🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sac.general
Article #254

Re: Vote NO on Prop Eight

#254
From: kujebak
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15
70 lines
5175 bytes
On Dec 3, 7:58 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> > Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
> > racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
> > probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
> > man through unprotected homosex?
>
> You might look at
> <http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-en...>
> which claims:
>
>       One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
>       transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
>       determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
>       probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
>       intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
>       intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
>       available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
>       further study is required to corroborate these estimates.
>
> Also:
>
>       Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
>       long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
>       probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
>       intercourse to be approximately 0.001.
>
> Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%.  So, the risk depends less on
> whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
> and what sort of protection you use.
>
> This information is not hard to find - a trivial google search was all
> that was needed.  Previously you wrote "As an ex-health care worker I
> feel compelled to assure you ..." (this quote was in the post
> <news:6369ac2f-7573-4867-beeb-813b1d2e0c9f@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>).

Isn't it interesting that you picked figures that sort of made
your point instead of those that would corroborate mine.
It is clear the 0.0082 is a statistical extrapolation from
the general male homosexual population involving sexual
contact between individuals of *undetermined* HIV status.
There is no indication in your paragraph that one of the
sex partners was known to be HIV positive. However, the
same article also states:

"The risk of HIV transmission through unprotected anal and
vaginal intercourse is well known. Estimates of the probability
of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal intercourse with ejaculation)
HIV transmission among homosexual men in the USA range
from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic phase of infection1
to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV infection."

Thank you for helping me close this debate ;-)

> Exactly what sort of health-care experience did you have?  Changing
> bed pans?  You seem to know next to nothing about the topics you are
> ranting about.

I used to be a medical technologist. One of the principal
reasons I got out of the profession was the irresponsibility
of the HIPAA (patient privacy) rules to health and safety
of health care workers. The HIPAA regulations surrounding
HIV/AIDS are driven to large extent by he same sort of dis-
information you are trying to disseminate here.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <91f832e8-dd9f-45d5-b914-9a5caab06d3e@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
References: <c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com> <es4ig4pbk342u7o8qv62265rnkdh7fm1p0@4ax.com> <vTuOk.3405$pr6.1325@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com> <6369ac2f-7573-4867-beeb-813b1d2e0c9f@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com> <87skp51ac1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <481100f9-7372-4251-895b-89624c03c29e@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <87tz9lngbp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <03babf30-8e41-451b-86c0-7a684111527b@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <3v9ej41q4ta6408041cttb7se294dvkt55@4ax.com> <bca0568d-f8a0-44bf-bb79-5890bc10a09e@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <873ah4616l.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: f824f,af9442ae69b6f64f
X-Google-Thread: 102fd5,af9442ae69b6f64f
X-Google-Thread: 10d50a,af9442ae69b6f64f
X-Google-Attributes: gidf824f,gid102fd5,gid10d50a,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com>
Newsgroups: sac.general,ba.general,ba.politics,la.general,scruz.general
Subject: Re: Vote NO on Prop Eight
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:15:41 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <91f832e8-dd9f-45d5-b914-9a5caab06d3e@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
References: <c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com> <es4ig4pbk342u7o8qv62265rnkdh7fm1p0@4ax.com> 
 <vTuOk.3405$pr6.1325@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com> <6369ac2f-7573-4867-beeb-813b1d2e0c9f@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>
 <87skp51ac1.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <481100f9-7372-4251-895b-89624c03c29e@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <87tz9lngbp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> <03babf30-8e41-451b-86c0-7a684111527b@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <3v9ej41q4ta6408041cttb7se294dvkt55@4ax.com> <bca0568d-f8a0-44bf-bb79-5890bc10a09e@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <873ah4616l.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.109.208.191
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1228410941 9515 127.0.0.1 (4 Dec 2008 17:15:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:15:41 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.109.208.191; 
 posting-account=bT5vFAkAAADdMqzMxMiDxXq84bMYshvA
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; 
 .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506;
 InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)