The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Did the jews learn to fight HIV by hej 2006-11-19 12:55:59
clicky
[ Reply ]
  Fascinating. (n/t) by Llyr2005-08-04 11:28:52
  Interesting. (n/t) by carthax2005-08-04 11:30:26
  I don't think they're the only ones... (n/t) by webishop2005-08-04 11:37:15
  somehow I find those results hard to belive by MikeCDN2005-08-04 11:41:32
    I've seen the study posted by several by hyzenthlay2005-08-04 11:52:43
      revealed how? by MikeCDN2005-08-04 11:54:54
        I mean if their methods by hyzenthlay2005-08-04 11:58:33
          but how? by MikeCDN2005-08-04 12:02:28
            If you want to assume that all by hyzenthlay2005-08-04 12:04:51
              uh no that means more research is needed by MikeCDN2005-08-04 12:09:53
                *whispers* How much for the tiger repelling rock? (n/t) by Sterling_Ag2005-08-04 12:11:05
                Why conduct another study by hyzenthlay2005-08-04 12:19:21
                  okay so your saying... by MikeCDN2005-08-04 12:24:28
              Decent scientists make sure their studies by BloodyViking2005-08-04 12:46:40
                Not necessarily by hej2005-08-04 15:14:42
            Other scientists can ask to see the raw data. by hej2005-08-04 12:06:31
              The problem is by Imp2005-08-04 12:14:12
                thanks (n/t) by MikeCDN2005-08-04 12:15:11
          There methods ARE really poor. by BloodyViking2005-08-04 12:25:15
  It's bogus by Imp2005-08-04 11:44:07
    Is the study also bogus? by hej2005-08-04 11:46:40
      Correlation does not equal causation. by Illiad2005-08-04 11:48:09
      lets see some numbers by MikeCDN2005-08-04 11:50:34
        I am sure they are digging throug data. by hyzenthlay2005-08-04 11:55:45
          bulls4 by MikeCDN2005-08-04 11:58:52
            Wow, nice ethics! (n/t) by hyzenthlay2005-08-04 11:59:23
              uh what? (n/t) by MikeCDN2005-08-04 11:59:55
                In the name of science by hyzenthlay2005-08-04 12:02:27
                  uh no by MikeCDN2005-08-04 12:04:14
                    Please by hyzenthlay2005-08-04 12:07:23
                      becuase it sounds unbelivable by MikeCDN2005-08-04 12:11:07
                      They Did further invalidate the study by halting by BloodyViking2005-08-04 12:21:40
            If we circumcised, or just picked, 1500 men, by hej2005-08-04 12:03:15
              The ods of getting HIV are a lot higher then by MikeCDN2005-08-04 12:07:08
        Would be quite a coincidense if you randomly by hej2005-08-04 11:58:00
      The study is more than likely flawed by Imp2005-08-04 12:00:03
    The article said you can still get it if you are by carthax2005-08-04 11:49:37
      The study was unscientific. by BloodyViking2005-08-04 11:55:43
        The exposure is "randomised", just by hej2005-08-04 11:59:47
          Randomization is what invalidates the results. by BloodyViking2005-08-04 12:10:03
          Clarification on the term "randomised study". by Pic2005-08-04 12:19:40
            How do you give a placebo circumsision? :) (n/t) by MikeCDN2005-08-04 12:25:52
              That is of course a problem, by Pic2005-08-04 12:35:10
                Are you kidding? by BloodyViking2005-08-04 12:42:55
                  The random factor there is sort of inevitable. by Pic2005-08-04 12:59:25
                    but we have just over a 2% difference by MikeCDN2005-08-04 13:06:56
                      The relevance of the conclusion by Pic2005-08-04 13:10:05
                        Of Course the methodology is inherently wrong. by BloodyViking2005-08-04 13:15:15
                          So statistics is crap? (n/t) by Pic2005-08-04 13:19:13
                            Frequently. In this particular case, definitely. by BloodyViking2005-08-04 13:25:50
                    The best option I can think of, by BloodyViking2005-08-04 13:10:18
                      That would indeed be useful, by Pic2005-08-04 13:14:27
                        but statistically by MikeCDN2005-08-04 13:17:11
                          That's not really my point. by Pic2005-08-04 13:32:58
                        The sample is far from large enough by BloodyViking2005-08-04 13:22:17
                          Side thought by MikeCDN2005-08-04 13:29:51
                        That would invalidate the data. by Peace_man2005-08-04 13:40:42
                          Yeah, by Pic2005-08-04 13:46:18
                            I suspect this is just a 'quick and dirty' initial by Peace_man2005-08-04 15:19:54
  *Waits for this to get a mention in Bad Science* ( (n/t) by AndyA2005-08-04 11:49:50
  It's even safer if you cut off the whole thing by oot2005-08-04 12:30:12
    Male circumcision is not mutilation. by hej2005-08-04 12:32:44
      Its not mutilation? by MikeCDN2005-08-04 12:33:48
        foreskinectomy? (n/t) by cybergeek2005-08-04 12:35:31
        I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw in a magazine. by Illiad2005-08-04 12:36:04
        Pruning? Manicure? by hej2005-08-04 15:08:38
          uh... pieces that grow back, and are meant to by MikeCDN2005-08-04 15:11:09
      As I said above, a couple of times by Imp2005-08-04 12:40:28
        Those results are debatable, by Pic2005-08-04 12:46:18
          The result that seems to quoted the most by cristobal2005-08-04 13:04:56
            Debris? by LionsPhil2005-08-04 13:39:13
              You clearly don't know some of the people I know. (n/t) by quilting_kitty2005-08-04 13:40:48
                Hunh. by LionsPhil2005-08-04 13:48:50
                  Chavs having... EUUUGH! by oot2005-08-04 14:02:02
                    Hence the "shudder". by LionsPhil2005-08-04 14:09:07
                  Certainly not I (n/t) by quilting_kitty2005-08-04 16:06:19
            If it's due to debris, by Pic2005-08-04 13:39:24
      Yes it is by oot2005-08-04 12:59:13
        Actually from what I've read by shorty822005-08-04 13:05:50
          Debatable by oot2005-08-04 13:58:54
            I hope that there isn't much if any reduction by shorty822005-08-04 14:44:44
              The evidence by Pic2005-08-04 14:50:16
                Maybe I'm unique by etmorpi2005-08-04 14:59:59
          Reason would dictate that it does. by etmorpi2005-08-04 14:55:34
    Apart from the blood loss. (n/t) by LionsPhil2005-08-04 13:37:01
      Tourniquet + cauterization of major blood vessels (n/t) by oot2005-08-04 14:02:53
        Now there's an interesting thought. by LionsPhil2005-08-04 14:07:49
          Lasers are used in real hospitals. by hej2005-08-04 15:03:17
            Yeah, but lightsabres make cool noises. (n/t) by LionsPhil2005-08-04 15:04:48
              Whom.... Whom.... by vetitice2005-08-04 15:14:13
  Maybe they just learned how to prevent by Peace_man2005-08-04 13:08:42
  Assuming that it's not a load of baloney, by LionsPhil2005-08-04 13:34:41
    Elqoquently put. by Pic2005-08-04 13:43:24
    One guess by hej2005-08-04 15:02:06
  From the data provided by TheGM2005-08-04 14:09:00
    Masochists? (n/t) by LionsPhil2005-08-04 14:13:00
      They'd have already had it done. (n/t) by TheGM2005-08-04 14:13:36

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)