| Author |
France and Denmark have wonder 'AIDS' cure?
|
|
| PaulKing 2004-11-16, 3:51 pm |
| http://www.aimultimedia.com/data/drop.jpg
________________
In France the number of 'people living with AIDS' dropped 30,000 between
1999 and 2001 but under 2,000 are said to have died.
What happened to the other 28,000 plus?
A wonder cure?
The same story in Denmark where 300 appear to have had a complete cure in
just two years.
_____________
Has a cure for 'AIDS' been found in Europe or are 'AIDS' statistics
complete and utter bull shit?
| |
| Nick Bennett 2004-11-16, 3:51 pm |
| "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message news:<192a8b0a1851526aa2ea928fa9207b04@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>...
> http://www.aimultimedia.com/data/drop.jpg
>
> ________________
>
> In France the number of 'people living with AIDS' dropped 30,000 between
> 1999 and 2001 but under 2,000 are said to have died.
>
> _____________
>
> Has a cure for 'AIDS' been found in Europe or are 'AIDS' statistics
> complete and utter bull shit?
Or perhaps it's your facts :o)
France didn't have mandatory reporting until last year (!). From 2001
to 2003 the estimated figures grew 20,000 with only around 2200 new
reported cases. Actual reported cases in France are 55,000 but
accurate figures are hampered by anonymous testing. As of June 18th
2004 "Data for France from 1999 is unavailable" so I take the figures
you quoted as being ever so slightly, well, inaccurate. I suppose you
have to pick your fights if you want to win them.
The population estimates dropped from 4.4% prevalence to 4% if you
want an explanation: but then you assume that all HIV science is
dogmatic and not subject to internal review and audit, right? Would
you prefer that the monitoring bodies _didn't_ revise their statements
with new data? After all, that is the dissident way...
Cheers
Bennett
| |
| PaulKing 2004-11-16, 3:51 pm |
| What a poor excuse for completely bogus figures.
I love your 'estimated figures'. You can 'estimate' anything you want. I
estimate you will drown in your own B.S. in three weeks time.
I don't have a shread of proof of this but who needs proof with
'estimates'?
If figures simply don't add up, why publish them?
Does 'AIDS' have a new form of maths all to itself?
Thank you for an example of 'apologist' logic at it's finest. A pathetic
excuse for even the clearest nonsense.
| |
| PaulKing 2004-11-16, 3:51 pm |
| "France didn't have mandatory reporting until last year".
Actually it had regional systems in 13 of the 23 regions (of France) until
the end of 1998.
Denmark had manditory reporting since 1990 from both labortories and
clinics. So where is the excuse there?
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v05n02/0502-221.asp
| |
| David Canzi -- non-mailable address 2004-11-16, 3:51 pm |
| In article <6b4833e7d749bd46f50129879cc01cbb@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
>What a poor excuse for completely bogus figures.
>
>I love your 'estimated figures'. You can 'estimate' anything you want.
You appear to have gotten your figures from here:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20020124...ok/geos/fr.html>
HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS: 130,000 (1999 est.)
HIV/AIDS - deaths: 2,000 (1999 est.)
<http://web.archive.org/web/20031205...ok/geos/fr.html>
HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS:
100,000 (2001 est.)
HIV/AIDS - deaths:
800 (2001 est.)
Note that the figures you argued from are estimates too, and the CIA's
web site doesn't tell us whether these estimates came from the French
government, a clever analysis of satellite photos, the CDC, the WHO or
the what. The information has no pedigree.
What is the target you're trying to discredit, and how can you tell
whether you are hitting it or not, when the source of the information
you're using is unknown?
--
David Canzi
| |
| PaulKing 2004-11-16, 3:51 pm |
| The source is clear marked. Look again.
| |
| PaulKing 2004-11-16, 3:51 pm |
| Source: CIA World Factbook. It is clearly marked below each and every
graph.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/
Get your eyes checked DM Canzi.
| |
| David Canzi -- non-mailable address 2004-11-16, 3:51 pm |
| In article <04dd212fb8045f2205f9e4a1c02f3e82@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
>Source: CIA World Factbook. It is clearly marked below each and every
>graph.
The information didn't originate with the CIA. You are not addressing
the question I asked.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...rs.uwaterloo.ca>
--
David Canzi
| |
| Nick Bennett 2004-11-17, 11:06 am |
| "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message news:<6b4833e7d749bd46f50129879cc01cbb@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>...
> What a poor excuse for completely bogus figures.
You would prefer....? What?
>
> I love your 'estimated figures'. You can 'estimate' anything you want.
> I estimate you will drown in your own B.S. in three weeks time.
>
> I don't have a shread of proof of this but who needs proof with
> 'estimates'?
>
> If figures simply don't add up, why publish them?
>
Because you need _something_ to see what's going on. They're
estimates, so are nearly all health statistics. Except in the case of
death certificates (which have their own problems) there mostly isn't
a paper trail to track diseases as they occur throughout a country.
Example: you take the data from one study looking at 1000 people.
Multiply that number by 1000 to see how many cases there are in a
million. Multiply by around 300 to find how many in the whole of the
US. The alternative is testing 300 million people...
The next year two more studies come out looking at 2000 and 1500
different people respectively. They give different rates, so you
recalculate the estimates. They may go up, they may go down. It
doesn't matter. Does this limit the conclusions you can draw? Sure!
But you can (and should) still try to get something from the data.
> Does 'AIDS' have a new form of maths all to itself?
No, it's called epidemiology. One of many fields known as "science".
You can learn things by doing science. It's a nifty concept you
should try sometime.
>
> Thank you for an example of 'apologist' logic at it's finest. A
> pathetic excuse for even the clearest nonsense.
How about this: from the 13 regions apparently reporting in France
only a single one (representing 4.6% of the country) gave data in
1999. Read a little bit further down the reference you cited. It's
fun when you quote your own rebuttals :o)
That's a bit like using Pennsylvania as the representative of the
entire US. That would have worked well in the election ;-)
As for Denmark, that's actually a reasonable point, but then they're
only estimating 4000 cases instead of 100,000. Your quibbling over a
few hundred estimated cases in a country of around 5.4 million? Did
you not notice the fact that Denmark, even with mandatory reporting,
has 3800 AIDS cases estimated for only around 2500 reported...hmm?
I'm surprised you don't argue using that kind of obvious stuff instead
of trying to obfuscate using estimated rates and deaths.
Extrapolations are important - it's called "planning ahead". No-one's
claiming they're perfect.
Bennett
| |
| PaulKing 2004-11-18, 11:06 am |
| X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 10
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com misc.health.aids:42815
When 'estimates' simply have no relevance to established facts and don't
reconcile with hard and fast figures like mortalities they can be
condidered mere propaganda and quite worthless
" No-one's
claiming they're perfect."
No shit.... or should I say 'complete shit'?
| |
| Nick Bennett 2004-11-18, 11:06 am |
| "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message news:<8b3c56692ed445cf55832f47463c075f@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>...
> When 'estimates' simply have no relevance to established facts and don't
> reconcile with hard and fast figures like mortalities they can be
> condidered mere propaganda and quite worthless
Well then, thankfully you're not in charge of public health decisions :-D
Bennett
| |
| PaulKing 2004-11-20, 11:07 am |
| The source is clear marked. Look again.
| |
| David Canzi -- non-mailable address 2004-11-20, 11:07 am |
| In article <04dd212fb8045f2205f9e4a1c02f3e82@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
>Source: CIA World Factbook. It is clearly marked below each and every
>graph.
The information didn't originate with the CIA. You are not addressing
the question I asked.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...rs.uwaterloo.ca>
--
David Canzi
| |
| PaulKing 2004-11-20, 11:07 am |
| "France didn't have mandatory reporting until last year".
Actually it had regional systems in 13 of the 23 regions (of France) until
the end of 1998.
Denmark had manditory reporting since 1990 from both labortories and
clinics. So where is the excuse there?
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v05n02/0502-221.asp
| |
| Nick Bennett 2004-11-21, 11:07 am |
| "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message news:<8b3c56692ed445cf55832f47463c075f@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>...
> When 'estimates' simply have no relevance to established facts and don't
> reconcile with hard and fast figures like mortalities they can be
> condidered mere propaganda and quite worthless
Well then, thankfully you're not in charge of public health decisions :-D
Bennett
|
|
|
|