My opinion is already noted. It basically concurs with PHE and Terrence Higgins Trust.

First of all, NAT are talking about MSM sex, not gay relationships.

Second, it is a noted issue, from the discredited US papers and the more objective research that gay relationships don't last as long as heterosexual ones, all other factors considered.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in their submission to NICE on this statistic stated that there is no evidence to suggest promiscuity is a larger or lower factor in this. There is however plenty of evidence to suggest social pressure, discrimination and acceptance by family and society at large is a factor. The promiscuity has lowered as society acceptance has increased. The somewhat explosion of HIV at the outset being the point in case. Fascinating reading. I only looked at it a few weeks ago actually, when looking for ideas of how to make representations to NICE as I am delivering one shortly on chemotherapy. The reports I have from oncologists may make the technical points (although who am I to judge) but the RCP approach to laying the points out is something I am happy to crib, or at least get someone else to crib. I am backing off over the summer, trying to slowly retire (again.)

You are quick to find anything to contradict me when I put an opinion forward Keith. I don't know your background, someone said you were a sports teacher but I don't know. However, please for once read something I wish to say seriously.

You ca find many contradictory opinions on any scientific subject and double that when it comes to healthcare. NAT, PHE, the Royal Colleges etc, all have their interest to factor into their conclusions. Their evidence base is usually sound, but conclusions from evidence are subjective. Even the implementation of them is subjective. Whilst I would wish to be totally objective when advising on priority spending and cash releasing efficiency savings (CRES) it is a fact that the political, social and situation aspects mould the actions.

Hence, and I understand if this is beyond your comprehension, information from such as NAT and THT are valuable and informed, and as a lay person I nor anyone else can argue otherwise. I have no issue whatsoever with the statistical facts, indeed I pulled you up on such matters a few weeks ago.

But selectively cutting and pasting whilst inferring that I might not agree is either stupidity or malicious. I'm too "fucking important" to lower myself to your level. If you want to keep giving credibility to bigotry, start a band with Akenaton. Your credibility won't lower I assure you, as it can't get much lower lately...







TC