🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 4, 1:52 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> 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.

I'm not implying it is impossible to come up with statistical
estimation of HIV+ to HIV- per sex act transmission frequency
among male homosexuals, I'm just saying the 0.0082 figure
you are inferring from your quoted study is grossly inconsistent
with other evidence I have come across in the last 15-20 years,
which was consistently in the 0.1 to 0.3 range, as in this IAVI
2004 data:

http://tinyurl.com/66w68t

>
> > 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.

Again, this is the paragraph you are quoting:

"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."

From what part of this text can you infer what you are claiming
above? Is there more of this study somewhere else on the web?
I know what your point is, I'm just not going to let you get away
with a purposerful misinterpretation like this. You accused me
of minimizing the danger of heterosexual transmission of HIV.
Is it not worse to insist the probability of contracting HIV from
a positive sex partner through anal intercourse is only 0.8%,
when it actually is somewhere between 10 and 30%?

>
>
>
> > 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.

You just gotta keep reinforcing my stereotype, you arrogant
little SOB, don't you ;-)

>
> >> 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.

Again, I really wish you would sink your teeth into 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 infection to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV
infection."
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's from your own fucking reference.