lie’
Marten du Plessis crossfire
Mail & Guardian reporter Belinda Beresford has had the rash impudence to suggest that noseweek (“a venerable organ”) has “maliciously distorted the facts” about Professor Malegapuru Makgoba’s presentation on Aids mortality to the Presidential Advisory Panel on Aids (“Lies, damned lies and noseweek”, October 6 to 12). Ja well, but no, not fine. We are the last to whinge about lively criticism but the implication that we are liars is way over the top. We contended that the dramatic differences reflected by the graphs of mortality presented by the Sunday Times could be explained by factors other than HIV (such as the poor quality of the statistics themselves). We listed some and missed a few, including the massive under-reporting of black South African deaths, particularly from rural areas, during the apartheid years. We are confident that we are correct in saying that the statistics at issue are meaningless. We are not alone in holding this view. This week eminent economist and statistician Professor JL Sadie of the University of Stellenbosch, told us: “I am still totally in the dark and remain sceptical about, the true incidence of Aids in South Africa.” We will be elaborating extensively on this, and on the whole issue in the next edition of noseweek. Just a few brief pointers for those of your readers who may have been persuaded that our approach to this serious subject was cavalier. We based our first article in part on an analysis by Stats SA (South Africa’s official statistical service) which came to the startling conclusion, as noseweek (and no one else) reported, that the profile of deaths in South Africa emblazoned across the front page of the Sunday Times was “not a new profile”. The M&G implies that Stats SA has changed its mind and that Makgoba was right all along. Stats SA has indeed had another look at the Medical Research Council (MRC) model, this time with the benefit of a “detailed presentation” by the MRC. Now what Stats SA is prepared to venture about HIV, Aids and mortality in South Africa is that, as quoted by the M&G: “… the mortality profiles portrayed suggest that the deaths in the younger age could possibly be explained in part by the impact of the Aids epidemic … the HIV/Aids epidemic is probably having an impact [on the death rate among younger people] but a great deal of additional analysis and research is probably needed …” This seems to be inconsistent with the categorical assertions of Makgoba that the statistics were conclusive evidence that HIV was having an effect akin to that of a “major war”. Rather Stats SA’s updated views remain markedly in keeping with our contention that the professor’s claims were wild, unsubstantiated and inappropriate from the country’s top medical researcher. Presidential aids panelist Professor Charles Geshekter argues that the absolute figures for 1999 as reported by Makgoba give a death rate in South Africa – as a percentage of the population – that is roughly equal to that in the United States, where no great claims for HIV are made. Of course, since the SA population is younger this is effectively a higher death rate, but that is something you would expect from a largely Third World country like ours, where, for instance, a stunning 27% of males die of accidents and other violent causes. Again, it’s certainly not in line with Makgoba’s claims. Why does none of this seem to register with anybody at the M&G? Perhaps there is an explanation. As for your claim that the South African Forum for Debating Aids is attempting to muzzle the M&G – oi vey!
The forum has complained to the press ombudsman about the article “All the president’s scientists: Diary of a round- earther” (September 8 to 14). The forum simply wants the ombudsman’s ruling on a matter that falls within the scope of his powers. I’m sure muzzling you is not one of them. It is hoped that your esteemed organ will consider the wide range of views on HIV and fairer and more rational coverage of the president’s legitimate questions. The objective of the forum is, I believe, to encourage debate on the issue of HIV and Aids, which is why I personally supported its formation. noseweek is an investigative magazine. We are not Aids dissidents. We have yet to see any proof that HIV is causing the kind of devastation Makgoba reports. Certainly, as we reported, the available evidence does not support his claims. We occasionally make mistakes but we do not lie. Our job, as investigative journalists, is to raise tough questions, to challenge received wisdom and to try to get a bit closer to the truth. Often the M&G does the same, but, so far, not on the issues of HIV or Aids.
n The editor replies: The headline did not seek to call noseweek’s journalists liars. It was a playful reference to a common saying about those who abuse statistics to mislead and bolster otherwise insupportable arguments. It was a comment upon the way the article, which makes some fairly elementary errors, has been seized upon by the Aids dissidents.
We are great admirers of the investigative journalism of noseweek but are puzzled why your august publication’s bullshit detectors have malfunctioned so badly around the Aids dissidents and their conspiracy theories. Marten du Plessis is managing editor of noseweek