BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:11 PM

It is also true, that you apply new HIV figures to talking about AIDS deaths.

Since those who are developing AIDS in 2014 became infected at some point between 2004 and 2011 (check the facts), a majority of them were too late for current treatments to prevent AIDS, since that level of treatment (manageable condition) has only very recently been available.

A logical man would expect deaths from AIDS to show no significant reduction until that treatment has been available for at least three years, but after that the reduction will be swift and radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:01 PM

I'm very well aware that the twat was talking about being unaware of infection.

Which feeds directly into my later comment about MSMs representing the highest take up (proportionally) of testing, while heteros are vastly under reported.

What does that do to your biased figures?

You simply don't know whether hetero infections are rising or falling year on year. You only know that numbers tested are actually much lower (proportionally) and that leaves your prejudiced assessments swinging in the breeze.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:54 PM

But it IS going my way Guest T, I believe in truthful posting, not the twisted out of context line you hoped to slip through.

Regarding Dave, this thread has nothing to do with his personal opinion of my character, nor mine of his.
I am perfectly happy to debate the issue, but have no time for biased personal opinions of on another's motives or character.

Perhaps you would like to comment on the link about the percentage of open relationships amongst male homosexuals and the affect on HIV prevalence?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:45 PM

"I am not interested in the personal views of Dave, and even less so of the other person, the thread is about HIV transmission rates and I think it has served a useful purpose."

Now who is trying to close down discussion when it fails to go his way?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:41 PM

"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington."".......and then the ones using that tactic, proceed to use the premise to call the poster with the figures and link a bunch of misapplied names, based on their typical, 'hot button', create a bias playbook.
I prefer the FACTS and the Truth..and if it contradicts the political posturing, I think 'adjusting' the political posturing to match the TRUTH, is what is order....not the other way around."

If you choose to present an "Argument from Authority" GfS, it is wise to seek some evidence of the authority's credibility.

Why don't you ask Mary Jo Kopeckne whether Teddy believes in the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:34 PM

Guest T.....Please go away and learn to read all of what people post.

"It is more prevalent among infected straight rather than gay folk."

WHAT is more prevalent among INFECTED heterosexual rather than homosexual folk?
When you have discovered what THAT is(hint, it is not infection rates), come back and tell us how careless, or how twisted you have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:26 PM

"Troubadour, everyone on this discussion knows that infected people can now live a normal and full life with treatment, and become almost uninfectious, but thanks for your input anyway.

They also know that when the symptoms of AIDS appear, it is usually too late."


Says the supercilious, patronising twat who knows more than the medical profession, who have clearly found ways to prevent the progression to AIDS.

Worthy of the "Nobel Prize for Stating the Bleedin' Obvious".

Also the MSM community represent the highest take up of testing, while the STD infection of heteros, particularly young girls with Chlamydia and Gonorrhea is vastly under reported.

And don't bother JtS! After ignoring Keith's F-Word description of Ian, your credibility as a forum policeman is in tatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:17 PM

"It is more prevalent among infected straight rather than gay folk."

Tell Ake, will you?

Because he doesn't give a cuss about straights, as long as he can rant about "perverts".

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:00 PM

ON homosexual open "marriages".
There are dozens of these links, it appears to be part of the culture.

Here

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:44 PM

Musket, I have totally different opinions to Akeneaton, including on homosexuality, but when he has stated facts and quoted figures on HIV, he has been truthful and accurate.
I asked you for any false claim he has made, and you failed to produce a single one.

You have shown complacency, ignorance and a denial of the truth because it offends your ridiculous politics, never mind that it leaves young men to die unnecessary deaths.

You did not even recognise that there is an epidemic that you should be dealing with.
You did not know that MSM infections are increasing to the extent that MSM infections now outnumber all others.
You even thought that hetero infections were rising when it is really MSM infections that are.

Ignorance, denial of the truth and deadly complacency.
You are a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:34 PM

The post above and the post from Dave , contain statements which I have never made; in fact, some of the statements are completely contrary to what I have actually stated.


Which statements have I made that are contrary to what you have stated?

Oh, sorry, you do not answer simple questions do you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 05:47 PM

Muskrat: "Goofus. I have a friend who is white and married to a black wife. They attend a local church, where a fellow member said "I married a white woman."

What does that have to do with the price of eggs???
Another focus shift????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 05:44 PM

Well, one ignorant culpable fool to another, is epidemic only valid when applied to gay men?

When he states wild figures that contradict the "official" HPA figures you hold so dear when they suit you, why do you keep defending him?

You call me a liar. As I only state valid views amongst the healthcare sector, you are mischievous, bigoted lying rubbish. Don't call me a liar. The difference between us is that I couldn't if I wanted. Whatever makes you think for one minute that I could be remotely interested in compromising my credibility for the sake of an irrelevant right wing nutter?

You flatter yourself.

I'm glad you disagree with him. How, if he is telling the truth?

Prat.


Goofus. I have a friend who is white and married to a black wife. They attend a local church, where a fellow member said "I married a white woman."

Factual, succinct and nothing to be ashamed of.

Is there an American word that means the same as the English word "context?"

On second thoughts, just keep banging the rocks together.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

I disagree with Akeneaton on most things, including homosexuality.
When he has stated facts and figures, I believe he has done so truthfully and accurately.

Musket, can you identify any fact or figure he has stated that are false.

I have identified facts and figures of yours that are false Musket.

For all your claimed importance and professional knowledge, a couple of interested amateurs have shown you up as an ignorant, culpably complacent fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:35 PM

Musket: "Your homophobia is on record and you never deny your standing in decent company.....blah blah blah"

Explain to me just how being FOR a loving, traditional family is homophobia!!!
You've just jumped from what I've been saying to turn it around and misstating it, to fit your 'tactic' of....."(as posted by Ed T)"...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington."".......and then the ones using that tactic, proceed to use the premise to call the poster with the figures and link a bunch of misapplied names, based on their typical, 'hot button', create a bias playbook."
It's not working!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

It's alright Goofus. Your homophobia is on record and you never deny your standing in decent company. Probably ignorance is bliss but don't worry. Gay people possibly can't understand what you prefer either.

Your mate however said all the above, many times, often on this thread in fact. He comes out with claims that don't exist in the healthcare world. Living there myself, I tend to know the neighbourhood. Denying his own words now? Err perhaps a quick "I was wrong" might mitigate the situation.

Let's ask Keith to dig up Akenaton's words, complete with time and date etc.

After all, Keith likes matters to be correct and usually goes out of his way to put the record straight.

Even when he may not agree with what it shows.

Isn't that so Keith?

Keith?


Hello!

Are you there?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:00 PM

Do you think by re-asking those questions, repeatedly, is supposed to alter the truth??? They've been answered over and over, and if you don't think so, scroll back over this thread, and a few others, dealing with the topic!
It looks like you're trying to find some answer that leaves room for more truth-altering talking points that run parallel to a predetermined 'talking point' premise, which is NOT based on FACT!!!
Get over it!
That being said, I'll answer it this way, and I'm only speaking for myself, and common sense...
I AM FOR the traditional nuclear loving family...which happens to not be vulnerable to HIV/AIDS or any other STD's. Promiscuity of any sort, is not healthy for the health of the body, mind or emotions.
You can champion any other unhealthy thing you want.....and you do!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 01:32 PM

This thread was supposed to encourage a discussion of HIV transmission rates. I think all the valid points have been raised and anyone reading it will have the information to formulate an opinion on the best way to halt the epidemic within the MSM demographic.
The post above and the post from Dave , contain statements which I have never made; in fact, some of the statements are completely contrary to what I have actually stated.

Anyone who wishes to verify this, can easily do so by reading the complete thread and paying attention.

I am not interested in the personal views of Dave, and even less so of the other person, the thread is about HIV transmission rates and I think it has served a useful purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 12:11 PM

"A group being targeted by a virus."

Assuming it has sentient thought process, it's aim isn't very accurate.

The trick with vital facts is not to garnish them with fiction or assumptions borne of prejudice.

I wonder if Keith's yes, yes, no style reply to Dave can be construed as distancing himself from the comments of his mate? Does he still maintain that Akenaton's stand and comments are not showing bigotry?

Let's try another yes yes no game.

Homosexuality is perverted

Homosexuality is against natural law

Gay marriage is gay "marriage"

Gay marriage is a liberal plot

Homosexuals prefer multiple partners even when in a relationship

They should be forced to be tested

HIV is only an epidemic when applied to homosexuality

Similarities between homosexuality and paedopholia


Yes for agreeing with Akenaton
No for not agreeing
Sorry for supporting him and stating he has never expressed bigotry

Easy

Over to you Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 12:08 PM

400...and still avoiding the truth!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 12:05 PM

There are two things at play here....and they are in the 'tactics'.
When I read the posts, both sides, somebody will post figures, and put the link up...but instead of an honest exchange of ideas to get to the truth, we get this(as posted by Ed T)"...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington."".......and then the ones using that tactic, proceed to use the premise to call the poster with the figures and link a bunch of misapplied names, based on their typical, 'hot button', create a bias playbook.
I prefer the FACTS and the Truth..and if it contradicts the political posturing, I think 'adjusting' the political posturing to match the TRUTH, is what is order....not the other way around.
It reveals that the political postures, and those who subscribe to them are a bit turned around.
When they insist, on their posturing, over the TRUTH, then is just makes them bullshitters!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:37 AM

Oh, and Sorry. Dave, that is the first time I have asked you those questions. Yes it is. My poor choice of words. 'These questions' did not relate to just those few. There was a lot of earlier ones.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:31 AM

Thanks Keith - I now know your views on those points. I still don't know ake's.

Ake. Dave, AIDS is not a "stigma", it is a medical "condition".


It is both to a lot of people. Now, Keith has answered my questions and found it easy. How about you?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:17 AM

This is why the Latin phrase "ad nauseam" exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:48 AM

Dave, that is the first time I have asked you those questions.
I asked them because you are a serious participant, and I am interested in your view of those issues, which are hotly disputed here.

Re your questions,
Unnatural?
No.
Perversion?
No.
Registration?
No compulsion.

Musket,
Not much point in debating this whilst there are those for whom stigmatising a minority of sufferers is the aim.

To say that a group is targeted by a virus does not stigmatise them.
To deny the truth about it condemns thousands to death.
Denying the truth is what you do.
You call the truth "scaremongering."
You were ignorant of vital facts that your position should require you to know.
You allow young men to die needlessly for your worthless political convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:00 AM

Dave, AIDS is not a "stigma", it is a medical "condition".

We cannot go through life avoiding certain issues, lest our motives be misunderstood by fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:00 AM

Saying X is not saying Y. I thought you felt we should avoid such things, Keith?

I am happy to answer your questions. No, no, no, yes and no. In that order. The yes is only partial BTW. Some people believe that AIDS is a stigma, some don't. But if some believe it is a stigma, yes, it does stigmatise them.

I am not sure why you keep asking me these things. I have never said any of them. Do you think that by asking me them it somehow suggests that I did?

Still no response on my questions I see. Can I ask them of you, Keith, in case you are more prepared to answer than ake? Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males put on a register?


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:48 AM

As Keith says, of course "education has a part to play", but "education" alone is not having the desired affect on MSM infection rates.
There can be few people who do not know the dangers of promiscuous and risky behaviour in todays world.
All agencies are aware that targeted responses are required, but political opposition inhibits effective procedures.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:40 AM

Not much point in debating this whilst there are those for whom stigmatising a minority of sufferers is the aim.

Will you pray for them or pray for their sins when you get to your church today?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:07 AM

Saying it is not working is not saying we should give up on it.
Saying it does not make him a bigot anyway.

Dave, do you think the situation is helped by denying the scale of it, refusing to accept the scale of it and being wilfully ignorant of the facts?

Do you think it stigmatises anyone to say they have this or that infection, and is it better to let them die rather than be honest about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:01 AM

Did he deny education had a part to play Dave?

Actually, Keith, having slept on it I am changing my mind about my last answer to that one. I am pretty sure that ake said education was not working. So, yes he did. I could be mistaken of course and I would ask him directly but as he has not answered my other questions I doubt if he would respond to that one.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:58 AM

I don't doubt that you would be very happy to see thousands of "perverts" die to prove YOUR theory!

What a ridiculous claim, and how it demonstrates your ignorance Troubadour.

We are arguing that the preventable, unnecessary deaths of AIDS sufferers could be greatly reduced by more screening.
The complacency of those responsible, and denial of the scale of the problem, has allowed thousands of infected folk to go untested.

Musket is a classic example.
He did not even recognise that there is an epidemic that he should be dealing with.
He did not know that MSM infections are increasing to the extent that MSM infections now outnumber all others.
He even thought that hetero infections were rising when it is really MSM infections that are.

The national AIDS Trust is scathing of how the NHS fails to diagnose many people even when it sees them, and when it does diagnose someone they do not try to trace the contacts who are almost certain to be infected too.
And thus the infection spreads and people die of a treatable disease that treatment could have prevented.

Ignorance and complacency is what I am arguing against.
What is your case Troubadour?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:43 AM

BTW Troubadour, being unaware of infection is not an anti gay thing.
It is more prevalent among infected straight rather than gay folk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:36 AM

Troubadour, everyone on this discussion knows that infected people can now live a normal and full life with treatment, and become almost uninfectious, but thanks for your input anyway.

They also know that when the symptoms of AIDS appear, it is usually too late.

The problem that the rest of us have been discussing is that thousands of infected people have not been tested and do not know that they are incubating a highly infectious, incurable and deadly virus, and thousands still die of it every year.

I hope that helps you to understand the issues that concern us.

It was good of you to refresh my justified, accurate and non-abusive criticism of Musket.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:48 PM

"HIV/AIDS, is an extremely serious condition."

Half the story yet AGAIN! The other half is the medical profession's assessment of "a manageable condition which should not affect life expectancy"

So what exactly ARE you ranting about?.......The cost of treatment?....Possibly!

The existence of homosexuals?......Almost certainly!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:38 PM

"The unfortunate advent of "gay marriage" bears no relation to the ever worsening infection rates in the MSM demographic, which seem to continue to rise regardless."

The most ridiculous statement yet, given that HIV infections post Gay marriage wouldn't even show up for several months after the first gay marriages, in fact months after the first occurrence of infidelity, which exists only in your warped perception as yet.

Also, can you get it into that impermeable skull that the MEDICAL Profession now regard HIV as a manageable condition which need not reduce life expectancy.

I don't doubt that you would be very happy to see thousands of "perverts" die to prove YOUR theory!

If that should happen, I hope it will give you the satisfaction you deserve........NONE!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:26 PM

Did he deny education had a part to play Dave?
If he did, does it make him a bigot?
In UK, I do not believe that lack of knowledge about STI is an issue.


No, he didn't. No it doesn't. He did suggest that I was better educated then he was. Which he does not know and is complete bollocks anyway. He did start to talk about education instead of answering the simple questions I posed. What the f**k are you on about?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:13 PM

"Musket told you there was no epidemic.
There is.

How does that win him the argument please.
He knows nothing, makes shit up, and accuses those who know and understand the true facts of scaremongering.

You call that winning?" K A of H
_____________________________________________________________________

"Fucking important?
You are a fucking disgrace."

YOU call THAT winning!

Jack the Sailor, where's your condemnation of the above?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

Did he deny education had a part to play Dave?
If he did, does it make him a bigot?
In UK, I do not believe that lack of knowledge about STI is an issue.

Musket, I deny all those things you claim I have done.
They are lies told to discredit me in the absence of any other argument.
If they are not lies, I challenge and defy you to produce a single specific example.

They are lies and you have no chance of producing anything, just as you could not produce any other figure for new infections.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 11:59 AM

Dave, does something in the link contradict something else?


No but it does say that education should play an important part. Something which ake denies.

I have nor seen him make any derogatory remark about gay people.


Maybe not. But he will not answer these 3 very simple questions. Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 08:22 AM

If you haven't read anything Akenaton had put that is derogatory about gay people, I suggest new spectacles or computer screen.

You ask for examples. I suggest you click on the blue text that says Keith A of Hertford and then click on the archive of his posts. Plenty in there, and what's more, they are on the internet so you can trust them as being official and definitive.

When I was single, I didn't wish to be more promiscuous. There weren't enough hours in the bloody day as it was. As far as promiscuity as a factor in HIV, it is true to say it is an increased exposure risk. First contraction is a single event, as you like to be so exact.



So, let's get this right. Do you support the data you have given or the data Akenaton has given? Do you agree with PHE/Musket use of the word epidemic or Akenaton's use of the word?

What else don't you have in common?

Do you put the word marriage in parentheses too when referring to people of the same gender? Is that not bigotry? What about gay people liking multiple partners even if married?

Do you realise how stupid your comment to Dave is?

Bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 06:58 AM

Dave, does something in the link contradict something else?

Re Akeneaton, he and I have little in common.
I have not seen anything from him that would make him a bigot.
I have nor seen him make any derogatory remark about gay people.

Promiscuity is a factor in HIV transmission, whatever the orientation.

When I was single I would have liked to be more promiscuous myself.
I do not regard it as something to be condemned.
Few today would, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 06:42 AM

Stop misinterpreting facts.

I NEVER have.
Give an example why don't you?

Stop denying trends.

I NEVER have.
Give an example why don't you?

Stop purposely dragging figures out of context to support demonisation of a section of society.

I NEVER have.
Give an example why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 05:49 AM

A big difference between killing gay men and wishing them dead. I don't do the former and the latter is the ultimate aim of bigotry.

Stop misinterpreting facts. Stop denying trends. Stop purposely dragging figures out of context to support demonisation of a section of society.

Your continued support of someone who ignores the figures you cherish, let alone the bigger picture ruins the credibility you think you have.

Me however , being fucking important and all that, saw through you from the beginning. Not difficult. I deal with the politics of healthcare each and every day. The professionals can be a challenge. You aren't in their league. If you want to be selected for a council seat, you are going to have to provide Nigel with far better evidence of your suitability. I'd watch out too. He is back pedalling on demonising gays. He is sticking to migrants. Akenaton had a bit to say about them on his HIV judgment above too. Especially black ones.

Is Pharaoh worship worth losing what respectability you aspire to? Or am I just hurling abuse at innocent people for whom butter wouldn't melt in their mouths?

If you are talking on behalf of gay people or indeed people at heightened risk of HIV, you have a funny way of doing it. They don't seem to be briefing their spokesman very well. I'd leave the advocacy to Stonewall if I were you.

You could always say you speak up for HIV sufferers, most of which didn't acquire it by sticking their cocks up men's bottoms, especially the women. You could focus on the social stigma that endangers many gay peoples contact with sexual health services. You could use your talents in focussing on particular data at the expense of the rest to shut our resident homophobic bigot down for once.

Or you could carry on finding ways to vilify those who stand up to hatred.

Your move.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 04:40 AM

"Dave, I have stated a dozen times, that there is no HIV epidemic amongst the general population, only amongst male homosexuals(the MSM demographic......So we are agreed on that? That is progress."

Yes, but I have never denied that. Why do you intimate I have? At least it shows that you have read what I posted. How come you have not answered my questions?

Keith. I pointed out the link you posted. No comment? No further points about me misinterpreting what ake says? How can I when he will not commit?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 04:38 AM

If there are other figures relating to new infections, please show us.
We are not "thick."
If you do not show us, we will know why.

All I have done is state facts and quote PHE.
You can not argue against that, so all you can do is call me bigot.
A lie.

Your ignorance of the true facts, and your culpable complacency as someone of influence in NHS, is causing the real deaths of gay men.

By highlighting their true vulnerability and plight, I am arguing on their behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 04:14 AM

"Alternative figures." You do rely on Mudcat readers being thick don't you?

Tell you what, just for argument's sake. We'll allow predictions based on historical trajectory which is I think what you are meaning when you call analysis of figures alternative figures.

If you have any credibility whatsoever, take your mate to task.

Go on!





Just look at his last post above. Treat his comments in the same way you treat respectable peoples' comments.

Well?

Is there an epidemic of gay HIV but no other HIV epidemic? Care to see where HPE support his comments? Up to yet, I only see his comments echoed in far right and religious websites.

Anything you wish to tell us? Do you want reminding of where you are adamant his comments are false? Dare you upset him? Is it easier to demonise a whole group of society than expose hatred?

Busted flush.


Again.

Next!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 03:06 AM

HIV/AIDS, is an extremely serious condition.
ANY demographic presenting the infection rates which presently pertain to MSM.....need to be treated as a "special status" risk group, whether they be Black Africans or ANY other designated demographic.
The important point, is to stop infection rates rising and only by increased testing and contact tracing can this be brought about.
No political agenda should be allowed to stand in the way, as
it is vitally important to determine why any one demographic is massively worse affected than others.

If the rates of infection which currently affect MSM, were transferred to the heterosexual community, it would already be too late, all the health agencies could pack up and go home.

Society would be decimated.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 02:11 AM

Being honest about the facts does not make someone a bigot.
Denying them makes you a complacent fool.
Worse, that attitude leads to a failure to address the situation as it really is, and failing those in danger.
Wasted lives.

The calculation you refer to is just to identify the proportion of new diagnoses that really are new infections.
You have claimed that the increase is largely due to better screening and good news.
PHE calculates otherwise, and there are no alternative figure.
Your claim about that is another false one.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 01:19 AM

"Back calculation."

Or in other words, using historical prevalence. Now... Who called me a liar for saying PHE/HPA rely heavily on that ? (The reorganisation is designed to ensure public health protection takes a more holistic and multi factorial approach in the future.)

Possibly someone who thinks that we only have access to third party websites same as him, and everything else is just Musket and his fantasy.

Rather funny really, seeing the ignorant sod quote what I have been saying, from what he calls "official" sources. I don't wish to put two and two together here , but the word "four" and the phrase "fucking important" appear to be related?

So as ever, we are left with the object of Keith's exercise, stigmatising gay people and supporting his mate.

Bill and Ben , the bigoted men.

So busy falling over each other to portray gay people in a bad light, they won't even question where their previous data and conclusions contradict each other.

Want to find some more statistics Keith? Find the number of suicides where stigmatisation or shame of their sexuality was the factor. Then carry on with your righteous campaign.