341–350 of 490 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Risks like these are orthogonal and additive. There’s no reason to discard any risk but to hedge them.
Activity-based risks are not additive. Time spent driving is not time spent having sex (well, hopefully). So if risk(dying while driving) ~ risk(dying because of sex) ~ 0, you can easily ignore both of those.
I remember growing up being terrified of HIV/AIDS. The idea of something being permanent and transmissible via sex, and literally dismounting your immune defense to all other diseases on the planet... To this day it still terrifies me, even though the treatments have become so good. Each year it seems there are new stories about HIV research, and progress keeps being made. I pray for positive results and am really am…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree in that no straight people (that i know) consider PrEP, although according to a quick search the HIV prevalence rate is twenty times lower in my country compared to the US. Obviously the human brain statistician goes out the window when comparing a lifelong illness with a few hours of discomfort, but would it be generally safe/worth it to put the entire population on PrEP during sexual activity? I heard that…
>a lifelong illness Another thing to consider is it isn't a life long illness anymore. It's a life long subscription to a drug which neutralizes the threat and lets you live an entirely normal life without any problems other than having to take the drug periodically forever. Certainly not ideal but its not like you suffer illness.
Maybe you can't afford the treatment, maybe you have side effects, maybe you don't know you need it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Sadly, given that it's a new (throwaway?) account used to post in a thread about a vaccine, there's a high chance this is another neo-anti-vaxxer, here to tell us why this is "not a vaccine" and all that.
The them.us article [0] says: > but we’ll be praying ... that by next year, LGBTQ+ communities around the globe will have a new reason to celebrate. This perpetuates the myth that HIV is mainly a problem for gay people. Can we change to another article, such as [1]? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supports Moderna's HIV vaccine research [2]. [0] https://www.them.us/story/hiv-aids-vaccine-human-trials-mode... [1]…
this was the real endgame of the vaccine mandates, force the whole world to participate in a trial of mRNA technology so that it could start being used in other profitable products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn’t just him saying that. I once went on a forum for a journal article, and there were two camps of biologists - those speaking about the similar sections, and those refuting the claims. I noticed that most of the refutations came from scientists with Chinese sounding names. I realize that this is just anecdotal, and you can choose to believe me or not. But that’s what I saw. You may still be able to find it on…
Other commenters have demonstrated it's readily findable on Google, and still bullshit. Paper withdrawn by its authors. > Looks like he’s been at least partially vindicated. Did you cite the wrong paragraph?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. I would rather take the "most unsafe" vaccine of the last 30 years than take an Advil. (I am a biochemist)
Could you elaborate on why you wouldn't take advil?
My point is not that Advil is particularly dangerous, my point is that people dramatically overestimate the dangers of vaccines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. I would rather take the "most unsafe" vaccine of the last 30 years than take an Advil. (I am a biochemist)
Fascinating, can you tell me more about your aversion to Advil? I haven never encountered anyone warning about it until now and would like to know more.
I'm not saying Advil is dangerous, I'm saying people significantly overestimate the risks of vaccines.
If you're concerned about vaccines but not about other common drugs, you're in need of some risk calibration.