ALM> I seem to recall reading recently that the latest research
ALM> is showing about 5% of the population is immune to HIV.

BG> This is surely a guess, as I can't imagine anybody setting
BG> up a double-blind trial in an attempt to prove otherwise...

RS> You dont actually have to do a double blind on that one. Whether
RS> they are HIV+ or not is just a test result, doesnt matter a stuff
RS> if the person administering the test knows which group they are in.

BG> True enough, but...

RS> You dont even need a blind trial either, if the group that never
RS> does become HIV+ has the same behaviour rooting wise etc as the
RS> ones which did become HIV+, particularly when the vast bulk do
RS> become HIV+, its obvious there must be some reason some didnt.

BG> There's a vast difference between SUSPECTING immunity and PROVING it.

Yes, I was commenting on your bit about the need for a double blind
trial for proof. Yes, you need proof, no a double blind trial isnt the
only viable proof in that particularly situation, or a blind trial either.

RS> I was talking to one of the medicals who had been to Rwanda
RS> as part of our army medical team. Apparently the HIV+ rates
RS> are completely fucking unbelievable, 85% class rates.

BG> Which is more than twice the "official" WHO-reported rate.

Nope, you are talking about more general statistics for
Africa, he was talking about a much more limited group.

BG> Still, the Tootsies and the Hootoos needn't have bothered
BG> dulling their machetes on each other, as 10 years down
BG> the track, it'll all be rather academic anyway.

Yeah, likely some parts of africa will be atleast as bad as europe
was with the black death, just taking a hell of a lot longer.
@EOT:

---