Friday, March 19, 2010

Guess "House of Numbers" can't have an opinion on HIV/AIDS on without a Hostile reaction from the host

After we posted:View the new documentary "House of Numbers" to see why questions about this must be raised and deeper issues about HIV and AIDS need to be discussed. Lives are at risk, and this is the first documentary with the worlds foremost authorities highlights the scientific problems with HIV testing, science, statistics, and why there is no cure. It sheds new light on a misunderstood phenomena. GO to to see the trailer.

We received this email:

From: Abbie <>
Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Regarding your postings on my website
Stop spamming my blog, pig fucker.


Crazy is as crazy does: EXPELLED and House of Numbers
Category: HIV/AIDS
Posted on: April 23, 2009 12:45 PM, by ERV
Check out this AWESOME anti-science movie!
  • Outdated, discredited, or simply flat-out scientifically wrong hypotheses presented as real scientific controversies!
  • Pro-outdated-discredited-wrong 'scientists' persecuted, ostracized by TEH MAN! World cant handle the philosophical implications of their brilliant ideas!
  • SUPER AWESOME cellular animations!
  • Real scientists interviewed under false pretenses! Quotemined!
  • Pissed off scientists shows up at movie screening and all hell breaks loose!
Am I talking about EXPELLED II: Dembskis vs the Baylor Lunch Lady?No!
Im talking about EXPELLED-except-with-HIV-D
enial movie, House of Numbers:
Youtube "HOUSE OF NUMBERS" Trailer

Awesomely, one of the misled real scientists, Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, took a page from the PZ/Dawkins handbook and improved on it. Instead of just showing up at a local screening,Kuritzkes hosted a post-screening panel discussion. A panel of scientists. No Deniers. Deniers in the audience were blindsided, and lulz ensued.

You all just need to go read the whole article. 'Fans' of EXPELLED will get a kick out of it-- Creationists, HIV Deniers, anti-vax-- its all the same thing.

The aggressive use of retroviral therapies has been able to bring many HIV+ men's viral load down to undetectable levels

New Study Quantifies HIV Infection Risk

The aggressive use of retroviral therapies has been able to bring many HIV+ men's viral load down to undetectable levels. But until now, it has been unclear whether those medications reduce the risk of infection for those men's sexual partners. Now, a recent study from Australia specifically quantifies how likely a man is to contract HIV from a given sex act—and demonstrates that those risks are barely impacted by contemporary treatment methods.

The study was conducted by researchers at the National Center in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research at the University of New South Wales in Darlinghurst, Australia. The researchers studied 1,427 men between 2001 and 2004 who reported having sex with another man at least once in the previous five years. Every six months the subjects were interviewed about their sexual activity and until 2007 tested for HIV. Researchers were interested in relating their results to findings of an American study done in the 1990s, which found an 0.82 percent risk of contracting HIV for every instance of receptive anal sex. But in a result that the study's authors describe as "unexpected," the new study found a slightly higher rate of infection—1.43 percent per instance of receptive anal sex—meaning that the theory that reduced viral loads would make the virus less transmissible appears to be wrong.

That is a disappointing outcome. But within the study's results lies some interesting information quantifying the risk involved in a given sex act. It looks like this: The risk of becoming infected on any single occasion of receptive anal sex with internal ejaculation is 1.43 percent. If the partner withdraws before ejaculating, that risk goes down to 0.65 percent. The infection rate for each occasion of insertive anal sex (topping) is 0.11 percent if a man is circumcised; it goes up to 0.62 percent if a man is uncircumcised. The upshot: receptive anal sex with ejaculation is roughly twice as risky as receptive anal sex with pre-ejaculation withdrawal or topping by an uncircumcised man, and more than 10 times as risky as topping by a circumcised man.

Why should gay men look closely at these numbers? The study's authors warn that "caution should be exercised before interpreting the results at the level of individual men." But blogger and journalist Chris Crain, blogging at Citizen Crain puts a different spin on this study: "I tried for years when I edited the Washington Blade and a number of other gay publications to get this kind of straightforward info about the risk associated with various sexual acts," he writes. "We were, for the most part, stonewalled by public health 'experts' who were loathe to trust gay men with actual info, favoring instead the tired 'AIDS panic' approach of trying to scare men into using condoms by implying that any sort of sex was equally risky." In the end, more accurate information is always an improvement.