Quote:
Originally Posted by FoulRon
Correlation <> Causation.
And I noticed it gave them another chance to bash gay men.
I could just be that we've become a more promiscuous society as a whole.
|
This.
When I was in a high school science class, I read an article about milk causing cancer because of the very high worldwide correlation. That correlation is very real and definitely exists. That means milk
does cause cancer, right?!
Fuck no. The correlation can be explained by the fact that in third world countries, milk is too expensive so they don't drink it. They also do do not live to older ages, which is typically when people get cancer. The net result is a population that has a
common causation: two things that are caused by something else, i.e., being in severe poverty. So the cause and effect is actually severe poverty causes both little-to-no milk and little-to-no cancer.
Back to HIV. I mean stop and think about it for a second. In the last 15 years, we've found drugs that can keep hosts alive, but due to HIV's mutating power, we cannot cure it due to being unable to design a drug that interacts with in in its almost infinite hydrodynamic conformations. So to my point: what would you expect would be the effect of finding a treatment to keep "hosts" alive without actually being able to cure the disease? More importantly, what would be the effect of giving a host more time to spread the disease?