🚀 go-pugleaf

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Dec 4, 11:26 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
>> 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 ;-)                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^

If you are really that incredibly stupid, find someone else to
talk to.  I really don't have the time to deal with some moron
who can't understand the simplest concepts.

It may surpise you, but researchers are in fact interested in
numbers such as the probability of transmission from per sex
act by an infected individual: those are the numbers that are
useful for epidemiological models where the probability of
a sex partner being infected changes over time or changes based
on demographics.

> 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!

Read it.  That's what they reported.  Now, it takes some real work to
get such numbers - a lot of statistical analysis - but that's what
they did.  They would not assume that every sexual contact involved at
least one HIV+ individual, but would rather determine the fraction of
contacts that did involve an HIV+ individual on the average and adjust
for that.  It's rather tricky. That's why this sort of thing is
handled by highly skilled professionals.  There are a lot of ways to
mess up and you have to check all of them to make sure you really
analyzed it correctly.  Then you have complications such as the fact
that many people engage in multiple sex acts.  That gets factored in
as well.

>
> 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 ;-)

What you quoted was irrelevant.  You implied in your original
post that the infection rate was "entirely" due to one specific
sex act and that statement is simply false.

>> > 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 :-)

You mean you either changed bed pans, ran some sort of machine, or
stuck a needle in someone's arm to collect blood samples.

>> 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.

You f***ing idiot! I quoted numbers from such sources that showed your
statements were technically incorrect and all you do is try to put up
a smokescreen to hide the obvious.  The numbers I quoted - the results
of legitimate research - are not the result of any "propaganda machine",
real or imagined.