You know.........sometimes correlations are just correlations........just
like...sometimes a dream is just a dream.........heh
"This document will demonstrate how gay men who volunteered for government
hepatitis experiments were far more likely to become infected with HIV than
those who did not take part in such experiments, to a degree not credibly
explainable by chance or by life-style."
Right, but as you admit to later in the abstract about not having scientific
studies....where is the genetic and biological significance to state your
claim????!!! It is necessary in this instance........statistical analysis
does not prove or disprove your hypothesis. First off, you need to look at
other factors......how many of these gay men were possibly already infected
with the HIV virus before they received the vaccine? They could have
already been HIV positive and never showed any symptoms. As I'm sure you
are aware, the only definite way to be positive that someone is not infected
with the virus is to actually count the viral load on their actual
cell-binding sites. I believe that wasn't even an option back
then.....however you can't quote me on that.
Also..you must also take into consideration of their activities after the
vaccine was given. They may have increased their sexual
activity.................they may have put themselves at a higher risk on
their own account. Also, the HIV spread increased throughout those years on
their own...which I do believe would increase the chances of that group to
become a candidate of infection?
Correlations are an interesting thing to study.....however..........I could
be driving down the same road and passing the same traffic light every time.
At which point I take into account that everytime I hit a particular button
on my radio, the light always turns green at that particular point.
Continuing this for some time..........I could still observe it.
Now...........setting this up as data.....it would appear there is a
correlation between the time I hit the radio dial and the time the light
turned green. However, that doesn't mean the one CAUSES the other. Until
you can produce facts instead of statistical correlations, it will not be
On another note.....you know what I really find amazing! Is that you
decided the heterosexual group which received the vaccine as being
irrelevant to the case. Why? Just because they were supposedly HIV
positive?? Again....what test was done for this to be shown......the white
blood count test.........as you well know.....that only will show up HIV
infection if it has come out of it's dorminancy. They could have been
infected. What percentage of these heterosexual males developed any type or
for of the HIV???? If you are to conclude this was a conspiracy and
possibly manufactured for a detrimental affect.........why are they not
included one way or another? Or does that produce and outlier that we just
decided to throw out?????!!!!!
*** ON A FINAL NOTE! Where is the significance of false postive and
negatives in the analysis....we must take into account.....especially during
the time of how accurate the tests were! Even now we have false postives
and negatives that creep up...thus, there is more flaw that is not taken
"Michael Witty" <mw132 at mole.bio.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SGI.4.33.0201020422470.5394997-100000 at mole.bio.cam.ac.uk...
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Bill O'Brien wrote:
>> > . . . your heart stops for a second when you sneeze . . .
>> I didn't know that! Should I see my doctor and get some sick leave?