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.
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.