jacob_cannell comments on Open Thread, September, 2010-- part 2 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: NancyLebovitz 17 September 2010 01:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (858)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (858)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 21 September 2010 03:36:05AM *  0 points [-]

Haha ok this is kinda funny, but the abstract you linked to which is the source of the data in Varghese(77), is just 76! - the couple comparison from the European Study Group which I linked to and have been trying to parse. 79 appears to be another chapter from that same book, but I haven't looked at it yet.

So before we get into 76 - the source of the stat you don't like in 77, I need to backup and remember your original claim about the data:

It was pretty clear to me that the kinds of low numbers you were using to argue against HIV being an STD are actually based on monogamous couples who are regularly examined by physicians and have been instructed in the use of condoms to prevent transmission. Those numbers don't apply to the most common cases of transmission, in which ulcers and other factors make transmission much more likely.

Your implied point appears to be that couples in this study use condoms frequently. Surprisingly, this is not the case - only a surprisingly small number of couples reported consistent condom use (out of 500+),

Contraceptive behaviour:

No regular contraceptive 12 (10/86) 20 (43/212) Oral contraceptive 18 (7/40) 23 (26/114) Intrauterine device 10 (1/10) 28 (7/25) Condom* 0(0/11) 18 (6/33)

These people were using other methods of birth control more than condoms.

None of the 24 partners who had used condoms systematically since the first sexual contact was infected.

and they further removed consistent condom users from the data:

Assuming that no risk factors for transmission would be relevant during consistent condom use, eight male and 16 female contacts who were still negative and had systematically used condoms since the first sexual contact with the index case were excluded from the analysis of risk factors.

Comment author: Perplexed 21 September 2010 04:14:40AM 0 points [-]

Haha ok this is kinda funny, but the abstract you linked to which is the source of the data in Varghese(77), is just 76! - the couple comparison from the European Study Group.

No, it is not. The reference leading to the abstract is the absolute risk described in the first paragraph of page 40 of Varghese. It is reference 28 of Varghese.

You are apparently following the references (21) appearing in Table 1 of Varghese. But these are relative risks (relative to felatio). Not at all what I meant.

My point about condom use came from an earlier reference that I had supplied which discusses a study that took place in Uganda in 2005. And I didn't say that they used condoms frequently, I said that they were monogamous couples who got regular medical inspections and had been counseled regarding condoms. And in this study, as I recall, there was no exclusion of condom users.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 21 September 2010 04:33:50AM 0 points [-]

Ah no I haven't even read Varghese(77) yet. You looked at that one and posted a link to an abstract - this abstract, which comes from the same European Study Group and has the same numbers (563 couples) as 76. So the abstract you wanted me to look at is just 76, it's all the same source.

Satt also pointed this out in another reply here.

I'm not really concerned (at the moment) with what may or may not be happening in Uganda. The CDC data comes from this European Study Group, that is the original data in question - (the data you questioned).

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 21 September 2010 08:07:46PM 0 points [-]

in this study, as I recall, there was no exclusion of condom users.

I'm confused - the table says "assuming no condom use". So you're talking about other data, or they were able to filter the data.

Comment author: Perplexed 21 September 2010 09:01:20PM 0 points [-]

I'm confused - the table says "assuming no condom use".

What table in what document says that?

So you're talking about other data

I'm talking about the data I said I am talking about: this paper and this piece of primary research which states

Trial participants were enrolled as individuals; provided written, informed consent; and were guaranteed confidentiality. Condoms and voluntary HIV counseling and testing, for individuals and for couples, were promoted and provided free of charge. ... Antiretroviral therapy (ART) was not available in Uganda at the time of the study, but participants were offered free general health care and treatment for opportunistic infections.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 21 September 2010 09:24:39PM 0 points [-]

The original table in the top-level comment. I guess you're off on a tangent then.

Comment author: Perplexed 21 September 2010 09:33:16PM -1 points [-]

I repeat. What table in what top-level comment? WTF is a "top-level comment?"

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 21 September 2010 09:42:57PM *  0 points [-]

The top-level comment of this thread. Comments are nested. Click parent enough times and you're at a top-level comment. I'm surprised the name is confusing to you.

As for the table, it's linked in the top-level comment:

This data is from wikipedia

I can see how you would have missed this link.

The linked table is clearly labeled and indicates that the risk is supposed to be for not using a condom. The table has the same figures as the "Table 1" appearing as an image in a nested comment by satt, which has the same indication. I doubt you missed that.

Given that you appear to be discussing the cites referenced in the table, I'm puzzled as to why you think condom use is implied. Are you saying the table is wrong, or are you talking about some other part of the cite than was used to build it?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit