Loading...

資料庫

時代講場文章(至2017年2月14日)

研究、數位與詮釋──回應黃國棟醫生〈同性戀與感染HIV的風險:流行病學分析〉

作者電郵:alexchow@vip.163.com

不知大家有沒有留意一個洗髮水的廣告:經實驗證明XX洗髮水有效減少頭皮十倍!不知是在下的中文程度有問題,或是現代的資訊語言進入一個新紀元。但反映一個現象,大家對這些專家式的言論,已經進入了盲目接收的程度。

在科學世界,追求實驗證據、研究結果是現代文明進步帶來的正確態度;問題是過分相信專家、研究報告,卻使我們容易被所謂的科學利用和矇騙。在聽專家之言、看研究報告的同時,必須知道專家、研究機構的背後立場、公信力,研究的物件數量是否足夠支持立論(Sample size)。筆者曾經聽過喝咖啡能減少心臟病、吃雞蛋不會增加膽固醇—前者是咖啡商支持的研究,後者是雞蛋商。還有,美國一家奶粉公司為推銷加了鐵質的奶粉,在貧民區裡找孩子做調查來證明美國的嬰孩缺乏鐵質。

由獨立的學術機構(如大學、科學研究院)提供的調查結果比較有公信力,政府機關(如:醫院、化驗所等)提供的資料也比較中立和客觀。但是,得到中立的資料如何詮釋又是另一個問題,詮釋者有沒有自己相信的前設立場?雖然詮釋學告訴我們沒有完全中立或沒有受主觀因素影響的詮釋方法,但作為沒有多少科學訓練的普羅大眾必須擦亮眼睛,過濾專家之言。

眾所周知,男男性行為感染愛滋病病毒的比率比男女性行為的比率為高,這是根據政府機關提供的實際感染資料,加上男同性戀與人口的比例得出來,是沒有花巧的,也是可以作為結論的說法。黃國棟醫生在上述文章提出他本人對同性戀與感染HIV的風險資料作自己個人的詮釋,本來並沒有大問題,因為這類詮釋比比皆是,問題是黃醫生在文末的一句「作為這方面的專科醫生,希望這文章可以澄清一些錯誤的觀點,也希望各方能夠尊重科學」,卻值得我們討論。

黃醫生認為「如果一百個人雜交,但是這一百個人開始時都沒有帶病毒,只要沒有外人加入,當中也沒有人從其他方面受到感染(注射毒品、輸血),這群人還是安全的。」、「男同性戀者HIV 感染率高是不爭的事實,不過這未必是因為肛交本身有甚麼特別危險。」似乎黃醫生忽略了病毒的基因突變和肛交的發生場所是一個充滿細菌而沒有免疫能力的直腸。肛交引起肛裂和直腸受傷的機率比男女陰道性交受傷的機率較高、成熟的女性子宮頸的分泌液有殺菌作用是一般婦科醫生都知道的常識。黃醫生用自己都認為資料不足(五百對)的男女伴侶中男傳女、女傳男感染相似的機會率來推論肛交不比陰道性交危險,是否有過分詮釋之謙?

提到男同性戀者生活方式的問題,男同性戀者濫交的情況普遍是統計的結果;但黃醫生詮釋為「但是從社會學和心理學的角度,也可以說這只是主流社會排斥的必然後果。他們不能建立長期的忠實關係,就唯有不斷轉變伴侶。他們會說,讓他們建立正常關係,HIV感染率自然會下降。」這個論點如果要得到證明,要在一個完全接納、不排斥同性戀和接納同性婚姻的國家或地區進行,或近似這類的國家或地區進行,調查他們的忠貞程度才能作準。退一步,訪問一定數量男同性戀者,調查他們受排斥的感受與性濫交的比率,或諮詢他們若處身在一個完全不排斥同性戀關係的地方,他們會不會忠於伴侶。若果沒有類似或更科學的資料支持 ,黃醫生的論點極其量是一個推測。但黃醫生用「必然後果」、「唯有……」和「自然會下降」來立論,似乎又是他個人的詮釋。

黃醫生說「最初HIV可能只是『碰巧』在同性戀者身上出現」,筆者不知是否「碰巧」?但黃醫生明明在開始時說「如果一百個人雜交,但是這一百個人開始時都沒有帶病毒,只要沒有外人加入,當中也沒有人從其他方面受到感染(注射毒品、輸血),這群人還是安全的。」嗎?為何只「碰巧」在男男性行為出現,而不在超過億萬對的男女性關係出現?筆者沒有多少科學知識,但也看出黃醫生的邏輯出了問題。

筆者無意懷疑黃醫生的動機和專業分析,畢竟每一個人都有自己支持的論點和發表權利;作為一個普羅市民,希望這文章可以澄清一些錯誤的觀點,也希望各方能夠尊重科學。

http://www.christiantimes.org.hk,時代論壇時代講場,2009.4.3)

Donationcall

舊回應32則


虞瑋倩 / 2009-04-13 19:40:41

RE: Knock it off 探討 {會員編號: 1629}


Your chain of long-winded questions, distracting proses, and unfocused comments did nothing to help reader to gain perspective in the issue: i.e. if anal sex is inherently more risky in terms of transmitting HIV.


Dr. Gordon Wong has been very patient with you, but he now realizing your tricks.


You just pick on a word or phase in Dr. Wong's reply and started to drive around in circles, dazzle with long prose in the attempt to move goal posts, creating Red Herring and try to show Dr. Wong is mistaken.


The whole of your act boils down to two things


(1) You want to establish that anal sex is **the** most high risk of sexual intercourse means (so you introduces the idea of tearing of anal canal, secretion etc.) and then do a slip in concept to show people at anal sex is bad


(2) You want to establish that anal sex is the most dangerous because it spreads HIV easier that other


Yet Dr. Wong has emphasis that there is NO truly solid evidence produced by any study available to substantiate claims by STL on anal sex in spreadng HIV (i.e being the most risk, single cause and therefore immoral)


It is very easy to detect the subtle shift of subject and messaging of the logic, but your constant nagging, long proses (unfocused, disjoint, vapid etc.) is just another perfect demo of Christian Right -- unable to conduct an honest, open and intellectual dialogue with the aim to gain understanding -- instead your long prose, questions serves your ideology and agenda only.


Listen to Mr. Cheung's advice and knock it off - or if you have some mental disease, get help.

探討 / 2009-04-13 08:29:22

Supplement


For supplement, it is noted that the board members of 愛滋病基金會as shown in  http://www.aids.org.hk/big5/01/1_3_2.html include 梁智鴻醫生and 李頌基醫生. And as Doctor Leung Che Hung is Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, it shall be reasonable to believe that the information of “肛門彈性較弱,在肛交的過程中容易因為磨擦而令到肛門、直腸或性器官出現破損would just  be a kind of  biological or surgical text book’s common knowledge. Thus if Doctor Wong knows from  other biological and surgical findings that this information is false, it shall be simple just to point this out; yet Doctor Wong has not ever directly refuted this information. But even if the correctness of this information can be refuted, I think Doctor Wong still has to deal with the secretion question. As the ‘lack of secretion in anal and rectum for sexual acts in comparison with presence of such secretion in vagina for sexual acts’ is also the common knowledge of the general public, Doctor Wong may need to further prove that this knowledge is wrong. As otherwise, it shall then be just a simple logic that ‘unprotected anal sex is more risky than unprotected vaginal sex in HIV transmission if one of the sex partners has carried HIV’ because the relatively lack of secretion in anal and rectum can make tear and injury relatively easy than in vagina. Thus, the crucial point of the argument, I think, shall be simply lying on the ‘biological and surgical study’ on both the elasticity and secretion in anal, rectum and vagina, instead of on the not actually relevant ‘statistical study’ (the irrelevance of the Uganda project's data for a study of  this issue has explained in my last sharing) and then making null hypothesis conclusion.


(Concerning how to use the Medline, I just learnt it from Doctor Wong’s guidance. But still neither have I found the relevant peer-reviewed articles or reports Doctor Wong said that they can be of support to his points, nor Doctor Wong has provided the links of such articles or reports.)

虞瑋倩 / 2009-04-13 04:45:31

RE﹕鞍山無名


你問妖言惑眾是誰﹐好似黃國棟﹑張國棟已經給了答案 -- 我的說話你一定基於信仰立場﹑看也不看就會拒絕﹐他們都是福音派信徒﹐黃國棟且是“苗正根紅”﹐返恩福堂10年﹐美國仍然是播道會會友﹐張國棟都係﹐兩人專業學歷﹑討論方法態度是你應該學習的﹐他們的答案也應該是基督徒要好好思考的。


 

張國棟 / 2009-04-13 00:28:54

回應文章

我回應方、鄒二人的文章已刊登了,這裡

鞍山無名 / 2009-04-11 08:32:46

多謝虞小姐和Gordon Wong對極右反智言論的監察和提醒

多謝虞小姐和Gordon Wong對極右反智言論的監察和提醒.  但是究竟是誰在妖言惑眾?

Gordon Wong / 2009-04-11 04:16:17

探討的把戲

本來說過不再回應的,但是既然你要指控我,我就有需要讓其他讀者清楚你在玩什麼把戲。

你從開始的問題,就是希望在雞蛋中挑骨頭,本來我絕對願意 defense 我自己的研究。但是,這需要在大家都光明正大的情況下進行。你問題我的背景,我堂堂正正的回答了你,現在也讓我要求你列出你的學歷和工作背景吧!

最初的時候,你扮對問題無知,問 SIV、HIV 怎樣從動物傳到人身上、引某一些荒謬網站的廢話等,讓人覺得你好像真的想問問題,慢慢的,就一步一步的想引我入陷阱。

Relative Risk 是個醫學界獨有的概念,你說 I all along know what relative risk means。如果你識 relative risk 是什麼,你會不識用 Medline, 要問我怎樣用?你會不知 null hypothesis 必定是 no difference?你會不知科學上 reject null hypothesis 的標準是什麼?

這種手段明光社等早已用過了!


探討 / 2009-04-10 21:28:54

Re Medline and Uganda project's study (2)


Doctor Wong, I think I need to honestly tell that I really do not appreciate such simplified, colored and hostile dichotomy thinking as ‘if you had not ever said something against certain party, you are then for this party, or you are then affiliated with this party. Besides, such dichotomy would just sidetrack the discussion making.


Firstly, let me declare according to your doubt that I am not affiliated with True Light Society, and I am just a neutral and independent explorer on any issue.


Secondly, I would like to share that ‘study’ and ‘statistical study’ are not exactly the same thing. A ‘statistical study’ is a kind of study, but a ‘study’ is not necessarily a ‘statistical study’. From a neutral explorer’s point of view, when I read from  government-sponsored body 愛滋基金會 such information as 所有性行為均不是百分之百的機會傳染愛滋病病毒,然而肛交在性行為模式中是屬於較高風險的一種,原因是肛交是抽插式的性行為,而肛門彈性較弱,在肛交的過程中容易因為磨擦而令到肛門、直腸或性器官出現破損,構成感染愛滋病病毒的條件(and this information is explicitly referring to the situation that one of the sex partners has carried HIV, and not referring to situation that none of the two parties has carried HIV), I as one of the general public would reasonably regard the ‘肛門彈性較弱,在肛交的過程中容易因為磨擦而令到肛門、直腸或性器官出現破損’ statement as just a kind of biological and surgical text book’s common knowledge, in the absence of  biological or medical opinion obtained to the contrary. In fact whether this statement is true or false should not be difficult to test and find out by biologist etc. If Doctor Wong knows from the biological and surgical text book that this statement is false, it should then be simple just to point this out to the readers plainly. But you have not ever directly refuted this. However, even if the correctness of this statement can be refuted, Doctor Wong still has to deal with the secretion question. As the ‘lack of secretion in anal and rectum for sexual acts in comparison with presence of such secretion in vagina for sexual acts’ is also the common knowledge of the general public, Doctor Wong may need to further prove that this knowledge is wrong. Otherwise, it shall be a simple logic that ‘unprotected anal sex is more risky than unprotected vaginal sex in HIV transmission if one of the sex partners has carried HIV’ because the relatively lack of secretion in anal and rectum can make tear and injury relatively easy than in vagina. Thus, the crucial point of the argument, I think, shall be lying on the ‘biological and surgical study’ on both the elasticity and secretion in anal, rectum and vagina , instead of on the not actually relevant ‘statistical study’ and then making null hypothesis conclusion 


Thirdly, concerning the Uganda project, the data indeed have given no transmission rates between ‘unprotected male-to-female vaginal intercourse’ and ‘unprotected male-to-female anal intercourse’, and also has given no information about the approximate proportion of these two kind of intercourses in the sampled group . Hence this project cannot be of a study about whether “tear and injury” would be more easily happen “in rectum and anal during unprotected anal intercourse” than “in vagina during unprotected vaginal intercourse”. A further noting point is that should your conclusion that ‘“tear and injury” cannot cause an increase in relative risk of HIV transmission between unprotected anal intercourse and unprotected vaginal intercourse be sustainable by this project’s statistics, the Uganda project may also have it in its official conclusions. But actually neither the Uganda project had made such opinion in its conclusions, nor had any physician made such interpretation. Once again I would opine that this issue should just be of a kind of making ‘biological and surgical study’ on both the elasticity and secretion in anal, rectum and vagina , instead of a kind of making irrelevant ‘statistical study’ and then making null hypothesis conclusion.


Fourthly, I feel very sorry in seeing your saying that I am trying to trap you. I have not ever made any trap for you. What I have done is actually just firstly asking more in-depth information and analyses from you, which are all necessary for my independent thinking and analyses, and then make discussion with you about my different thinking and analyses. I do not know what trap(s) of me you are referring to. Do you mean the Medline articles? If so, let me clarify that I all along do want to read the peer-reviewed articles or reports you said that they can be of support to your view. But up to now you have not given out the links of these articles or report form the Medline. I had not ever given you any trap; rather I now feel that you have given me and other readers garden-strolling.

Gordon Wong / 2009-04-10 14:10:24

To: 探討

I just want to make one last comment.

In ANY scientific hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis has to be "there is no difference" between two groups, and the alternate hypothesis be "there is a statistically significant difference".

So if anyone wants to argue that anal sex is unsafe, he/she MUST offer evidence (i.e. statistically significant studies) to prove that there is indeed a difference (at 95% confidence level). Failing to do that, one must not reject the null hypothesis (i.e. no difference)

You too now admit that there is no study rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between anal sex and vaginal sex in terms of HIV transmission. So my conclusion is 100% accurate from well established scientific principle.

Looking back, now I think that I should only say "沒有證據證明肛交比陰道交更危險", the next statement "但是也沒有證據證明沒有增加風險" is not needed. May be subconsciously I was trying not to too upset those who insist that anal sex is unsafe. From a strict scientific perspective, there is no need to offer any evidence to support this conclusion. The null hypothesis always stands until rejected.

As with the Uganda data, keep in mind that tear and injury occur during vaginal intercourse (to the female) as well as anal intercourse. The male sex organ is much less likely to suffer tear and injury during intercourse. So if this causes an increase in relative risk, the male-to-female rate will be higher.

Anyway, since the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, this tear and injury discussion is only intended to refute the common belief that tear and injury will increase the chance of HIV transmission.

I have tried very hard to give you due respect. But since you never denied your affiliation with True Light Society, as accused by Miss Yu, and your style of trying to trap me does suggest that you belong to them, I will end my discussion here.

The bottom line is that now even you agree that the null hypothesis "there is no increase in risk in anal sex for HIV transmission" cannot be rejected based on scientific standard.

虞瑋倩 / 2009-04-10 13:39:26

如果這裡包括探討﹑鞍山無名等是想替明光社陣營那些違背科學事實的手法辯護


如果這裡包括探討﹑鞍山無名等是想替明光社陣營那些違背科學事實的手法辯護的話﹐我相信你們會失望。


明光社陣營﹐正如黃國棟所講﹐是不斷說肛交在引起HIV上屬於高風險行為﹐而黃國棟所知道﹐根本明光社這個聲稱是沒有根據。


探討等採取 negative argument﹐說也沒有證據證明陰道的性交比肛交在引起HIV的風險高﹑或者 (或者根本沒有比較)﹐但其實他們不可以因為沒有證據顯示肛交在引起HIV上是低風險﹐就 by default 肛交在引起HIV上屬於高風險 ==> 科學是 evidence based﹐一日沒有 conclusive evidence﹐明光社陣營確實不可以宣稱肛交和引起HIV上的高風險是有直接關係。


當然﹐如果要鞍山無名﹑探討等去嚴格地按照科學精神去做﹐就等於要他們反對明光社這個正統﹐要明光社放棄那個宣稱﹐等於就沒有了一件可以動員教會信徒(恐慌)的武器 -- 只要看出他們根據立場的思考模式﹐就不難明白為何他們看見黃國棟說那些話顯示“只要那個同性戀群體從來沒有人有HIV﹑肛交就不會引起HIV”對鞍山無名﹑探討﹑鄒賢程﹑方圓是多麼刺眼。


如果真的出現一個HIV free 的同性戀群體﹐我相信好似鞍山無名﹑探討﹑鄒賢程﹑方圓這樣的基督徒﹐會不擇手段﹑千方百計去令這個群體受HIV感染 (打毒針都做得出)。


 


 

探討 / 2009-04-10 12:44:09

Re Medline and Uganda project's study


Doctor Wong, thanks for your further information. I all along know what relative risk means, and there is why in the issue of ‘whether anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex’ (which I previously did not regard it would be an issue) I am quite surprised to note your saying that ‘沒有證據證明肛交比陰道交更危險,但是也沒有證據證明沒有增加風險.


I have made the search on www.pubmed.gov typing keywords: " relative risk anal sex hiv transmission " and choosing “Abstract”, there are 528 findings (as of today). I have read the first 50 abstracts, but find none of them relevant to the comparison of risk of HIV transmission between unprotected anal sex and unprotected vaginal sex. I think you should be right to just say as in your last reply that there is lack of (statistical) study in this area. As there is no or lack of (statistical) study in such comparison, there shall then be no of lack of such (statisticaldata or evidence. I think many readers of your article may interpret your meaning of the saying ‘there is no (statistical) evidence proving (unprotected) anal sex will increase the risk of HIV transmission when compared to (unprotected) vaginal sex as your opinion that unprotected anal sex is just of same risk as unprotected vaginal sex in respect of HIV transmission. So the crucial point I (or other readers) need to firstly make sure is that whether the latter is your opinion, or whether your opinion is just that there is no (statistical) study and hence no (statistical) data/evidence in such comparison, but you are not concluding unprotected anal sex is just of same risk as unprotected vaginal sex.

Secondly, concerning the Uganda project which gives the result that “male-to-female HIV transmission rate is similar to the female-to-male HIV transmission rate” in heterosexual sexuality, you conclude thereof that ‘"tear and injury" cannot cause an increase in relative risk of HIV transmission between (unprotected) anal sex and (unprotected) vaginal sex’ (as you opine that, if this is the case, the male-to-female rate would be higher than female-to-male rate, since females are more likely to have tear and injury). I could just humbly wonder whether your conclusion thereof can be appropriate, because it appears that the Uganda project has made no comparison of HIV transmission rate between ‘unprotected male-to-female anal sex’ and ‘unprotected male-to-female vaginal sex’, and hence this project cannot be of a study about whether “tear and injury” would be more easily happen “in rectum and anal during unprotected anal sex” than “in vagina during unprotected vaginal sex”. A further hesitation is that, should your conclusion that ‘“tear and injury” cannot cause an increase in relative risk of HIV transmission between unprotected anal sex and unprotected vaginal sex’ be sustainable by this project’s statistics, the Uganda project may also have it in its official conclusions. But it appears that neither the Uganda project had made such opinion in its conclusions, nor any physicians have made such interpretation. Is there any misunderstanding or misthinking on this I need to rectify. I am always willing to keep open mind indeed.

Gordon Wong / 2009-04-10 09:48:55

Medline!

In Medline, try the keywords:
"relative risk anal sex hiv transmission"

The important words are "Relative Risk" (if you don't know what "relative risk" is, then there is no sense for further discussion. -- The question is whether anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex, so "relative risk" is the critical term.

Now you will see there are only 256 articles! (As of April 9 2009) This already tells you that there really is not much study in the area.

From this point on, there is no easy way. You need to go through abstracts of each article to see if it is relevant. My conclusion that "there is no evidence proving anal sex increases the risk of HIV transmission when compared to vaginal sex" is based on a review of these articles and the lack of study in this area.

Of course, I could have missed some articles. But the Medline search engine works just like Google, i.e. the most relevant articles will appear first. So that's highly unlikely that there is any important article that I have missed.

(Besides, as a board certified specialist, I would have definitely come across such studies during my training and work)

I then turned to the two articles on the Uganda project (listed in my original article). Based on the fact that the male-to-female transmission rate having no difference from female-to-male transmission rate, I made the conclusion based on biology and pathology that "tear and injury" cannot cause an increase in relative risk. (If this is the case, the male-to-female rate would be higher than female-to-male rate, since females are more likely to have tear and injury)

(Please keep in mind that I don't have time to teach Medical Literature review over the internet. And this is not a topic that can be covered in distance learning! If you are interested in doing epidemiology work, go get an MPH from Chinese U or HKU. Or Johns Hopkins offers there MPH program via the internet!)

Please notice how I approach this type of questions when compared to True Light Society et al.: As a scientist, I am an evidence based person. I will not twist facts to promote an agenda. I never argued that homosexuals have same risk than heterosexuals. That's very different from saying that the relative risk of anal sex is not different from 1.

探討 / 2009-04-10 09:30:05

To Gordon Wong


Doctor Wong, thanks for your information. You have a very impressive resume indeed, especially relative to me. Hope that I can learn what I should learn from you. But please don’t mind if I honestly have not understood or agreed to certain point of you. And please don’t mind that my way of learning by sometimes asking more in-depth questions.


I make searching on www.pubmed.gov according to your previous guidance to me on the opinion column of on 〈同戀與感染HIV的風險:流行病學分析〉. I input ‘anal sex, .HIV’ in order to find whether there is any peer-reviewed reports or articles that can support your opinion about沒有證據證明肛交比陰道交更危險,但是也沒有證據證明沒有增加風險. But there are 17686 available articles under such search and I have not yet located out the relevant supporting reports or articles. Would you kindly give me (and also other readers) the links of such supporting reports or articles (if any)?  

Gordon Wong / 2009-04-10 07:03:17

To 探討

Your way of asking questions in the past makes me suspicious. However, it is always my belief that I need to talk straight to both my friends and critics. I hope that by being honest and open, I can win someone back from the dark side.

My good friend and colleague Dr. Alex Yu and I wrote an article sometime back criticizing those Christians who use fake degrees. So I am very caution about not misleading people about my academic and professional background.

I have 5 degrees:
B.S. Quantitative Analysis from U. of Arkansas.
Ph.D. Management (Information Systems major and Management Science minor) from UCLA
M.D. (Doctor of Medicine ) from St. Louis U.
M.P.H. (Master in Public Health) from St. Louis U.
J.D. (Juris Doctor) from Kaplan U.

I am a licensed physician in California and Missouri, and a licensed attorney in California. I am board certified (i.e. a specialist) in Preventive Medicine and Public Health in the U.S.

I was a Senior Lecturer at City Poly (before they became City U. and Senior Lecturer became Associate Professor). I am still an Adjunct Associate Professor in Medicine at St. Louis U. School of Medicine.

I passed the California Bar exam last year. According to HK Law Society regulation, I will be qualified to take the HK Solicitor exam 2 years after passing the bar in another common law jurisdiction. i.e. If I want to, I can take the exam next year.

I have taken courses in seminaries, but have not received any theology degree. (Haven't ruled out doing that in the future. My next degree will either be a theology degree or an LLM)

I have taught a course called "Healthcare Topics for Pastors" for a seminary in the U.S. I have been asked to consider teaching that again and another course called "Legal Topics for Pastors" to D.Min. students.

I worked many years in administrative medicine (medical informatics) for a very large medical insurance company. Now I am in private practice doing primary care, but still work part-time in administrative medicine (medical informatics).

I am not showing you these qualifications to impress you. Nor I have nothing better to do that I want to spend time on line arguing with die-hard rightwingers. I get myself involved in this debate because I saw first hand what a group of rightwingers had done to destroy the church and the society in the U.S. Once this anti-intellectual culture takes root, the church will become tools of the corrupted. I love the church, that's why I feel it is necessary to speak up.

As a minority living in the U.S., especially in the conservative Midwest in the past 15 years, I also witness first-hand the importance of protecting fundamental civil and human rights of everyone, whether we agree with their position or not. Only when we protect the rights of everyone, our own rights will be protected.

Look forward to reading your writing. As I keep emphasizing, I respect everyone's right to uphold certain values. But you must not lie or mislead in order to promote your agenda. What True Light Society el at. does now is the most un-Christian thing.

探討 / 2009-04-10 00:47:46

題外話


黃醫生,你是執業醫生,早前知道你明年將會開始考香港的執業律師試,現在又知道你正考慮是否接受美國一華人神學院的邀請作客教授,真是殊不簡單。很想知道你若接受作該神學院客教授的話,是將會教哪()科目呢?你以前是否也曾在神學院修讀,及在神學院完成了甚麼課程呢?


(另外,我在你早前寫的〈同性戀與感染HIV的風險:流行病學分析〉一文之意見欄的回應,確是想藉Ask and Learn的方法去更加深入地探討和細思這課題的,及我將會另寫文章再整合一下我對這課題的見解,但並不是衝著你的文章或回應你的文章而寫的,及希望到時能得到你友善的交流,雖然我或會不配。)

虞瑋倩 / 2009-04-09 20:51:13

鞍山無名不必狡辯


你話我可以查閱我以前的文章,我沒有這樣做,或者做了卻故意扭曲事實,這便不是「無知或疏忽(negligence)」,而是「惡意(malice)」.


你有沒有查過去黃國棟的言論﹐根本沒有分別﹐你仍然是中傷﹑譭謗了他。



 


我可以向我屈你是讚成同志性行為而深表遺憾, 因你最近的言論, 和回應, 給我的印象是讚成同志性行為的.  現在你話不是, 就不是.  有什麼問題?  我不給你自辯, 反拼命宣傳Wong xx 是同志就真的中傷了你.  但我沒有這樣說過.  二元方法是你們愛用的技倆, 為我一用就是死罪.  你澄清了就非常好, 我也不是不斷被屈?   然而我更不明白了, 從我個人看來, 你處處為同性性行為辯護 (若否, 請指明不是), 為的是什麼呢?  你不同意同性婚姻, 更不同意明光社等又是指什麼研究呢?


說錯了﹐道歉都要諸多理由推搪﹐現在還捏造事實說人家用“二元方法”(唔知道你又是否懂得二元方法是什麼)。


請問﹐指出肛交不是導致HIV散佈的必然因素為何等同為同性性行為辯護﹖(註﹕肛交也是屬於異性戀性行為)


請問黃國棟那句為他們行為辯護﹖


你不要要求人家指出來﹐你既然講得出﹐你有絕對的舉證責任 -- 這裡不是你教會可以隨口UP唔需要負責﹐講任何指控你要給證據﹐這是討論必須的。


你如果懶蒐集證據﹑懶去查證﹐勸你只是講你確實知道而不是憑印象/感覺那些 -- 因為言論清楚顯示你的印象/感覺等都好混亂 (否則你為何會誣蔑黃國棟﹖)

鞍山無名 / 2009-04-09 13:34:10

不要那麼勞氣


你話我可以查閱我以前的文章,我沒有這樣做,或者做了卻故意扭曲事實,這便不是「無知或疏忽(negligence)」,而是「惡意(malice)」.


我可以向我屈你是讚成同志性行為而深表遺憾, 因你最近的言論, 和回應, 給我的印象是讚成同志性行為的.  現在你話不是, 就不是.  有什麼問題?  我不給你自辯, 反拼命宣傳Wong xx 是同志就真的中傷了你.  但我沒有這樣說過.  二元方法是你們愛用的技倆, 為我一用就是死罪.  你澄清了就非常好, 我也不是不斷被屈?   然而我更不明白了, 從我個人看來, 你處處為同性性行為辯護 (若否, 請指明不是), 為的是什麼呢?  你不同意同性婚姻, 更不同意明光社等又是指什麼研究呢?

Gordon Wong / 2009-04-09 00:32:18

教你什麼是法律上的譭謗吧

唉,這就是典型的 he doesn't know what he doesn't know。就讓我再教一次法律吧。

1。過去五六年,我公開發表過幾十篇文章,我反對同性婚姻(但是更反對明光社的反智和謊言)的立場清清楚楚。

2。說我支持同性婚姻,就是發表錯誤資料。

3。你既然可以貼文,就是說你可以查閱我以前的文章,你沒有這樣做,或者做了卻故意扭曲事實,這便不是「無知或疏忽(negligence)」,而是「惡意(malice)」

4。你的惡意行為令到我有損失,所以就是誹謗。

我有什麼損失?可以告訴你其中一樣﹕美國有一華人神學院現在正邀請我做他們的客席教授,如果我支持同性婚姻,他們就一定不會讓我教,這是實際損失,很容易證明的,我叫他們寫封信說明不會請支持同性婚姻的教授,就足夠了。

上面絕對符合了誹謗的法律要求。


鞍山無名 / 2009-04-08 16:39:30

我譭謗什麼了?

我想我也要讀法律保護自己了.  再者, 我沒試過玩分身, 請不要誹謗我.

虞瑋倩 / 2009-04-07 09:05:51

鞍山無名之流


多謝時代論壇採取了新做法﹐每個人都顯示會員編號﹐等鞍山無名之流不能夠好似在討論區玩分身變成第二個人來重新再玩。


不過要他向黃國棟先生道歉﹑收回言論﹐恐怕以他們宗教右派的死要面子﹐他寧願死都不道歉。


黃國棟也不用太早放生他﹐等他日日提心吊膽到復活節後也不錯哪

Gordon Wong / 2009-04-07 01:53:54

鞍山無名的譭謗

我不想太難為這位鞍山無名君,令他提心吊膽。如果他明白表達自己的信念,與胡言亂語、亂扣帽子是完全不同,我就只當他這次是無知。我尊重任何人的言論自由,並不是要他收聲。和我意見不同,甚至罵我,都沒有關係,「事實上的錯誤」才是我不會容忍的。

不過他不要以為我是怕麻煩,明年我就可以考香港的律師執業試,到時還可以提出訴訟的。