 |
 | 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 2007AID$ Science - Where Are South Africa's AIDS Deaths??
Only 365,000 people have died of AIDS, according to UNAIDS antenatal clinic survey based data (which itself are garbage, but I'll leave that aside for now). However, exactly 10 years ago, it was stated that there had been 700,000 new infections 'in 1997 alone'. Statistics South Africa states that the time from infection to death is 10 years. Therefore, in fact, all the new infections of 1997 should be AIDS deaths in 2007. So why the discrepancy - 320,000 AIDS deaths (in 2005), and 700,000 new infections in 1997. (And before you proffer 'antiretrovirals' as the cure for HIV/AIDS, first consider how few people in South Africa are actually on them.) Alex Sources: Median time lapse from HIV to death: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022007.pdf " The median time lapse from becoming HIV-positive until death due to AIDS is estimated to be 10 years for both males and females and a female-to-male HIV prevalence ratio of 1,2 was assumed for 2007. " New infections in 1997: 700,000. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Urgent_Action/apic_71498.html " Some 2.9 million South Africans are thought to be living with HIV at the beginning of 1998, over 700 000 of them infected in 1997 alone. " South African AIDS deaths (2005), UNAIDS http://www.hivinsite.com/global?page=cr09-sf-00 AIDS deaths, 2005 320,000 >Only 365,000 people have died of AIDS, according to >UNAIDS antenatal clinic survey based data (which itself >are garbage, but I'll leave that aside for now). What exactly are you claiming here? That 365,000 is the total number of South Africans who have ever died of AIDS, or that 365,000 South Africans have died of AIDS in antenatal clinics, or what? Learn to write clearly. The reference you gave says that 320,000 South Africans died of AIDS in 2005. (Presuambly this figure includes both those who died in antenatal clinics and those who died elsewhere.) >However, exactly 10 years ago, it was stated that there >had been 700,000 new infections 'in 1997 alone'. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >fact, all the new infections of 1997 should >be AIDS deaths in 2007. Here is what Statistics South Africa actually said: "The median time lapse from becoming HIV-positive until death due to AIDS is estimated to be 10 years ..." You even quoted this correctly farther down in your article. This doesn't mean that all infected people live for 10 years and then die promptly on schedule as if they were killed by an alarm clock. It means 50% of infected people die ten years or less after becoming infected. The concept of "median" is not hard to understand, and has been explained to you many times over a period of years. Such a persistent failure, by somebody who can read and write two languages, to understand something so simple after it has been explained so many times cannot be explained by mere stupidity. Other explanations, such as dishonesty and insanity, are required.  SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | over 300K died. that's a lot ! On Aug 16, 8:20 am, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non- mailable) wrote: > In article <46c360fc$0$89260$dbd4f...@news.wanadoo.nl>, > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > -- > David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | > over 300K died. that's a lot ! I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You see, just as the 700,000 'new infections in 1997' was a projection, so is the 320,000 AIDS deaths number. No one actually held a tally of new infections in 1997, just as no one has held a tally that came up with 320,000 AIDS deaths in 2005. They are projections based on assumptions. The only real survey we have is for death notification, and that gives HIV/AIDS as the cause of death in South Africa about 13,000 times. Alex over 300K died. that's a lot ! On Aug 16, 8:20 am, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non- mailable) wrote: > In article <46c360fc$0$89260$dbd4f...@news.wanadoo.nl>, > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > -- > David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | Killfiled. I'm tired of your dancing around the facts. Who died at antenatal clinics? Please. Alex > >Only 365,000 people have died of AIDS, according to > >UNAIDS antenatal clinic survey based data (which itself [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > explained so many times cannot be explained by mere stupidity. > Other explanations, such as dishonesty and insanity, are required. >Killfiled. That suits me fine: now you won't know what I'm saying about you behind your back. >I'm tired of your dancing around the facts. You mean you're tired of having your distortions of the facts pointed out. >Who died at antenatal clinics? Please. You said: >> >Only 365,000 people have died of AIDS, according to >> >UNAIDS antenatal clinic survey based data (which itself >> >are garbage, but I'll leave that aside for now). I don't see how AIDS mortality stats could come from antenatal clinic surveys unless people were dying of AIDS in antenatal clinics. If anybody thinks my claim that Alex distorts the facts is an unfair attack on him, please see below: [snip] >> >However, exactly 10 years ago, it was stated that there >> >had been 700,000 new infections 'in 1997 alone'. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> explained so many times cannot be explained by mere stupidity. >> Other explanations, such as dishonesty and insanity, are required. SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in > So why the discrepancy - 320,000 AIDS deaths > (in 2005), and 700,000 new infections in 1997. Its all wall to wall lies, as usual "The numbers have been greatly inflated. For example, the WHO/UNAIDS says that there has been 2.2 million AIDS deaths in Uganda so far, but the Ugandan Ministry of Health records a cumulative total of only 56,000 AIDS deaths since the beginning of the epidemic. The WHO's report is 33 times higher than the actual number of recorded, verified deaths. As of the end of 2001, official government bodies in the developing world have managed to account for only 7 percent of the cumulative AIDS deaths that the WHO/UNAIDS claim have occurred. The Russian Federation can only account for only 3 percent of the UNAIDS estimate of AIDS deaths. India has 2 percent of the UNAIDS estimate. China has only 1 percent."-- Dr. Rodney Richards [2003] Africa: Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs By Liam Scheff >"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >UNAIDS estimate. China has only 1 percent."-- Dr. Rodney Richards [2003] >Africa: Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs By Liam Scheff I do not want to dispute your figures because I have no reason to do it. What must be kept in mind when discussing official and non-official figures are that doctors may not report an aids related death to aids. Even when somebody die because of any other illness which is aids related, only the illness that officially caused the death will be mentioned on the death certificate. This would have enormous effects on the archived figures, the same way it is casing enormous problems for insurance companies. I did not read the other letters in this thread, nor do I intend doing so. Simply not interested enough to read it, so maybe this was said here, because it is general knowledge. If not, why not including it in your discussions. > >"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > non-official figures are that doctors may not report an aids related > death to aids. That's the traditional explanation, including for the 13,000 or so AIDS deaths in the South African death notification survey. That is almost as problematic, and for two main reasons. 1) In at least South Africa, it is illegal to list the wrong cause of death. It is looked at as akin to covering up a murder. Doctors lose their license over it. So it is hard for me to believe that orthodox doctors (as all of them are) would list the wrong cause of death just to spare the feelings of the family. 2) There is a huge financial incentive to list diseases as AIDS. Billions are poured into AIDS treatment, that are not poured into the treatment of malaria, tuberculosis, etc. > Even when somebody die because of any other illness > which is aids related, only the illness that officially caused the > death will be mentioned on the death certificate. This would have > enormous effects on the archived figures, the same way it is casing > enormous problems for insurance companies. It would have, but it would have to happen on such a huge scale and with such consistency by so many thousands of doctors (bringing down 320,000 AIDS deaths to about 13,000) that it would be impossible to cover up. It would actually be easier to prove such a massive coverup by so many people than to prove an AIDS epidemic in South Africa. Alex "JOHN" <john@nospam.com> wrote in message ... > claim have occurred. The Russian Federation can only account for only 3 > percent of the UNAIDS estimate of AIDS deaths. India has 2 percent of the > UNAIDS estimate. China has only 1 percent."-- Dr. Rodney Richards [2003] > Africa: Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs By Liam Scheff 1 percent in China, that is quite a lot of AIDS, no? 2 percent in India, wow. 3 percent in Russia ? Dude these are impressive accountable numbers, yes? > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > UNAIDS estimate. China has only 1 percent."-- Dr. Rodney Richards [2003] > Africa: Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs By Liam Scheff Right, and no one in the orthodoxy has yet satisfactorily explained why antenatal clinic surveys give so much higher numbers than household surveys. Alex these numbers are making me, a seropositive, worry just found out last year are there many deaths in the US? why do they die? pneumonia? > > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETH...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > these numbers are making me, a seropositive, worry > just found out last year http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport1.html > are there many deaths in the US? > why do they die? pneumonia? drugs http://www.whale.to/a/pharma_aids.html hiv test and umbreall scam http://www.whale.to/a/aids_umbrella_h.html poppers http://www.whale.to/a/amyl_nitrite_h.html "He was one of my most dramatic recoveries with AIDS, and the reason I say that is that he was the most far gone. He was in the absolute, end stage -- they have that wing in the hospital where they have given up on you. You can smoke pot and do anything you want. They had given up on him."-Dr Shulze, who cured 16 from last stage full-blown AIDS. http://www.whale.to/c/shulze.html "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > Only 365,000 people have died of AIDS, ... Only? I'd say that is quite impressive. However I'd say more than that have died from AIDS related causes. Pneumonia and TB were properly listed as the death, not AIDS. Just to clarify. I am here to have an honest discussion about the facts. I do not talk to idiots, or paid shills, or anyone who wants to dance around the facts. If someone wants to argue that the number of new infections in a year has nothing to do with AID$ deaths 10 years later, when even the orthodoxy states that the median time from infection to death is 10 years, you can go elsewhere. Either HIV leads do death or it doesn't. Either it takes and average of 10 years, or it doesn't. But don't come here and then deny the facts because they don't fit with your agenda. I have no time for that. This is the problem with AID$ activists. They have an agenda, and they do not respect any kind of method, any kind of consistency. Are the facts contradicting your ideas? Just deny them, no matter how many agencies on their own side postulate them as the truth. When it is generally accepted by the orthodoxy that it takes 10 years from infection to death, you are not entitled to deny that because it undermines other assumptions, like the number of people that same orthodoxy pesumes to have died of AIDS about 10 years later. Besides, we have 'dialogued' before, and I no more waste time talking to a paid shill like Dave Canzi, than I talk to a paid shill like George Carter. Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > Just to clarify. I am here to have an honest discussion about > the facts. I got my information from this: Do you say this is a lie and all these agencies are putting out bullshit? Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report Global Challenges | Number of AIDS-Related Deaths in South Africa Three Times Official Figures, Report Says [Feb 03, 2005] The number of people dying of AIDS-related causes in South Africa is at least three times as much as official figures suggest, the country's Medical Research Council said in a report published in the Jan. 28 issue of the journal AIDS, London's Independent reports. MRC estimates that about 112,000 people died of AIDS-related causes from 2000 to 2001, which is almost three times as many as the country's Department of Home Affairs estimated died during the same period. In addition, the report says that during that year about 74% of deaths among children under age five were from AIDS-related illnesses, compared with data cited by the government claiming 25% of deaths among young children are AIDS-related (Selva, Independent, 2/2). Many deaths were recorded as pneumonia or tuberculosis, partly so the family could claim life insurance or funeral policies and also to protect families from the social stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS, according to South Africa's Star. "A large proportion of deaths due to HIV infection are misclassified (on death certificates) as the opportunistic infections that are the immediate cause of death," Debbie Bradshaw, director of MRC's burden of disease unit and co-author of the report, said (Selva, Star, 2/2). A "politically sensitive mortality report" by Statistics South Africa is expected to be released on Friday that will provide details on the causes of death in the country between 1997 and 2003, South Africa's Business Day reports (Business Day, 2/1). However, MRC "warned" that the agency's survey "will again underestimate" the number of AIDS-related deaths in South Africa, according to the Independent (Independent, 2/2). Reaction The study's authors commented on the "long-running" debate over the size of South Africa's HIV/AIDS population, saying, "This debate has unfortunately sown confusion about the urgency of the epidemic, delayed the implementation of interventions aimed at reducing transmission and mortality and contributed to the stigma associated with the disease." They added, "Given the political climate and the resultant disincentives for reporting HIV/AIDS in the South African setting, it is probably not surprising that the level of reporting HIV or AIDS as a cause of death is low." The South African HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy group Treatment Action Campaign said the study demonstrates the need for government officials "to speed up" the distribution of antiretroviral drugs at no cost to HIV-positive people, according to Business Day. "The number [of deaths] will rise unless more people are given treatment," the group said in a statement (Business Day, 2/1). Ruth Rabinowitz, a health spokesperson for the Inkatha Freedom Party, on Tuesday said that all of the figures on HIV/AIDS are "virtually useless," South Africa's Cape Times reports. "All our statistics in South Africa will be imperfect in view of the paucity of tests that are performed, the format of the death certificate and the inadequacy of our statistical records," Rabinowitz said, adding that the delay in publishing data makes them outdated. According to Rabinowitz, the government will gather accurate statistics only when the country's approach to HIV/AIDS changes from one of "academic interest" to one addressing a "national emergency," according to the Cape Times. "Then testing will be done at all clinics, hospitals and medical practices; tests will be provided free by government; and a database will be kept current, listing numbers of people who test positive and their demographic profile," she said (Cape Times, 2/1). >.... > However, exactly 10 years ago, it was stated that there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So why the discrepancy - 320,000 AIDS deaths > (in 2005), and 700,000 new infections in 1997. And he later wrote: > The only real survey we have is for death notification, > and that gives HIV/AIDS as the cause of death in South > Africa about 13,000 times. Exactly wrong ! S. Africa doesn't have a realiable record of deaths. A German pensioner unmarried friend of mine died here in S. Africa 2 years ago. When I tried to report his death, via the German embassy, so that his sister in Germany could inherit his house, the embassy replied:- } I would just like to take up the case of Mr. Hubert Dure with all of you. } As I said earlier to Mr. Glur at the Dep. of Home Affairs there is no } registration of Mr. Drue's death. My friend had told me about the location of his last will. His neighbour, who said the mortuary came has now 'taken' my friend's house, and I suspect destroyed the will. I reported the matter to the local police, but could not claim a "missing person", since I don't believe he is "missing". The police just ignored my written report, although I insisted that they sign the duplicate copy as received. Others have told me that the mortuaries are overflowing with unidentified corpses. How many hundreds/thousands of illegals cross the borders daily ? So you see, any guvmint figures must be suspect. NGO figures are much more reliable. The antenatal clinics, where they do the HIV testing and where it's 2 statges removed [i.t.o. calculations] to do the stat-calculations which the guvmint doesn't want disclosed is the most reliable. I.e because they can't do the calculations themselves, they naturally assume the we can't either. >Statistics South Africa states that the time from >infection to death is 10 years. Therefore, in >fact, all the new infections of 1997 should >be AIDS deaths in 2007. David Canzi wrote:- D> This doesn't mean that all infected people live for 10 years D> and then die promptly on schedule as if they were killed by an D> alarm clock. It means 50% of infected people die ten years or D> less after becoming infected. Well once the figures have stabilised, which they seem to have now, it would mean that the 1997 new-infections would approximately match the 2007 AIDS deaths, less those that die of eg. 'violence'. " Death" <De[254]...@yourdoor.net> wrote:- > They added, "Given the political climate and the resultant > disincentives for reporting HIV/AIDS in > the South African setting, it is probably not surprising that the > level of reporting HIV or AIDS as a cause of death is low." Correct; according to the S.African guvmint there's also no problem in/with Zimbabawe either. Here again, if you've got the ability to make 2 steps of inference, you can draw the correct conclusions about governence by africans by measuring the Zimbabwian economy. And yes, we'll see where SA is a decade after the commodity/mineral boom ends. Someone told me that the high circulation Sunday Times reported that the minister of health was probihited from re-entering Botswana because she was accused of stealing a sleeping patient's watch, while she had been the hospital supervisor there. Should I believe him ? Is it true that this same minister of health was the president's comrade-in-arms during the 'liberation struggle' ? == Chris Glur.
|
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.