Why do "skeptics" believe in disinformation? (was: AIDS Claims 650,000 in Zambia in 1996-1999)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

relative truth

unread,
Oct 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/5/00
to
[ Repost because original post is delayed of hold back by talk.origins ]

| = mcoon
|| = Alex

The concerned AIDS-typical disinformation report:

' About 650,000 people died of HIV/ AIDS in Zambia between 1996-1999,
' a survey jointly conducted by Society for Family Health (SFH) and
' Population Services International (PSI) reveals.
'
' The survey also shows that about 1 million people are infected with
' the disease, Zambian newspaper, The Post, reported on Monday.
'
' The report said there was a decline in casual sex among wealthier
' people in Lusaka resulting in the disease being concentrated on the
' poor.
'
' "These findings emphasize the importance of intensifying the efforts
' aimed at promoting behavior change among the poor," the report said.
'
' According to the survey which aimed to ascertain changes in casual
' sex and condom use here between 1996-1999, it is estimated that 20
' percent of 15 to 49 years old Zambians were HIV positive.
'
' The report said in Zambia, as in other countries of Southern Africa,
' the HIV virus was thought to spread mainly through unprotected
' heterosexual intercourse.
'
' It said that women's lack of control over economic resources were
' intimately tied to the spread of the epidemic, adding that sexual
' behavior norms that sanctioned men to multiple sexual partnerships
' had contributed to the spread of the disease.
'
' However, it said there had been significant declines in casual sex
' because of reductions in casual sex among wealthy men and women,
' adding that casual sex was concentrated on persons who were not in
' stable partnerships.
'
' The report said HIV/AIDS' prevalence among pregnant women who were
' between 15 and 49 years dropped from 28 percent in 1993 to 23 percent
' in 1994 and 15 percent in 1998 in Lusaka.
'
http://library.northernlight.com/FA20001002530000025.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#doc


|| For intance, it is claimed that from 1996 to 1999 650,000 people in
|| Zambia died of AIDS, and that 1,000,000 people are infected. (Zambia
|| has a rather small population of about 10,000,000)

Year Population Death rate per 1000 Number of Death's*

1996 8,853,000 22.27 197,000
1997 9,036,000 22.20 201,000
1998 9,215,000 22.15 204,000
1999 9,398,000 22.11 208,000
-------
810,000

Data from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=za
* calculated

So we "must" conclude that only 160'000 persons did not die of
AIDS which caused more than 80% of all deaths from 1996 to 1999.
The death rate among HIV negative persons "must" have been
extremely low for a sub-Saharan country: around 4.5 per 1000
per year. For comparison, the death rate in neighbouring Angola
has always been higher than 25 per 1000 despite rather low HIV
prevelence. The case of Angola shows that political and
economical stability are very relevant to the death rate of a
country. Also Niger, a central African country with rather low
HIV prevalence has higher death rates than Zambia.

Why are people and organizations spreading OBVIOUS lies in
the context of AIDS not sued? Why is it possible to spread
disinformation by the mass media if one pays enough? Are the
media called "free" because the free market (i.e. the money)
decides what is sold as information and scientific fact.

What prevents intelligent persons such as e.g. regulars of
talk.origins and sci.skeptic from recognizing the huge
inconsistencies and misrepresentations of (essential parts of)
AIDS science?

Should maybe 'sci.skeptic' be renamed 'sci.dogmatic' because
"skeptics" are more dogmatic about mainstream science than they
are skeptical in general?


Cheers, Wolfgang

An essentially consistent refutation of the HIV/AIDS belief system:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3a.html

Gary Stein

unread,
Oct 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/5/00
to
Wolfgang if you had even a rudimentary understanding of the math,
epidemiology, and etiology of HIV that you try to use to prove your points
you might be able to convince someone to listen to you. However your repeat
the same errors over and over even after numerous others have pointed them
out to you, one therefore must assume that it is you who is engaged in a
deliberate disinformation effort.
--
Gary Stein
ges...@starpower.net
http://www.mischealthaids.org

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
(Gene Spafford)

Alex

unread,
Oct 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/5/00
to
Typical Gary Stein non-reaction.

Perhaps you would like to explain how, rather than being "ravaged by AIDS",
the population increased with 150,000 to 200,000 per year, every year,
consistently for every year of the previous decade?

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=za

(The growth rate is estimated to decrease over the coming 5 decades,
but average age is expected to increase; this indicates an expectation
of better living conditions; as does for instance the decrease in the
number of deaths per live bearths.)

Alex

Gary Stein heeft geschreven in bericht <8ric09$5fl$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...

David Canzi

unread,
Oct 6, 2000, 2:17:35 AM10/6/00
to
In article <8ri8m4$m7q$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>,

relative truth <z...@lol.li> wrote:
>
>The concerned AIDS-typical disinformation report:
>
> ' About 650,000 people died of HIV/ AIDS in Zambia between 1996-1999,
> ' a survey jointly conducted by Society for Family Health (SFH) and
> ' Population Services International (PSI) reveals.
> '
> ' The survey also shows that about 1 million people are infected with
> ' the disease, Zambian newspaper, The Post, reported on Monday.

This is at least third-hand. Xinhua's reporter wrote this story based
on The Post's reporter's story.

> ' According to the survey which aimed to ascertain changes in casual
> ' sex and condom use here between 1996-1999,

How did they find out 4 years' statistics for deaths from AIDS by
surveying sexual behaviour? It seems likely the figure in their
report came from some other source.

> http://library.northernlight.com/FA20001002530000025.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#doc


>
>Year Population Death rate per 1000 Number of Death's*
>
>1996 8,853,000 22.27 197,000
>1997 9,036,000 22.20 201,000
>1998 9,215,000 22.15 204,000
>1999 9,398,000 22.11 208,000
> -------

It may be a small nit to pick, but where did the death rates per 1000
come from? I didn't see them at the URL you cite.

>So we "must" conclude that only 160'000 persons did not die of
>AIDS which caused more than 80% of all deaths from 1996 to 1999.
>The death rate among HIV negative persons "must" have been

>extremely low for a sub-Saharan country ...


>What prevents intelligent persons such as e.g. regulars of
>talk.origins and sci.skeptic from recognizing the huge
>inconsistencies and misrepresentations of (essential parts of)
>AIDS science?

So let's sum up: Two organizations, SFH and PSI, do a survey about
sexual behaviour, and their report contains a figure for AIDS deaths
over 4 years in Zambia. Through two levels of reportage, how much do
we know about the study? We don't know its title. We don't know where
the figure for AIDS deaths came from. If SFH and PSI determined this
figure themselves, we know nothing about their methods. If they got
the figure from another source, we don't know the source. We know
nothing about SFH's or PSI's reputations.

So tell us how you came to conclude that information, from a report you
haven't read, known to you only at third hand or farther, coming from
an uncertain source using unknown methods, is "an essential part of
AIDS science".

--
David Canzi Whose bright idea was it to name a breakfast
cereal after a disease carrier?

David Canzi

unread,
Oct 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/6/00
to
In article <39dcc1b3$0$23348@reader5>, Alex <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=za
>
>(The growth rate is estimated to decrease over the coming 5 decades,
>but average age is expected to increase; this indicates an expectation
>of better living conditions

Even with no change in the longevity of a population, a lower birth
rate leads to a higher average age. If the birth rate is less there
are fewer young people around to lower the average age.

Don't play with statistics, Alex, you'll hurt yourself.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages