BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 04:08 AM

I don't think this thread is about moral judgements, it is about getting the facts on HIV transmission rates and some conclusions on the best way of curtailing them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:50 PM

'Guest': "Even lawyers, and union supporters have the right to be heard, and considered, as do people here with other "spin" agendas (those often skewed to loosly link to, so-called facts)."

Then I suggest that you post links that are consistent with your views, or state that the views in the links that you post are not what you think. Fair enough??

You might even check your posts, and sources to see if they are politically motivated, or factual.
Fair enough, again?

"Even lawyers, and union supporters, (both those are NOT known for being very truthful) have the right to be heard, and considered, (do we have to 'consider' more bullshit??..haven't we had enough of THAT!?!?)as do people here with other "spin" agendas...."

Let's see if we can get through the spin...wouldn't you rather discuss or debate honest info, than deceptive spins?......just for once??
Let's at least 'pretend' that musicians are not stupid and gullible people, easily lured into fallacious levels of spin....after all, what is better to serve people with, Lies to support a political angle, or the TRUTH????
Fair enough?

Still respectfully....but don't push it....,

GfS

P.S. You MIGHT even post YOUR views...They might even be 'enlightening'.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 04:56 PM

Regarding homophobia in some/all African countries, I think it's pretty widespread. In Ivory Coast, Ghana and Senegal, which I know well, gay people are daily attacked, beaten and even killed in the open street by men who seem enraged by their very presence. It isn't anything to do with HIV, but both Muslim and Christian cultures over there are viciously and unequivocally anti-gay. I've seen signs in airports in all three countries warning western tourist passengers to turn around and go straight home if they have any intention of conducting gay relationships or indulging in homosexual practices. The signs are menacing and threaten instant Police arrest. Some of this stems from sex-tourism, a scourge of under-developed countries. For very little money, one can 'hire' a sexual partner of any age or gender; due to the terrible poverty, people are driven to any acts in order to eat. But the authorities seem to target gay men particularly.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 04:21 PM

guest you must be looking at a different thread.
There has been no " right-wing religious-based beliefs" on this one.

Musket, is it your opinion that anal sex is more prevalent now, or have you research findings?
My own impression is that is has always been prevalent.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 03:32 PM

Even lawyers, and union supporters have the right to be heard, and considered, as do people here with other "spin" agendas (those often skewed to loosly link to, so-called facts).

Only the Mudcat mods control what viewpoint or information is posted or linked, though some attempt to limit information and discussion from various viewpoints (some of those cloaked behind negative homophobic stereotyping, intertwined with a brand of right-wing religious-based beliefs, while others spin are not so strongly evident).

At a minimum, most links posted are much more respectful than some of the inflamatory posts put forward by the very few current thread contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 03:24 PM

Musket: "With regard to gay people, we are lucky in that they are, as a demographic, very responsible and are far more prone to screening than some other groups, hence more picked up by screening."

You must not be reading the links indicating that the homosexual communities are intimidated and NOT volunteering to be screened, and blaming it on other people's homophobia...either you are right, or the 'other guy' posting those links is. You two should figure it out, because the two of you seem to have conflicting views on that.

..Now if only the needle shares and bisexuals would be more accommodating to their own best interests....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:57 PM

Eliza. That is the complacency that Public Health England (PHE) are very concerned about. Health education can be construed as Nanny state if you are not careful, but HIV is a blood borne virus and is very much into equality in terms of whom it affects.

It isn't HIV per se but HIV viraemia that is the issue. In other words, the virus getting into the bloodstream. The best comparison is MRSA. Many of us carry it, even the old and vulnerable. It becomes an issue when it gets into the bloodstream, or MRSA bactoreamia as it is known. Similar with HIV. So cuddling a HIV + child or shaking hands with a HIV + adult is not deemed an issue. Even far more intimate contact, you would be unlucky to contract it. That is why needlestick injuries to healthcare staff where a known HIV + blood is in question rarely leads to HIV. I have had plenty of contact with HIV + people, including the child cuddling aspect, and have had a needlestick for that matter. I am not HIV +

Anybody who engages in unprotected sex, especially anal sex is at a heightened risk. With the ease of access to hard core porn and the increase in degree of porn available, more younger women are having anal sex, as more younger men see this as the norm. As we don't have much in terms of historical data to go on, this is one of the hardest to reach groups. If we take historical prevalence into account, gay men who practice unprotected sex with other men are statistically at high risk here, as are people of African origin largely due to the much wider root cause in many African States, including blood product delivery in hospitals and mother to child, as well as the high forced sex numbers in some countries. Sadly, a huge factor in many African countries is homophobia, which as well as targeting hate on gay people, also allows complacency in heterosexual people.

This is why I really have a no surrender attitude to expressed hate and homophobia on these pages. It isn't just missing the point, it can create a self fulfilling prophesy. Some would like that, such as the far right American Christian groups funding Ugandan political attempts to introduce death penalty for loving the wrong person, all the way to calling marriage "marriage" here.

Sadly, they also have their apologists who support their outlook whilst claiming otherwise. It's a sad mad world. It feeds the awful "don't come round to our house" fear. Nobody tells you to keep granny away in case she has C.Diff and shits all over their sofa....

With regard to gay people, we are lucky in that they are, as a demographic, very responsible and are far more prone to screening than some other groups, hence more picked up by screening. This is a statistic used by political, religious and other hate inspired people to try to say it is a gay issue per se. If you can stomach it, scroll up and read some of it, it is fascinating and awful in equal measures..

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:08 PM

'Guest', your link, 'Monogamy' by Arthur Fox, was so full of holes, that I was originally going to address them, point by point, but it would have taken too much time to cover it all. This guy is a spin-meister of major proportions, leaving out several KEY factors, in regards to monogamy...then I checked him out....he is an attorney blogger...."Arthur Fox, a public interest litigator, has devoted his career to working within the union movement to assist democratic-minded union leaders, members, and dissident organizations to reform autocratic unions and to strengthen the collective bargaining process on behalf of workers. He was a founder, in the 1970s, of the Teamster reform movement." --Huffington Post

As I've posted before, let's leave the politics OUT of getting to the FACTS!..His is a political position, NOT a public health position!

One glaring omission in his opinion piece, was, while targeting the root 'causes' of monogamy, being Judea-Christian, was the FACT, that the instinct of pair-bonding for the rearing of offspring was completely ignored and omitted!!! He was coming from a political viewpoint, and sidestepped, (through is 'litigator tactics'), the very basic thread of the nature of humans in regards to this matter!!

Most of the links you have provided have 'some' good information in them, and usually some spin. I suggest you do some fuller homework, when posting a link. Instead of posting a DEFINITION of monogamy, you posted a political spin from a fast taking lawyer/blogger!!..attempting to sidestep, while demeaning the traditional nuclear family, from which most of us came from!...I strongly suggest that you curtail the links that have a political agenda as an underlying premise.....especially from a lawyer, who has financial interests in promoting his/her position.

Respectfully (for now),

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:33 AM

By the way, how would anyone here feel if someone who was HIV positive came to their house and say, cuddled one's children or used the loo? Or shared the chalice at church? I know full well the disease can't be caught this way, and I have every sympathy for any poor person who has the virus, but being honest, I'd be a little wary. (It's dreadful to admit this, but one can only be honest.) One of 'my' prisoners was HIV positive from needle-sharing (he was a heroin addict) and although I always gave him a hug when he arrived in the Visits Room, I wouldn't have been too happy if he'd given me a peck on the cheek. I'm ashamed of this, but it's how it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:25 AM

Interesting article this morning in the Daily Mail (I know, I know, but I like the puzzles pages) about a lady of middle age who had quite a long relationship with a British chap but didn't use any protection. He ended the relationship and she became ill. Luckily her savvy doctor tested her for HIV and the poor woman was shocked to find she had contracted it. She had felt that at her age STDs aren't an issue, especially not HIV, and as the man hadn't been in an 'at risk' category it hadn't crossed her mind. Just shows that no matter who is having sex with whom, protection is essential. It would be very difficult to insist on a new partner having an HIV test (or any STD test) before going ahead with a sexual relationship. But really, it would seem prudent. The lady is having retro-viral medication and will have a normal life and lifespan, but sadly, people have asked her not to come to their house or go near their children as they are afraid of the disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:22 AM

Repeating earlier snippets from Keith in case you missed them, ake.

MSM do use screening more, but infection continues to rise.

and

PHE do the calculation and publish their conclusion, that there is a real increase in infection as well as increased testing.

So, there has been increased testing and screening but the rate of infection is still rising. How do you explain that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:05 AM

monogomy  

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 09:23 AM

There seems to be some confusion, there are people here who apparently believe that HIV affects all demographics at approx. the same rates. It does not.
The demographic most affected is MSM....by many tens of times, the infection rate is also rising also rising, while the infection rates in all other demographics are falling.
I would be sheer folly and ineffective, to test and contact trace the whole population for a condition which is extremely rare amongst heteros, but an epidemic amongst practicing male homosexuals.

The agencies suggest VERY FREQUENT testing and contact tracing for the WORST affect demographics, but are prevented from doing so by a political ideology which places idiotic dogma before health or life.

Studies in some parts of the US, found that half of all homosexual "marriages" or civil unions, were "open relationships" containing several different sexual partners; the article(which I linked to earlier), suggested that this partner sharing, increased the danger of HIV transmission.

As I said earlier homosexual "marriage" will certainly not guarantee monogamy.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:17 AM

Troubadour,
Incidentally, HIV doesn't kill anybody. People only die when it progresses to AIDS,

I think we all already knew that, but thanks anyway.
Did you know that it ALWAYS progresses to AIDS unless treated.
That requires testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:50 AM

Again Musket.
You must have misread it the first couple of times I posted it.

"The Government's continued funding of a national HIV prevention programme targeting the groups most at risk of HIV infection (gay and bisexual men and African communities)"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:53 AM

Hehe. Looks like someone doesn't understand what they are reading...

A campaign focussing on gay men is homophobic if not qualified as being proportionate nor in their interest. A health awareness campaign where gay men who use unprotected anal sex are part of the target group for awareness isn't homophobic. If there were a disease, disorder or condition that only affected gay men, then targetted awareness would be appropriate. Focussing on one group where everyone, including you and I could contract it, is stigmatising. Especially as gay men aren't at risk any more than men who read one newspaper more than another*. Only the few, like in any other lifestyle, prefer unprotected penetrative sex, especially promiscuously. I think that figure, which nobody knows, is not worth either the hate from bigots nor the sometimes unrealistic expectations of health pressure groups and charities. Your own cut &paste widens it to the at risk groups Seaham Cemetery refers to.

I know Keith. It is difficult at times eh?

Never mind. If everyone who attended my infrequent lectures defended me, I'd have to start telling the truth eh?




zzzzzzzzzz

*I did read once that more people who are HIV + read The Guardian, whilst those at most risk of CHD issues read The Sun. I stopped buying newspapers years ago.

Don't forget to read this quickly. Either my comments may disappear or Max's host may be asked to remove the whole thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:44 AM

"You don't necessarily have to focus on just the homosexual aspects of it...HIV/AIDS is a physical killer,"

Tell that to Ake.

We've been trying for months, so good luck with that!

Incidentally, HIV doesn't kill anybody. People only die when it progresses to AIDS, which is becoming less frequent month on month.

If people like Ake focussed on the disease, rather than stigmatising one particular group of victims, a hell of a lot more WOULD get done.

The most significant factor preventing a near 100% take up of testing is the homophobic reaction of people like Ake.

Would you want to expose yourself to being ostracised, having reduced job prospects and being pointed at by miserable narrow minded people?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:30 AM

Are all gays the same, of course not 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:03 AM

Seaham Cemetery

There is nothing, nothing whatseover to substantiate a campaign focussing on gay men. It is homophobic to do so.

National Aids Trust.
"The Government's continued funding of a national HIV prevention programme targeting the groups most at risk of HIV infection (gay and bisexual men and African communities) is welcome; more now needs to be done to evaluate the effectiveness of this programme. There needs to be an increase in the proportion of gay and bisexual men and African men and women choosing safer sex options such as consistent condom use and a reduction in multiple or concurrent partners with clear strategies to make this happen."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 05:28 AM

Homophobia is a significant barrier to HIV diagnosis, treatment, and prevention  

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 05:24 AM

I know that those of us working in healthcare have our posts deleted, in case people see challenge to the homophobic hysteria by those who the moderators admire, but you cant change the facts.

HIV testing in The UK follows recent NICE guidelines and is in line with guidance from The British HIV Association. Guidelines for local authorities, who are charged with provision of all STI testing except HIV clearly state a few truths that are sorely missing in this debate. Except that Musket sends me a copy of what he writes before it gets deleted. He tells me he has been asked for evidence from his ISP, as he is deeply shocked that this could happen, and sexual health is too important to let it drop.

This is awful, really awful. HIV is an issue worldwide, and still a larger issue here than it ought to be. About a quarter of people living with early stage arent even aware of it. They are a mixed bunch, the unmet need. SOme are gay, but we predict almost as many are black African origin, (both sexes) and to a slightly lesser extent female sex workers and younger promiscuous girls.

There is nothing, nothing whatseover to substantiate a campaign focussing on gay men. It is homophobic to do so. If people dont like being called bigot and homophobes, it would be a good start to stop expressing homophobic bigotry.

Why does Mudcat allow propogation of lies and demonisation of people? Why does it delete facts and reality, where gay bashing isnt the answer?

Stick to Morris dancing and burnt out Californian hippies, it seems to be the limit of credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 05:22 AM

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

Some quotes from Keith, who, according to you, is the only one who has any sense: MSM do use screening more, but infection continues to rise. and PHE do the calculation and publish their conclusion, that there is a real increase in infection as well as increased testing.

So, Ake, there you have it. Screening and testing have increased, but infection is still rising. Yet you still keep saying that is the only solution. Are you saying that more screening and testing is required? How do we achieve that?

Do we educate people so that there is a higher take up? Surely not. You have already stated quite categorically that education does not work! So, how do we convince people to get tested? Go on then. Give us the benefit of your wisdom.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:16 PM

(The last post was mine, but I forgot to sign in...you can delete the prior post).
.............................................................................

From an earlier post, to 'KB', dealing with the same subject(I've deleted some nonessential sentences, but note, in the area of being honest, and the results!) WE NEED MORE HONESTY!!

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Mar 13 - 03:07 PM

Well, KB...you're opinions are not always wrong...and you've been cool about it...I'm waiting to hear from our illustrious Professor..being as he LOVES to twist and distort history and facts, to suit his own agenda.
having an 'opinion' on homosexuality is one thing...lying about it.. ... is another.
Being deceived is not evil in itself..because people, in general, try to make the best possible decisions, based on the information that they have to work with..if one is deceived, he's just deceived.... and given more accurate information, they would more than likely adjust their decisions........the evil belongs to those, who being self willed, set out to deceive another. That is quite another thing.
Being as a great many people, have some compassion in them, may empathize with various homosexuals that they may have an acquaintance with..I too, have had associations both professionally and artistically with people who were homosexual....but because I was truthful with them, they were honest to me in return....in in that honesty, they have admitted things to me, about their homosexuality, that they would never admit to another, generic placatory 'so-called' activist!!
In the course of my associations with a certain homosexual, who was, in my opinion, a musical and sound engineering genius....I was able to convince him to return to his father, in Sacramento, reconcile with his dad....who ended up taking care of him.... He died of AIDS, in his father's care.
From his own admissions to me, and my studies, and sensitivities in dealing with him, though his fears and perceived sexual 'inabilities' toward the opposite sex, I have NO DOUBT whatsoever, that our resident Professor Wannabe Activist, has worked overtime in trying to delude others, as he hides from his emotional callousness, both in his past, and failure to ever come to terms with it!!.....

Respectfully KB,

GfS

P.S. As per aforementioned, "WE NEED MORE HONESTY!!" to overcome the fears. That does not mean anyone needs to accept the 'wonderfulness' of homosexuality or sharing needles..BUT, let's get off of the nonsensical 'homophobic' hate raps!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:13 PM

From an earlier post, to 'KB', dealing with the same subject(I've deleted some nonessential sentences, but note, in the area of being honest, and the results!) WE NEED MORE HONESTY!!

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Mar 13 - 03:07 PM

Well, KB...you're opinions are not always wrong...and you've been cool about it...I'm waiting to hear from our illustrious Professor..being as he LOVES to twist and distort history and facts, to suit his own agenda.
having an 'opinion' on homosexuality is one thing...lying about it.. ... is another.
Being deceived is not evil in itself..because people, in general, try to make the best possible decisions, based on the information that they have to work with..if one is deceived, he's just deceived.... and given more accurate information, they would more than likely adjust their decisions........the evil belongs to those, who being self willed, set out to deceive another. That is quite another thing.
Being as a great many people, have some compassion in them, may empathize with various homosexuals that they may have an acquaintance with..I too, have had associations both professionally and artistically with people who were homosexual....but because I was truthful with them, they were honest to me in return....in in that honesty, they have admitted things to me, about their homosexuality, that they would never admit to another, generic placatory 'so-called' activist!!
In the course of my associations with a certain homosexual, who was, in my opinion, a musical and sound engineering genius....I was able to convince him to return to his father, in Sacramento, reconcile with his dad....who ended up taking care of him.... He died of AIDS, in his father's care.
From his own admissions to me, and my studies, and sensitivities in dealing with him, though his fears and perceived sexual 'inabilities' toward the opposite sex, I have NO DOUBT whatsoever, that our resident Professor Wannabe Activist, has worked overtime in trying to delude others, as he hides from his emotional callousness, both in his past, and failure to ever come to terms with it!!.....

Respectfully KB,

GfS

P.S. As per aforementioned, "WE NEED MORE HONESTY!!" to overcome the fears. That does not mean anyone needs to accept the 'wonderfulness' of homosexuality or sharing needles..BUT, let's get off of the nonsensical 'homophobic' hate raps!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 07:53 PM

And the UK gov't reaction is? 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:29 PM

http://m.her.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/5/834.long 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:18 PM

Effectiveness versus sympathy 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:06 PM

From the last post: "He blamed the rising infection rates on infected people being too scared to seek help and fearing they will be punished."

Now just think about that for a moment...

Now we are supposed to sympathize with people who contract a FATAL disease, and are AFRAID to ask for help?????..because they will be 'punished'????

Absolutely astonishing!

I have a personal story about that kind of idiocy. I had a friend, and musical partner, Michael Llona, who was with a 'friend(?)', and smoked a joint, that had some coke in it. Mike was 27..however he started having chest pains, and laid down on a couch, while his 'friend' was there, too afraid to call an ambulance, for fear that the cops would show up, as well, asking a lot of questions. Mike lay on the couch for a bit over two hours, while all his 'friend' would do was give him a Popsicle. Mike died that evening, on the couch, because the asshole 'friend' would not call for help, for fear of 'being punished'. What a loss....for nothing, but fear!
If you're not willing to take responsibility for your 'pleasures', but will put other people in danger, then maybe one ought to reconsider their priorities!!!
Michael Llona, vocals, acoustic guitar

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 04:15 PM

From Keith's link......"In the UK, free and accessible HIV treatment and care has resulted in large-scale treatment coverage: in 2012, 67% of the entire HIV population (diagnosed and undiagnosed) were treated compared to 85% among the diagnosed population. It was estimated that 48% (40,800/96,000) of the entire HIV population had an undetectable viral load in 2011. [30]
Despite this, "treatment as prevention" is unlikely to be sufficient to reduce HIV transmission in the UK. Using MSM as an example, while the proportion of all HIV-positive MSM who had viral loads >1,500 copies/mL decreased from 47% in 2006 to 35% in 2010 [31], HIV incidence remained steady during this period [4]. It is estimated that if diagnosed and untreated patients with CD4 counts <500 cells/mm3 were treated, the proportion of the HIV population with detectable viral loads could have decreased from 42% (40,800) to 38% (36,500). In contrast,

halving the undiagnosed population from 22,600 to 11,300 could have led to a decrease in the proportion of MSM living with HIV with detectable viral load from 42% to 28% (27,000). This demonstrates that "treatment as prevention" is unlikely to reduce HIV transmission, unless it is combined with very frequent HIV testing alongside primary prevention programmes."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia - NAT comment

Friday is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. To mark the day NAT is repeating its call to legalise gay marriage as an important step to challenging the homophobia which fuels the UK's HIV epidemic.

Many gay men and women still continue to suffer discrimination and prejudice in their lives. Banning same sex couples from marriage endorses this discrimination and sends out a clear message that same sex relationships aren't equal to opposite sex couples.

This discrimination leads to low self esteem and internalised stigma amongst many gay men.

Low self esteem is proven to have an impact on the way people look after themselves and make decisions about their health and wellbeing. If you don't believe you are worth anything, why would you value yourself?

This devaluing of yourself and your health can result in behaviour such as high risk sexual activity or injecting drugs [1] which are currently fueling the HIV epidemic amongst gay and bi-sexual men.

Around seven gay or bisexual men a day in the UK are getting HIV and it remains one of the most serious infectious diseases we face. About 100,000 people are living with HIV in the UK - including approximately one in twenty gay and bisexual men.

Recent research by Stonewall [2] and others, including the Department of Health [3] show that lesbian and gay men have higher levels of substance abuse and mental health concerns, due in considerable part to ongoing stigma and discrimination.

Recent evidence also suggests combating institutional discrimination through opening civil marriage to gay and lesbian people can significantly influence their patterns of health. [4]

NAT believes, same sex marriage is a key step towards ending stigma and discrimination towards gay people by encouraging current and future generations to treat everyone equally, no matter what their sexual orientation. The passing of this legislation by the House of Lords will be a milestone in celebrating gay people, gay communities and gay sexuality. It also crucially helps to promote social, physical and mental health for all people in the UK and would help reduce the rising number of new HIV diagnoses amongst gay men.

- See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/News-and-Media/Press-Releases/2013/May/International%20Day%20Against%20Homophobia%20and%20Transphobia%20.aspx#sthash.6NUrcbxn.dpuf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

HIV infections in gay men 'increasing in homophobic countries'Email16th March 2010, 11:57 AMHIV rates were increasing in gay men, Michel Sidibe said.Get the latest LGBT headlines in your inbox with our free daily newsletter!JOIN5 reader comments

Rates of HIV infections in gay men are increasing in countries which have homophobic attitudes, the chief of the UN AIDS agency has said.

Michel Sidibe told journalists at a lunch yesterday that rates of infection among gay men were rising in areas such as Africa, where many countries have laws against homosexuality.

He said that in Africa and China, around 33 per cent of new HIV infections were being found in gay men, which he said was a significant increase.

AP reports that on new laws being introduced in countries such as Uganda, he said: "You have also a growing conservatism which is making me very scared.

"We must insist that the rights of the minorities are upheld. If we don't do that … I think the epidemic will grow again. We cannot accept the tyranny of the majority."

Mr Sidibe said that, in contrast, between six and nine per cent of new infections are found in gay men in the Caribbean, which has fewer laws against homosexuality.

He blamed the rising infection rates on infected people being too scared to seek help and fearing they will be punished.

He also cited rising infection rates in drug users and prostitutes in countries which have stringent laws against drug use and prostitution.

Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality law will impose the death penalty on those caught having gay sex while infected with HIV.

The bill's sponsor, David Bahati MP, claims it will reduce HIV infections in the country, although health experts say it will have the opposite effect.

Mr Sidibe also mentioned HIV infections in the US, saying it was "shocking" that more than 50 per cent of new infections in 2009 occurred in gay men.

He said: "It seems like we have come full circle. After almost no cases a few years ago we are seeing again this new peak among people who are not having access to all the information, the protection that is needed."






homophobia link by UN Aids agency 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 03:21 PM

Troubadour, your view is not supported by PHE.
They are clear that infection is falling in all groups except MSM, and that there is a real rise in MSM infection that can not be explained by more testing.

"The rise in diagnoses among MSM may be explained by both an increase in HIV testing and on-going high rates of transmission. The number of MSM that had an HIV test in sexual health services in England increased by 13% from 64,270 in 2011 to 72,710 in 2012, while in London the increase was 19% (from 28,640 in 2011 to 33,980, in 2012). However, estimations of HIV incidence using a back-calculation analysis [3] indicate that HIV transmission among MSM remained high with 2,300-2,500 new infections annually and 7,200 MSM undiagnosed in 2012, with little change over the last decade (Figure 3)."

"Over the last decade, the number of new diagnoses among heterosexuals declined in England, especially in London."

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317140300680

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

Musket: "Homophobia is not only obscene, but appears to be popular too."

Homophobia is a fear based 'hate', if you will..and being as 'hate' is much like a contagious disease, perhaps you should stop spreading 'hate', by labeling people who are actually voicing their views on trying to arrest the other physical diseases! If the 'conflict' is diverted away from the root causes, you can rest assured that LESS will be done, by NOT focusing on the REAL sources of the REAL problems, and trying to make political hay out of it! We can all shift the attention away...and by doing so MORE people will die...and 'blame' will be overlooked, in favor of some stupid, political OPINION!

The preceding message was NOT politically, nor 'hate' motivated.

Also, you seemed to have not addressed the question on what would you do, or be in favor of, to arrest the spread of the fatal diseases. You don't necessarily have to focus on just the homosexual aspects of it...HIV/AIDS is a physical killer, NOT a ping-pong ball to 'justify' the so called 'prejudice' in regards to the BEHAVIOR of those, who are spreading it, or why, and/or what should/could be done about it!!
If the question of consequences of people's BEHAVIOR is NOT addressed, you might as well condone people killing each other, over 'fun' and 'feeling good'!....ask any junkie!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 12:44 PM

My posts are missing again.

Pathetic.

Homophobia is not only obscene, but appears to be popular too.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 09:32 AM

"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."

Since MSMs are already the grouping which is embracing testing more than any other, apparently you haven't much to worry about.

But of course you don't accept the fact that hetero men and women don't have the same uptake of testing, which skews the figures proportionally.

This of course causes an apparent prevalence of infection in MSM, which will inevitably be exposed as hetero infection passes the asymptomatic phase and becomes obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 09:19 AM

"I am amazed that anyone thinks this is not a serious health problem, and should not be discussed."

They should be, and are being, discussed by people who know much more than you and don't share your penchant for stereotyping all who don't fit your smug, narrow minded cosmic perception.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:02 AM

It is not necessarily wrong,

PHE will be so relieved that you said that.

although you can't prove absolutely, that finding more could be down to increased infections.

I would not even try.
Why would I when PHE do the calculation and publish their conclusion, that there is a real increase in infection as well as increased testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 04:06 AM

Musket: "Nobody is justifying homosexuality. On the basis you don't need to justify existing. Who would anyone justify themselves to?

Someone is trying to justify homophobia though."

Absolute nonsense! Concern over the spread of a DEADLY virus, through a certain group's sexual behavior, is NOT homophobia!...it IS, 'Concern over the spread of a DEADLY virus' because of their sexual behavior!!
...and it is NOT, "...you don't need to justify existing. "

Merely existing, is not the question, nor the controversy...BEHAVIOR is the issue....behavior that, because of self indulgent neglect, large amounts of people are DYING! What is it about that, that you don't understand????
Perhaps by denying that there is a problem, and/or denying that people who engage is such behavior, are at risk to themselves and others, perhaps you want them to contract a fatal disease, because underneath your 'so-called liberal' bantering, maybe YOU'RE homophobic!! Would you discourage people who share needles to be tested, on the basis that it would be 'politically incorrect' to hurt THEIR FEELINGS, as well??????

Hypocrisy on parade!
I don't see any of the posters that you demonize for being as 'bigoted homo-phobics', making value judgements, against anyone....and yet you call them 'haters'.
You need to separate yourself from what is 'politically correct' verses what is practical and safe.....if not for themselves, but for the victimization of the public, at large, due to UNSAFE sexual, (and addictive, for the needle sharers), practices!!!!
Get over yourself!
There is NO SANE reason, that political OPINIONS should override common sense, now is there???...and those who promote political opinions over common sense, might consider getting a new, and realistic political, or even an apolitical reality!
Politics are usually based on distortions.....to convince people to abandon COMMON SENSE, and replace it with often wishful thinking!!
How do YOU suggest that the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus should, or could be arrested?????????????........By denying it exists??..or how it spreads???.....or who is spreading it faster??.....because you're terrified of 'offending' the groups spreading it???...and being thought of being 'an imperfect liberal'???
Don't let your sense of 'political correctness' get in the way of recognizing the TRUTH, and doing what is right!

One more time, before I'm done,.."How do YOU suggest that the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus should, or could be arrested?????????????"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 06:52 PM

If other at risk groups used screening facilities in the numbers that gay men do, spread would be less.

In all other groups, infection is already falling.

MSM do use screening more, but infection continues to rise.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 12:40 PM

Nobody is justifying homosexuality. On the basis you don't need to justify existing. Who would anyone justify themselves to?

Someone is trying to justify homophobia though. Luckily, we do not need to engage with one group more than any other. If other at risk groups used screening facilities in the numbers that gay men do, spread would be less. PHE, the public health body advising government and NHS for England are lobbying for more health education amongst female sex workers and hard to reach ethnic groups.

Historical data is of interest to gay interest organisations and those who despise them equally. Trajectory by meta analysis of all factors is getting better, and once we have better primary care data to go with HES (secondary care data) national trajectories will reflect a combination of all local predictions, weighted accordingly.

(That's for all health matters, not just sexual health. For a country where 95% of acute care is centralised by funding, we are shocking at giving a whole picture. We ended up abolishing The Health Protection Agency and incorporating its role into a larger public health body, perhaps (my opinion, not necessarily everyone's) the one good move in the reorganisation of The NHS. Crude incidence data will not be used in isolation from 2014/15. That said, historical data is excellent when auditing effectiveness of interventions. Ben Goldacre wrote a good article on it, and how some have abused it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 11:38 AM

Original post suggests the discussion focus on (potentially) effective prevention programs. As HIV is a "global pandemic", discussing potential causes of high infection rates in a HIV impacted group meets the OP test to target potentially effective prevention programs, (while it may be inconvenient for those with another agenda or "pet prevention approach" -that may or may not be effective - to meet the needs to reduce the" global pandemic" in of any group in targeted communities).

Repeating the "same old, same old" seems mostly of interest to those few interested in dispute, versus unearthing new information to fuel interesting and non-inflamatory discussion. Note the few people ckntributing now, versus near the top of the OP.

OP
BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor 
 26 Feb 14 - 03:34 PM 

I have been told that a section of this forum does not want to discuss it. I think it deserves its own thread.

I haven't thought about it much since I got checked for it and got married. But it is obviously and important issue. Does anyone have any special insights? Does anyone have experience in prevention programs. 

I have to admit I have an interest in seeing this thread succeed. 
I'd like to see the discussion kept civil and confined to one thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 10:53 AM

Hmm.....the discussion of HIV transmission seems to be at an end?

Now its about justifying homosexuality.
Well excuse me if I don't take part in that little game, the thread is about TRANSMISSION.

That MSM are massively over represented in the infection rates for most sexual diseases is a well documented fact, your priority should be to get these transmission rates drastically cut into line with other sections of society, not attempt to cover the problem by inferring homophobia.

To do so is cowardly and against the interests of all homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:37 AM

""Antigay prejudice is a public health threat"" quote.

Could if be true?

If so, is an antidote needed?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:32 AM

Missing voices, for consideration only. 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:24 AM

All very interesting.

However, we have someone who takes the fact that more gay men in The UK turn up for voluntary screening than other high risk groups as a reason for hating them and forcing anyone who is gay to undergo invasive testing. Which cannot be carried out by a healthcare professional without consent by the way.

Meanwhile, a right wing idiot has just admitted his guilt in court for malicious communication. This is the criminal offence I asked my ISP to pass on regarding the behaviour of Akenaton. The offence occurs where you post, not where the site is hosted.

Obviously, the rambling hate of an insignificant nobody who nobody listens to, (Keith and Goofus being irrelevant nobodies) isn't of interest but you have to do something.

If anybody here actually believed Akenaton, or were persuaded that gay love is perverted and against human nature, or that gay sex is making HIV an increasing epidemic that is almost exclusively gay....

It's a pity that political inspired posters such as Keith refuse to question his statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM

Interesting site, for the open minded 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 08:49 AM

Greater Risk for HIV Infection of Black Men Who Have Sex With Men:  

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 08:15 AM

HIV and African Americans (traditionally marginalized in USA society) 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:56 AM

The trouble with facts is that there are so many of them.Samuel McChord Crothers

The Gentle ReaderFacts have a cruel way of substituting themselves for fancies. There is nothing more remorseless, just as there is nothing more helpful, than truth.William C. Redfield, Address at Case School, Cleveland, Ohio, May 27, 1915

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort them into what they are not. We cannot make facts. All our wishing cannot change them. We must use them.John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801 - 1890)

Count Hermann Keyserling once said truly that the greatest American superstition was belief in facts.John Gunther (1901 - 1970)

Generally the theories we believe we call facts, and the facts we disbelieve we call theories.Felix Cohen

Where facts are few, experts are many.Donald R. Gannon

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 04:18 AM

What's the point?

I haven't seen an honest interpretation of data since I last referenced it.

I also note that it isn't only my posts that go missing.

A tip for posters. If you work in healthcare in any capacity don't declare it. Your objectivity and honesty gets deleted.

A tip for moderators. Are you sure someone doesn't have editing rights who shouldn't? It's funny how lies, homophobia and hate inspired posts remain whilst the actual situation gets deleted?

After all, I doubt for one second that one of our moderators thinks it ok to demonise innocent whole sections of society but not allow those providing the hate to read what respectable members of society think of their odious bile?