In response to a 400% increase in Syphilis infections in Sunderland, Durham, and Teesside, public officials have conducted a study which shows that the biggest correlation is with users of Facebook and other social networks.
According to Professor Peter Kelly, director of public health in Teesside, the biggest risk increase seems to be in young women. But for both genders, if you live in one of the three places mentioned, you are 25% more likely to use social networks than anyone else in Britain, hence the correlation.
Now Facebook won’t sneak into your room at night and inject you with Syphilis, but the data is sensible in a way: people on social networks sometimes use them to find casual sex. And unprotected casual sex is a fantastic way of getting an STD. So just think of Facebook as a vector to a vector.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
You must be proud of yourself Let's look at the original post.
People in three UK cities are 25% more likely to use social networks than the rest of Britain (not even facebook specifically).
And separately, there has been a fourfold increase in detected syphilis.
Ergo, facebook is linked to rise in syphilis? I see you just made up the teens part of your headline.
You are pathetic.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
probably why he said 'correlation' and not 'causation,' retard.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
If so confident, why completely re-write the post?
Guess what: lots of things might lead to unprotected sex. The original telegraph article is misleading enough, a bit of common sense might have flagged that it's a bit more complicated than that. Retard.
But be welcome, it's not my integrity on the line.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
This comment still doesn't address the fact that you've completely confused 'correlation' and 'causation.'
Correlation is a 'link,' but not necessarily a cause. Just like humans and chimps are linked in an evolutionary sense, but humans didn't cause chimps, and chimps didn't cause humans.
Kay? Kay.
Buy a dictionary and some latex gloves. You'll need the latter when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.
Drawing correlation between an STD and increased use of social networking has a lot of interesting connections and implications. What does it say about our society, or the way people use the social networking sites, or the way people use the internet generally? This is the sort of question social scientists are able to ask and making a blind attack and calling it simplistic is really not very helpful for anyone.
Drawing correlation between an STD and increased use of social networking has a lot of interesting connections and implications. What does it say about our society, or the way people use the social networking sites, or the way people use the internet generally? This is the sort of question social scientists are able to ask and making a blind attack and calling it simplistic is really not very helpful for anyone.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. But the fact that this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
You might have missed that my first comment was written in response to the original post – the one which has been completely re-edited. Fact is, this blog is indulging the track record UK papers like the Telegraph has with science, and clearly chasing clicks.
The correlation is incredibly weak at best. Here's another possible, but equally vague and irrelevant correlation: The population is rising. Ergo, more people have syphilis. Or how about that more people could be having irresponsible sex since the late alcohol licensing laws were introduced a few years ago.
And 'guest', you make a reasonable point till you say this is a blind attack which doesn't help – if I can convince at least one other reader not to go spreading bad science, that IS helpful. Goodnight.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
Note: my first comment was written before the article was completely overhauled.
nothing like a bunch of losers calling each other retards because they don't like what someone else has to say.
nothing like a bunch of losers calling each other retards because they don't like what someone else has to say.