 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2007HIV statistic lies from Kenya
<http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25725707.htm>: "According to latest statistics from the state-run National Aids Control Council (NACC), Kenya's AIDS rate fell from 6.1 percent in 2004 to 5.9 percent of the east African nation's 35 million people the following year." However, according to UNAIDS <http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp> in their 2006 report they list Kenya as having a population of 34,256,000 with 1,300,000 cases of HIV. So, UNAIDS believe 3.8% of Kenyans are HIV+. I'm not sure where the NACC get their 5.9% to 6.1% number of AIDS cases from. Oh, and we all know how UNAIDS over-estimate their HIV and AIDS figures. Inflating estimates by 100% is their way of doing things.  Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > <http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25725707.htm>: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > <http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> > Moible: +447939991519 There is no disagreement here. The data have the same original source. UNAIDS estimated 6.1 prevalence [in adults aged 15-49]. I suggest the reuters report you are reading neglected to mention that the 6.1% figure only represented young adults and not all Kenyans. But if it suits you to jump in and shout "LIES!", then I guess no one can stop you. >> <http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25725707.htm>: >> "According to latest statistics from the state-run National Aids [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Oh, and we all know how UNAIDS over-estimate their HIV and AIDS >> figures. Inflating estimates by 100% is their way of doing things. >There is no disagreement here. The data have the same original >source. >UNAIDS estimated 6.1 prevalence [in adults aged 15-49]. >I suggest the reuters report you are reading neglected to mention that >the 6.1% figure only represented young adults and not all Kenyans. Erm, so which is it? Is there "no disagreement" or is the report wrong? The article specifically mentions "5.9 percent of the east African nation's 35 million people." It's all very well for you to sweep this inconsistency under the carpet, however it demonstrates one of the problems with the HIV theory: bad theories and bad data based on other bad theories and bad data. >But if it suits you to jump in and shout "LIES!", then I guess no one >can stop you. That's your word, not mine. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message > >> Oh, and we all know how UNAIDS over-estimate their HIV and AIDS > >> figures. Inflating estimates by 100% is their way of doing things. I have been noticing a change in the way stats are being reported. It is no longer (this) percentage has been infected. It now comes in a break-down of age, sex, risk group and nationality. The more numbers you have chasing the greased pig, the more confusing the numbers become. > Erm, so which is it? Is there "no disagreement" or is the report > wrong? > The article specifically mentions "5.9 percent of the east African > nation's 35 million people." I am saying that this has been reported wrongly. The UNAIDS data confirm that the 6.1% figure represents only young adults. If you wish to believe second hand quotes on a news agency site rather than the original data, be my guest. Just don't get upset when others say: "X must be true, because I heard it on Oprah" > It's all very well for you to sweep this inconsistency under the > carpet, however it demonstrates one of the problems with the HIV > theory: bad theories and bad data based on other bad theories and >bad data. It demonstrates the problem with reporting of statistics, not with the theory of causation of AIDS. Like yourself, I deplore misrepresentation on this issue and I agree that the area of predicting HIV estimates leaves a lot to be desired. > >But if it suits you to jump in and shout "LIES!", then I guess no one > >can stop you. > > That's your word, not mine. Funny that, I thought this thread was titled "HIV statistic LIES from Kenya". You did write that, didn't you?. If you can't even understand what you wrote (and read) a few days ago then no wonder you struggle with a UNAIDS report. >I am saying that this has been reported wrongly. >It demonstrates the problem with reporting of statistics, not with the >theory of causation of AIDS. Like yourself, I deplore >misrepresentation on this issue and I agree that the area of >predicting HIV estimates leaves a lot to be desired. >> >But if it suits you to jump in and shout "LIES!", then I guess no one >> >can stop you. >> >> That's your word, not mine. >Funny that, I thought this thread was titled "HIV statistic LIES from >Kenya". You did write that, didn't you?. Oh yes, so I did. Well, you've already described it as "reported wrongly" and "misrepresentation." Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519
|
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.