Skip to comments.CDC: Blacks, gays at high risk for new HIV infections
Posted on 09/12/2008 2:17:37 PM PDT by fightinJAG
click here to read article
...that we all need to do more...will end only when all of us...and then collectively commit....
Women, minorities, children, and gays hardest hit.
Again and again, as my doctors always tell me:
“Wear condoms, stick to one partner, don’t cheat, make sure your partner isn’t the cheating type and don’t do drugs.”
Chances are, if you do all of those, you will be a VERY low risk for HIV, black, white, Asian; gay or straight.
“Women, minorities, children, and gays hardest hit.”
The pro-pedophilia liberals deny that there are such things as “children”. Only delightful potential sex partners. That is why the author refers to thirteen year olds as “Men” in the article. With a little practice you can learn to spot these types right off.
I will guarantee that Andrea Kane finds the child lesbian seduction scene in “The Vagina Monologues” to be “Empowering”.
marked difference in age at the time of infection in the different racial groups. "They include the difficulty of consistently maintaining safer behaviors for many years or even decades, as well as homophobia, substance abuse and higher HIV prevalence within this group."
Can anyone explain that 2nd sentence? How does homophobia caure a marked increase in the infection rate?
Here's a tip... avoid anal or oral sex without a condom.
“Young black gay men, black women and white gay men in their 30s and 40s are much more likely to be newly infected with HIV than other groups in the United States, according to a new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
This is a good example of how MERE statistics tell lies and at the same time actually demean the demographic categories they “report” on.
Because, for every single one of the demographic groups reported, the full and complete set of facts, must go to causation and not mere correlation and it would have to say:
If (1) someone is a (a)”Young black gay” man, (b)a “black woman” or (c)a “white gay man in their 30s and 40s” AND (2) “(a).................and/or (b) ....................... and/or (c)...............” [add your own behavioral ondition(s)] THEN they are “much more likely to be newly infected with HIV than” others who are someone who is either NOT (1) and/or does not (2).
Particularly, to simply say that “young black women” in general are more likely to get HIV ignores a whole raft of social circumstances, among “young black women”, that would leave a “young black woman” OUT of a high risk for HIV.
Ignoring behavior - statistics without behavioral categories - prevents truths, relative to actual cause and affect, from being told.
Maybe throwing money at this high risk, disenfranchised group will help.
What a bizarre logic twist that takes. Thanks for the explanation.