On 27 Oct 1998 03:23:37 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
wrote:
>>>>Sometimes less is more. Better to pin this fellow down to one point at
>a time.
>>>Par example,
>>In <3634fdab.238354 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>>- - - - - - - - -(snip)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>>>>> When you can tell me why
>>>>HIV+ individuals without the use of your drugs are living well past
>>>>the ever extending latent phase of the HIV to AIDS timetable,
>>>>>>Distribution? Standard deviation? ANY DATA AT ALL? I thought not.
>>Would a thousand people be considered signifigant to you? Two
>>thousand? http://www.heal-la.org/>>- - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - -
>>I think this exchange in itself suffices to show that this "johnburgin"
>(pseudonym?) is not equipped to deal with scientific writing, howsoever
>much he reads (if he does). This is something we have to go over
>endlessly with undergraduates
with your wonderful grasp of the esoteric and your pitiful ability to
express it in terms generic enough for even a poor schmuck like me to
comprehend, a guy who can't deal with scientific writing, imagine how
confusing your bullshit is to those with absolutely no scientific
background at all, and worse, those people are the ones that "trust"
you! When this comes down, when the truth finally(and it will) that
you knew better, you won't be able to hide. the real tragedy will be
that, once again, a bunch of totally well intentioned but duped
doctors will suffer for your travesties. Medicine will never recover
it's reputation.
(and often fail to get the point across
>before the term ends): "significant" in scientific usage is a
>shorthand term for the fuller expression: "significant of a non-chance
>finding" (e.g. a difference from a comparison value too large to be
>reasonably accepted as reliable, a difference one would RARELY get by
>chance when sampling from a population in which there really is no
>difference, etc.)
>>This is DIFFERENT from usage in other forms of discourse. The life or
>death of ANY individual is "significant" in the sense of being
>important to that individual, to his friends and family, etc., etc.;
>but (to answer his question), NO, a thousand or two thousand is NOT
>necessarily significant in the scientific (inferential statistical)
So, what's the pool Mengele? Is it or is it not true that until 1989
the CDC was lumping HIV -(that is, those that had not been even
tested) individuals with "AIDS" symptoms in with the HIV+ numbers?
Tricks with the numbers. Why is it that the CDC never mentioned that
the numbers they were using for HIV+ and AIDS cases were cumulative?
Bigger numbers, more fear, more funding. All those cases in Africa?
You would have us believe that all the reported HIV+ individuals
received an "AIDS" test. Absolute bullshit! I repeat, statistics do
not prove a causal relationship(that's elemental).
>>As the other fellow (Carlton?) said, let us know the populations being
>compared, the method of sampling AND THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS INVOLVED
Let us all know the populations being compared, give us some figures,
or would you prefer that I regurgitate the CDC's own statistics to
prove my point?
>so we can calculate the standard
Standard errors are all that you can produce when you have a faulty
premise. Still don't know what spontaneous generation is?
error and determine whether this is a
>significant departure from expectation.
Frank, why is it that those not in full acceptance with the CDC's
position on the AIDS issue and it's causality must agree with it's
conclusions or be censored? Imagine if you were on the other side of
the fence. jb
>>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>New York Neuropsychology Group
>
