I highly doubt it has the simple methodological errors you claim.
Well the best cure for doubt is to actually read the papers referenced. For example, following the links from your reference to the abstract of the actual paper which generated the numbers brought me to this abstract. I think you should read it.
The issue isn’t methodological errors in the studies—the studies clearly describe the methodologies used and their limits. The issue is trying to use the numbers in ways that they are not designed to be used. It is not the orthodox folks that are doing that. It is you that is doing that.
The issue is trying to use the numbers in ways that they are not designed to be used. It is not the orthodox folks that are doing that.
Ah, so do the numbers come with little instruction manuals that say “CAN ONLY BE USED TO SUPPORT ORTHODOX POSITION”? Haha sorry, couldn’t resist.
OK, I’m game, I will now look into the CDC studies, but let’s be clear on the trace ..
it starts with the wikipedia chart which has the ref note 80 linked here, which points to this, which in turn lists refs 76, 77, and 79 for P/V sex, which are (in order):
76:
Comparison of female to male and male to female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples
77:
Reducing the risk of sexual HIV transmission: quantifying the per-act risk for HIV on the basis of choice of partner, sex act, and condom use
79:
European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. Heterosexual transmission of HIV: variability of infectivity throughout the course of infection
You will find that #77, the Varghese et al paper, can be found online by Googling the title, and that it gets its 0.1% number for heterosexual transmission from the paper whose abstract I recommended.
I’m pretty sure you will find that all of these papers involve monogamous couples. If you give it some thought, you will realize that there is just about no other way to come up with a solid empirically-based number. And I again urge you to read that abstract—particularly the bottom third.
Haha ok this is kinda funny, but the abstract you linked to which is the source of the data in Varghese(77), is just 76! - the couple comparison from the European Study Group which I linked to and have been trying to parse. 79 appears to be another chapter from that same book, but I haven’t looked at it yet.
So before we get into 76 - the source of the stat you don’t like in 77, I need to backup and remember your original claim about the data:
It was pretty clear to me that the kinds of low numbers you were using to argue against HIV being an STD are actually based on monogamous couples who are regularly examined by physicians and have been instructed in the use of condoms to prevent transmission. Those numbers don’t apply to the most common cases of transmission, in which ulcers and other factors make transmission much more likely.
Your implied point appears to be that couples in this study use condoms frequently. Surprisingly, this is not the case—only a surprisingly small number of couples reported consistent condom use (out of 500+),
These people were using other methods of birth control more than condoms.
None of the 24 partners who had used condoms
systematically since the first sexual contact was
infected.
and they further removed consistent condom users from the data:
Assuming that no risk factors for transmission
would be relevant during consistent condom use, eight
male and 16 female contacts who were still negative and
had systematically used condoms since the first sexual
contact with the index case were excluded from the
analysis of risk factors.
Haha ok this is kinda funny, but the abstract you linked to which is the source of the data in Varghese(77), is just 76! - the couple comparison from the European Study Group.
No, it is not. The reference leading to the abstract is the absolute risk described in the first paragraph of page 40 of Varghese. It is reference 28 of Varghese.
You are apparently following the references (21) appearing in Table 1 of Varghese. But these are relative risks (relative to felatio). Not at all what I meant.
My point about condom use came from an earlier reference that I had supplied which discusses a study that took place in Uganda in 2005. And I didn’t say that they used condoms frequently, I said that they were monogamous couples who got regular medical inspections and had been counseled regarding condoms. And in this study, as I recall, there was no exclusion of condom users.
Trial participants were enrolled as individuals; provided written, informed consent; and were guaranteed confidentiality. Condoms and voluntary HIV counseling and testing, for individuals and for couples, were promoted and provided free of charge. … Antiretroviral therapy (ART) was not available in Uganda at the time of the study, but participants were offered free general health care and treatment for opportunistic infections.
The top-level comment of this thread. Comments are nested. Click parent enough times and you’re at a top-level comment. I’m surprised the name is confusing to you.
As for the table, it’s linked in the top-level comment:
The linked table is clearly labeled and indicates that the risk is supposed to be for not using a condom. The table has the same figures as the “Table 1” appearing as an image in a nested comment by satt, which has the same indication. I doubt you missed that.
Given that you appear to be discussing the cites referenced in the table, I’m puzzled as to why you think condom use is implied. Are you saying the table is wrong, or are you talking about some other part of the cite than was used to build it?
the “Table 1” appearing as an image in a nested comment by satt
Well, what do you know. You do know how to provide links to what you are talking about.
I doubt you missed that.
I don’t know why you are doubtful. Have I responded to anything on that branch before now?
Given that you appear to be discussing the cites referenced in the table, I’m puzzled as to why you think condom use is implied. Are you saying the table is wrong, or are you talking about some other part of the cite than was used to build it?
You know something, you are a very effective troll. You have me boiling with fury right now. However, now that I know what is happening, I can become relatively calm, with effort.
If you want to know what I was talking about when I discussed condom use, I would refer you to what I said I was talking about when I discussed condom use.
I’m sorry. I really thought you understood that the papers you were discussing are exactly those that were used to build the table:
it starts with the wikipedia chart which has the ref note 80 linked here, which points to this, which in turn lists refs 76, 77, and 79 for P/V sex, which are (in order):
This entire conversation is definitely mostly a mistake. Nobody can possibly care enough about the answer to my original question, which was: “is the table misrepresenting the studies it’s built out of, or are you mistaken?”, in order to justify reading this crap.
Ah no I haven’t even read Varghese(77) yet. You looked at that one and posted a link to an abstract—this abstract, which comes from the same European Study Group and has the same numbers (563 couples) as 76. So the abstract you wanted me to look at is just 76, it’s all the same source.
I’m not really concerned (at the moment) with what may or may not be happening in Uganda. The CDC data comes from this European Study Group, that is the original data in question - (the data you questioned).
Well the best cure for doubt is to actually read the papers referenced. For example, following the links from your reference to the abstract of the actual paper which generated the numbers brought me to this abstract. I think you should read it.
The issue isn’t methodological errors in the studies—the studies clearly describe the methodologies used and their limits. The issue is trying to use the numbers in ways that they are not designed to be used. It is not the orthodox folks that are doing that. It is you that is doing that.
Ah, so do the numbers come with little instruction manuals that say “CAN ONLY BE USED TO SUPPORT ORTHODOX POSITION”? Haha sorry, couldn’t resist.
OK, I’m game, I will now look into the CDC studies, but let’s be clear on the trace ..
it starts with the wikipedia chart which has the ref note 80 linked here, which points to this, which in turn lists refs 76, 77, and 79 for P/V sex, which are (in order):
76: Comparison of female to male and male to female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples
77: Reducing the risk of sexual HIV transmission: quantifying the per-act risk for HIV on the basis of choice of partner, sex act, and condom use
79: European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. Heterosexual transmission of HIV: variability of infectivity throughout the course of infection
I’ll comment more after I have read these.
You will find that #77, the Varghese et al paper, can be found online by Googling the title, and that it gets its 0.1% number for heterosexual transmission from the paper whose abstract I recommended.
I’m pretty sure you will find that all of these papers involve monogamous couples. If you give it some thought, you will realize that there is just about no other way to come up with a solid empirically-based number. And I again urge you to read that abstract—particularly the bottom third.
Haha ok this is kinda funny, but the abstract you linked to which is the source of the data in Varghese(77), is just 76! - the couple comparison from the European Study Group which I linked to and have been trying to parse. 79 appears to be another chapter from that same book, but I haven’t looked at it yet.
So before we get into 76 - the source of the stat you don’t like in 77, I need to backup and remember your original claim about the data:
Your implied point appears to be that couples in this study use condoms frequently. Surprisingly, this is not the case—only a surprisingly small number of couples reported consistent condom use (out of 500+),
Contraceptive behaviour:
No regular contraceptive 12 (10/86) 20 (43/212) Oral contraceptive 18 (7/40) 23 (26/114) Intrauterine device 10 (1/10) 28 (7/25) Condom* 0(0/11) 18 (6/33)
These people were using other methods of birth control more than condoms.
and they further removed consistent condom users from the data:
No, it is not. The reference leading to the abstract is the absolute risk described in the first paragraph of page 40 of Varghese. It is reference 28 of Varghese.
You are apparently following the references (21) appearing in Table 1 of Varghese. But these are relative risks (relative to felatio). Not at all what I meant.
My point about condom use came from an earlier reference that I had supplied which discusses a study that took place in Uganda in 2005. And I didn’t say that they used condoms frequently, I said that they were monogamous couples who got regular medical inspections and had been counseled regarding condoms. And in this study, as I recall, there was no exclusion of condom users.
I’m confused—the table says “assuming no condom use”. So you’re talking about other data, or they were able to filter the data.
What table in what document says that?
I’m talking about the data I said I am talking about: this paper and this piece of primary research which states
The original table in the top-level comment. I guess you’re off on a tangent then.
I repeat. What table in what top-level comment? WTF is a “top-level comment?”
The top-level comment of this thread. Comments are nested. Click parent enough times and you’re at a top-level comment. I’m surprised the name is confusing to you.
As for the table, it’s linked in the top-level comment:
I can see how you would have missed this link.
The linked table is clearly labeled and indicates that the risk is supposed to be for not using a condom. The table has the same figures as the “Table 1” appearing as an image in a nested comment by satt, which has the same indication. I doubt you missed that.
Given that you appear to be discussing the cites referenced in the table, I’m puzzled as to why you think condom use is implied. Are you saying the table is wrong, or are you talking about some other part of the cite than was used to build it?
Well, what do you know. You do know how to provide links to what you are talking about.
I don’t know why you are doubtful. Have I responded to anything on that branch before now?
You know something, you are a very effective troll. You have me boiling with fury right now. However, now that I know what is happening, I can become relatively calm, with effort.
If you want to know what I was talking about when I discussed condom use, I would refer you to what I said I was talking about when I discussed condom use.
Have a good day.
Pro tip: When everything you say seems to get downvoted into oblivion, the other guy is probably not the troll in the thread.
I’m sorry. I really thought you understood that the papers you were discussing are exactly those that were used to build the table:
This entire conversation is definitely mostly a mistake. Nobody can possibly care enough about the answer to my original question, which was: “is the table misrepresenting the studies it’s built out of, or are you mistaken?”, in order to justify reading this crap.
Ah no I haven’t even read Varghese(77) yet. You looked at that one and posted a link to an abstract—this abstract, which comes from the same European Study Group and has the same numbers (563 couples) as 76. So the abstract you wanted me to look at is just 76, it’s all the same source.
Satt also pointed this out in another reply here.
I’m not really concerned (at the moment) with what may or may not be happening in Uganda. The CDC data comes from this European Study Group, that is the original data in question - (the data you questioned).