The Massholes

[QUOTE=Cperry123;3669404]Yes, I am aware that the study is from the CDC however, that fact alone does not make the report viable. Again, can you produce a link so that I can read the report for myself. I would like to know if it was peer reviewed. Also, what neighborhoods in Massachusetts did they conduct the statistical analysis. You see any report can be skewed. For example, say they did STI testing in white majority affluent neighborhoods with only Caucasians and tested improvised neighborhoods with only African-Americans / blacks. Is one to concluded that it is by race or income or education level?[/QUOTE]It was a nationwide study. Highest incidents of HSV-2 were found in the southern states. Again, nobody is singling out blacks, all other races are mentioned as well, blacks just had the highest numbers. There are in fact diseases that some races are more susceptible to, that's just science. For example white females are more susceptible to Alzheimer's disease. We don't know why, but that's what the statistics show. Whether or not that's the case with HSV-2 or not is unknown. It's not something you can easily conduct research on without intentionally trying to infect people with it, which is obviously highly unethical. For all we know blood type may play a role. We already know that certain blood types are predisposed to some diseases (people with AB blood type for example are more susceptible to heart disease), and Rh- blood types are very rare in non-whites, but obviously this wouldn't explain the lower HSV-2 incidence in Asians. There's no reason to doubt the accuracy of the CDC study, but there's no real explanation for the results yet either. As I said before, more information is needed.

There are 9 different HSV types by the way, and this study was only about HSV-2. In addition remember that HSV-2 is not necessarily synonymous with genital herpes. The CDC also says that 57% of the US population has HSV-1, and nobody ever questions that. But HSV-1 can infect the genitals too.

Don't try to read anything in to what I'm saying, I'm merely quoting the statistics posted by the CDC.

[URL]https://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stats.htm[/URL]

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

[QUOTE=HoHunter328;3670842]It was a nationwide study. Highest incidents of HSV-2 were found in the southern states. Again, nobody is singling out blacks, all other races are mentioned as well, blacks just had the highest numbers. There are in fact diseases that some races are more susceptible to, that's just science. For example white females are more susceptible to Alzheimer's disease. We don't know why, but that's what the statistics show. Whether or not that's the case with HSV-2 or not is unknown. It's not something you can easily conduct research on without intentionally trying to infect people with it, which is obviously highly unethical. For all we know blood type may play a role. We already know that certain blood types are predisposed to some diseases (people with AB blood type for example are more susceptible to heart disease), and Rh- blood types are very rare in non-whites, but obviously this wouldn't explain the lower HSV-2 incidence in Asians. There's no reason to doubt the accuracy of the CDC study, but there's no real explanation for the results yet either. As I said before, more information is needed.

There are 9 different HSV types by the way, and this study was only about HSV-2. In addition remember that HSV-2 is not necessarily synonymous with genital herpes. The CDC also says that 57% of the US population has HSV-1, and nobody ever questions that. But HSV-1 can infect the genitals too.

Don't try to read anything in to what I'm saying, I'm merely quoting the statistics posted by the CDC.

[URL]https://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stats.htm[/URL]

Stay safe, and happy hunting.[/QUOTE]Interesting discussion. Are you, guys, biomedical researchers? You sure sound like them.

[QUOTE=CheezeFist;3671167]Interesting discussion. Are you, guys, biomedical researchers? You sure sound like them.[/QUOTE]No CheezeFist, I am not a Biomedical Researcher. My background includes[blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]. And at this present moment, I'm reading a number of scientific, medical and statistic articles to disprove Ho Hunter's claim of predisposition to an STI on race.

[blue]I did that for your own good, do you really want to put out all that personal info?

If you do, go ahead and put it up again and I'll leave it. I think it would be a huge mistake just to stroke your ego.

A2[/blue]

Cperry123 is Christine from Roslindale. Search for Christine on Boston forum you get plenty of info especially on Craigslist Reviews.

[QUOTE=SixPacking;3669658]You seem pretty hell bent on disproving the fucking CDC! Pretty sure we can all agree that they have no axe to grind, just want to keep people safe. Oh, wait, the CDC may be biased against certain groups to do.

Also, since you are a forum advertiser who are you? Can we book you? What do you offer?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Cperry123;3656381]I don't have a pimp. Never have, never will.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Cperry123;3671635]No CheezeFist, I am not a Biomedical Researcher. And at this present moment, I'm reading a number of scientific, medical and statistic articles to disprove Ho Hunter's claim of predisposition to an STI on race.
[/QUOTE]This is what 's wrong with America. She's searching through number of articles to disprove Ho Hunter's claim, not to see if his point is valid or not. Everybody stick to their tunnel visions and wouldn't get out of there even if they discover they are wrong. The logic is "it's true because it's right". Close minds can't be changed even if facing obvious.

I'm not insinuating that Ho is right, I don't know enough on the topic to have an opinion here but I do know one thing, the place like CDC groups people based on their race, sex, ethnic group, hair and eye color, tits size, dick size and whatever else that separates them. It allows CDC to determine which group of people has predisposition to this type of cancer or that type of cancer and the like and channel resources accordingly. For example based on CDC data I know that Thai men with big dicks like me find it hard to racewalk so I lift weights instead. Thank you CDC! Duh!

[blue]Why did you make a new user to post this? Why didn't you use your normal account?

A2[/blue]

I didn't expect a detailed answer from you, Christine, and I didn't intend to stir any trouble! If you would just tell me to f**k off, that would be good enough for me. Happy New Year!

[QUOTE=CheezeFist;3672613]I didn't expect a detailed answer from you, Christine, and I didn't intend to stir any trouble! If you would just tell me to f**k off, that would be good enough for me. Happy New Year![/QUOTE]Hey CheezeFist, I was replying to your question and am glad that A2 deleted that portion because I agree with him. I harbor not ill feeling against you. In fact, may this coming year bring you happiness, prosperity and fulfill all your desires.

[QUOTE=CheezeFist;3671167]Interesting discussion. Are you, guys, biomedical researchers? You sure sound like them.[/QUOTE]I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

[QUOTE=Cperry123;3671635]No CheezeFist, I am not a Biomedical Researcher. My background includes [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]. And at this present moment, I'm reading a number of scientific, medical and statistic articles to disprove Ho Hunter's claim of predisposition to an STI on race.[/QUOTE]I made no such claim, what I said was "studies done by the CDC [i]imply[/i] that some races [i]may[/i] be predisposed to it". Socioeconomic status likely plays a part in it as well, but the numbers are just too high for that to explain all of it. Age, sex, diet, family history, blood type, [i]and[/i] race, all play a role in susceptibility to diseases. I'm not sure why you're having such an issue with that. I hate to be the one to shatter your politically correct fantasy world, but everyone is not equal. Everyone is not the same. I'm not saying that anyone, or any race, is genetically superior to another. I'm just saying that some people are predisposed to some diseases for a variety of reasons.

Look at Lupus for example, 90% of those who have it are female. Race is also a factor with Lupus as well.

Stay safe, and happy hunting.

[QUOTE=HoHunter328;3673001]I made no such claim, what I said was "studies done by the CDC [i]imply[/i] that some races [i]may[/i] be predisposed to it". Socioeconomic status likely plays a part in it as well, but the numbers are just too high for that to explain all of it. Age, sex, diet, family history, blood type, [i]and[/i] race, all play a role in susceptibility to diseases. I'm not sure why you're having such an issue with that. I hate to be the one to shatter your politically correct fantasy world, but everyone is not equal. Everyone is not the same. I'm not saying that anyone, or any race, is genetically superior to another. I'm just saying that some people are predisposed to some diseases for a variety of reasons.

Look at Lupus for example, 90% of those who have it are female. Race is also a factor with Lupus as well.

Stay safe, and happy hunting.[/QUOTE]Yes Ho Hunter, not everyone is created equal, some just get dealt a bad hand in the game of genetics. But, reading your post #3682 you did state, ". Or it come be racial. Some races are predisposed to some diseases. " My post #3690 was a reply to that. Perhaps I could have misinterpreted what you were writing, perhaps not. But, saying the studies imply that a racial predisposition to an STI is your own conclusion, not what the CDC actually wrote in the article. And the link that you gave is quite old for statics, 2010 will be 7 years plus change, depending on the month. In fact, XBostonBoyX had a newer report than you. I read that report and I see the holes. For one, the CDC says that there are cases in which they are missing racial information ranging from 3. 8 % to 28.8% and make up anywhere from 0. 1% to 76.6% on statical error. In a statical survey, you want a less than 0. 1 % on error. Now lets just say that they never included the finders in which there was no racial information, how do we know what areas where discluded. Perhaps it was area hospital through out the country, some affluent, some imporvished. Perhaps that would make little differenc. But say, a state like Texas as a rule does not take into account race. The statical data would be extremely false. Also, whom is noting race. Is it the patient themselves or is it the medical staff. If it is medical staff human error is at play. I can testify to that in my personal life as my Sicilian grandfather's complexion was so dark, he was thought to be a black man. And there was a scientific study on race by another group specifically for predisposition entitled "Genetic Susceptibility of Infectious diseases: big is beautiful, but will bigger be even better?" The link is [URL]https://www.nbci.nlm.nih.gov[/URL]. In the report it is noted several errors which include the sample size was too small, high false discovery rate, and lack of power to interpret current and previous data.

[QUOTE=MoneyLess;3672228]This is what 's wrong with America. She's searching through number of articles to disprove Ho Hunter's claim, not to see if his point is valid or not. Everybody stick to their tunnel visions and wouldn't get out of there even if they discover they are wrong. The logic is "it's true because it's right". Close minds can't be changed even if facing obvious.

I'm not insinuating that Ho is right, I don't know enough on the topic to have an opinion here but I do know one thing, the place like CDC groups people based on their race, sex, ethnic group, hair and eye color, tits size, dick size and whatever else that separates them. It allows CDC to determine which group of people has predisposition to this type of cancer or that type of cancer and the like and channel resources accordingly. For example based on CDC data I know that Thai men with big dicks like me find it hard to racewalk so I lift weights instead. Thank you CDC! Duh!

[blue]Why did you make a new user to post this? Why didn't you use your normal account?

A2[/blue][/QUOTE]"MoneyLess", thanks for the laugh. You are extremely amusing. What's up with mentioning penis size? Need for validation perhaps? Pretty funny that you have no understanding of debate or how it works but, write a post with the problems of America and my "tunnel vision". For a scientific report to be viable it needs to be reproduced with the same finders or close to. For a statical analysis it needs to be within less than 0. 1 % error. If it can't, it is not valid. That is what scientific research is about. Duh!

[QUOTE=HoHunter328;3673001] Socioeconomic status likely plays a part in it as well [/QUOTE]So do cultural norms. Back many years ago when I was in the service we noticed racial disparities in STD cases and, being aboard a ship, had an excellent chance to do a meaningful study in males IOT see why. Most important findings were probably whether circumcised or not, overall genital hygiene and attitude regarding being infected with STDs.

[QUOTE=Cperry123;3673115]"MoneyLess", thanks for the laugh. You are extremely amusing. What's up with mentioning penis size? Need for validation perhaps? Pretty funny that you have no understanding of debate or how it works but, write a post with the problems of America and my "tunnel vision". For a scientific report to be viable it needs to be reproduced with the same finders or close to. For a statical analysis it needs to be within less than 0. 1 % error. If it can't, it is not valid. That is what scientific research is about. Duh![/QUOTE]Well, I'm sorry but dick size matters. Mine gets in the way. That's why for the likes of me racewalking is out of the question. CDC is very clear on that. It also informed me that big tits women have tendency to suffer in hot weather and as such are advised to move to Alaska.

As for you having a "tunnel vision" you couldn't have made it any clearer with this:

[QUOTE=Cperry123;3671635]And at this present moment, I'm reading a number of scientific, medical and statistic articles to disprove Ho Hunter's claim of predisposition to an STI on race.[/QUOTE]When instead of saying that you'd be looking to see if Ho's assertions have merit, you said that you're looking for articles that would cater to your preconceived notions. It's referred to as either having "closed mind" or "tunnel vision", pick your poison. There is nothing wrong with having that though. Most of the people do.

[QUOTE=MoneyLess;3673216]Well, I'm sorry but dick size matters. Mine gets in the way. That's why for the likes of me racewalking is out of the question. CDC is very clear on that. It also informed me that big tits women have tendency to suffer in hot weather and as such are advised to move to Alaska.

As for you having a "tunnel vision" you couldn't have made it any clearer with this:

When instead of saying that you'd be looking to see if Ho's assertions have merit, you said that you're looking for articles that would cater to your preconceived notions. It's referred to as either having "closed mind" or "tunnel vision", pick your poison. There is nothing wrong with having that though. Most of the people do.[/QUOTE]"MoneyLess", I seriously think you should do stand-up comedy. So, I guess I'm moving to Alaska. LOL. (Yeah, not in this lifetime). And yes, of course I want to disprove Ho Hunter. I, like every other human being has a bias. That is why in science they do a double-blind study. Also, I have no idea why penis size is such thing with you guys. I can tell you from personal experience it doesn't matter. The smallest client I had was 1 inch hard and he got me off. I've had clients that have been over 10 inches. Some have hurt and some have made me have multiple orgasms. You see, it's not the size, it's how you use it.

[QUOTE=Cperry123;3673726]"MoneyLess", I seriously think you should do stand-up comedy. So, I guess I'm moving to Alaska. LOL. (Yeah, not in this lifetime). And yes, of course I want to disprove Ho Hunter. I, like every other human being has a bias. That is why in science they do a double-blind study. Also, I have no idea why penis size is such thing with you guys. I can tell you from personal experience it doesn't matter. The smallest client I had was 1 inch hard and he got me off. I've had clients that have been over 10 inches. Some have hurt and some have made me have multiple orgasms. You see, it's not the size, it's how you use it.[/QUOTE]Thank you, Christine! You give us hope. Size-wise, I am averaged by the way, and no one ever complained. I really like this woman!