 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / August 2007More Antenatal Clinic Survey Crap From The BBC
Obviously though, for anyone with a working brain, it would be obvious that this massive infection with a deadly disease among the country's most sexually productive group has no impact on population growth. (Feel your braincells melting yet?) But then, people with working brains aren't involved in the AID$ Industry. South African Population: 1996: 40.6 million 2001: 44.8 million 2007: 47.9 million But hey, only 30% of pregnant women are HIV positive on one single ELISA p24 test, so what could be wrong? Not the test, obviously, because the test for p24 is 99.9% accurate when testing for the presence of HIV. Isn't it? Alex http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6928258.stm SA survey hints at HIV decrease By Peter Biles BBC Southern Africa correspondent The results are being greeted with cautious optimism The South African government says that for the first time, there may be signs of a reduction in the prevalence of HIV, the virus that causes Aids. A government survey found that HIV prevalence among pregnant women across the country had dropped by one percentage point. South Africa has one of the world's worst infection rates, with an estimated 5.5m people HIV-positive. Last year 29.1% of pregnant women were HIV-positive compared to 30.2% in 2005. It's hard to call it a decline - but the situation might be starting to stabilise Public health official The Department of Health says this suggests that for the first time, the epidemic in South Africa may be beginning a downward trend, but needs to be observed carefully in the next few years to confirm this. "It's hard to call it a decline, but the good news is that it's not getting worse," one public health official said. "The situation might be starting to stabilise." 'Encouraging' The decline is said to be mainly among people under the age of 20, which epidemiologist David Bourne of the University of Cape Town described as an "encouraging" sign. Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang also welcomed the results of the survey. "The decline in the under 20s from 15.9% in 2005 to 13.7% in 2006 in particular suggests a possible reduction in new infections in the population and we hope to sustain this trend," the minister said. It is too early to say whether a turning point has been reached in fighting HIV and AIDS. Dr Tshabalala-Msimang confirmed that more than 280,000 people were on anti-retroviral (ARV) treatment, which suppresses the symptoms of HIV, by the end of March this year. But she said reports that the next generation of ARV drugs might cost five times as much as they do at present, was worrying for developing countries with limited resources. "The reduction of the prices of medicines and other essential commodities remains a very critical area of intervention," the minister said. "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > Obviously though, for anyone with a working brain, it would > be obvious that this massive infection with a deadly disease > among the country's most sexually productive group has no > impact on population growth. (Feel your braincells melting > yet?) > But then, people with working brains aren't involved in > the AID$ Industry. > South African Population: > 1996: 40.6 million > 2001: 44.8 million > 2007: 47.9 million > But hey, only 30% of pregnant women are HIV positive > on one single ELISA p24 test, so what could be wrong? > Not the test, obviously, because the test for p24 > is 99.9% accurate when testing for the presence > of HIV. Isn't it? > Alex You're extrapolating information that simply isn't in the article below. In other words, you spout crap. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6928258.stm > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > commodities remains a very critical area of intervention," > the minister said. >"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> is 99.9% accurate when testing for the presence >> of HIV. Isn't it? >You're extrapolating information that simply isn't in the article below. In >other words, you spout crap. Which specific portions of Alex' message are you calling "crap?" The population details he mentioned come from census information, which is published by the South African government on its web site at <http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/populationstats.asp>. It lists the population of South Africa as follows: 1996: 40,583,573 2001: 44,819,778 2007: 47,850,700 These figures are entirely consistent with those Alex posted. And show that during the past 11 years South Africa's population has increased by over seven million people. That's an increase of almost 18%, which for a country supposedly ravaged by HIV and AIDS is pretty good. Or are you, perhaps, trying to justify the HIV testing of pregnant women to estimate the number of cases in the general population? India lost half of its HIV cases over-night after abandoning that flawed methodology.  Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message >>You're extrapolating information that simply isn't in the article below. >>In >>other words, you spout crap. > Which specific portions of Alex' message are you calling "crap?" I don't feel like reading the crap again. It was the bit about the single ELISA test which was, once again, invented. > "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't feel like reading the crap again. It was the bit about the single > ELISA test which was, once again, invented. No it wasn't. You just dont' understand it, that's all. Of course, you certianly did not explain why South Africa's pregnant women have a 30% HIV infection rate, without it affecting population growth. You would think their illness and death would sort of have an impact? Right? Also, has anyone compared the actual incidence of disease among pregnant women in South Africa with both the HIV infection rate, and incidences of disease in countries without high official infection rates? You know, basic stuff? Alex > >"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > 18%, which for a country supposedly ravaged by HIV and AIDS is pretty > good. Plus, HIV infection is supposed to be highest among the sexually reproductive, namely young women attending antenatal clinics. And this should have no effect on population growth? Which is all I was originally arguing, until Moira went off on a tangent about the tests. (Focus, dear, focus.) I wish someone with an epidemiological background could tell me what the supposed population growth of South Africa would be if 30% of pregnant women were HIV positive. > Or are you, perhaps, trying to justify the HIV testing of pregnant > women to estimate the number of cases in the general population? India > lost half of its HIV cases over-night after abandoning that flawed > methodology. She'll have to answer that herself. About whether she believes in the validity of the Antenatal Clinic Survey, that is. Alex > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > You're extrapolating information that simply isn't in the article below. I'm not. Extrapolating anything, that is. > In other words, you spout crap. It's not my fault that you're a bit thick. Alex >Obviously though, for anyone with a working brain, it would >be obvious that this massive infection with a deadly disease [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >is 99.9% accurate when testing for the presence >of HIV. Isn't it? I've previously questioned the South African 'AIDS epidemic several times. In this article, <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/misc.health.aids/msg/fcca6e0d1b62cfaf>, I compared death rates in England and Wales with death rates in South Africa. I wrote: "Approximately 1.3% of South Africans died in 2006 and approximately 1% of the population of England and Wales died in 2005. Given the facts that the UK is wealthier than South Africa and has a universal free health care system it's not surprising it has a lower death rate, if only slightly." If deaths attributed to HIV/AIDS are removed from the South African figures the country has a mortality rate of 0.6%; that's almost half that of England and Wales. And in this article, <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/misc.health.aids/msg/4304344603ba1e19>, I wrote about how cancer kills more people worldwide than HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Maleria put together. The majority of the increasing number of new cancer cases is expected to occur in developing countries. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > >Obviously though, for anyone with a working brain, it would > >be obvious that this massive infection with a deadly disease [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > figures the country has a mortality rate of 0.6%; that's almost half > that of England and Wales. Something tells me that the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS in South Africa is overestimated, at best. Remember that for years, UNAIDS has maintained that the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS is somewhere close to the total number of deaths. One year they claimed 450,000 deaths, when the total number of deaths was about 500,000. Again, this has no effect on population growth? > And in this article, > <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/misc.health.aids/msg/4304344603ba1e19>, > I wrote about how cancer kills more people worldwide than HIV/AIDS, > Tuberculosis and Maleria put together. The majority of the increasing > number of new cancer cases is expected to occur in developing > countries. Alex >Obviously though, for anyone with a working brain, it would >be obvious that this massive infection with a deadly disease [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >2001: 44.8 million >2007: 47.9 million Do these three numbers all come from the same source using the same methods to measure or estimate the population? Let's do a little arithmetic. 1996-2001: 5 years: population up 4.2 M, 0.84 M per year 2001-2007: 6 years: population up 3.1 M, 0.52 M per year Well, isn't that interesting? *Something* seems to be decreasing the birth rate and/or increasing the death rate in South Africa. No doubt you'll round up the usual suspects. SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | >>Obviously though, for anyone with a working brain, it would >>be obvious that this massive infection with a deadly disease [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>2001: 44.8 million >>2007: 47.9 million >Do these three numbers all come from the same source using >the same methods to measure or estimate the population? The statistics come from the South African government. >Let's do a little arithmetic. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the birth rate and/or increasing the death rate in South Africa. >No doubt you'll round up the usual suspects. According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa> a reduced fertility rate is to blame: "Total fertility rate: 2.90 children born/woman (2001 est.) 2.20 children born/woman (2006 est.) 2.16 children born/woman (2007 est.)" Interestingly: 3.1 million is 73.81% of 4.2 million; 2.16 is 74.49% of 2.9. I'm not (totally) convinced by these statistics. The page also contains: "Population: 47,390,900 (2006 est.) Population: 43,997,828 (2007 est.)" More than three million people in South Africa are expected to disappear during 2007! Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 > "Population: 47,390,900 (2006 est.) Population: 43,997,828 (2007 > est.)" > > More than three million people in South Africa are expected to > disappear during 2007! If the expected error in the estimates is, say, 5%, then these would to read: 2006 47M +/- 2.4M ie 44.6 - 49.4 2007 44M +/- 2.2M ie 41.8 - 46.2 Which leaves a large overlap where nobody disappears. Of course the error might be more or less than that - for each year. The further you get from a census, the less accurate the figure, so the size of the error for 2007 is likely to be bigger than for 2006. > > "Population: 47,390,900 (2006 est.) Population: 43,997,828 (2007 > > est.)" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > get from a census, the less accurate the figure, so the size of the > error for 2007 is likely to be bigger than for 2006. Fortunately, there was another census created earlier this year, which will be released at the end of 2007 (from e-mail correspondence). Alex > > 2006 47M +/- 2.4M ie 44.6 - 49.4 > > 2007 44M +/- 2.2M ie 41.8 - 46.2 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > year, which will be released at the end of 2007 (from > e-mail correspondence). Census data are very important. I It would be nice to have other reliable sources too - I'm sure that , now that SARS is doing so well, it might have some very interesting data. "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Brooks@gmail.com> wrote in message > It would be nice to have other reliable sources too - I'm sure that , > now that SARS is doing so well, it might have some very interesting > data. I have no doubt a lot of the deaths are being attributed to other things besides AIDS. Pneumonia and TB are two that come to mind. "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > Fortunately, there was another census created earlier this > year, which will be released at the end of 2007 (from > e-mail correspondence). There was a South African census in 2007? How did I miss this? Oh wait. I didn't miss it. As usual Alex is sucking things out of his thumb and extrapolating information without understanding it. South Africa's next census is in 2011. We are in the planning stage for that census. It takes about two or three years to collate extract all the data collected from a census. Mind you, if Alex ran the census he'd do it all in a weekend, via e-mail. :-) > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > didn't miss it. As usual Alex is sucking things out of his thumb and > extrapolating information without understanding it. No dummy, you 'missed it', because it hasn't been released yet. This is why I stated that 'will be released at the end of 2007'. You're killfiled. Alex > You're killfiled. It is really very silly to tell people this. You can achieve the same result by simply not reading their posts. You simply remove your right to reply - because everybody who claims to have killfiled somebody secretly reads their posts anyway. "Peter H.M. Brooks" <Peter.H.M.Brooks@gmail.com> wrote in message >> You're killfiled. > It is really very silly to tell people this. You can achieve the same > result by simply not reading their posts. You simply remove your right > to reply - because everybody who claims to have killfiled somebody > secretly reads their posts anyway. The reason he has killfiled me is because I can and do show that he's an uninformed idiot who knows nothing about HIV. Moira "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > "Moira de Swardt" <moira.ds@wol.co.za> schreef in bericht >> >> "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message >> > Fortunately, there was another census created earlier this >> > year, which will be released at the end of 2007 (from >> > e-mail correspondence). >> There was a South African census in 2007? How did I miss this? Oh wait. >> I >> didn't miss it. As usual Alex is sucking things out of his thumb and >> extrapolating information without understanding it. > No dummy, you 'missed it', because it hasn't been released yet. > This is why I stated that 'will be released at the end of 2007'. Idiot! There has been no census in South Africa since 2001. The next one will be in 2011. Therefore there can be no "census" released at the end of 2007. Your working knowledge of census information is as vague as your knowledge of HIV. > You're killfiled. Great! > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message >> You're killfiled. > > Great! Now he won't know what you're saying about him. B/ >>>Obviously though, for anyone with a working brain, it would >>>be obvious that this massive infection with a deadly disease [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >3.1 million is 73.81% of 4.2 million; >2.16 is 74.49% of 2.9. The "total fertility" estimates appear to be projections over an average woman's lifetime -- a considerable distance into the future. These estimates may take into account information about poverty, malnutrition, and life expectancy, for example. There won't necessarily be a simple relationship between these estimates and current birth rates. Don't assume, because I've pointed out only one mistake, that it's your only mistake. Life is too short to point out every mistake. Here are some potentially more relevant figures from that page: | Birth rate: | 20.63 births/1,000 population (2001) | 17.94 births/1,000 population (2007 est.)[2] | Death rate: | 12.6 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.) | 22.4 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.) [2] There are two things to observe here: (1) figures for 2007 are necessarily estimates, since 2007 isn't over yet, and (2) the implausibly large jump in deaths between 2006 and 2007, from 12.6/1000 to 22.4/1000, leads me to believe that at least one of these figures comes from an unreliable source. There is a comment in the editing history for that page saying that figures from the CIA FactBook are not reliable. The estimates above for 2007 are from the CIA FactBook. >I'm not (totally) convinced by these statistics. The page also >contains: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >More than three million people in South Africa are expected to >disappear during 2007! "are expected to disappear". Expected by whom? By using the passive voice you can make it sound like some group is expecting 3 million to disappear without ever committing yourself to identifying that group. Your flatlining admirers will just assume you're talking about their bogey-man of choice: the AIDS orthodoxy, the health authorities, the pharmaco-industrial complex, the Bavarian Illuminati, THEM. If we knew the two numbers you quote were from the same source, then we would have evidence that *that* *source* was expecting 3 million to disappear or, more likely, die. Do we know that? No. The second number is from the CIA FactBook. Neither the wikipedia page nor its recent editing history reveals a source for the first number. SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | >>According to >><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa> a reduced [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>3.1 million is 73.81% of 4.2 million; >>2.16 is 74.49% of 2.9. >The "total fertility" estimates appear to be projections over >an average woman's lifetime -- a considerable distance into >the future. These estimates may take into account information >about poverty, malnutrition, and life expectancy, for example. >There won't necessarily be a simple relationship between these >estimates and current birth rates. You wrote "*Something* seems to be decreasing the birth rate and/or increasing the death rate in South Africa." I was simply pointing out that South Africa has a declining birth rate. But you don't like those statistics. Let's try another one, instead: "Birth rate: 20.63 births/1,000 population (2001) 17.94 births/1,000 population (2007 est.)[2]" This shows a decline in birth rate of 13%. However, the figure for 2007 is questionable. >>I'm not (totally) convinced by these statistics. The page also >>contains: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>More than three million people in South Africa are expected to >>disappear during 2007! >"are expected to disappear". Expected by whom? Whoever complied the statistics. 3.3 million is quite a lot of people to lose. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 >>> ... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa> ... [snip] >>>I'm not (totally) convinced by these statistics. The page also >>>contains: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Whoever complied the statistics. 3.3 million is quite a lot of people >to lose. You subtracted two numbers you found on the Wikipedia page to get 3.3 million. There is no "whoever" that "compiled the statistics", no entity that expects 3.3 million South Africans to die during that one year period, unless both those numbers come from the same source. One number was on the Wikipedia page before Aug 3rd but no source for it was identified. The other number was added on Aug 3rd, and the source identified as the CIA FactBook. Your mission, Martin, should you decide to accept it, is to show that both numbers come from the same source. (Given the CIA connection here I couldn't resist...) SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | >>>> ... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa> ... >[snip] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>More than three million people in South Africa are expected to >>>>disappear during 2007! >>>"are expected to disappear". Expected by whom? >>Whoever complied the statistics. 3.3 million is quite a lot of people >>to lose. >You subtracted two numbers you found on the Wikipedia page to get >3.3 million. There is no "whoever" that "compiled the statistics", [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that both numbers come from the same source. (Given the CIA >connection here I couldn't resist...) My "I'm not (totally) convinced by these statistics" comment was meant to indicate that I questioned their accuracy. However, much of the theory about HIV and AIDS is based on statistics. I comment on them to highlight their flaws. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 "Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message > >Your mission, Martin, should you decide to accept it, is to show > >that both numbers come from the same source. (Given the CIA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, much of the theory about HIV and AIDS is based on statistics. > I comment on them to highlight their flaws. Any-one who would believe any-thing that is in the CIA Fact-book would set out milk and cookies for Santa on the 4th of July and expect a basket of dyed eggs and candy to be left next to his tooth under his pillow. >>>>> ... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa> ... >>[snip] [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >However, much of the theory about HIV and AIDS is based on statistics. >I comment on them to highlight their flaws. "Statistics" is a mighty broad target. What we have here are two numbers, one from an unknown source of unknown competence, and you think the implausibility of the result you get by subtracting them is evidence against the validity of the entire field of statistics. That's like denying the validity of arithmetic because somebody calculated the wrong tip on his restaurant bill. You seem to prefer broad and nebulous targets. When I gave you the opportunity to score a real hit against the credibility of a real target by verifying that both numbers leading to the implausible result were from the CIA FactBook, you passed it up to take a clumsy swipe at statistics instead. SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | On Aug 10, 11:58 pm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non- mailable) wrote: > In article <46b350ee$0$57909$dbd43...@news.wanadoo.nl>, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the birth rate and/or increasing the death rate in South Africa. > No doubt you'll round up the usual suspects. I fear that that is likely to be a circular argument. You see, there hasn't been a census this year, nor last year. So we don't actually know the population for 2006, 2007 and probably don't have that good a picture for 2005. So these figures will be estimates. The statisticians will have based these estimates on known factors, including AIDS. So the figures might well be correct, but that means that the statistician's estimates based on the known rates of AIDS and projections from them are correct. It is not independent evidence that AIDS is causing this effect.
|
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.