It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feds Shell Out $438K To Study Whether Drunken Hookups Increase Chance of HIV

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
I think this is a good thing. For one, it isn't that much money in the grand scheme of things. For another, without a study, there is no way of knowing factually what the answer to the question is. Hate all you want, scientific studies provide a better foundation for politics than belief and guesswork.


With the study, there is no way of knowing factually what the answer to the question is.

Also, the question is utterly pointless.




posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Exactly, there is a large anti-science movement out there right now in the U.S. and all that is going to do in the end is hurt us. Studying how people behave is the way to get real answers to questions that otherwise we would just be guessing about.
edit on 24pmThu, 24 Sep 2015 20:59:21 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

well im glad our public schools dont need that money considering the pristine state they are in. (insert sarcastic tone here)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Seriously ?

Do you really need a study to tell you that getting drunk and having unprotected sex is a BAD idea?

That's what classifies as 'anti' science?

It's a waste of time, and TAXPAYER dollars.

They have better thing to be spending that money on.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: neo96

This requires a study??? Common sense would indicate that sleeping around (intoxicated or otherwise) would increase risk of any STD let alone HIV/AIDS... SMH...


It does require a study

Hard, hard "work" I tell ya, needing many, many subjects "working" all-nighters, after which poor public servants just feel creamed out, and the drinking, oh, Lordy, lordy, lordy....

Oh the humanity.....



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Well we sure do know who all the anti common sense folk are not don't we.

Again.

Who the hell needs a half a million dollar study for that ?


If you can answer all sorts of scientific questions with commons sense now why don't you just use your magical powers to invent something really cool for us then? Ill take a FTL Warp Drive. It should be common sense how it works right?

But first, just give us detailed answers to the specific questions the study will be answering:



the goal of the proposed project is to increase the scientific understanding of the episodic dimensions of sexual partners and substance use as they increase the risk of HIV transmission among African Americans.


We're all eagerly awaiting your magical common sense answers in great detail.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Do you really need a study to tell you that getting drunk and having unprotected sex is a BAD idea?



Surprisingly, or unsurprisingly actually [to anyone with a half decent education] usually there are a great number of counterintuitive findings in just about any scientific field every year.

Ill dumb it down and give you a pop culture article on counterintuitive health facts, although I didn't source each one, the point is this is why studies are done on seemingly obvious things.

Common sense a long time ago was that sepsis caused wound complications... and a common unpreventable thing.

Then germs were discovered.

Studies similar [somewhat] to the one mentioned in the OP were done in Africa with high risk people, like prostitutes, and a lot of the findings were actually quite significant.
edit on 25-9-2015 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2015 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Grant bludging academics at it again.

But it actually gets worse....

After all the money is wasted and the common sense answer is published (, after being peer reviewed by other grant bludgers ). Every idiot involved in the research will have some letters after their name and get to call themselves an "expert".

While not saving one life.

I think I spot the real parasitic hosts in the study.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Are you really suggesting a new form of transmission is going to be discovered with this study.

Or an already proven one will be disproved.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

" there is a large anti-science movement out there right now "

That is not what I see. I see an anti-academic movement. Because most academics are not scientific and do not follow the scientific method. They are just grant bludgers who just never want to leave school.

I have worked with real scientists , inventors and innovators. They have zero time for ivory tower academics.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
a reply to: boncho

Are you really suggesting a new form of transmission is going to be discovered with this study.

Or an already proven one will be disproved.



Actually no, Im suggesting they will likely "increase the scientific understanding of the episodic dimensions of sexual partners and substance use as they increase the risk of HIV transmission among African Americans. "

But while this may seem fruitless, we don't fully know the implications yet, just as we didnt for plenty of other studies as well. Many of which have sparked much great discoveries later on because insight into a problem can tell you what direction to look in for new solutions.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: thedeadtruth


I have worked with real scientists , inventors and innovators.


Oooh, tell us what real scientists do with their time, vs the fake ones. Ill grab some popcorn...



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Real scientist communicate openly with inventors or innovators to make sure there are no holes in the research.

Academics often believe they are already experts to begin with. So usually end up doing invalid or UN-reproducable research.

A pattern I have seem up close and personal far too often to ignore.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
And almost weekly now academic fraud is being discovered and forcing ideas founded on the fake research to be discarded.

You see real science does not make mistakes. It builds on facts and goes where the science leads. Real experts do not screw up on the basics. And they never sell out to outside interests.

But fake scientists and amateurs passing themselves off as academic experts. Well they always do. Because they operate out of fear ...... Publish or die. Right ?



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

No i'm not drunk but you must be! I specifically said (not driving)!! Are you kidding you think this study makes sense??

Give me a break! Let's see if the FDA does not try and crack down on all consumption of alcohol!! If you trust this you must be nuts!!



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Okay better yet! Study is just for straight Black women and men! They want to spend all this money to determine if certain "aspects" of choice of sexual partnership makes Straight black people more prone to get HIV!!

All I can say is WTF??? Aspects such as

A. she/he is wasted so condom is forgotten!
B. I'm pissed so NOT wearing condom to take chances.
C. she is wearing a red dress and it's a Wednesday so lets not use condom.
D. i want babies so please don't wear condom.
E. i have a mental illness and am suicid also I'm not going to use condom.
F. I l look good and so do you and can''t wait so let's get at it without condom!!

"Aspects" is a very general term and can go on infinitely! See List above.....

This is a biased study at best and one that is ridiculous!!

As a Scientific Medical Researcher, You would look at the components in the genetic make up and the blood of a black person and compare to other races if you were truly looking to see if Blacks were more prone to HIV than other races!!

Not a Scientific Study at all!! At the very least this is a study in Sociology and Psychology of Blacks!! But not going to yield any credible results because the results are going to vary tremendously......There ARE NO GUIDE LINES to this study to constitute Science Research!

The government has lost their mind and will use this study to appropriate more programs in the black only communities to give them money to change their circumstances!!

What a colossal load of BS!! Biased experiment at best!



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Got to love the academic apologist doing what they do best , copy and paste other peoples work.

When asked for their opinion on what the study will achieve in real terms, what do we get ....?

" the goal of the proposed project is to increase the scientific understanding of the episodic dimensions of sexual partners and substance use as they increase the risk of HIV transmission among African Americans. "


How about it this time with some critical thinking behind the question and answer. And please put into your own words. Or it is like having a conversation with a piece of paper.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I would like to add. Going to the full proposal and reading it.

These are too many psychological variables for any conclusion to ever be reached with that study. It is a waste of time in every sense.

It is a set up for a future grant. aka....

Conclusion ....... " further research needs to take place so I don't have to get a real job "



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: paxnatus


It gets better, variables like how actually having HIV effects risky behavior in each individual. eg..... Levels of depression and / or hostility etc.. . These are infinite factors that could change on a daily basis.

Include the fact that HIV is no longer seen as a death sentence. ....How are you going link any behavior to any risk.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
A couple of good quotes from top experts in the research / publishing field ...

" British statistician complained in the BMJ that much medical research was “seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation.”

" The acclaimed statistician John Ioannidis* has estimated that only 1% (1%) of thousands of studies which assert that there is a correlation between a particular gene and a medical condition are correct."

“Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.”

www.bioedge.org...-Rws.email


So to recap...... lots of fake experts out there. I have literally only met a handful of real scientists in my time. All the rest have been no better than welfare bludgers.

edit on 11/19/09 by thedeadtruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join