Rather tedious when what you have been saying is repeated in a cut and paste, demonstrating what you have said all along, but presented to make it look like you were lying?

I give up. Forecasts, predictions and data exist in any modelling. The picture on sexual health is similar to many other health specialties, a developing agenda where the need on the ground is rarely in tune with the perceived need.

Not that any of that is relevant. Keith A Hole of Hertford has ably demonstrated that 67% of the unmet need is not of gay origin. So the less we hear of rounding up gay people in order to solve an issue that can only be partially solved by the successful interventions in place, the better.

Perverted? Not normal? Not natural? Against God's wishes? Apologise worm, or at least have the decency to be ashamed of yourself.

Out of interest, I have no agenda. I get just as frustrated over false flag incidence statistics in many other areas of health. It's just that at this point, nobody is linking cancer, diabetes or CHD to "unnatural" lifestyle that requires the rest of us to round them up and force them to undergo tests purely to have a red stamp on the record society would hold.

Sick puppy.