In article <527.1216157009.20080715@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Martin <martin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:27:27 +0000 (UTC), dmcanzi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(David Canzi) wrote:
>>In article <522.1216146069.20080715@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>Martin <martin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>>So, you're suggesting that the blood donor did not have HIV when he
>>>donated blood, but did have it by 25 March. That's a only a six month
>>>window.
>
>>6 months is still more than enough time. The odds against an
>>uninfected blood donor being antibody positive 6 months later
>>are not so long when you consider that there are millions of
>>blood donors.
>
>According to this article,
><http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=125&art_id=vn20080715063507195C538198>,
>there are 350,000 blood donors in South Africa, and 80 to 100 of them
>become HIVers each year.
Narrowing the focus to South Africa alone rigs the statistics
in your favour. Not by enough: 80 to 100 is still plenty to
guarantee that some will be HIV antibody positive within 6 months
after donating uninfected blood.
>>>Oh, and if the conclusion is that the boy wasn't given HIVAIDS
>>>infected blood, why did he have an HIV antibody test?
>
>>My conclusion was not that the boy was given uninfected blood
>>but that, based on evidence described in the article, it can't
>>be proven that he received infected blood.
>
>It's quite amusing to read someone who believes the HIVAIDS lie
>writing about things being proven.
What you're trying to distract attention from with this quip is
the fact that what I said is not what you claim I said. And I
wrote it carefully and clearly to avoid being misunderstood by
accident.
>>Given the knowledge that the donor tested antibody positive
>>6 months later it would be likely that the donated blood was
>>infected. That's why a doctor would have the recipient tested.
>>
>>Given the additional knowledge that the recipient tested antibody
>>negative after the window perion, it is less likely that the
>>donated blood was infected.
>
>Nice bit of HIVAIDS double speak.
Since you didn't point out anything wrong with my reasoning,
I'll conclude that you couldn't.
>IOL and medical experts weren't so
>clever with their foot work,
>
><http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=125&art_id=iol1216127114451H125>:
The story at that URL says that the boy didn't receive contaminated
blood, contradicting (or maybe correcting) the earlier story's claim
that he did. News re****ters often get things wrong. You shouldn't
be surprised when two related news stories contradict each other.
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
|
