> 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 t

> 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).