Hello

I have. Others have. You’re ignoring it, Sowwy.

Tramp

Then be the man.

Correct it.

Show me the way oh wise one.

@Erotic:

Yes, really.

Here’s the problem.

This is the exact same conversation that you have engaged in many times. It begins with you stating rather emphatically that the use of condoms provides little or no measurable reduction in the risk of contracting/spreading STDs in general. You exclude the HIV virus from that argument.

Then...

You drop some names and titles, grossly misrepresent the findings of a study or two, and completely misrepresent the position of the CDC on this subject. Then, you finish with a misapplied term and some terminally deficient statistics of your own.

You do all of this in what appears to be an attempt to make your position seem authoritative and/or base in academia. Nothing could be further from the truth, IMV.

Finally...

After a few days of page upon page of round robin, you come out with a “we can agree to disagree” on the main focus of the argument. Rather than owning even one of the errors you’ve been clearly call out on, you simply say that your position is based on science while everyone else bases theirs on feelings.

Your approach never changes, and it’s as incorrect today as it was months ago (maybe longer) when I first saw it.

Tramp

@Tramp

Really?

Do you want to refute the direct quotes of the CDC and the PhDs? Please . . . do it. I'd love to see it. See there is a big difference between you and I. I am not claiming to be the be all, know all. I am the one who is just restating what is said. You are the one countering it. You are acting as you are the know all. So how about this . . . refute it. If you think it is in err, prove that it is not. Until then . . . man, you are just a keyboard warrior with an opinion and nothing of substance to substantiate the opinion.

Lol

“So what are we left with? A conversation that states your opinion, based upon your comfort level and my opinion, backed up by [misquotes, misinformation, and made up terminology]...

There, I fixed it for you.

Tramp

@DNLB

I hope you realize we are actually very close in agreement.

"Long story short: we will never know how many transmissions of STDs are prevented by condoms"

I completely agree with that. Where we differ is the 'confidence level' that we can be within a range. That is all.

I think we both can agree that condoms are not fail safe against STDs.
I think we both can agree that condoms can have an impact on mitigating the transmission of STDs.
I think we both can agree that condoms are the best for protection against HIV.

What the only difference we seem to have is how effective. I, and I also think you feel this way, will never know an absolute percentage. It could be 92% or 22% or 99% or 1%. I do think though that there will be a range, thus the confidence level point, that it will fall in.

I think you will have your tolerance for risk that you feel comfortable with and I will have mine. Neither of us are right or wrong in a generic perspective, but we are right for ourselves.

I stand by my comments that people need to get educated and make a decision on their risk level that is based on science and math, not on something a marketer tells them. I stand by my comments that condoms are not the silver bullet to stop STDs. I also stand by my comments that people are terrible at assessing risk.

So what are we left with? A conversation that states your opinion, based upon your comfort level and my opinion, backed up by studies, that show my comfort level. Hopefully people read it and found the spot where they are comfortable.

Please?

Seriously? you say "There, the CDC is quoting a study done by Weller that shows an 80% effective rate using condoms for HIV."

Apparently you're ignoring the "Self-report may not be entirely accurate. Condoms effectiveness is likely to be higher when condoms are used correctly every time during vaginal sex."

The 80% is based on what they know to be likely untrue: (Dr. to HIV+ prostitute) Dr- "Do you always use condoms? " Pro- "Yeah, well, most of the time I make 'em, but sometimes they pay more if I let them take them off" - Dr- "but they always use them?" Pro- "I told you yes!"

But the answer is obviously NO.

Math based on flawed statistics is inherently flawed. Most of the statistics about STD's and HIV in particular are false - How many black men 15-35 y/o in Birmingham AL are bisexual or homosexual? maybe 5%. How many of that same group have experienced any form of male-male sexual contact? closer to 50% . The numbers are skewed depending on the question & who asks it , not to be considered reliable.

Long story short: we will never know how many transmissions of STDs are prevented by condoms, and using flawed statistics to make intelligent decisions is not very well thought out.

“P=.69”

Are you not even slightly embarrassed to talk about things of which you have absolutely no understanding?

I would have put that a little kinder had you not been so consistently condescending in your treatment of others in attempting to play the academic.

Hovever, the next time you suggest that I study to show myself approved, you might at least learn how to use google.

Or...

Continue to look foolish. The choice is completely yours.

Eroctic, having a discussion with you is nearly as productive as watching a jackass trying to fuck a cactus...almost as much fun too.

Tramp

P=.69

Now what?

Let's see . . .

You have discarded quotes by PhDs and quotes by the CDC because . . .

1) Arguing over P values and the usage of statistically insignificant.
2) How I was trained to know what blood products meant.

Really? What is wrong with what the CDC states and the PhDs? Are you going to ignore that or just say, "You are wrong, condescending, etc?" Sorry man, a discussion is not being condescending. I have not acted condescending at all. If you feel I have, sorry, that is not my agenda. My agenda is quite simple. DO NOT BELIEVE ME. Educate yourself by reading from scientists, not marketing companies and make a decision that YOU are comfortable with. And, if you think that a condom is a silver bullet, you are wrong..

What is your agenda?

Eroctic:

I’m not only aware of the terminology that I use, but I’m also aware that, once again, you are using it improperly.

What you are now eluding to is P-values (statistical significance), which BTW, you nor I have yet introduced into this (for lack of a better word) discussion.

To educate you, the p-value, or statistical significance of a study places a numeric value on the possibility that the given results could have occurred solely by chance rather than being influenced by the event/condition being studied.

Since you brought it up, do you even know what the p-value of any of the studies that you cite is/was?

Did you try to calculate the p-value of the math analysis that you attempted to apply to prove your point?

Of course you didn’t...my questions were rhetorical.

Your habit of using terminology unfamiliar to you in an effort to be condescending and make others feel that they lack your wisdom is as unproductive as it is unflattering.

Tramp

@LADY

I think I am starting to realize what is happening. Do you know how statistically insignificant and significant are done, let alone mean? Do you understand Beyasain statistics? Because, in all sincerity, I think you are confusing importance with significance. Statistical significance is much different than statistical importance. It's ok to say you don't know this. All I have been doing is regurgitating info and then using math. I'd suggest you go to Kahn Academy and look at these two stats topics if you want to learn more.

By stating facts I am not being a racist or anything that you don't want to 'dignify.' These are the same things that the CDC states. "Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 34 account for two-thirds (64%) of HIV diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men. But the age distribution varies by race/ethnicity.
African American: 36% (3,720) were aged 13 to 24; 39% (3,994) were aged 25 to 34; 13% (1,291) were aged 35 to 44; 8% (808) were aged 45 to 54; and 4% (413) were aged 55 and older."

I guess that you have an issue with me using quote marks . . . you know, when it is quoting the CDC. I am NOT putting any words in their mouth.

But to appease you - here are the quotes, again, taken straight from the CDC.

"MSM, Insertive Anal Sex 63% Smith, 2015 Always using condoms, based on self-report, during insertive anal sex with an HIV-positive partner reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by 63% among MSM. Self-report may not be entirely accurate. Condom effectiveness is likely to be higher when condoms are used correctly every time during anal sex."

"Heterosexual Men and Women 80% Weller, 2002 Always using condoms, based on self-report, during sex with an HIV-positive partner reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by 80% among heterosexual men and women. Self-report may not be entirely accurate. Condoms effectiveness is likely to be higher when condoms are used correctly every time during vaginal sex."

There, the CDC is quoting a study done by Weller that shows an 80% effective rate using condoms for HIV. Think about that for a bit. People think the condom is 100% effective, but the data shows 80% and they even think it can be higher, but they are NOT sure.

There is tons of similar information about other STDs on their site. As I stated . . . they PROMOTE MONOGOMY and ABSTINENCE as the best effective tool. Here is ANOTHER quote. "Correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of syphilis when the infected area or site of potential exposure is protected. However, a syphilis sore outside of the area covered by a latex condom can still allow transmission, so caution should be exercised even when using a condom. The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, is to abstain from sexual contact or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected."

So what are they promoting for the 'surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases?'

In the end, I think you and I are really close to an agreement. You may not see it, but I do. The only area that we are in disagreement on that has any significance, at least that I see, is how effective condoms are with STDs other than HIV. I believe that they are nominally more effective. I do not think they are as effective as a lot of people think they are. I believe you think they are significantly more effective. My basis is from reading studies done by NIH, NHS and various other PhDs. I have no idea what your basis is from.

“...if you stay away from black gay men, it's really hard to find a HIV+ person.”

Dood, I’m not going to dignify that with a response.

“But back to the effectiveness of condoms, ignoring HIV (as I have stated, they are extremely effective for that) the CDC does not promote or demote the usage of condoms.”

There you go again, Eroctic. That statement is completely inaccurate. The CDC does promote the use of condoms. They discuss the limitations as well as the difficulty in gaining accurate information outside of the laboratory studies, but they in no way imply that the use of condoms to reduce the risk of STDs other than HIV is statistically insignificant, as you keep trying to imply.

Now, the CDCmight be right, or they might be wrong. In either event, please stop claiming that they are saying things that they are not saying...it’s terribly misleading.

Tramp

interesting battle. is your life on the swingset over if someone is kind enough to share hsv1 with you? kissing and oral are both a risk. don't ask don't tell or put a sign on your forehead "contaminated "?

Wow!

@Lady

Again, we agree, the decision is up to the person. I hopefully believe that we both agree that condoms are not foolproof. I would ask though that you think just a little bit about what the agenda of the CDC and the healthcare field is. That perspective may give you pause to think differently. Is their agenda to help you, as an individual, or is their agenda to stop the spread of something that could be a pandemic? I bring this up because I feel that is two different things.

The agenda for the CDC in my opinion is not at the individual level but at the national level. They have to take a look at our country as ~250 million sexually active people. They have to do what they feel is in the best interest to mitigate what could be a pandemic. What they can't do is drill down and make different recommendations based upon . . . race, age, sex, sexual preference, etc. In other words, they can not tell you, "Joe, you are gay, you had better use a condom all the time because ~65% of all HIV new cases are gay men." They can't go, "Susie, you shoot up, ~30% of all HIV new cases are IV users." Well, that last one a condom would not matter :) But the point is that they have to make a generic statement to cover the whole pie, whereas you and I are a sliver in that pie. Perhaps this is where we differ on the stats :)

If you think about this, of the roughly 1.2 million known and unknown, how many are in the south? How many are gay? How many are black? This is actually KNOWN. So again, going back to even meeting someone who is HIV+ is technically easier in the south, but . . . if you stay away from black gay men, it's really hard to find a HIV+ person.

But back to the effectiveness of condoms, ignoring HIV (as I have stated, they are extremely effective for that) the CDC does not promote or demote the usage of condoms. If anything they promote NO sex or monogamy. Here is an exact quote from the CDC, "Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of transmission of gonorrhea. The surest way to avoid transmission of gonorrhea or other STDs is to abstain from vaginal, anal, and oral sex, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected."

But back to the CDC's bigger picture. Remember they are trying to protect from ANYTHING, not something specific. So yes, handing out condoms is an incredibly wise thing because it covers pregnancy, it covers HIV with high effectiveness, it can reduce (and this is the debate of how much) the chance of Gono/Syph, etc.

That’s fine, Eroctic, and yeah, we are at an impass on the blood product issue it seems.

The reason for that is that a blood product is currently being defined as any product manufactured from blood (outside of the body) by humans. I’ve also inquired of a few professionals including, but not limited to, a couple of MDs. So...here we are.

Concerning the balance of what you’re putting out, I will only say that you are grossly mischaracterizing what the CDC consistently says about the use of condoms.

The CDC not promotes condom use for the reduction of STD transmission, but they also promote condom distribution programs for the same reason. Due to that fact alone, I’m believing that their opinion of what is/is not statistically significant varies a bit from yours.

In the end, the choice is yours. In that we agree.

Tramp

Ok man . . .

Let me try this again . . .

In the late 1980s I worked in a field that dealt with blood. I was exposed to blood every working second I was there. As this was a very well known medical company, they were worried about litigation. They had trainers, who were Docs and RNs that would go from facility to facility to train. They trained me on blood. They defined to me, what I wrote below, about what a blood product is. They defined to me the transmission of cooties. These were not only STDs but anything that can be gotten by either touching the patient, the blood from the patient, shit on the counter, shit on the gloves.

So if this is your line in the sand to say that because of what they trained me on, that all the CDC and NIH and even the NHS have stated is wrong, man, you are really reaching. If all I am doing is repeating what those three sources state, the relevance of this is akin to how to spell ketchup. Do we spell it ketchup or catsup?

““Instead of taking the time to write it out, you had the time to determine how many days it was. Wow.”

Yeah, I had to read the number at the bottom of the post, took forever! Lmao

All of that aside, you still haven’t told me where you are getting your definition from, apart from simply stating it as a fact derived from your memory.

Since my position is that you are entirely wrong in your definition and use of the phrase, I’m wondering if you can point me to an authoritative source which will show me the error of my ways.

Tramp

@DNLB

Thank you. This is all I have been saying. Condoms are not 100% effective in stopping STIs. That statement is 100% accurate :) I have heard from so many that they feel it is. If you don't, which you have now written, great. We are in agreement. The only point in which we are in disagreement about is where between 0 and 100% the effectiveness lies. Then we can sub-categorize that by type of STI. As I mentioned, HIV, it is probably damn near 100%. The rest, well, that is what the NIH study and the CDC have stated. Again, here is a CDC quote, "Correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of syphilis when the infected area or site of potential exposure is protected. However, a syphilis sore outside of the area covered by a latex condom can still allow transmission, so caution should be exercised even when using a condom." How do you measure that? That is the study that I quoted from the NIH and they did study it.

What I think, in all sincerity, is a disagreement in measurement. If I have a 1% chance of being right and I go to a 2% chance of being right, is that delta significant? Some would say yes because it doubled. Some would say no because it just went from 1% to 2%.

This is akin to something that someone once said to me regarding religion. They argued what does it hurt to believe, to have faith. I said, it's a waste if it doesn't exist. This is similar.

Everyone takes risks. Life is all about risk. You chose to enter this lifestyle and it has risk. What is the risk though that you are concerned about? Risk at the highest level is generic. I am trying to get specific. If you are trying to reduce the risk of getting HIV, the chances were already extremely low. If you are trying to not get pregnant, well, that is a different story :) If you are trying to make sure you do get HPV. A condom may or may not be effective. If you are trying to make sure you do not get Syphilis or Gonorrhea or Chlamydia, again, a condom may or may not be effective. Only YOU can judge the risk level that YOU feel comfortable with.

All I have ever done is tell people that condoms are not fool proof, do the best job of HIV/Pregnancy prevention, and are incrementally better than without. I state that it is significantly insignificant between using them and not. Why? Because of the NIH study, the CDC and numerous studies done by PhDs. I also state do what YOU feel comfortable with. Again, that religion thing. If you are comfortable with faith, go for it. If you are comfortable with science, go for it.

In regards to being with us sexually, hey, never asked nor shown any interest on this side. Why you felt compelled to include that . . . I dunno. I guess emotion got in the way of logic.

SHEESH!

I always try to avoid circular arguments, especially when people start with the quasi-intellectual insults, but I feel the need here:

NOBODY SAID THAT CONDOMS WERE A SILVER BULLET AND PREVENTED TRANSMISSION OF ALL STD'S!

There's a vast territory between being 100% effective and statistically insignificant (IE: not worth doing). If you actually make that leap with a paragraph like this:

"So when I state that condoms are statistically insignificant for the protection of anything other than HIV and pregnancy, I am not wrong. If you really want to do the math, we can. But here, let me just let you think about this for a minute. There are about 250mm people in the US who are sexually active. Want to give them sex 30 times a year as an average? Now we have 7.5 billion times a year that sex occurred. Out of that, there are ~40k HIV cases. 1.7mm cases of Chlamydia, ~105k Syph, ~500k Gono. What you are saying is that ALL of those cases were because they did not have a condom. Hmm. Nope. Let's leave HIV out but stick with the others. Using Gono because it is the biggest number that means of every time that sex occurred the chance of getting Gono was .0067%. Now want to say that half were with condoms? So the chance of getting it wearing a condom is .0033%. Now of course this is flawed because we do not know how many of the 7.5 billion sex acts were with condoms. What we do know is that the total condom sales WORLDWIDE is about 5 billion units per year. So a good chunk of that US sex was without condoms."

You began with an "about" number, then prognosticated with all sorts of crap numbers because- as you stated "this is flawed because we do not know how many of the 7.5 billion sex acts were with condoms" and followed with "a good chunk of that US sex was without condoms."

How many is in a chunk? HTF would you possibly know how many cases of STD's were prevented by a physical barrier such as a condom? You are guessing, then arriving at mathematical conclusions to support your stance based on those guesses. And please, don't feel compelled to re-iterate all the pages of crap and justify it with something like "all science uses hypothetical numbers to arrive at statistical conclusions", it's meaningless.

If you don't use condoms that's fine, I don't care, based on many other things that you've said there's no chance that we would ever sexually interact with you. But to say that the CDC says that protection from STD's by using condoms is statistically insignificant isn't just incorrect, it's intentionally misleading. You shouldn't do that.

I had no idea wtf you were talking about, but found it. Instead of taking the time to write it out, you had the time to determine how many days it was. Wow.

What is a blood product was the question. As I was trained when I was dealing with blood on a daily basis, eons ago :) A blood product is something that is produced by the bloodstream. It can be "man" made (think extracting plasma) or man made (think semen.) I am really stretching the boundaries of my memory here as I am trying to remember what they said was the blood product that went into semen that carried it. Honestly, I can't remember with a high level of confidence what it was. My initial memory recall was it came from something that the prostate produced, but again, don't hold me to that.

So now what?

Does this suddenly validate what the PhDs stated?

@4_Real

Yeah . . . _____ off. This is not putting tin foil hats on stuff. That is/was NutCal. This is the medical community consensus. So you can say they are all wrong, that's your choice. You just would be wrong though.

Lol

Did NutCal get a new profile?