>> significant, is not all that good - certainly not enough to rate >> "very effective". Perhaps I'm just behind the times, [...] > I call the claimed 60% better chances of not attracting a disease > very effective.
60%? I don't know that _I_ would call that "very effective", but I do think it's defensible wording for that level of effectiveness. However, I wasn't talking about what the article claimed, but what I recalled from other reading about the "circumcision inhibits AIDS" thing. > Here is a better URL: http://www.nydailynews.com/[...] If that reporting is actually right, then it was my memory flaking out. Perhaps it's just been too long since I read anything on it. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
