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/q...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/q...us&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
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/q...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/q...us&db=pubmed&c
md=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12295193

Alex wrote:

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 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/q...=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/q...lus&db=pubmed&
md=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=1229519

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/q...=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/q...lus&db=pubmed&
md=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=1229519

Alex wrote
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

On Feb 18, 5:04 am, "Chris Noble" <ChrisJNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no HIV pandemic/epidemic - It's caused by poverty

If you don't believe me and the president , he say so !!

"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:repost.13501.45d7a716$1$29129$dbd49001@news.w anadoo.nl...
.....as dumb as a doorknocker.

On 17 Feb 2007 21:23:58 -0800, "fire_" <vuurvreeter@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip
Apparently, then, Mbeki doesn't seem to give a shit 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

On 17 Feb 2007 21:23:58 -0800, "fire_" <vuurvreeter@yahoo.com> wrote:



www.duesberg.com

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:53:45 GMT, GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

that's what the labs want you to believe for you to buy their
expensive poisons.

www.duesberg.com

"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:45d7a49e$0$25982$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl...
HIV stats are a load of bollocks

"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

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:25:20 +0000, quintal
<quintal@francom.esoterisme> wrote:

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

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:38:45 -0000, "JOHN" <john@btinternet.com>
wrote:

Another brilliant and braindead commentary from the aluminum hat man
himself.

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:58:38 GMT, GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

it's hard to deny that drugs can and do cause an "acquired immune
defficiency syndrome".


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.

In article <7h3ht2h8qqbmdh848mpt3uq684443bpkmi@4ax.com>,
quintal@francom.esoterisme says...
I guess it's hard for you to deny. But that's you.

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

Alex wrote:

I only have one: "why do you keep repeating the same assertions, even
though they've been debunked thoroughly and showing your mathematical
errors, over and over again?"

B/

"JOHN" <john@btinternet.com> schreef in bericht
news:yP2dncBkUeee7kXYnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@bt.com...
And the standard reply of course is... they are underreporting.

But isn't it odd that all these countries underreport to the same
massive extent? That they have all independently decided to
report only 1-3% of all AIDS deaths?

Alex

"fire_" <vuurvreeter@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:1171776238.803287.200990@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
Name one.

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.


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?



Only Chris Noble can do that. Raging epidemic
or no new infections at all.

Yes I can. I simply presume the same level of certainty
that the HIV believers have.


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.

"JOHN" <john@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:yP2dncBkUeee7kXYnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@bt.com...

Hey:

1) They are only stats, subject to all kinds of variables that no one
could've considered in earlier stages of the epedemic.

2) If you have ever stood in the middle of the complete AIDS quilt and or
lived with the disease you would know better.

3) Anti-HIV medications have become available which have greatly improved
survival rates, even in third world countries.

4) If you're going to use statistics as proof of your assumption, it would
be only right to gather all of the statistics put together, not just your
own select few.

5) If you're so sure you're right, then why does everyone with HIV progress
to AIDS and why does everyone who dies of aids have HIV?

6) Finally, I have been taking anti-HIV medications for twenty years now. I
have gone on the so-called vacations from the meds many times and each time
have had drops in vital T-Cell counts and exponentially rising rates of the
HIV virus. Have you?

Shut up.

/Doug