dk

• ybnormal: (I'd also like to know where you get your 2-3% figure as well)
  dk:
  ------
  Amongst the men he found:
  4% reported exclusively homosexual contact.
  Amongst the women he found:
  1% reported exclusively homosexual contact.
  ------ <a href="http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm" target="_blank">Avert Org, gay & lesbian charity in UK for medical and educational services</a>
• ybnormal: Anyway, check your math... I think you'll find (using your site's numbers) that your 76% figure is actually less than 36% (35.7%) of people living with AIDS in the US that can be identified as being "Gay" men. (Hint: 47% of 76%)
  dk: Under new cases of AIDS I posted 47% were exposed by MSM risks. In my last post I detailed the correct numbers. I didn’t want to respond to this argument because your analysis was wrong. The 76 number was simply a typo.
• ybnormal: And to make it worse, you joined two of the site's categories- "New AIDS cases" & "Mode of transmission". Actually they are "New HIV infections" & "Mode of transmission".
  dk: No, the CDC still can’t track HIV cases for lack of reporting standards with the state governments. I generated the number from 47% from <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1301/table5.htm" target="_blank"> Table 5, Surv.Report Vol.12, No.1.</a>, calculated as follows...
  1. AIDs survivors are 46% men exposed by MSM.
  2. MSM=13,293
  3. MSM & IDU: Gays 1477 * .46 = 679
  4. Risk Unknown=11,431: MSM attribute 11,431 * .46 = 5,258
  5. Tot New AIDS= 40,700: MSM attribute (13,293 + 5,258 +679) / 40,700 = 47.25%
  6. My mistake here was in step 3, All MSM & IDU drug users are gay so 49.21%
• ybnormal: Men now represent only 70% of "New HIV infections" instead of 76% "living with AIDS", so now, Man/Man sex represents less than 33%, or less than one-third of all New HIV infections. (Hint: 47% of 70%).
  WOW! By my poor math, you are off by 40% and/or 43%.
  dk: This is exactly why I didn’t want to get into this argument. I’m sorry you did back flips.

dk: Please explain it to me.
dk: - Obviously you err. The CDC reports 54,782 get AIDS from IDU, not sex at all. There are 54,203 women reported to have gotten AIDS from heterosexual sex (w/ an HIV+ partner), but 28,963 of those women are tagged as ‘risk not specified’. Where did you get this bogus 75% number.
dk: Hey, I genuinely feel bad about my error, but your spurious analysis is on your head, not mine. But Peace anyway!

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

I'm saying it dangerous to centralize government power at the top, you know like fascism, totalitarianism, enlightened despots etc...

ybnormal

Thanks for some clarification... it would have been easy to state that you thought you made a typo... however, you posted the exact correct numbers the first time. There was no typo. Both numbers you repeat above are correct.

When I click on your only original link and first see that page, at that point, every single number that you used initially, and every number I have used is in my sight, without scrolling. (I do use the smallest text size possible)

ALL of your original numbers are exactly correct and are perfectly mirrored on the ONLY page you linked me to in the first place.

Specifically, the 76% (typo?) figure you speak of is directly in the center of my screen. I'm looking at it now.


Please remember... you linked ONLY one page... you are going off on other pages... I only looked at that ONE page you offered, because ALL your posted numbers were right there in front of me... they still are there... both sets match...

Sorry, Friend, but there was no typo there...

My analysis was NOT wrong...

I continue to stand by both my posts, entirely.

But it is late... I'll get to the rest of your post later.

Peace!

The Other Michael

. . . . God.

cheers,
Michael

pug846

MrDarwin, clearly you aren’t a True Homosexual™.

All of this banter about HIV statistics is completely off topic. It’s irrelevant. dk, do you understand that homosexuality does not cause HIV? Do you understand that you can be homosexual and not have HIV? Your complaint here is with irresponsible sex. So, to be consistent with yourself, you should simply argue that irresponsible sex is immoral. Homosexuality has nothing to do with this. I don’t know how to make a clearer analogy than this:

Let’s assume that 70% of all murders are committed by men, which would be a disproportionately large amount given they only make up close to half the population. Let’s further assume that murder is something that is morally bad. It doesn’t follow that being male is immoral.

I honestly don’t know how to make it any clearer to you.

Mark_Chid

Homosexuality does not 'cause' AIDS, but unprotected anal sex spreads it far more surely
than any other kind of sex and gay man have more anal sex than heterosexuals. Thats why more gay men have died of AIDS (in the West) than any other group. Its especially true because prior to the advent of AIDS, promiscuous straight men used condoms to avoid preganancy whereas promiscuous gay men had no real reason to use them.

Thats not a moralistic judgement, its a simple fact, and one thats best not dodged for PC reasons.

pug846

I'm not avoiding it for PC reasons - I'm "avoiding" it because it has nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality itself.

MrDarwin

Precisely. Since the spread of HIV in most countries outside North America--and certainly in Africa--is spread almost entirely by heterosexual sex, then simple logic would dictate that heterosexual sex is immoral. Right???

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Mark_Chid:
Homosexuality does not 'cause' AIDS,

The best anyone can say at present is that HIV causes AIDS.

but unprotected anal sex spreads it far more surely than any other kind of sex and gay man have more anal sex than heterosexuals.

Actually there are two main strains of HIV, one is almost exclusively hetrosexually transmitted and in fact the virus cannot live very easily in either a saliva environment nor in the anal canal. The second strain (the one making up the majority of US and European cases) has adapted to live longer in environments that are lethal to the original strain, this is why it spreads particularly well. The only reason that the majority of cases in the US occur in the homosexual community is that the carrier happened to be homosexual!

How/where the adaptation occured is still being investigated but since the two main strains were identified several other strains have been found so we have a fast adapting virus on our hands.

Amen-Moses

MrDarwin

But AIDS cannot be spread where HIV does not exist. Implicit in your comments, but I hope I won't be labeled "PC" by making it more explicit, is that AIDS is caused by HIV, not by sex of any kind. Two people who are HIV negative can do anything they like with each other, as much as they like, without protection of any kind, without any risk of contracting AIDS.

But we need only look to other parts of the world, like Africa and China, to see that HIV is spreading quite effectively by heterosexual intercourse, also.