BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 12:53 AM

'Guest'(one or the other').......
"This is from your article, fourth paragraph, second sentence:"In this article, consideration is given to the manner through which discrimination and homophobia, which may have been heightened because of the AIDS epidemic."

The key words(in caps):
"In this article, CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN to the manner through which discrimination and homophobia, which MAY have been heightened because of the AIDS epidemic"

Two things that set the flags up, when I've seen these types of 'theories', 'May' denotes a possibility, so it would be somewhat foolish to automatically take this as FACT, and it wants to set forth the notion, that the actual 'doer' of the deed is not responsible for their actions.

All be it, the article did bring out some actual fact based stats, which should be considered.
There IS a problem though with trying to blame it even partially, on someone else.
(BTW, the fact that there is a deflection of responsibility, happens to be consistent with what IS clinically known about the psyche of homosexuals.)
Nonetheless, the article DOES address the spread of HIV/AIDS.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 07:52 PM

Discrimination and homophobia fuel the HIV epidemic in gay and bisexual men 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 07:05 PM

IN the US, 75% of new syphilis infections were amongst MSM.

•In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM and 12% among MSM overall.


Epidemic?....What epidemic?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 06:41 PM

The Office of National Statistics estimate the percentage of homosexuals(male and female), in the UK at 1.5%
This converts to 750,000 in real numbers.....of that figure around 400,000 are MSM, the remainder being female.

PHE(HPA) estimate the number of MSM living with HIV in the UK, as 41000.
This converts to 1 in 10 of the MSM demographic carrying the HIV virus.

This is an epidemic in any ones language, but no matter how you try to avoid the issue, there is a very serious problem of sexual health amongst male homosexuals.

Any one who suggests otherwise is either a fool, or even worse, wilfully lying.
HIV/AIDS, is not just a manageable illness like flu or the common cold, if not diagnosed very quickly, it is almost always terminal and even when diagnosed early it always means a lifetime of heavy medication and who knows what long term damage to internal organs, or brain function. It is an extremely serious condition affecting MSM at rates that, if they pertained to heterosexuals, would cause the National health service and the wider economy to collapse.

Increased testing and contact tracing for the MSM demographic is essential if we are serious about halting the epidemic....there is simply no alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:28 PM

DtG: "...have not got a clue what the fuck you are on about. If that is sanity I am glad I am raving mad."

About what?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 05:45 AM

What do you mean "historical figure"?
We have had the very latest figures from the latest national report.
Can anyone show us more recent national figures?
We have been told they are available but I have asked for them many times without result.

This has been the situation for infection in UK for the last ten years.
MSM very high and rising.
Black African high but falling.
All others low and falling.

Any evidence of a change in those trends?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

Goofus is going to explain what he is saying and spell it out?

Wow...

Hang on, give me a chance to put the kettle on and put the phone to divert.....

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:48 AM

Nope, still no wiser, Sanity.

Well, first of all, you should re-read your post....it's somewhat contradictory to your own self

I have not got any clue whatsoever what that might even mean. How can a post be contradictory to my 'own self'? Even if it could how do you know what my 'own self' is?

Sorry, probably me being thick, but you are going to have to spell it out.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:48 AM

meanwhile back at the ranch.

I am coming up to the end of my clincial attachment in sexual health. (I am a doctor, for anyone who hasnt followed this thread.)

The figures for February for one city centre drop in service have been verified. Whilst I cannot disclose the clinic, city or actual numbers at this time, although they will be available at some point I am sure, I can say the following;

Over 50 HIV voluntary screenings. (We screen for other conditions too as part of the service.) The majority were men who felt at risk through MSM. We picked up a small number of HIV positives. None were in the MSM category. Not a single one. That said, we expect to pick some up. Also, the ones we picked up were early stage which isnt nice for the patient but a relief that we can deal with it at this stage rather than in an advanced stage. Only one man in that group, and his female partner, from whom he conracted it.

I am saddened by the claim by Alex that HIV is an almost exclusive gay issue. Many people, including Musket and Mr Hertford have given the historical figure and Musket has tried outlining the projected future. Yet Alex still insists on his story.

It seems fear and distrust of others is as popular now as it has ever beeen. So sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:22 AM

Both Keith and I have put up the statistics for The UK.

I have also, till it was thrown in my face, put forward the UK public health commentary on the future.

If I say around two thousand, Keith calls me a liar and say sit is 2,001 or whatever. Keith keeps saying he likes accuracy. Yet Akenaton is calling for persecution of a section of society based on figures that don't exist. Keith stays quiet.

That's all I need to know.

He asks if I have a case. Odd considering he keeps quoting the case I am making. Whether he likes it or not, UK healthcare is something I can have an opinion on same as him. I also deal with the facts day in day out.

And they don't support homophobic intention or incitement to hatred.

HIV is not a gay issue. It is a society issue. What's more, it is a small issue that is lifestyle changing and life limiting for small numbers of people.

It isn't an excuse for rounding up gay men. We have screening and contact tracing, spend a hell of a lot of money on it, and yes, we compare the situation to what it could potentially be if we didn't do anything about it.

What nobody does is follow some political, religious or plain ignorant excuse to spread lies and hate about a whole section of society.

Why is he allowed to carry on doing that? Why do people who ask to be taken seriously support it, despite knowing there is no evidence anywhere to support his wild slur?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 03:54 AM

Musket: "If only there was someone on these threads who analyses what people say and calls them liars? Or does he wish to see that one go unchallenged too?"

Well, at least you could ask them to back up the claim with numbers from a reliable source.....fair enough?......but then if he puts them up, check it out, and if the link backs him up, accept it, or challenge him courteously..which so far, hasn't been your M.O.

That being said, I think it is reasonable to acknowledge that percentage-wise, homosexually active males are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS....HOWEVER, one group is being totally overlooked, and that are the 'bisexuals'....who may easily infect females as well....and if that is with a sexually promiscuous female, that would certainly affect the heteros, and give them a bump in their numbers, as well.
How come everyone leaves out the 'bisexuals'?? You don't hear much of a crusade for 'bisexual marriages'......
...but that's another story.....
I imagine a bisexual needle sharer is a risky place to be!!!

GfS

P.S. Shhhh, don't tell anyone, but bisexuality is actually homosexuality, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 03:29 AM

Please challenge it Musket.
Just avoid using wording that might get anyone deleted.

Are you incapable of making a reasoned case?
Do you have a case?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:28 AM

Two of my posts missing, I notice.

Is this how ludicrous claims such as "almost exclusively a condition of homosexual behaviour" goes unchallenged by those who decry bigotry and malicious lies?

If only there was someone on these threads who analyses what people say and calls them liars? Or does he wish to see that one go unchallenged too?

Well?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:35 PM

DtG: "I am getting closer to what? Please feel free to correct and clarify, with more accuracy, as I have not got a clue what the fuck you are on about. If that is sanity I am glad I am raving mad."

Well, first of all, you should re-read your post....it's somewhat contradictory to your own self.....

The other part was, "as I have not got a clue what the fuck you are on about."......
All I can say, at this point, without diverting the thread is, Don't confuse a political consensus with biological facts....it can mislead you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:11 PM

GfS: Well, you are getting closer...I COULD correct and clarify what you stated, with more accuracy....

I am getting closer to what? Please feel free to correct and clarify, with more accuracy, as I have not got a clue what the fuck you are on about. If that is sanity I am glad I am raving mad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:50 PM

Dave, I have said many times ...some on this thread, that I don't believe that homosexuals are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals. Why do you continue to repeat this lie?

Ake. Show me where I said that you believe that homosexuals are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals. Are you just clutching at straws to try and show I am lying about you or have I hit a raw nerve?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:50 PM

Dave the Gnome: "No one is accusing anyone of being a bigot or homophobe for trying to help, GfS. The bigot and homophobe label is only applied to people who preach that homosexuality is unnatural, that homosexuals are perverts or that homosexuality is akin to pedophilia."

Well, you are getting closer...I COULD correct and clarify what you stated, with more accuracy....but this thread is about the transmission of HIV/AIDS.....

...Still, the bottom line is promiscuity, hetero AND homo... and needle sharing....Do I NEED to say 'junk and speed'???....or would some idiot jump my case for including, (or excluding) their favorite 'substance'?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 06:05 PM

Pandemic versus Epidemic definition 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 05:07 PM

Stop repeating what I say using different words and then say I should know these things

No.
I am "bemused."

You said HIV WAS a gay issue in Africa, I said it was not.

Not the same thing.
The complete opposite thing.

You said it technically is not an epidemic.
I said it technically is.

Not the same thing.
The complete opposite thing.

You ought to know better, you being so important, with your own toilet and all.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 02:49 PM

This thread is about HIV transmission. In the UK and US, HIV/AIDS is almost exclusively a condition of male homosexuality, and if the present rates of infection continue MSM will account for 90% of new cases by 2020.

These are the facts, if you want confirmation read the health agency figures.
I am amazed that anyone thinks this is not a serious health problem, and should not be discussed.
I have not heard any suggestions from any others here except Keith, as to how this epidemic is to be halted, but it must be halted and very quickly indeed.
The only quick way is by increased targeted testing and contact tracing of the most "at risk" demographics.

The point I was making on increased testing and contact tracing, was to persuade the homosexual agencies to promote testing, to accept that this condition is primarily centred on the male homosexual community and to make it clear to members of that community that it is socially unacceptable NOT to be regularly tested.

I realise this procedure is at odds with the agenda of "liberalism" which exists on much of this forum but, if any here are really interested in the health of a sector society, there is no other option.

I also realise that quite a few of those posting on this thread have NO interest in homosexuals or homosexual health, but are simply trying to protect an agenda of idiocy. These people, especially those who should know better, are despicable.

Dave, I have said many times ...some on this thread, that I don't believe that homosexuals are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals. Why do you continue to repeat this lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Looking for ? in all the wrong places
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 02:37 PM

The WHO and other international health reports, dispel many HIV related myths, over-simplifications, and distorted perspectives.Why be selective?

""Just believe in you!
And learn to love yourself
Before anyone else

Keep on looking now
You gotta keep on looking now
Keep on looking now

Where your walk it's always shadow
Conversation always shallow
When they talk they never look you in the eye
They look over your shoulder
To faces even colder
And you feel a little older
Every time......



You're looking for love
In all the wrong places

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 01:12 PM

No one is accusing anyone of being a bigot or homophobe for trying to help, GfS. The bigot and homophobe label is only applied to people who preach that homosexuality is unnatural, that homosexuals are perverts or that homosexuality is akin to pedophilia.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:51 PM

From 'Guest's' link, 'Bulletin of the World Health Organization':


"This principle is implemented through appropriate targeting of STI control interventions. In Asia, for example, STI control programmes increasingly aim for "saturation coverage" of high-risk populations of sex workers, men who have sex with men, and persons injecting drugs. Other interventions target bridge populations – such as clients and partners of high-risk individuals – through STI clinics or workplace interventions."

AND....

"Who?

STI control efforts should focus on core and bridge populations, symptomatic patients and persons living with HIV. High coverage of such key populations as sex workers and men who have sex with men is the first priority.39,40 Efforts should also be made to reach actual or likely clients of sex workers and other bridge populations who disseminate STIs from core networks to the general population. Clinics providing STI treatment are a good entry point to screen and identify persons living with HIV, and additional effort is required to screen persons living with HIV under care to ensure that any STIs are detected and treated.16,41,42"

...Now are you going to blame the World Health Organization of being 'bigots' and 'homophobes', too??

GfS

P.S. Speaking of clowns.......

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 11:39 AM

You want me to counter what argument in all that rambling?

A few points.
Don't forget that it used to be seen as a gay issue around that continent(Africa) too.....

No it never was.

MSM aren't the most effected

In Africa maybe, but they certainly are here.

PHE are quite clear that the current increase is real and not due to increased testing.

You ought to know these things.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:35 AM

Ah, well Jack... If you have developed a sense of saying what you mean rather than what you think you want others to think you mean, we can all play at that game...

Stop reading the fucking thing then. It isn't hard, just hover your mouse away from the thread title before clicking. A bit like thinking before clicking the keyboard.

You really haven't worked out the jet set have you? Ski is soooo last winter! Golly gosh, Johnny Foreigner, no wonder you pass the port the wrong way and struggle with the fish knives! One is orf to Dublin at the weekend to observe the American ritual of Paddy's Day that they imported there a few years ago. Apparently it coincides with a church observance of theirs. Rather jolly fun all the same. They do this drinkypoo called an Irish cocktail. A pint of that black stuff they inflict on the working classes with a potato stuck in the top. Not very sophisticated but goes down well with the Paddy and the Power.

MSM aren't the most effected, but there is evidence to support they have been hitherto over represented in terms of being affected.

Two words there Keith, affected and hitherto. Your use of the word effected was somewhat Freudian but I'll not pick you up on that. You pick me up but reciprocating isn't cricket.

How many times do I have to repeat the information coming from commissioning support units and PHE to providers of sexual health services? The historical position is based on

a) anal sex being an efficient transmission therefore an explosion (dramatic use of the word epidemic for good reason) in the '80s which went through the well worn stages of immediate decline followed by complacent rise followed by steady rise followed by small numbers informing a steady rise trajectory.

b). Due to the success of public health promotion, rise in drop in clinics and awareness, more gay men seek screening than other groups. This, considering the small numbers involved, (a nationwide screening service that even when combined with routine screening as part of other tests in primary and secondary care picks up a few thousand nationwide, out of a population of sixty odd million,) leads to more MSM occurrence on the statistics. If you only counted anonymous drop in clinics, it would be skewed even more towards MSM.

c). They are still a very high risk group, but only in terms of the few who practice unprotected anal sex with new partners. There are far more women do that than men who receive.

d). The age demographic demonstrates older men contracting the condition in larger numbers than expected. Hence the need to remain vigilant with regard to unknown positive condition.

Those are my words, but lifted in context from a paper going to the specialised commissioning board for a region of England shortly. The paper was written by a consultant in public health as part of his attachment to PHE. Once it is in the public domain, May, if you really want, I can forward it to you.

In short, you continually accuse me of complacency and extend that to the sexual health services on the basis that you disagree with me therefore the work I am involved in. I Must be wrong because Keith knows more than a successful sexual health service nationally.

There is an issue for MSM based on prevalence, but an even larger issue for other groups, based on both statistics for other health issues such as colo rectal, and indeed seeing the rise in non gay contraction in other countries, especially Africa. Don't forget that it used to be seen as a gay issue around that continent too.....

Promiscuity in gay men has a higher chance of HIV than promiscuous lifestyle in heterosexual men. No denying that, and the reason is nothing more and nothing less than anus wall tissue being, just like under the tongue, a good transmitter of external chemicals to the rest of the body. This is why suppositories are popular in France, and many quick action tablets are under the tongue type here.

None of this fits with a programme of targeting gay men, whether for good or evil purposes. Stigmatising will make Akenaton's analysis a self fulfilling prophesy.

Now. Here are the rules. I was quoting PHE, and the report it was in cites many published papers, comprising of meta analysis. Cochrane studies, various reports of local directors of public health and background study for clinical trials of medicines allied to the condition. Published in BMJ, Lancet, NEJM and others.

Your task, should you wish to accept, is to put forward evidence that could counter the argument . It isn't hard, and I am already seeing some of it questioned by real people who I would be advised to listen to. If you want to influence debate here, your questioning would have to be as objective and informed as that I have in front of me, (ok, opened in a Word file I pulled) and not in the slightest driven by prejudice or agenda.

Thought not.


Out of interest, I have nothing to do with that proposal, but a proposal for mobile screening units for certain cancers is also on the agenda and that is my interest in the meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:04 AM

Back so soon, Jack? Can you not just go away like you promised?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:39 AM

>>Jeri. Of course you are right. But allowing agenda driven hate have the last word gives it a veneer of respectability that decency alone cannot allow. <<

Sure you can allow it. No one cares about the last word but you and Keith. Go ahead! Try it. Shut the fuck up. See who cares. When you go skiing this crap slows down a lot. Go skiing. Pretend you are skiing! There you go, pretend you are skiing. Swish Swish!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:13 AM

Bulletin of the World Health Organization 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:35 AM

They like to point out anything and everything to do with men who poke their willies up other men's bottoms, and other transmission methods don't show on their gaydar.

Untrue Musket.
No-one has said that, and of course multiple and concurrent partners and needle sharing are the cause of the epidemic among all demographics, not just MSM.
MSM are just the worst effected by far.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:27 AM

Watch out Goofus. Talk of needle share or promiscuity in general cuts no ice with Bill &Ben the bigoted men. They like to point out anything and everything to do with men who poke their willies up other men's bottoms, and other transmission methods don't show on their gaydar.

Of course, they see you as a supporter of their quest, due to some of your more unfortunate comments, but pointing out issues the rest of us see as relevant isn't singing from their hymn sheet.

Wait till they realise you have said something coherent and rational. They'll not thank you for it...



Jeri. Of course you are right. But allowing agenda driven hate have the last word gives it a veneer of respectability that decency alone cannot allow. Not sure how to address that, but if views borne of lies and manipulated statistics aren't challenged, how can objective onlookers form a view?

Akenaton comes out with a preposterous prediction he read somewhere. I dismiss it. Keith then finds it on a second source and says it must be true. Ergo I'm a liar who is killing thousands of people for political reasons.

Laughing at them is the default position, but a lingering odour makes the laughter seem somewhat hollow.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:20 AM

Troubadour, you said of me " every part of your input is based on your scientifically UNSUPPORTED BELIEF that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice,"

I do not believe that.
I am sure that orientation is decided before birth.

You also said, "So you say, but you are the only one saying it, with sycophantic support from K A of H,"

Others are saying it and I quoted the National Aids Trust saying exactly that.

Musket, you have claimed again that it is "technically incorrect" to call it an epidemic.
No.
It is technically correct and that is why all the agencies call it that.

You also say, "He berates the healthcare professions and calls me a liar when I say we take historical facts into consideration when forming conclusions and strategies."
Untrue.

You also say," Then in a thread about the Irish famine, he is trying to tell Jim it is alright for historians to form a view that doesn't accord with facts. "
Untrue.
I said there is debate among historians and blame is disputed.
That is a simple, plain truth.
An easily verified fact.

Because of your "importance" you think you know more about History than historians.
"those historians should know better" you said.
You have shown here that you know very little about anything, even in you own professional sphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:11 AM

Well said, Jeri.

Of course you have not suggested some of the things Jeri posted, ake. They were hyperbolic but presented a very real picture of what would happen, probably sooner rather than later, if we were to go down the route of registration and testing. Have you learned nothing from history?

"Tracing contacts does not prevent the spread of HIV" .......Of course it does! It make those who have undiagnosed HIV infection, aware of their status and they are obliged by law to behave accordingly.

No it doesn't. It would only work if everyone complied. To make sure everyone complied there would have to be compulsion by law. The law will be broken. There will be witch hunts. It only takes a tiny fraction to break those laws and the whole community would be, once again, demonised.

You have had no original ideas and, just like the rest of us, you are drawing conclusions based on what you know. The rest of us believe your conclusions are, to a large extent, wrong.

You do seem to want to control every thread that mentions HIV/AIDS or gay men. On one forum that has no influence in that field. Just give it a rest eh?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 03:41 AM

Jeri....That is the most unreasonable assessment of the issue that I have read on this forum.
ALL health agencies recommend more testing especially for MSM.

Have you actually read what I have written?
I am not in favour of "compulsion", as I can see it as unworkable.
I have never been in favour of "criminalisation"
I have never suggested "rounding people up", "killing them", "putting them in jail because they have HIV", or locking them in gas chambers.

I don't think that I am the one with the "insane" outlook!

My view corresponds to the view expressed by most health agencies, regarding increasing testing and contact tracing amongst the most seriously affected groups.
"Tracing contacts does not prevent the spread of HIV" .......Of course it does! It make those who have undiagnosed HIV infection, aware of their status and they are obliged by law to behave accordingly. It also gives them the chance of an early diagnosis.....and a chance of LIFE.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:14 AM

What about promiscuity, hetero or otherwise?...

gfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:13 AM

What about sharing needles?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:06 PM

One reason we have such a prevalence of trollery here is that people can't NOT react to unreasonable opinions. It doesn't have to be someone deliberately provoking other people. In this case, it's ONE person obsessed with his own ridiculous opinions who controls every discussion we have on HIV/AIDS.

What Ake thinks should be done has already been discounted as unreasonable, unworkable, unhelpful and immoral long ago.

Finding contacts does not stop the spread of HIV. Preventing people from having sex would, but who would you trust to make sure YOU don't have sex?

The idea of putting people in jail because they're HIV positive is insane. The idea of killing them is insane. The idea of rounding people up and putting them in isolated communities surrounded by impenetrable fences and guards with guns is insane.

As for testing, I can see how someone who hates gay men would want to force them back in the closet, which is what would happen. If they don't self-identify, there would have to be authorities who go around rounding gay men up. Perhaps there would be little rainbow badges they'd be forced to sew on their clothes so the authorities could later find them and take them to facilities where they could be tested... or gassed.

Justifying this insane viewpoint by arguing is ludicrous.

End of my involvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:03 PM

'Troubadour': ""What 'authority' are you seeking????.....Common sense doesn't work for you anymore, now that you think you're a 'liberal'????!

Don't make me laugh you clown. If you knew anything at all about me you would find that I neither AM, nor pretend to be a "liberal"."

Oh oh...another bullshitter. Hey, address the issue, 'Discussion of HIV transmission.'
You sure act like the run of the mill 'so-called liberal'...,matter of fact, you should use your other name!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:33 PM

""Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic"

O.K. Let's assume that you have a point (in spite of the fact that this is not a new idea).

You accuse us of sitting with our ears and eyes covered, and ignoring what you call an epidemic.

Let's suppose that your less than original idea works really well and infection dies out, with the assistance of ever improving medication.

Would you, in the absence of the totally eradicated HIV/AIDS, withdraw your opposition to homosexual marriage?

NO! YOU WOULD NOT!!

You would claim that it is because there are other ST infections than HIV, but not once have you suggested that heterosexuals be subjected to what you suggest for MSMs, as treatment required in the case of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, which are rife in the HETEROSEXUAL community.

You don't care about the health, you simply abhor the existence of gay men.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:02 PM

"I have never stopped discussing HIV transmission, which is a technical discussion based on verifiable fact, and not belief or views of morality."

How do you expect that statement to have any credibility, when every part of your input is based on your scientifically UNSUPPORTED BELIEF that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, though you cannot say when YOU made a choice to be heterosexual.

That is a lot closer to religious belief than rational thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:42 PM

"What 'authority' are you seeking????.....Common sense doesn't work for you anymore, now that you think you're a 'liberal'????!

Don't make me laugh you clown. If you knew anything at all about me you would find that I neither AM, nor pretend to be a "liberal".

Wrong once more dickhead.

Come back when you have some idea what you are talking about, say after three days of not smoking weed.

Then you might make sense, but I'm not counting on that!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:36 PM

"The difference in numbers being tested, is because it is known that some demographics are very much more at risk than others, due to promiscuity, risk taking, types of sexual behaviour, etc."

So you say, but you are the only one saying it, with sycophantic support from K A of H, who will deny that it is his opinion and say that he has no reason to disbelieve YOU.

Which is NOT the same as saying that he has any reason to BELIEVE you, so he's not much cop!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:44 PM

Now you're just being silly Dave.
I hope you don't expect me to answer that nonsense.

It's not as silly as putting education and research in quotes. Why do you do it?

Dave, If you are only going to post small parts of sentences, leaving out the parts you don't like, there is no point is me responding to you.
Disingenuous again?

Not at all. You said "Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic....."
(BTW - The standard number of dots for an ellipsis is 3. Not that there was any point in putting one there anyway. Look it up - May help your "basic" education) Then you said there was a place for education and research. Therefore targeted testing etc. is not the only way. It is your opinion that it is the best way, but it is far from the only one. Do try to take notice when a reasoned argument is being made.

One thing you say that I really do hope you will keep to though - there is no point is me responding to you. Oh, please let it be so :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Auto von HIV
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:02 PM

Driving a stick shift isn't automatic 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:54 PM

I usually drive a stick shift, but I can drive an automatic transmission as well. Is the HIV transmission something new?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:25 PM

"Oh, and WTF have got about putting things in quotes? Is it not real education if it is about HIV? IS it not real research if it is on AIDS? Pretty much like it is not real marriage if it is two gays people?"

Now you're just being silly Dave.
I hope you don't expect me to answer that nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:22 PM

Dave, If you are only going to post small parts of sentences, leaving out the parts you don't like, there is no point is me responding to you.
Disingenuous again?

For the last time, "education" has been used for years, everyone knows, or should know the dangers, yet infection rates in the MSM demographic keep rising by 8/10% per year.
MSM infection rates are higher than the rates in all other demographics......how is further "education" going to stop the epidemic?

"Research" takes many years, this epidemic requires swift treatment, before long MSM infection rates will reach 80/90% of all new infections.......what will you propose then?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:00 PM

Oh, and WTF have got about putting things in quotes? Is it not real education if it is about HIV? IS it not real research if it is on AIDS? Pretty much like it is not real marriage if it is two gays people?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:55 PM

You Dave, have absolutely no idea whether I contribute to AIDS charities or help to fund research into HIV/AIDS, why did you infer that I do not?

Do you? All I can see on here is that you prattle on to an audience who are absolutely pissed off with your ravings.

How does one qualify to be "someone who matters"?

Someone who can make a real difference instead of prattling on to an audience who are absolutely pissed off with your ravings.


12 Mar 14 - 02:34 PM
Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic.....

12 Mar 14 - 03:48 PM
further "education" will be of limited benefit. "Research" may find a cure for HIV/AIDS

Make your mind up wont you! What happened in the intervening 14 minutes? (Think I got my sums right this time!) Is targeted testing etc. the only way or will education and research help?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:13 PM

Correction: I omited a phrase in the first post, that could have cause knickers to twist themselves into 'uncomfortable' wearing apparel!..(you can delete the former post)


Akenaton: "This is a thread in which to discuss HIV infection rates, why has GUEST Judy in disguise, linked to a webpage referring to prejudice against homosexuals?"

Good call, Ake!

As I said before, promiscuity and needle sharing, is THE major cause for the transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus and other STD's.....and for some obvious reason, the wannabe politicos who are holding homosexuality up as the 'new standard for higher equality' keep blasting away, pushing homosexuality, and equating those who are warning about HIV/AIDS virus and other STD's, with the stats to back it up, as being 'bigots and homophobic'.....is there something they know, but don't want to admit???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:57 PM

I'm no expert Dave. I do try to give air cover to those who are though, and use assurance, governance and the inevitable politics of providing over £100 billion of healthcare. That's why organisations such as NAT are invaluable in advocating for their slice. Ditto everything from NHS dentistry to paediatric cancer.

The NHS has increased targeted testing. Contact tracing needs more thought as to efficiency but millions are spent on it to good effect. You can't eradicate it like you can a local epidemic. The pandemic status it has precludes successful parochial eradication. That's why the term epidemic is still used, although technically incorrect when used in such a context.

If MSM was, for instance, massively higher etc etc the approach would reflect that. The approach reflects the reality, not the wishful thinking of those who treat sections of society with contempt.

A final word about Keith's inconsistency. He berates the healthcare professions and calls me a liar when I say we take historical facts into consideration when forming conclusions and strategies. Then in a thread about the Irish famine, he is trying to tell Jim it is alright for historians to form a view that doesn't accord with facts.

Fucking priceless.