Peter Attia· MD
and we knew that untreated uh STDs were a big reason um and that was a very important thing is the reason going back to these 16-year-old girls is the reason that the sexual heterosexual transmission was so high
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
and we knew that untreated uh STDs were a big reason um and that was a very important thing is the reason going back to these 16-year-old girls is the reason that the sexual heterosexual transmission was so high
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
we knew as soon as we got to Uganda and examined patients that this was heterosexual transmission of HIV um and we knew that untreated uh STDs were a big reason um and that was a very important thing is the reason going back to these 16-year-old girls is the reason that the sexual heterosexual transmission was so high because the viral loads were through the roof proof because today if if a person had if a male with HIV had unprotected sex with a female, it would not be that high, would it? It wouldn't be that high. No. So the the one of the really important aspects of STDs is the high frequency of herpes and shankroid really open lesions that are very very if not if not it's a one-two punch super high viral load and high viral load and transmissible. Yes. Yes. So we knew all of that.