|
Did the jews learn to fight HIV | by hej | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| It's bogus |
by Imp |
2005-08-04 11:44:07 |
| Anyone that actually believes that being circumcised and having unprotected intercourse will keep you safe from HIV needs to check themselves into a facility because they are going to harm themselves and others. There are only two ways to protect yourself, using the appropriate gear or not having any. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Is the study also bogus? | by hej | 2005-08-04 11:46:40 |
|
Correlation does not equal causation. | by Illiad | 2005-08-04 11:48:09 |
|
lets see some numbers | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 11:50:34 |
|
I am sure they are digging throug data. | by hyzenthlay | 2005-08-04 11:55:45 |
|
bulls4 | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 11:58:52 |
|
Wow, nice ethics! (n/t) | by hyzenthlay | 2005-08-04 11:59:23 |
|
uh what? (n/t) | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 11:59:55 |
|
In the name of science | by hyzenthlay | 2005-08-04 12:02:27 |
|
uh no | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 12:04:14 |
|
Please | by hyzenthlay | 2005-08-04 12:07:23 |
|
becuase it sounds unbelivable | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 12:11:07 |
|
They Did further invalidate the study by halting | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 12:21:40 |
|
If we circumcised, or just picked, 1500 men, | by hej | 2005-08-04 12:03:15 |
|
The ods of getting HIV are a lot higher then | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 12:07:08 |
|
Would be quite a coincidense if you randomly | by hej | 2005-08-04 11:58:00 |
|
The study is more than likely flawed | by Imp | 2005-08-04 12:00:03 |
|
The article said you can still get it if you are | by carthax | 2005-08-04 11:49:37 |
|
The study was unscientific. | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 11:55:43 |
|
The exposure is "randomised", just | by hej | 2005-08-04 11:59:47 |
|
Randomization is what invalidates the results. | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 12:10:03 |
|
Clarification on the term "randomised study". | by Pic | 2005-08-04 12:19:40 |
|
How do you give a placebo circumsision? :) (n/t) | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 12:25:52 |
|
That is of course a problem, | by Pic | 2005-08-04 12:35:10 |
|
Are you kidding? | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 12:42:55 |
|
The random factor there is sort of inevitable. | by Pic | 2005-08-04 12:59:25 |
|
but we have just over a 2% difference | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 13:06:56 |
|
The relevance of the conclusion | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:10:05 |
|
Of Course the methodology is inherently wrong. | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 13:15:15 |
|
So statistics is crap? (n/t) | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:19:13 |
|
Frequently. In this particular case, definitely. | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 13:25:50 |
|
The best option I can think of, | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 13:10:18 |
|
That would indeed be useful, | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:14:27 |
|
but statistically | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 13:17:11 |
|
That's not really my point. | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:32:58 |
|
The sample is far from large enough | by BloodyViking | 2005-08-04 13:22:17 |
|
Side thought | by MikeCDN | 2005-08-04 13:29:51 |
|
That would invalidate the data. | by Peace_man | 2005-08-04 13:40:42 |
|
Yeah, | by Pic | 2005-08-04 13:46:18 |
|
I suspect this is just a 'quick and dirty' initial | by Peace_man | 2005-08-04 15:19:54 |
