tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post3685501686120025014..comments2023-04-16T17:16:03.832+10:00Comments on Reckless Endangerment: The Origin of Henry Bauer’s Persistently Failing HIV/AIDS Theory -The Argument from IncredulitySnouthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-87901848412360136662009-01-30T17:38:00.000+11:002009-01-30T17:38:00.000+11:00Steve wrote:Extrapolating the data to give an esti...Steve wrote:<I>Extrapolating the data to give an estimate of incidence or prevalence in the overall population is a science in itself.</I><BR/><BR/>A glaring example of not doing this correctly is provided by Bauer here.<BR/><A HREF="http://hivskeptic.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/agevariations.jpg" REL="nofollow">Age variation of HIV prevalence</A><BR/><BR/>Bauer seems to be proud of this graph because he hs used it in several of his blog entries.<BR/><BR/>There are so many things wrong with it that it is hard to know where to start.<BR/><BR/>The data that Bauer uses/abuses comes from testing various disparate groups for HIV. For the age group 0-4 years the tests are on children at risk of HIV infection ie born to mothers who are or are suspected to be HIV+. It is ridiculous to extrapolate this to the overall population but this is exactly what Bauer does.<BR/><BR/>Bauer conveniently leaves the y-axis scale off the graph. From the tables in his articles it can be seen that Bauer is claiming that 3% of 0-4 year olds test HIV+.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-54195353280278275972009-01-29T19:09:00.000+11:002009-01-29T19:09:00.000+11:00This article highlights what has always been one o...This article highlights what has always been one of the biggest inherent problems in epidemiology: how to select your study population. Some of the most commonly used populations, such as pregnant women attending prenatal clinics and, as described here, military recruits, although having no overt bias always have a pre-selection filter. Snout describes nicely some of these for the military recruit population and the pregnant women cohort is obviously totally biased towards sexually active women who have unprotected sex (but exludes women who use birth control pills).<BR/><BR/>Every epidemiological study must always be interpreted in the light of the criteria used to select the population under study. Extrapolating the data to give an estimate of incidence or prevalence in the overall population is a science in itself. Cranks such as Bauer like to jump on the inevitable differences between the outcomes of separate epidemiological studies as evidence that scientists don't know what they're talking about. This is either ignorant or dishonest, or both.<BR/><BR/>SteveSteveNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08889142641963226343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-41258820466607789782009-01-29T11:38:00.000+11:002009-01-29T11:38:00.000+11:00That's a great study...and it is exactly why I sti...That's a great study...and it is exactly why I stick to science and do not try to delve into Politics/Government, Physics, Religion or even Accounting!<BR/>Too bad others can not do as Jeri Blank from "Strangers with Candy" puts it: "Go with what you know!"<BR/>J. Todd DeShongjtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-58797236234092489992009-01-28T16:02:00.000+11:002009-01-28T16:02:00.000+11:00This is a good reference if you want to understand...This is a good reference if you want to understand the psychology of Bauer and other cranks.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf" REL="nofollow">Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com