tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post8211221162368813068..comments2023-04-16T17:16:03.832+10:00Comments on Reckless Endangerment: Henry Bauer’s harebrained disproofs III: “The age distribution of positive HIV tests superposes on the age distribution of deaths”Snouthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-25633701918553822482009-04-24T00:04:00.000+10:002009-04-24T00:04:00.000+10:00It's here. I found it by following your link to t...It's <A HREF="http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2007report/table1.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>. I found it by following your link to table 1, clicking on the 'reports' link at the top of that page - the 2007 issue is near the top of the page and then it's table 1 again. :D<br /><br />It also seems to have data for an extra state - maybe one which didn't provide info in 2003.PhiJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-20661263065592911582009-04-23T09:52:00.000+10:002009-04-23T09:52:00.000+10:00I thought given the magnitude of the bump it was u...I thought given the magnitude of the bump it was unlikely to be random, and it was also notable that a similar bump first appeared for syphilis in 2006 and grew in 2007. But you're right - while the bump is visible it's not in itself definitive evidence of an emerging trend.<br /><br />I have not been able to find the 2007 data: can you tell me where you found it?Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-84341511928956686392009-04-23T00:47:00.000+10:002009-04-23T00:47:00.000+10:00That side note - surely it is not a clearly visibl...That side note - surely it is not a clearly visible double hump, or a refutation of Bauer's claims? It looks to my untrained eye like it is possibly a "similar bimodal pattern [that] is starting to emerge", but possibly a random bump which just appeared for 2006.<br /><br />Okay I've just looked up the 2007 data, and it does look like there is an emerging peak (it's non-existent in 2005 and larger in 2007), but your data doesn't show that (does it?)PhiJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-76361240197916865052009-03-08T12:30:00.000+11:002009-03-08T12:30:00.000+11:00Good job Snout! Bauer is loads of laughs, but taki...Good job Snout! Bauer is loads of laughs, but taking on his wacky convoluted arguments requires some time commitment. Like unplugging a clogged toilet, it takes a bit of effort to wade through the crap. So good for you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-85907323701433112422009-03-03T12:07:00.000+11:002009-03-03T12:07:00.000+11:00Snout,Great post, as usual. However, I must say t...Snout,<BR/>Great post, as usual. However, I must say that the comments section is even better!! I love how you nailed "Anonymous" to the wall!!<BR/>I guess posting as "anonymous" is the only smart thing they ever did.<BR/>Todd.jtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-40755890413979104652009-02-25T12:35:00.000+11:002009-02-25T12:35:00.000+11:00Thanks Steve.And also thank you, “Anonymous”. Plea...Thanks Steve.<BR/><BR/>And also thank you, “Anonymous”.<BR/> <BR/>Please note, Anonymous, that when copying and pasting slabs of other people’s work it is customary to attribute it, otherwise it looks like plagiarism. It is also fairly obvious when you insert three paragraphs of the work of a competent academic such as Professor Hossein Arsham into the middle of your own rambling and incoherent rant. It tends to stick out.<BR/><BR/>The three parapraphs from “Data is simply known to be crude information…” to “... best used to meet the needs of the decision-maker” were copied and pasted from Prof Arsham’s statistics site or one of the other sites carrying his work. Next time, please acknowledge him.<BR/><BR/>Now when you sober up, could you please clarify:<BR/><BR/>Are you saying that when people diagnosed with HIV infection die this is typically years or even decades after the original diagnosis, as is shown by both longitudinal studies and also by CDC reports of incident diagnoses and incident deaths among people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS?<BR/><BR/>Or not, as Henry claims with his bizarre 'No Latent Period' and 'Age Distribution of Positive Diagnoses Superposes on that of Deaths' arguments?Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-89775537865376870132009-02-24T23:38:00.000+11:002009-02-24T23:38:00.000+11:00Another great post, Snout!As you have pointed out,...Another great post, Snout!<BR/><BR/>As you have pointed out, Bauer's habit of extrapolating from highly selective groups to the population as a whole is the basis for a lot of his misinterpretations. I still find it hard to believe that he's that incompetent.SteveNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08889142641963226343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3403646328478439844.post-81144149525481619642009-02-24T17:35:00.000+11:002009-02-24T17:35:00.000+11:00"Snout's harebrained disproofs III: “Longitudinal ..."Snout's harebrained disproofs III: “Longitudinal studies produce facts”<BR/><BR/>Snout, your obviously unscientific mind shines through quite clearly in such childish statements such as: <BR/><BR/>"Furthermore, the period between HIV seroconversion and death is not “a hypothesis” – it is a fact established through numerous longitudinal studies following subjects with a known time of seroconversion, and is a fact that exists independently of any HIV/AIDS theory".<BR/><BR/>Obviously, Snout, you do not know the difference between data and information and facts and knowledge and wisdom and opinions. <BR/><BR/>You obviously do not know that findings from longitudinal studies are simply creating information, not facts, and that they are fully dependant upon many variables such as the choices of what data to use, as well as the opinions of those who decide which data to use in such a study. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, such a study can only create information, not facts, for those who then interpret the symbology of such data. <BR/><BR/>Longitudinal studies do not ever result in facts, because they are based upon variables. <BR/><BR/>Longitudinal studies only produce information, which may or may not be reliable, according to those who teach how to do such studies.<BR/><BR/>The information produced creates opportunities to make individual and again highly variable extrapolations and conlusions and opinions of what the symbology of the information is are then formed from the data, and again are not ever considered as facts. <BR/><BR/>Data is simply known to be crude information and not knowledge by itself, let alone considered to be a fact. The sequence from data to knowledge is: from Data to Information, from Information to Facts, and finally, from Facts to Knowledge. Data becomes information, when it becomes relevant to your decision problem. Information becomes fact, when the data can support it. Facts are what the data reveals. However the decisive instrumental knowledge resulting from interpreting the symbology of the information(i.e., applied knowledge) is only expressed together with some statistical degree of variable confidence in the resultant perceptions of FACTS.<BR/><BR/>Considering this uncertain environment, the chance that "good decisions" are made increases with the availability of "good information" to begin with. And that requires a lack of bias and lack of opinionation in the originating choices of basic data gathering. The chance that "good information" is available also increases with the level of structuring the process of Knowledge Management. As the exactness of a statistical model increases, the level of improvements in decision-making increases. <BR/><BR/>Knowledge is more than knowing something technical. Knowledge needs wisdom. Wisdom is the power to put time and knowledge to the proper use. Wisdom is the accurate application of ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE and its key component is to knowing the limits of your own knowledge. Wisdom is about knowing how something technical can be best used to meet the needs of the decision-maker.<BR/><BR/>So please, Snout, do not even pretend to be wise, or knowledgeable or that you are recognising "FACTS". <BR/><BR/>You have already presented us your disqualifications by presenting that data is facts or that facts are knowledge. <BR/><BR/>Every single person who is taught to create longitudinal studies is taught to know full well that such thinking is wrong, and knows that they are simply gathering data to create other data that creates information, not facts. <BR/><BR/>And I am also sure you are well aware that in 1987, it was considered by by the childish and unwise such as yourself to be a "FACT" that people would only live 2 to 5 years after hiv diagnosis. Yet many thousands of long term nonprogressors, though individuals such as yourself usually refuse to acknowledge them, have proven that such "facts" are wrong, regardless of what others say or believe who refuse to acknowledge this. <BR/><BR/>But try doing the same study and include these LTNP individuals as the majority of the data base and see what "FACTS" you find! <BR/><BR/>Such previously presumed "FACTS" regarding life expectancies have been stretched and reconsidered many times over by various other "longitudinal information producing studies", and went from 2 to 5, to 5 to 10, to 10 to 15, to 15 to 20, to 20 to 25, to 25 to 30, and so on, and at this point concensus of opinion regarding lifespan is often considered by those doing such studies to be as high as 30 years or longer.<BR/><BR/>So, Gee Golly, Snout! You have clearly showed us the difference between you and Dr. Bauer. <BR/><BR/>At least what Dr. Bauer presents comes from knowledge and wisdom, and is based on presenting the FACTS of exactly what information has been presented in silly biased studies of the data, and not on harebrained juvenile fear induced preprogrammed biased self protecting egotistical consensus beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com