[fwdude]

I'm not officially a statistician, but wouldn't it be true that the RATE has nothing to do with the size of the sample? In other words, if you test 100 homosexuals or 1 million, wouldn't the rate remain relatively stable in this group?

If the rate is going up, doesn't that suggest another factor affecting it? If you're testing MORE homosexuals for STD's, and it's a relatively healthy population as they claim, just as healthy as the general population, then more tests would DILUTE the bad statistics showing higher rates of infection. Am I in error here?

[mewzilla]

Here’s an abstract for the study...

https://eacs2025.abstractserver.com/program/#/details/presentations/685

Looks like the study is on the increase in cases of bacterial STIs.

And claims that’s do to testing.

Note this bit...

“Regardless of the period, more frequent annual STI screening was associated with younger age, reporting >10 sexual partners and inconsistent condom use.”

Wanna bet they didn’t control for those?

[Larry Lucido]

That would seem to me to be the case, but it's been 45 years since I took a statistics class and read this book:

[Dan Zachary]

Numbers can prove whatever you want them to. I love reminding my daughter that I was 22 times her age when she was one year old. Now she is more than half my age. If she keeps this up, then soon she will be older than me.