BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:16 PM

But Ake KNOWS that all gay men are promiscuous, and NO gay men are interested in anything but sexual gratification.

If that were true, gay men would fuck anything that couldn't outrun them, MALE, FEMALE, or KNOT HOLES in a wooden fence.

Saw a bloke in Morrisons the other day walking around with his dick in a toilet roll.

"Well that's fuckin' Charmin", I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:41 PM

Our hopes are dashed.

Akenaton. Please give us one more try to allow you the benefit of the doubt. Please tell me what an epidemic is in your opinion and why if it is an infection rate of 1 in 50 or less why should we be alarmed. Tell us also please why we should be alarmed about monogamous couples and people practicing safe sex no matter what the demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:38 PM

I give up ake, as my assessment is my attempt at logical discussion with you does not seem to prevail (yes, my weirdo meter just went off).   

Good luck with your (cement-headed) approach of reinterpreting clear statistics for your what "epidemic" cause (note ake,s definition of epidemic, not mine, nor Oxfords) From your comments, (and regardless of what you claims of innocence), my gut now tells me it really cloaks something else (more nasty) underneath, that I don"t want to be part of in a discussion. Peace be with you;) Peace and health to all the gays in the worlds society, also.

JTS, Curious? Why on Earth did you open this thread, considering you are aware that it has been discussed by "the same suspects" before with little tangible result? I suspect you knew it would gather the same discussion with the same cast, like flys to honey, with non-profitable results?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:36 PM

"BUT THE REAL NUMBERS OF INFCTIONS WILL BE MANY TIMES HIGHER."

Another unguided missile from the twentieth century Pharaoh with one of the finest minds of the twelfth century.

The above reads as an insupportable supposition that all homosexuals still in the closet are infected.

Anybody who had the slightest interest in the health of gay men would welcome monogamous marriage with open arms, no matter how small the uptake.

I've never had an STD in my life, which I attribute to nearly 50 years of heterosexual marital fidelity.

STDs have never been more prevalent in the hetero community, EXCEPT for the long term married.

Why would the same not be true for gay marriage?

But Ake KNOWS that all gay men are promiscuous, and NO gay men are interested in anything but sexual gratification.

If that were true, gay men would fuck anything that couldn't outrun them, MALE, FEMALE, or KNOT HOLES in a wooden fence.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:34 PM

Jts, if ake is suggesting that, I have no time for his argument.
I hope you are wrong?

Our answer is below, out hopes are dashed.




"promiscuous male homosexuals, not in a monogamous relationship, and not practicing safe sex"

No, I am at present referring to the MSM demographic which consists solely of "men who have sex with men"....no matter if the definition concerns 1 "man", or 50 "men".....it is YOU who is inaccurate.

Jack, I don't think all homosexuals are in this category, some may be celibate.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:17 PM

"Some folk seem obsessed with gay sufferers (and of course, they matter) to the exclusion of all the others."

The best description yet, of K A of H and his Egyptian ruler mentor.

That's it Eliza! Homo perverts bad, Hetero sufferers too few to bother with.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:09 PM

"I keep my posts short."

Attention span deficit, as when you only read two lines of anybody else's input!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:43 PM

Ed, to simplify even further, in Canada in 2009 the infection rate for MSM was 44%, in 2012 it was 50.3%.
The heterosexual infection rate fell during that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:32 PM

Thank you for that contribution Dave.
Facebook? Twitter?.....Hmmm, there IS intelligence there, "but not as we know it Jim"

Thank you, but No Thankyou. I'll take my chances with the trolls, stalkers, and many fine people on these pages!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:24 PM

Get a grip Ed, in 1985 HIV/Aids was almost exclusively amongst MSM.
The disease began to affect the heterosexual community to a greater extent (but nothing like MSM rates) up until the mid 90's, when heterosexual rates began to fall and have been falling ever since.
MSM rates are continuing to rise, and will soon be back at the 1985 figure of 80%....BUT THE REAL NUMBERS OF INFCTIONS WILL BE MANY TIMES HIGHER.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:15 PM

My engagement in these threads is chiefly to highlight the epidemic which the media and the agencies are trying their best to conceal.

If you are genuinely concerned, try Facebook and Twitter instead. Don't have the stats to hand but I am sure you can find out. I suspect the readership of both mentioned social media sites is considerably more than that of Mudcat.

Engagement on these threads is like trying to stop the great fire of London by pissing in the Thames. And the readership here will take absolutely no notice of you. Once again, you are spouting complete bollocks.

DtG

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

Breaking News "MSM HIV Rates Decreased in Canada since 1985"

""Trends in exposure category have shifted since HIV reporting began in 1985. In the early stages of the epidemic, over 80% of all cases with known exposure category were attributed to the "men who have sex with men" (MSM) exposure category. Although this exposure category is still the predominant one in Canada, the proportion has decreased significantly over the years. In 2012, 50.3% of all adult (≥15 years) positive HIV test reports with known exposure category were attributed to the MSM exposure category; in adult males alone, the MSM exposure category accounted for 65.1% of positive HIV test reports.""

ake, I do take the issue seriously-though I do not buy your definition of an epidemic, nor it is a liberal plot. Hold off on the tin foil hat.

If you also care, demonsrate it by fully reading othercfolks posts. If you do not have a closed mind, you will find the Canadian rates among male homosexuals have decreased (D-E-C-R-E-A-S-E-D).

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

Ed, In the UK in 2012 the Office of National Statistics conducted the biggest ever survey on homosexuality rates in the general population.

It came up with the figure of 1.5%


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/03/gay-britain-what-d

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:43 PM

Just for information purposes, I have no "hatred" for homosexuals, I know several, I work for several couples, I get on fine with them on a social level.

My engagement in these threads is chiefly to highlight the epidemic which the media and the agencies are trying their best to conceal.
Concealment is NOT in the interests of homosexuals.

Also to illustrate the madness associated with many aspects of political "liberalism", of which, treatment of the HIV epidemic amongst Male homosexuals is a stunning example.

There are many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:24 PM

Ed, over the last decade, total HIV infection rates have been falling almost everywhere.
In the MSM demographic, they have been rising.

You do not seem to be taking this issue seriously, do you not realise what the difference in population percentages mean?

GUEST AC.
""male homosexuals""

Ake is 'oft not too concerned about accurate-my observation, (intentionally, I suspect maybe to prop up his pet theory, which is his) so I will intervene.

I suspect he means:

"promiscuous male homosexuals, not in a monogamous relationship, and not practicing safe sex"

No, I am at present referring to the MSM demographic which consists solely of "men who have sex with men"....no matter if the definition concerns 1 "man", or 50 "men".....it is YOU who is inaccurate.

Jack, I don't think all homosexuals are in this category, some may be celibate.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:15 PM

Jts, if ake is suggesting that, I have no time for his argument.
I hope you are wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:35 PM

Since he is arguing that accepting same-sex marriage is a de facto promotion of HIV, I suspect that his manner of using the statistics implies all Gay men are in this category.

""promiscuous male homosexuals, not in a monogamous relationship, and not practicing safe sex"

I hope I am wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Accuracy squad
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:29 PM

""male homosexuals""

Ake is 'oft not too concerned about accurate-my observation, (intentionally, I suspect maybe to prop up his pet theory, which is his) so I will intervene.

I suspect he means:

"promiscuous male homosexuals, not in a monogamous relationship, and not practicing safe sex"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:15 PM

"The confusion arises over percentage rates and real numbers, male homosexuals are only a small demographic, but contain huge rates of infection......the Canadian figures say that around 10/ 15% is the median, that means that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 15, MSM carry the HIV virus. That is an epidemic, which if it pertained to heteros, would be absolutely devastating for society. "

YES AKE and it is YOU who is confused. The number of people who "Carry" the virus is not a relevant factor in deciding whether it is and EPIDEMIC or not. To decide whether it is an epidemic you have to look at whether or not a significant percentage of the population is currently catching it. I'll wager that at least 70% of the adult population in the US and Canada the chicken pox virus. That's a lot more than 10% of male Gays. Why aren't you alarmed at that?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

Homosexuality and statistics

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 12:43 PM

HIV SurveillanceNumber of cases

Since HIV reporting began in Canada in 1985, a cumulative total of 76,275 positive HIV test reports have been reported to PHAC. In 2012 alone, 2,062 HIV cases were reported up to December 31st, which represents a 7.8% decrease from the 2011 reports (2,237 cases) and is the lowest number of annual HIV cases since reporting began in 1985.

Figure 1 illustrates the trend in annual HIV case reports since 1996, highlighting a steady decrease in the number of reported cases up until the year 2000. During the period 2002 through 2008, the annual number of HIV case reports fluctuated between 2,440 and 2,619, and since 2008 there has been a steady decrease.

Exposure category distributionFootnoteiv

Trends in exposure category have shifted since HIV reporting began in 1985. In the early stages of the epidemic, over 80% of all cases with known exposure category were attributed to the "men who have sex with men" (MSM) exposure category. Although this exposure category is still the predominant one in Canada, the proportion has decreased significantly over the years. In 2012, 50.3% of all adult (≥15 years) positive HIV test reports with known exposure category were attributed to the MSM exposure category; in adult males alone, the MSM exposure category accounted for 65.1% of positive HIV test reports.

The second most reported exposure category among adults in 2012 was heterosexual contact, at 32.6% of case reports; 13.2% were attributed to heterosexual contact among people born in a country where HIV is endemic (Het-Endemic), 9.9% were attributed to heterosexual contact with a person at risk (Het-Risk), and 9.6% were attributed to having heterosexual contact with someone with no identified risk (NIR-Het). These proportions varied by sex, heterosexual contact being the most reported exposure category among adult females at 73.2% versus 20.7% among adult males. The Het-Endemic exposure sub-category showed the biggest difference between the sexes, accounting for 51.8% of heterosexual contact cases among females and 28.6% among males.

The third most frequently reported exposure category among adults in 2012 was injection drug use (IDU), accounting for 14.0% of positive HIV test reports. Overall, a higher proportion of adult females than adult males acquired HIV through IDU exposure (24.5% versus 10.9%). See Figures 4 and 5 for complete exposure category breakdowns by sex.



Hiv rates Canada 1985 to 2012 
Ake et al,
You must confuse me with others you are debating with?
I have not taken issue with statements that MSM is a leading factor in HIV infections (while, I suspect it is much more complex than that). I do feel it is a big jump, and also unfair, to brand all homosexuals and such relationships with the same HIV brush. I also contend that there may be positive options to reduce rates of infection through education and greater social acceptance of homosexuals (versus the negative approach frequently promoted by ake). I provided an example where rates have decreased, Canada. I suggested that this reduction may be due to new acceptance of homosexuals in this society,( including gay marrages).







However, my point is that rates are invthecdecline

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

Eliza....even in Africa and all other countries where testing is carried out, MSM rates of infection is are much higher that those amongst heteros.
Heterosexual infection rates are falling EVERYWHERE, even in Africa.

The epidemic amongst MSM could be slowed or stopped almost immediately, by targeted testing and contact tracing, but the "liberal" agenda, takes politics before lives, or life sentences of ill health.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:59 AM

'The condition is very rare amongst heterosexuals in "developed countries"'
That may be so, but one just cannot dismiss the heterosexual sufferers in undeveloped countries. They number millions of men, women and children. The title of the thread doesn't specify '..but not in the Third World". Why are homosexuals in the West being spotlighted here, when the disease is global and if the numbers in Africa etc considered, killing huge numbers of heterosexual people? The thread title also concerns transmission. It's well-known how it's transmitted. Could we perhaps talk about education, prevention and possible scientific advances in immunisation/vaccination, not to mention addressing the social repercussions on orphaned children, sick and dying people without support and even economical adverse effects? Some folk seem obsessed with gay sufferers (and of course, they matter) to the exclusion of all the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:34 AM

Jack, it is an epidemic amongst MSM, not the general population. The condition is actually very rare amongst heterosexuals in "developed countries"

It is almost exclusively a disease of male homosexuality, and that is where the EPIDEMIC occurs.

The confusion arises over percentage rates and real numbers, male homosexuals are only a small demographic, but contain huge rates of infection......the Canadian figures say that around 10/ 15% is the median, that means that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 15, MSM carry the HIV virus. That is an epidemic, which if it pertained to heteros, would be absolutely devastating for society.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:24 AM

Thanks for the Canadian report Keith.

I wonder what is going on in Sask?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:20 AM

Thank you Keith.

Canada 2012......New HIV diagnosis.

In ALL adults tested, MSM accounted for 50.3% of all positive tests
In adult MALES, MSM accounted for 65.1% of all positive tests.

ED???

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:18 AM

>>>AS male homosexuals make up only 1/2% of the population of Canada, these stats show a massive over representation of MSM in the HIV new infection figures.

The only demographic anywhere which displays epidemic rates of HIV, is MSM......end of story.<<<

Sorry. No. Not end of story.

To make the case that it is massive epidemic, you have to compare the new infections per year number to the overall population.

To make the case that same-sex marriage makes the problem worse, you need to find a MSM married population and compare the new HIV infection rate to that of the whole MSM population.

It looks like you are saying that something on the order of 1 to 2% (I don't have time to do the precise math)of Gay males are being infected per year as opposed to on the order of .04 % of the general population. In comparison that looks alarming, but keeping in mind that in total we are only looking at two or three of thousand people per year. It is just isn't that alarming.

You have no data to conclude that same-sex marriage has any bearing and you have no data to show that the MSM population is universally promiscuous.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:09 AM

Ake and Ed, the 2012 data for Canada is here.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/survreport/2012/dec/index-eng.php

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:02 AM

Musket.
" Keith says heterosexual transmission is falling but it isn't."

PHE say they are falling, and have been for a decade.
Any other figures on that?


"Less than half new HIV+ diagnosis results are from make to male transmission"

That was true before 2012, but they overtook during 2012 according to PHE.
You accused me of using old data, but it was your figures that were out of date.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:02 AM

These were the most up to date I could get Ed.

I should think the 2012 figures would be worse , just as they are in the UK and the US, but I would be interested to see what you have, please post a readable version direct from the site, as I have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:50 AM

You post the 2008 Canaduan figures Ake, but not those show changes by 2012.

Curious as to why you would do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:47 AM

Here are the incidence and prevalence figures for Ontario, Ed.
They are simple to read, why are you getting confused?

Table 1: HIV Incidence and Prevalence by Population 2008


Population

HIV incidence

%

HIV prevalence

%


MSM 745 46% 15,072 57%
MSM-IDU 30 2% 617 2%
IDU 96 6% 1,988 7%
HIV-endemic 466 29% 4,878 18%
Heterosexual 282 17% 3,920 15%
Blood transfusion 0 0 152 <1%
Total 1,618 100% 26,627 100%

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:34 AM

Ed, here is the Canadian site.


Public Health Agency of Canada

www.publichealth.gc.ca
   
Home > Infectious Diseases > HIV/AIDS > Reports and Publications > HIV/AIDS - Epi Updates - 2010 > HIV/AIDS Among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in Canada


HIV/AIDS Epi Updates

Chapter 9: HIV/AIDS Among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in Canada

HIV/AIDS Among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in Canada (PDF Document - 584 KB – 19 pages)

At a Glance
◾In 2008, the MSM (men who have sex with men) exposure category continued to account for the largest proportion of positive HIV test reports among adults, representing 45.1% (557) of positive tests reported.
◾The estimated number of new HIV infections attributed to the MSM exposure category also accounted for the highest proportion of new infections in 2008, representing 44% of estimated new infections.
◾In 2008, an estimated 19% of men in the MSM exposure category were unaware of their HIV infection. This is lower than the overall estimated percentage (26%) of people living with HIV in Canada who were unaware of their HIV positive status. Still, this translates to an estimated 6,000 (4,500-7,500) people living with HIV in the MSM exposure category who were unaware of their HIV positive status.
◾HIV transmission among MSM in Canada is ongoing; recent research indicates that certain subgroups of MSM continue to be at considerable risk of HIV infection by engaging in risky sexual practices, such as unprotected anal intercourse with serodiscordant partners or partners of unknown HIV

45% of new positive HIV tests amongst male homosexuals.

That means that EVERY other demographic combined, present 55% of new positive HIV tests.

AS male homosexuals make up only 1/2% of the population of Canada, these stats show a massive over representation of MSM in the HIV new infection figures.

The only demographic anywhere which displays epidemic rates of HIV, is MSM......end of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:03 AM

" Keith says heterosexual transmission is falling but it isn't."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:58 AM

I have been using those figures all along.
They are the HPA/PHE figures.
NAT and Choices use them.

When I pointed out that statements of yours were directly contradicted by them, you claimed that you were right and the figures wrong.

You claimed there were other, better and more recent figures.
So show us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM

I do not agree that comment Steve.
I keep my posts short.

Indeed. But, looked at in the round, they are interminable.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:15 AM

Go onto the mythical website and read the mythical fucking figures.

The (actually, strictly speaking) mythical HPA, or PHE, or the mythical NAT for that matter.

The mythical figures of those I gave are there for your non mythical eyes to stare at, as you have and quoted. You only call them mythical when I refer to them!

Just because you believe fantasy, it doesn't make reality mythical. We have a certain type of doctor who may be able to help you understand that. Your GP should be able to refer you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:03 AM

I do not agree that comment Steve.
I keep my posts short.

Musket has written pages and pages about these mythical figures but, 3 months down the line and we still have not seen anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:26 AM

spare us more long explanations.

Said without irony. Dearie me! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:19 AM

Steve, I do agree with your comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:17 AM

I have been doing that for months Steve.
The overall picture is that MSM rates are high and rising, while hetero rates are low and falling.
Agree?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:14 AM

If there are other figures, show them to us, and spare us more long explanations.

If the figures for January-March 2013 are available, we would all want to see how the trends are going.
Show them to us, and spare us more long explanations.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:11 AM

Very sensible Steve.
What did you find out?

I found out what I said in my post. You can google the same as I suggested if you like. I wanted to see the overall picture, not get dragged into a statistics game with you in which we lose sight of what it is we're actually talking about. The overall picture is that it is, and always was, very unwise as well as inaccurate to regard HIV as some kind of gay plague, that it is a constant cause for concern rather than a cause for panic or scaremongering, and that some people casually reading stuff from the likes of Ake might be pleasantly surprised to discover that HIV infection is very uncommon. Yes there are some groups with higher rates of infection, as with any transmissible illness. That does not generally trigger a moral crusade, nor should it in the case of HIV. There are more constructive ways of dealing with the problem. Singling out HIV on thread after thread as some sort of threat to humanity perpetrated by bunches of promiscuous, irresponsible, repulsive and ruthless perverts says quite a lot about the people who do the singling out but sheds no light whatsoever on the matter to hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:43 AM

What is Keith rattling on about now?

Buggered if I know.

Seriously, can anyone work out what he is saying? He originally said HPA were definitive, which they aren't, weren't and never could be. He said health services are planned using the figures because they are official, whatever that means.

I pointed out that public health input into health service planning and commissioning takes more into account as they have access to their local picture rather than extrapolation. The local pictures refine, not contradict.

If Keith were right, we can sack over 300 consultant grade doctors, 300 odd specialists and possibly over 2,000 support staff who interpret data as part of their public health roles. As most are employed by councils rather than NHS contracts now, he may get his fucking wish!

He also clearly doesn't know the difference between 2012 and 2012/13. HPA used to publish using the final quarter of the previous year, whilst public health functions use the financial year in order to influence the commissioning cycle. But that's the public sector for you.

I wonder if Keith has a black and white telly to go with his black and white mindset? I always assumed Mudcat could attract slightly more sophisticated talking heads but with him and his mate...   It isn't just queer bashing either. Any subject, just as simple in approach. I wish the world spun with them in that regard.

But no other.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:31 AM

Not my figures, Ake, they are taken directly from a government of Canada site.
If you actually have an interest,you can check them out directly on the site. You have to look at the whole site to get a broad perspective , or accept their assessment, if you dont.

You say you are concerned about routes to deal with what you call a serious epidemic. You indicate your displeasure that government adencies and others are not concerned, and are not doing enough to deal with it.

So,if you are actually have concern for all groups impacted by HIV ((now and future), I would expect you would take the time to look at situations elsewhere to seek possible alteratives to your "one approach". Rather than selectively looking for statistics- or possibly skewing or interpreting them to suit a cause -to back up what seems to be a "fixed position" (some sources provided, others not), why not have a similar concern for all impacted, regardless of their sex, age, sexual orientation,marital status, lifestyle or nationality?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:04 AM

Ake, it was 56% of adult female AIDS cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:59 AM

Three months later, you still have not shown us the better and more recent figures that you claim exist.

(Shown us as opposed to just telling us about them)

All the sites you have mentioned recently use PHE figures exclusively, which supports my contention that there are no others.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:53 AM

Sorry Ed, your figures just don't make sense....50% of infections from IDU's?
IDU's are one of the lowest rated affected groups, yet your figures make them higher than any other group?

The latest figures, which I quoted, give IDUs as having a new infection rate of 16%, which in itself seem very high compared to IDU rates in other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:53 AM

Glad to see Keith agreeing that HPA used to collect and publish figures and that PHE will carry on doing that.

Actually it was me who told you about it in December last year, when you were disputing their figures.
Here is the post.

29 Dec 13 - 05:28 PM

What we both called HPA is now PHE.
Did you not even know that musket?
Follow my HPA link and you will find it is a PHE report.

So, I linked to the HPA/PHE 2012 figures published in November 2013.
What other ones are you talking about?
Do you even know?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:46 AM

Glad to see Keith agreeing that HPA used to collect and publish figures and that PHE will carry on doing that. As PHE includes responsibility for screening and analysis for commissioning support units, they will be able to publish data that more reflects the situation on the ground. Something HPA struggled with as it could only have codified (paid for at PCT level, known as HRG but too many acronyms!) which in short means that data could only be brought down to 100 levels as there were 100 commissioning bodies. More in depth estimates came from something known as Townsend scores, which looked at socio economic groupings at council ward level and adjusted for deprivation etc.

In short, in The UK (non English health funding buys into the old HPA systems that PHE are reviewing and developing) we will at long last be able to advise governments of the state of the health of the nation in a way The Black Report (mid 70s) wanted but successive governments failed to act on. The new system , once up and running will also help us to address poverty based on reality rather than political stunts. Hence the refusal by LibDem ministers to approve Osborn's attempt to classify poverty last week.

For HIV? The people who use illness as a weapon to turn society against identifiable groups will still have lots of figures they can bandy around to create doubt but they will be more robust and harder to cast doubt on. Planning and delivering healthcare services in The UK will have some of the guesswork taken out of it. We have a single system here and the state pays for most care , with private providers having to provide data in a way many other countries don't. It is frustrating that we still have a degree of guesswork. In theory we should be able to care for the true picture out there purely because we can have the most confidence in our statistics. This is perhaps the one single section of the government health reforms that has cross party support.

Be careful when comparing countries for prevalence of a medical condition. The World Health Organisation puts a huge health warning on the subject of apples and pears. I was at a conference on that very subject only the other day. (I do not speak for or about sexual health but, in this case, cancer registries. There was a time I used to speak about bulk solids handling, but there is a difference in having credentials and advocating what those with credentials say.)

I advise anyone to look at the links provided in NHS Choices regarding HIV, prevalence and support. If you have hitherto formed your views on media and political / religious dogma you may find the reality alters your view. Even now, I read recently of a GP who is awaiting a fitness to practice hearing (GMC) and when it comes up it might make a news story. He told a gay person under his care that HIV was God's punishment. (Put a few allegedly clauses in that sentence. Although he doesn't deny saying it.