UN Overestimated AIDS Figures
Written by Sam on November 26th, 2007For an AIDS-scary world, there is some good news. AIDS may have been one of the biggest epidemics, but scientists now believe that the size and the course of the disease have been grossly over-estimated over a decade.In what could be a stunning revelation, the United Nations top AIDS scientists will soon acknowledge the ‘mistakes’, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, say media reports.Reports say new studies have even shown that United Nations has cut its estimate of HIV cases in India by more than half.
The revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long levelled by researchers who disputed the UN version and reports about “an ever-expanding global epidemic”, reports said.
The new estimate put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year’s estimate, reports said quoting the UN statement.
Total number of people infected worldwide with HIV — estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising — now will be reported as 33 million.
Well, what do you know. Those UN scientists were mistaken, yet when discussing man’s supposed contribution to global warming there is simply no disputing the consensus of these same UN scientists that we are bringing about the end of humanity with our SUVs and coal power plants.
Or is there?
Critics, the reports said, also said that UN officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support to combat AIDS.
“There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fund-raising agenda,” said Helen Epstein, author of “The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS’
“I hope the new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way.”
Well, I am just aghast that the UN might possibly exaggerate their “scientific” claims in order to push a preplanned agenda through. But no, that’s just simply not a possibility when it comes to global warming. They must be telling us the truth because they are so trustworthy. No agenda there.
26
PM
I admit that this is a major blow to my earlier argument that the U.N.’s science can be trusted… or it would be if a news organization other than a minor wire service based in India breaks the story. Even the rabidly anti-U.N. and Fox News isn’t carrying this story.
26
PM
From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978.html
26
PM
…
I’m going to go sit in a corner and see how far I can shove my foot into my mouth. Totally, completely “pwned”.
26
PM
On the subject of “pwned”, no one has acknowledged a mistake that you guys made regarding the “party of the rich”. Publius and I both correctly pointed out that the statistic you used was misleading: that overall, districts that vote Democrat have more money, but for the most part the INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE in those districts that have more money vote Republican, which is what Democrats have been saying all along.
28
AM
Um, here’s the thing. Everyone who argues against global warming tends to say not that there isn’t global warming, but that it doesn’t reach the hysterical scale that environmentalists claim (fair enough), or that its effects will take a thousand years to see the effects on our existence rather than a hundred years (also fair enough, although I don’t know why that is less alarming if the effect is cataclysmic and we have stewardship responsibilities for taking care of our surroundings); or that the causes of global warming are in dispute — that is, that industry shouldn’t be regulated in response to the phenomenon.
Similarly, in your post, you are saying not that there aren’t millions of people dying of AIDS, but that there are only 33 million instead of 40 million. Is 33 million a crisis?
I guess I mean it’s fine to say the UN is bureaucratic and largely ineffective in making policy, but the crowing is a bit misplaced, particularly if the underlying message is: We shouldn’t believe that global warming or AIDS are big problems, especially if the UN says it. Or, maybe you’re just pointing out that the UN’s data isn’t so good and should always be met with skepticism. That sounds like a fine point. But again, is 33 million a crisis?