🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 4, 11:26 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> What a friggin liar you are!  You asked, "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?"  I provided that data for you and showed you
> that the risk for heterosexual transmission was not trivial and
> that the risk for some (but not all) gay sexual acts is lower than
> the risk for heterosexual intercourse.
>
> > 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.
>
> Wrong - it is a measurement of the transmission probability per
> sex act given that one partner is already infected.

Duhh, in order to spread the disease, some,  *but not all*
have to carry the virus ;-)                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>
> > There is no indication in your paragraph that one of the
> > sex partners was known to be HIV positive.
>
> Yes there is, you friggin moron: read the article I cited.

But if the frequency of HIV infections per sex act is calculated
from a sample of the entire gay male population, then the numbers
will be somewhat irrelevant, wouldn't you say. Did the study really
assume that every sexual contact considered involved at least one
HIV positive individual? Show me where it is stated!

>
> When it said (and you quoted this) "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," it should
> be very obvious that the article was discussing the transmission
> rate per sex act betwen an infected individual and a previously
> uninfected individual.
>
> You can't even understand the stuff you try to quote!

You mean you don't even want to comment on the
stuff I quoted. It's from the same friggin' article ;-)

>
> BTW, (unprotected) receptive penile-anal intercourse is practiced only
> by a fraction of the gay and straight populations. So, as I said, the
> risk factors per sex act depend on what you do, not whether you are
> gay or straight or somewhere in between.
>
> >> 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.
>
> I.e., you are not a doctor, nor a researcher of any sort.

No I'm not. I merely have 14 years of apolitical, real life,
frontline infectious disease experience :-)

>
> > 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.
>
> Medical research and CDC reports are not "disinformation".
> But I can tell you what you are - a complete idiot.- Hide quoted text -

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not criticizing medical
research, merely your interpretation of it. You don't have a clue what
I'm talkind about, do you? Regarding HIV patients and federal privacy
regulations - an area that has been greatly influenced by the gay and
lesbian propaganda machine. It is a different topic though.

>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm curious, what do you know about the subject that you
haven't revealed? What is your ax to grind here? Are you
gay?