2 ms·

> If you’re trying to use it as a scientific term then actually apply the term correctly. Your comments in this thread are a very good example of the aphorism

> If you’re trying to use it as a scientific term then actually apply the term correctly. Your comments in this thread are a very good example of the aphorism "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". As I mentioned above, it's pretty clear that you don't have a clinical background in HIV, because you're mixing up terms that have precise clinical definitions and drawing conclusions that are not only not warranted, but actively contradicted by the data. There are a lot of incorrect statements or mistaken assumptions that you're building on here. I've pointed out a few of them already, but without the contextual domain knowledge, it would be difficult to correct them all in a way that's accessible to a lay audience. It certainly would not be possible in the scope of an HN comment. As a general note: it's okay not to be an expert in a given field, but in that case, please keep that in mind when discussing it. The ability to find information which appears intelligible does not in se imply the necessary knowledge to contextualize and interpret that information correctly. That's particularly true when talking about information written for an incredibly specialized audience - even most clinicians would not be expected to read a paper on this topic, because HIV is a fairly unique subfield that requires a lot of domain-specific knowledge.

Retric 4y ago
I have done professional work with HIV, not in the last 4 years but I doubt much has changed. You’re repeatedly ignoring data showing you are wrong and in this case dangerously wrong. Read the damn paper I linked or any of several others which show the same thing. HAART is good but not perfect.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > I have done professional work with HIV That's rather vague wording, so I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to make of that. As I've pointed out multiple times, your comments include rather basic mistakes in terminology which demonstrate a lack of clinical familiarity with the topic at hand. Those misunderstandings are causing you to make make inferences that are not valid. You're reading this as "ignoring data showing [I am] wrong", but in reality, it's that the data simply doesn't say what you think it does. If that isn't convincing, you can look at it from the other end entirely: the original claim you made (that "it’s important that people still disclose their status" because "having undetectable levels on day 1 doesn’t mean you have undetectable levels on day X and people don’t test every single day") is a conclusion that is soundly rejected by both public health experts and epidemiologists who specialize in HIV treatment and prevention. As a rule of thumb: if you're citing orthodox methodology and research to make extremely heterodox claims, that's a good sign that you've made a mistake somewhere along the line. That's as much time as I'm really going to spend discussing on a comment thread that I now see is inaccessible because the original comment is now flagged dead (and, frankly, for good reason).

Retric 4y ago

I have done professional work with HIV, not in the last 4 years but I doubt much has changed. You’re repeatedly ignoring data showing you are wrong and in this case dangerously wrong. Read the damn paper I linked or any of several others which show the same thing. HAART is good but not perfect.

chimeracoder 4y ago
> I have done professional work with HIV That's rather vague wording, so I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to make of that. As I've pointed out multiple times, your comments include rather basic mistakes in terminology which demonstrate a lack of clinical familiarity with the topic at hand. Those misunderstandings are causing you to make make inferences that are not valid. You're reading this as "ignoring data showing [I am] wrong", but in reality, it's that the data simply doesn't say what you think it does. If that isn't convincing, you can look at it from the other end entirely: the original claim you made (that "it’s important that people still disclose their status" because "having undetectable levels on day 1 doesn’t mean you have undetectable levels on day X and people don’t test every single day") is a conclusion that is soundly rejected by both public health experts and epidemiologists who specialize in HIV treatment and prevention. As a rule of thumb: if you're citing orthodox methodology and research to make extremely heterodox claims, that's a good sign that you've made a mistake somewhere along the line. That's as much time as I'm really going to spend discussing on a comment thread that I now see is inaccessible because the original comment is now flagged dead (and, frankly, for good reason).