Yeah, you asked for it Keith.

The full context of your misleadingly selected and clipped quotes from the HPA about AIDS deaths.

"Late HIV diagnoses, AIDS and death

In 2007 19% (499/2,679) of MSM were diagnosed after the point at which
treatment should have begun (CD4 cell count less than 200 cells per mm3), a reduction from 30% (417/1,384) seen in 1998.

Between 2003 and 2007, late diagnosis (CD4<200) was associated with a 13-fold increase in mortality within a year of diagnosis, compared to those diagnosed more promptly.

Deaths within the first year of diagnosis accounted for 18% (29/159) of all deaths among MSM in 2007. Late diagnosis is more common among older MSM and those diagnosed outside London [3].

Since 1996 new diagnoses of AIDS and deaths (from any cause) among HIV
positive individuals have remained low. In 2007, there were 193 cases of AIDS reported among MSM, of which 74% (142) were made at the same
time as their HIV diagnosis. MSM accounted for 32% (159/495) of deaths
among all HIV-infected people in 2007. The median age of death was 47,
with 57% occurring in those aged over 50."

Lie after lie upon lie with you Keith. And I was spot on when I identified this latest one even befor needing to check it out.

All because - if you're honest - you want to round 'em all up and drag 'em down the clinic.

You lie and you distort and you twist and turn to support your prejudices while claiming some sort of saintly impartiality.

Well you are busted mate.

Keep going, just you keep going.

Are you going to answer the points put to you about your other lies?

We are still waiting to hear your explanation or your withdrawal of the rumination that it is "not certain" that only a minority of MSM's are HIV+

We want to know why - on a quest for understanding the overall prevalence of MSM's living with HIV - you keep trying to distort the size of the group and try to discount large numbers of healthy people and try to count the dead as living. And you say you are not prejudiced?

We are waiting for your acceptance that the median age of death for HIV+ men is the median age to date and can't possibly tell us anything about the future, in view of the effects going forward of treatment which is giving people diagnosed today, a normal life expectancy.

If Kevin de Cock and I were so stupid as to think that sexual networks - all other factors being equal - were the most important determinators of HIV risk, then how do you explain that for gay men in the UK, the biggest differentiator of HIV prevalence is where you happen to live?