Keith, you say I am like Canute, after that Lear-esque outburst which included

"De Cock, head of the AIDS Department of WHO said that there is no risk to our heterosexual community.

He did not say that. You wish that he said that. He actually said that he does not believe there will be an African-style pandemic in Europe or America. That is not to say "no risk tio straight people"

And your rant included:

"There is no threat to our heterosexual community" which is just your stupid comment. Nobody can possibly take that seriously.

You see, Keith, we all agree with WHO and UNAIDS. No dispute at all. It's just that you have tried to twist their work to prove an agenda that you kept hidden until yesterday.

Your agenda is that you fervently believe that gay men and black people are dirty and bring HIV on themselves in ways that decent, white, straight people do not.

WHO and UNAIDS do not support your view. They assert that views of that sort are part of the HIV problem.

Let's look at UNAIDS, shall we?

http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2009/20091124_FS_nawce_en.pdf

Where the majority of HIV cases (53%) in Central Europe were heterosexually transmitted. Central Europe (I have travelled there extensively) has little or no immigration. You certainly won't see Africans there. So what's happening?

The report also singles out the UK, France and USA for having the largest proportions of undiagnosed heterosexual carriers - Ake, we'd better start that compulsory testing with you, hadn't we?

Don't come back here and whittle away at all the numbers on Africans and Gay men, all the numbers are agreed and accepted. What matters is your beliefs about WHY these groups are so affected by this disease.

de Cock said - and I explained in more detail why this is true - that what defines the epidemic-affected groups is sexual networks - small, confined sexual networks that propagate the disease so effectively. It is not behaviour that defines those affected as being apart from those unaffected, becasue the other STI data shows that all demographic groups are pretty poor with their sexual hygiene in our part of the world.

You have confessed your beliefs, and there is not much more to be said on the subject. This has now boiled down to your fundamental beliefs, which others do not share. Numbers, now, are pointless.

People will be less inclined to accept your neutrality in future, that is a good thing. Me, I have never claimed neutrality or impartiality. That is why I argue my belief, explain my personal justifications and any external support I think I have, then leave people to make their own minds up.