From: http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publicatio...t&PM=&PY=&PS=1

HIV/AIDS as an official cause of death in the year 2001 as available:

<1 year of age: 1.6% (1999)
1-4 years: 3.0% (down from 3.5% in 1999)
15-24 years: 3.0%
0-18 years: not available (1.5% in 1997)

- In table 4.10, no province has a cause of death from HIV/AIDS listed
as greater than 3.6% among the leading causes of death.

- Also, in table 4.12, note the large numbers of deaths from
"Complications of Medical and Surgical Care" - 7.2% in the
under 14's, and 6.7% in the over 65's. Just an interesting aside,
considering the recent death of Makhato Mandelo after
gall bladder surgery - named AIDS.


The beef is in Appendix E - "All underlying causes of death, 1997-2003, by single years"

Human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] diseases (B20 - B24)
Year - number of deaths - (% of total deaths)

1997 6,234 (2.0%)
1998 7,266 (2.0)
1999 9,925 (2.6)
2000 10,926 (2.6)
2001 9,212 (2.0)
2002 10,425 (2.1)
2003 (----) (2.1)

So, consistently, 2.0% to 2.6% of death certificates mention "HIV diseases"
as the cause of death in South Africa.

In STARK contrast to the released numbers, WHO/UNAIDS puts the
estimated number of AIDS deaths in South Africa in 2003, at *370,000*.
(Source: HIVInsite, http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr09-sf-00 )

Using the 2002 figures, that would mean that there was an underreporting
death from AIDS to the extent of 97%, if you believe that. (10,425 / 370,000)
I find it very hard to believe that because of a social stigma, people would
balk at mentioning AIDS as a cause of death, but not Tuberculosis
(the highest number of deaths).

On the other hand, this death certificate data has the HUGE advantage
of not being based on estimates.

Alex

From: David

I have downloaded the latest Stats SA report on mortality for
1997-2003. It is 744 kb. I will happily send the pdf on request. You
can also download it yourself at http://www.statssa.gov.za/

I have plotted deaths from all causes and compared it to previous data
from Stats SA. The mortality is a linear for 1997-2003, and no
different from what I had plotted previously. No sign of anything
unusual mortality.

Dave

** Real numbers and not editorials for patent medicine supporters.

George

"George DeCarlo" <alexdn@ix.netcom.com> schreef in bericht
news:1108787088.608019.261660@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Hi George,

I hope president Mbeki is going to get an apology.

Alex

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 03:28:11 +0100, "Alex"
<avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

The problem, as you may be aware, is that because of the horrific
stigma and discrimination people with HIV face, most of the time the
death is NOT recorded as related to HIV. So these figures are
misleading. See, e.g.,
http://www.statssa.gov.za/news_archive/18feb2005_1.asp

In short, I think you're lying to suit your denialist insanity.

George M. Carter

**
Abstract portion below:
Mortality and causes of death in South Africa, 1997-2003
Findings from death notification

Tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia, and cerebrovascular diseases
emerged as the leading causes of death amongst South Africans from a
study of death notification forms. This is one of the key findings
contained in the statistical release by Statistics South Africa today.

The release is based on Stats SA’s recently completed capturing and
coding of approximately 3 million death notification forms (DNFs)
received by the Department of Home Affairs for deaths from 1997 to
2003.

According to Statistician-General Pali Lehohla, the data gathered
‘provide indirect evidence that the HIV epidemic in South Africa is
raising the mortality levels of prime-aged adults, in that associated
diseases are on the increase’.

However, stressed Lehohla, the data provided in the death notification
forms do not allow determination of HIV infections or AIDS-related
mortality. ‘To do this, analysis of the data needs to be combined with
other sources of information, population projections and demographic
modeling’.

Key findings of the mortality and causes of death study show that:

* The number of reported deaths has been increasing steadily,
which is partly associated with population growth and with improved
notification. The number of deaths increased by 57% from 318 287 in
1997 to 499 268 in 2002.
* The proportion of deaths in the age group 20-49 is increasing.
* The number of adult deaths (persons aged 15 years and above)
increased by 62% from 272 221 in 1997 to 441 029 in 2002.
* Over the period 1997 to 2002, 53% of all deaths were male.
However, this proportion declined from about 56% in 1997 to about 51%
in 2002.

The insanity is your blind faith in this silly myth.

Nothing ever adds up. Nothing ever makes any sense, everything adds up to
billions of dollars in profits and nothing more.

Cents not sense.

1997 6,234 (2.0%)
1998 7,266 (2.0)
1999 9,925 (2.6)
2000 10,926 (2.6)
2001 9,212 (2.0)
2002 10,425 (2.1)
2003 (----) (2.1)

Only GM Carter could claim that 2.1% is greater than the 2.6% in 1999 and
2000.

Some increase!

A 19.75% DECREASE

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:40:12 -0500, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

LOL. Blind faith means believing in something without question or
evidence. I did question the theory in the early 90s tho i was pretty
sure that HIV existed and caused AIDS even then. The arguments of the
denialists even then were lame.

What you believe is more akin to the bullshit propounded by the
"intelligent design" crowd--a set of principles based on no questions,
no evidence, no means of testing the hypothesis. In short, faith.

LOL. That's because your mind is diseased, dear. I hope you find
healing!

George M. Carter

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:51:46 -0500, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

I made no comment or reference to these figures. I said that HIV or
AIDS is NOT listed as the cause of death due to severe stigma and
discrimination. Starting with Mbeki!

Here's another stellar example of your misuse of figures.

George M. Carter

"Misuse' does not mean using them correctly. You must have a misprint in
your dictionary.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> schreef in bericht newsrae11h9bhmijamac3kb9q71p4636785gn@4ax.com...
That is, unfortunately, because you don't know much
about statistics (or logic - at least you don't use it
in your arguments).

I am not aware of a "horrific stigma" that would make
doctors and civil servants record a different cause of
death than what the person in question actually died of.
In fact, with all the brainwashing about the alleged
huge epidemic in South Africa, you would expect
them to label all kinds of conditions as HIV/AIDS,
instead of the ordinary diseases of poverty they
really are.

But if you want to prove that doctors in South Africa
routinely record the wrong cause of death to spare the
family embarassment, please go ahead.

Alex

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:18:50 +0100, "Alex"
<avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

snip
LOL...I readily admit my limitations with regard to statistics--but
having seen you mangle them, I sure as hell don't trust your
interpretations.

There ya go--you're not aware. So I guess gee it must not exist, huh?

George M. Carter

In article <0b03617b317c92a4cc55c91549d7c135@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
500 more deaths were attributed to HIV in 2002 than in 1999. By your
method of figuring, this increase is actually a 19.75% decrease.

Get professional help on your taxes. The IRS does not appreciate
revolutionary new mathematical paradigms.

--
David Canzi

"David Canzi -- non-mailable address" <dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> schreef in bericht
news:cvf1fq$3rk$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
You admit that 10,425 isn't anywhere near the 370,000 predicted
by the WHO/UNAIDS.

Alex

".I readily admit my limitations with regard to statistics'

Now ain't that the truth.

Your idea of statistics is one person said to have a new strain (of B.S)
is a new epidemic of global proportions.

Actually you may be right. AIDS is a global epidemic of utter garbage,
fear and hysteria.

In article <421b6773$0$57651$d5255a0c@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Alex <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
It's not an admission. And 370,000 is the wrong target. It would
be absurd to expect any combination of the 1992 Stats SA figures to
equal the 1993 UNAIDS estimate with total deaths rising this fast:

2000 All causes 413,969
2001 All causes 451,936
2002 All causes 499,268

Death rates are rising even faster from several infectious conditions:

1998 17,019 Influenza and pneumonia
2002 37,637 Influenza and pneumonia

1998 8,780 Intestinal infectious diseases
2002 19,836 Intestinal infectious diseases

1998 28,487 Tuberculosis
2002 59,951 Tuberculosis

To you that may seem curious and unexplained, to me it's a smoking gun.
I think AIDS is being underreported, you think otherwise. If i can't
convince you, that won't change what I believe. If you can't convince
me, I know it won't -- and shouldn't -- change what you believe.

Stalemate, for now.

--
David Canzi

"David Canzi -- non-mailable address" <dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> schreef in bericht
news:cvjsip$eii$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
You mean 2002 and 2003, not 1992 and 1993 (a typo, that's ok)
but... you can't really believe that HIV/AIDS deaths went:

2002 10,425
2003 370,000

If you think that the 370,000 number of AIDS deaths alone
in 2003 is the wrong target, you should inform the WHO/UNAIDS,
because they are the ones who came out with that projection.

In 1996, the population of South Africa was 40.6 million.
In 2001, the population was 44.8 million.
That means an average annual population growth in
this 5 year period, of 1.98%. ( 44.8/40.6 ^ 1/5 )

If you project from that the population growth of the following
year, that means that the population in 2002 would be
1.0198 x 44.8 million, which is 45.68 million. An increase
of 880,000 people in one year.

For the same year, deaths (registered) increased 47,332.
Population increase (average): 880,000.

I don't see where the problem is, or where it says that
this increase in deaths "must be" due to AIDS.


Twenty years after the discovery of HIV/AIDS, aren't we a
supposed to be long passed the smoking gun phase?

Generally speaking, what

It isn't a matter of belief. It is about where the evidence is.

The high HIV infection numbers that are still believed in worldwide
(including at HIV Ininsite) are based on WHO/UNAIDS numbers
that are based on extrapolations from small, unrepresentative
population samples (the ANC or antenatal clinic surveys).
When the CDC population surveys (DHS) came around, all of a sudden
all over Africa, estimates were lowered dramatically. Instead
admitting to it, the WHO/UNAIDS set out to attack the CDC method,
and failed to change it's own.

The problem I have with these high estimates, is that there is
no coinciding slowdown (let alone decline) in population size
in any African country.

The usual argument that huge population losses from AIDS are
made up by higher fertility and therefore Africa has the highest
population growth in the world makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Alex

avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl wrote:
Great

w3ng3114@duskmail.com