You did the calcualtions for what? I suspect an anencephalic fetus has a better grasp of langauge than you.<quoted text>
I'm not buying it.
My parents & my parent's parents were all heterosexuals, & so am I. If the 90% is true, then I wouldn't even exist.
If 90% of us heteros were truly contaminated with the virus, then we would have already known about it. You fudge packers have the highest risk of HIV than any other group. I did the calculations & if such a case were true, we would have a worldwide epidemic. But since there isn't a worldwide AIDS epidemic, then the straight community must be doing fine. So who do you think you're trying to fool?
Show me where the 90% came from. Show me where the samples were taken & show me where the standard deviation of AIDS-contaminated heterosexuals stand compared to the amount of AIDS cases related with homosexuals, then we'll talk.
The statement wasn't that 90% of heterosexuals were infected, it was that 90% of HIV infected people are heterosexual. There is a difference and I'll try to explain it to you.
Lets say for example that you have a room with 1000 people. In this room there are 100 gay men and 900 straight men. There are also 50 people infected with HIV in the room. If I tell you that 90% of the people infected with HIV in this room are straight, give us the number of straight men in the room that are infected with HIV. I'll give you a hint, the number is nowhere near 810.
Learn to read.