I would like to amend myself when I stated "Why? just because they were HIV
positive?"...that was a typo which was suppose to be "negative" at the end
"Bill O'Brien" <wobrien22 at home.com> wrote in message
news:TwyZ7.320547$ez.45603500 at news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> 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
> widely accepted.
>> 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
> into account.
>>> "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?
> > Mike.
> >
>>
