies > that have helped stabilize their population, including widespread > condom use and availability. So they would qualify for 1st world medicine then anyway -duh! > George M. Carter no doubt one of those inbred hillbilly cousins Jimmy C. kept hidden in the shed. bigD Signaturefirst world medicine only for countries with first world birth rates >> If 1/3 of KwaZulu-Natal is infected with a deadly disease for >> which there is no cure, you are going to have to see a lower [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>> >>>/Doug 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. If their answer is negative, there is no HIV > epidemic in South Africa. Considering that it takes about 10 years [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&c > md=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12295193 ....as dumb as a doorknocker. > >I have two questions. If their answer is negative, there is no HIV <kak snipped> > > Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&c > > md=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12295193 > > ....as dumb as a doorknocker. Poor Alex is entitled to his opinion, despite how outrageously ignorant and stupid it might be. As a democrat, I'll even defend his right to do so, even if he is making a complete tit of himself. Let's hope he's only one in 40 million because I would hate to think that the government would have the same kind of thinking. > 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 How can someone make so many mathematical mistakes in so few words Estimating incidence is extremely difficult. HIV "rethinkers continually harp on about the uncerntainty in prevalence estimates Yes the figures for HIV prevalence in any given year are estimates an have confidence intervals or errors. HIV "rethinkers" will claim tha prevalence estimates are totally meaningless but lets give th estimates relatively small errors ie 1.8+-0.3 million and 2.4+-0. million. To take the difference between these two estimates you hav to add the errors hence the estimate for the incidence is 0.6+-0. million - ie it includes zero You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't on the one han beat up the uncertainties in the prevalence estimates and at the sam time calculate an exact incidence from these estimates Even if we accept this estimate it does not imply that in the tent year the same number of people will die from AIDS All of your attempts at mathematics appear to be the result of a starting with your conclusion that HIV does not cause AIDS and b inventing specious arguments to support this conclusion Chris Nobl |
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 <