> It reads as if you expose the article to make a wrong statement about incident rates. No? But you could read it as "exposing" the fact that it mentions incid

> It reads as if you expose the article to make a wrong statement about incident rates. No? But you could read it as "exposing" the fact that it mentions incident rates only vaguely [1], and that the title is chosen strategically. (The article looks seems to be part of a public health campaign to encourage heterosexuals to test for HIV, and that's probably part of the reason.) There were a couple of comments which raised valid points about my rough estimate though. [1]: It only says "Gay and bisexual men are still more impacted by HIV relative to population size", but the question of by how much seems to be left an exercise for the reader.