Yes he did question the HIV/Aids mess but did he get any answers? NO he didn’t get any answers, So who is the lier here, you or him?

Do you know the answers? Please do share the World needs to know, atleast I do!

Yes the motality rate has decreased, by not eliminating Aids, but by patching it, what will happen when the patching does not work, when you have taken too many pills for you system to handle?

I say debate about finding the cure, or its availability to some, not that Mr Mbeki lied, it will get us no-where!

He posed a question, to which the answers are not known to this day…
I wi ask again science and biology has always proved stuff… it has taken them more that 3.5 decades to prove the relationship between the Aids syndrome and the HIV virus, we are still waiting for an answer, in the mean time, we are dying, and you Sir are worried about weather Mr Mbeki lied or not? Give an HIV/Aids break.

As for the Selebi case, When you ask for proof, and you don’t get it, what should you do? Should you Fire the culprit, what about when the is no warrant of arrest? Should you fire the culprit?

There were know concrete proofs that Selebi was misusing his office, dealing with drug dealers, it surfaced later and actioned were taken, results a 15 years imprisonment.

I agree that Mr Mbeki had faults, and many of them for that matter, however I would like to know a person or President in thee entire World who did not have faults? I know only of one person who did not Lord Jesus Christ.

Don’t say Mr Mandela, he also diverted from the principles of the freedom Charter, and many others! And when Julius Malema say Nationalisation, we say he is an Idiot, well I say he is not, He is the only ANC leader with The BALLS Of Steel.

Govan, Oliver, Sisuli, Nelson all sign on that document, what happened after ’94, most South African( Black, White, Asians, etc) has to dig deep into their pockets to buy land.

Yes he did question the HIV/Aids mess but did he get any answers? NO he didn’t get any answers, So who is the lier here, you or him?

Do you know the answers? Please do share the World needs to know, atleast I do!

Yes the motality rate has decreased, by not eliminating Aids, but by patching it, what will happen when the patching does not work, when you have taken too many pills for you system to handle?

I say debate about finding the cure, or its availability to some, not that Mr Mbeki lied, it will get us no-where!

He posed a question, to which the answers are not known to this day…
I wi ask again science and biology has always proved stuff… it has taken them more that 3.5 decades to prove the relationship between the Aids syndrome and the HIV virus, we are still waiting for an answer, in the mean time, we are dying, and you Sir are worried about weather Mr Mbeki lied or not? Give an HIV/Aids break.

As for the Selebi case, When you ask for proof, and you don’t get it, what should you do? Should you Fire the culprit, what about when the is no warrant of arrest? Should you fire the culprit?

There were know concrete proofs that Selebi was misusing his office, dealing with drug dealers, it surfaced later and actioned were taken, results a 15 years imprisonment.

I agree that Mr Mbeki had faults, and many of them for that matter, however I would like to know a person or President in all of the World who did not have faults?

Don’t say Mr Mandela, he also diverted from the principles of the freedom Charter, and many others!

REFERENCE 2 – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/statskeyfindings.asp?PPN=P0309.3&SCH=4507

REFERENCE 1 – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P030932007.pdf

REFERENCE 1 – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P030932007.pdf

REFERENCE 2 – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/statskeyfindings.asp?PPN=P0309.3&SCH=4507

LOL

But seriously, there are so many numbers being thrown around that if you try to reconcile them they just exonerate Mbeki other than crucify him. But I guess that if you are going to just read the headline and the numbers without testing them against things like the population register, historical mortality rate, timelines for certain interventions (ARV) etc – you are only going to come to a populist conclusion.

You see, no one has ever denied that South Africans (especially the young) are indeed dying at a rate that is abnormal. The issue has always been what the best way to respond to that is and that response had to be based on the causation for the deaths of South Africans. I understand that the minister is a qualified GP and not a mathematician but common sense is common sense and that should never escape him. Now the minister in his populist posture seems to miss one very key element to his own data. According to the article the minister is saying that in 1997 we had approximately 300 000 deaths. Then nothing, on the article, is said about what the death rate in the subsequent 10 years. We are then told that in 2007 we had 573 408. Now, if my math does not abandon me, that is an average of 6.7 percent growth in the mortality rate per year, between 1997 to 2007.

Take a look at TABLE 2.2 on PAGE 5 of the Stats SA report that I assume the minister is quoting (REFERENCE 1)

Subsequently, Stats SA did release an interesting report about what happened between 2006 and 2007. Guess what! the number of deaths decreased and that is validated by the minister’s own figures (REFERENCE 2)
This figure is substantiated by the fact that between 2002 and 2006, the growth in our mortality rate was actually decreasing.

Now the minister informs us that 756,062 South Africans died in 2008. That is a jump of 24 percent. Now under what circumstances would a shrinking mortality rate suddenly increase by over 24 percent? This jump is too high and too inconsistent with the infection rate itself.

What is a FACT is that between 2002 and 2007 our nation was consistently beginning to live longer.

What is a FACT is that that increase, in people dying, has coincided with the roll out of ARV’s. Even the so called ‘Harvard report’ puts a 2005 cut of date on the lack of ARV’s. For me there are three plausible conclusions here:

1. The figures quoted by the minister are incorrect – and that I doubt
2. ARV’s are not putting a dent on our mortality rate – easy way out
3. As more people are taking ARV’s, more people are dying – closer to the truth

The minister needs to sit down and really think his figures and their meaning through.

COULD ANYONE WHO WANTS TO WRITE A DISPUTING RESPONSE TO THIS, PLEASE RESPOND WITH FIGURES AND NOT ILL-CONSTRUCTED EMBELLISHMENTS.

LOL

But seriously, there are so many numbers being thrown around that if you try to reconcile them they just exonerate Mbeki other than crucify him. But I guess that if you are going to just read the headline and the numbers without testing them against things like the population register, historical mortality rate, timelines for certain interventions (ARV) etc – you are only going to come to a populist conclusion.

You see, no one has ever denied that South Africans (especially the young) are indeed dying at a rate that is abnormal. The issue has always been what the best way to respond to that is and that response had to be based on the causation for the deaths of South Africans. I understand that the minister is a qualified GP and not a mathematician but common sense is common sense and that should never escape him. Now the minister in his populist posture seems to miss one very key element to his own data. According to the article the minister is saying that in 1997 we had approximately 300 000 deaths. Then nothing, on the article, is said about what the death rate in the subsequent 10 years. We are then told that in 2007 we had 573 408. Now, if my math does not abandon me, that is an average of 6.7 percent growth in the mortality rate per year, between 1997 to 2007.

Take a look at TABLE 2.2 on PAGE 5 of the Stats SA report that I assume the minister is quoting – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P030932007.pdf

Subsequently, Stats SA did release an interesting report about what happened between 2006 and 2007. Guess what! the number of deaths decreased and that is validated by the minister’s own figures – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/statskeyfindings.asp?PPN=P0309.3&SCH=4507
This figure is substantiated by the fact that between 2002 and 2006, the growth in our mortality rate was actually decreasing.

Now the minister informs us that 756 062 South Africans died in 2008. That is a jump of 24 percent. Now under what circumstances would a shrinking mortality rate suddenly increase by over 24 percent? This jump is too high and too inconsistent with the infection rate itself.

What is a FACT is that between 2002 and 2007 our nation was consistently beginning to live longer.

What is a FACT is that that increase, in people dying, has coincided with the roll out of ARV’s. Even the so called ‘Harvard report’ puts a 2005 cut of date on the lack of ARV’s. For me there are three plausible conclusions here:

1. The figures quoted by the minister are incorrect – and that I doubt
2. ARV’s are not putting a dent on our mortality rate – easy way out
3. As more people are taking ARV’s, more people are dying – closer to the truth

The minister needs to sit down and really think his figures and their meaning through.

COULD ANYONE WHO WANTS TO WRITE A DISPUTING RESPONSE TO THIS, PLEASE RESPOND WITH FIGURES AND NOT ILL-CONSTRUCTED EMBELLISHMENTS.

LOL

But seriously, there are so many numbers being thrown around that if you try to reconcile them they just exonerate Mbeki other than crucify him. But I guess that if you are going to just read the headline and the numbers without testing them against things like the population register, historical mortality rate, timelines for certain interventions (ARV) etc – you are only going to come to a populist conclusion.

You see, no one has ever denied that South Africans (especially the young) are indeed dying at a rate that is abnormal. The issue has always been what the best way to respond to that is and that response had to be based on the causation for the deaths of South Africans. I understand that the minister is a qualified GP and not a mathematician but common sense is common sense and that should never escape him. Now the minister in his populist posture seems to miss one very key element to his own data. According to the article the minister is saying that in 1997 we had approximately 300 000 deaths. Then nothing, on the article, is said about what the death rate in the subsequent 10 years. We are then told that in 2007 we had 573 408. Now, if my math does not abandon me, that is an average of 6.7 percent growth in the mortality rate per year, between 1997 to 2007.

Take a look at TABLE 2.2 on PAGE 5 of the Stats SA report that I assume the minister is quoting – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P030932007.pdf

Subsequently, Stats SA did release an interesting report about what happened between 2006 and 2007. Guess what! the number of deaths decreased and that is validated by the minister’s own figures – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/statskeyfindings.asp?PPN=P0309.3&SCH=4507
This figure is substantiated by the fact that between 2002 and 2006, the growth in our mortality rate was actually decreasing.

Now the minister informs us that 756,062 South Africans died in 2008. That is a jump of 24 percent. Now under what circumstances would a shrinking mortality rate suddenly increase by over 24 percent? This jump is too high and too inconsistent with the infection rate itself.

What is a FACT is that between 2002 and 2007 our nation was consistently beginning to live longer.

What is a FACT is that that increase, in people dying, has coincided with the roll out of ARV’s. Even the so called ‘Harvard report’ puts a 2005 cut of date on the lack of ARV’s. For me there are three plausible conclusions here:

1. The figures quoted by the minister are incorrect – and that I doubt
2. ARV’s are not putting a dent on our mortality rate – easy way out
3. As more people are taking ARV’s, more people are dying – closer to the truth

The minister needs to sit down and really think his figures and their meaning through.

COULD ANYONE WHO WANTS TO WRITE A DISPUTING RESPONSE TO THIS, PLEASE RESPOND WITH FIGURES AND NOT ILL-CONSTRUCTED EMBELLISHMENTS.

LOL!

But seriously, there are so many numbers being thrown around that if you try to reconcile them they just exonerate Mbeki other than crucify him. But I guess that if you are going to just read the headline and the numbers without testing them against things like the population register, historical mortality rate, timelines for certain interventions (ARV) etc – you are only going to come to a populist conclusion.

You see, no one has ever denied that South Africans (especially the young) are indeed dying at a rate that is abnormal. The issue has always been what the best way to respond to that is and that response had to be based on the causation for the deaths of South Africans. I understand that the minister is a qualified GP and not a mathematician but common sense is common sense and that should never escape him. Now the minister in his populist posture seems to miss one very key element to his own data. According to the article the minister is saying that in 1997 we had approximately 300,000 deaths. Then nothing, on the article, is said about what the death rate in the subsequent 10 years. We are then told that in 2007 we had 573,408. Now, if my math does not abandon me, that is an average of 6.7 percent growth in the mortality rate per year, between 1997 to 2007.

Take a look at TABLE 2.2 on PAGE 5 of the Stats SA report that I assume the minister is quoting – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03093/P030932007.pdf

Subsequently, Stats SA did release an interesting report about what happened between 2006 and 2007. Guess what! the number of deaths decreased and that is validated by the minister’s own figures – http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/statskeyfindings.asp?PPN=P0309.3&SCH=4507
This figure is substantiated by the fact that between 2002 and 2006, the growth in our mortality rate was actually decreasing.

Now the minister informs us that 756,062 South Africans died in 2008. That is a jump of 24 percent. Now under what circumstances would a shrinking mortality rate suddenly increase by over 24 percent? This jump is too high and too inconsistent with the infection rate itself.

What is a FACT is that between 2002 and 2007 our nation was consistently beginning to live longer.

What is a FACT is that that increase, in people dying, has coincided with the roll out of ARV’s. Even the so called ‘Harvard report’ puts a 2005 cut of date on the lack of ARV’s. For me there are three plausible conclusions here:

1) The figures quoted by the minister are incorrect – and (that I doubt)
2) ARV’s are not putting a dent on our mortality rate – (easy way out)
3) As more people are taking ARV’s, more people are dying – (closer to the truth)

The minister needs to sit down and really think his figures and their meaning through.

P.S.: COULD ANYONE WHO WANTS TO WRITE A DISPUTING RESPONSE TO THIS, PLEASE RESPOND WITH FIGURES AND NOT ILL-CONSTRUCTED EMBELLISHMENTS.