BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:53 PM

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

Good call, Ake!

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

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:48 PM

"Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness"

You think that has nothing to do with infection rates Dave?

Keith was the only one who made any attempt to address the issue of how to lower the HIV infection rates problem....not so long ago, you and your ilk refused to admit that there was a problem.

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

The present procedures have failed to contain the epidemic amongst MSM.

How does one qualify to be "someone who matters"? Do you think only "health professionals should be concerned about HIV infection rates?

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

This procedure has NOT been put into practice......Most people are aware of the dangers associated with promiscuity and risk taking, so further "education" will be of limited benefit. "Research" may find a cure for HIV/AIDS, but it will not put an end to the present epidemic....THAT requires serious and swift ACTION.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:46 PM

Check it out 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:14 PM

nobody says anything worth considering except Keith.

What a surprise. Only those who agree with him are worth considering.

Not one original idea on how to make a difference to MSM HIV infection rates

I would fully agree with that. Not one original idea from anyone at all. Not surprising really. No-one posting here is a real expert on HIV and AIDS. Musket comes closest but even he is only on the periphery.

This is a thread in which to discuss HIV infection rates

So the point " Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness?", made by you, should not be allowed?

I find that almost unbelievable, you now KNOW that MSM infection rates are MASSIVELY higher than ANY other demographic, yet you sit like the wise monkeys, with eyes and ears covered.....only foul mouths are open.

Tell you what, ake, when you begin to do something meaningful about the issue, people will believe you. You don't have to open a clinic or anything. Just help to fund research. Lobby your MP. Do something that really will make a difference, rather than post on a forum that very few people read.

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

So, this is the sum of your original idea is it? I guess no-one has ever thought of that before! Errrr, BYW, just a bit up the thread,you agreed that education and research had a part to play? Had you forgotten that bit?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:34 PM

Well, Well, what an anti- climax, nobody says anything worth considering except Keith.

Not one original idea on how to make a difference to MSM HIV infection rates, only the usual cursing and abuse.
I find that almost unbelievable, you now KNOW that MSM infection rates are MASSIVELY higher than ANY other demographic, yet you sit like the wise monkeys, with eyes and ears covered.....only foul mouths are open.

This is a thread in which to discuss HIV infection rates, why has GUEST Judy in disguise, linked to a webpage referring to prejudice against homosexuals?
I think the real prejudice lies within those who ignore the infection rates, allowing more and more mainly young males to become infected.
It is better that some of those infected will live for a reasonable lifespan, but their lives will be severely affected by the virus, and the antiretroviral treatment.
Those who are infected and refuse to be tested are a significant dangers to their sexual partners, and if diagnosis is late, death will still follow.

Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic.....this should be promoted by all health agencies AND homosexual agencies. In the meantime the "opt out" procedure is a small step in the right direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Judy in disguise
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:38 AM

research 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:02 AM

"neglected and under resourced"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:45 AM

Proves your point?
It says you are "neglecting" it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:44 AM

Speaking of "we need to do something about gay men" is not something I or anyone involved in healthcare could participate in.

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.
In addition, Caribbean communities have about three times the HIV prevalence of the wider population, as well as poorer outcomes for other aspects of sexual health.3 A strategic approach to addressing HIV in these communities is vital and must be developed as a priority in local authorities with significant Caribbean populations, linked to wider sexual health work."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:36 AM

Contact tracing is carried out all the time, both voluntarily where some one who tests positive engages with health services or by compulsion where someone has knowingly put others at risk of their pre-diagnosed position. (A criminal offence under UK law.)

National Aids Trust.
"Partner notification, the process of contacting the sexual partners of someone diagnosed with HIV, is a highly effective way of getting people tested and diagnosed. Audits show up to 37% of partners traced and tested through this process were diagnosed HIV positive as a result.7 Despite this, the role of partner notification in prevention and testing is neglected and under resourced; this should be addressed in a future strategy."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:29 AM

Nice to see Keith suggesting what to do.

Drop in, anonymous testing which, if negative, doesn't appear on your health record help by your GP has been around a long time. Take up by gay men of this service is far better than in any other group. In fact, when you look at raw figures rather than take a Cochrane approach, it can look as if gay men figures are rising disproportionally. In fact, a combination of pure numbers (incidence and take up) helps give the figures we have. A complacent heterosexual issue isn't factored in enough, according to many public health bodies, and information from self help, charities and pressure groups, whilst helpful, focus on particular concerns. Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director at NHS England recently called for better communication of commissioning rationale as in many fields, not just sexual health, the services don't always reflect the information in the public domain. It isn't hiding or keeping facts secret, it's just that they are contained in boring agenda papers for board meetings of NHS bodies, which can be downloaded, but you lose the will to live, whereas NAT, Stonewall, BHF, Alzheimer's Association etc put the facts that justify their approach in easy to reach places.

What I see here demonstrates that perfectly. Although the innocence isn't always there eh?

Contact tracing is carried out all the time, both voluntarily where some one who tests positive engages with health services or by compulsion where someone has knowingly put others at risk of their pre-diagnosed position. (A criminal offence under UK law.)

Speaking of "we need to do something about gay men" is not something I or anyone involved in healthcare could participate in. Suggestions as to helping control and limit spread of HIV is however a subject where the more discussion the better. After all, awareness is the "upstream" key.

Which is why demonising and stigmatising is worse than awful, it can exacerbate the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:42 AM

...but most of the UK had been in bed for a lot of that 12 hours anyway!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:41 AM

My apologies to ake for the mistake about times. The second post was 12 hours and 7 minutes later not 7 minutes as I said. My bad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:11 AM

Keith: It should be a technical discussion based on known facts.
There is no place in such a discussion for anyone's views on morality.

Ake: As Keith says, lets keep it that way, just stick to the issue.

Ake, in the same post: Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness?

No wonder you are so fixated with anal sex, ake. You talk through your arse half the time. I will also point out that you said "Does anyone give a toss" at 03:36pm, followed by "don't give a toss then? " at 03:43pm. A whole 7 minutes later. I know you think that there is a conspiracy against you; do you also believe we all just sit there waiting for your deliberations as well?

Anyhow, to keep in 'the spirit' of the thread, according to you:

What do you think is the best way forward? Education and research.

Are the agencies abdicating responsibility by not targeting those demographics most affected? No.

Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness? No.

Should we leave things as they are and rely on procedures which have failed abysmally in the past? Things have not 'failed abysmally'. How can the vast reduction of the death rate be an abysmal failure?

Does anybody give a toss? Yes, lots of people. Those who matter.

I have seen all the arguments and those are my conclusions. If you want to continue arguing against them, fine by me. But as I said before, luckily, everyone now knows your views and no-one important (or even fucking important) takes any notice.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:57 AM

Summarising the facts (UK),

.Successful treatment relies on early diagnosis, and therefor testing.

.Infection rates of MSM are very high and rising.

.Infection rates of black Africans is high but falling.

.Infection rates of all other groups are low and falling.

I would advocate opt-out testing for anyone thought to be from the first two groups, and rigorous contact tracing for all who test positive.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:43 AM

No ideas?......I suppose that'll be a "don't give a toss" then?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 03:36 PM

Well, this thread turned out OK.

All the nonsense seems to have subsided and the issue is being addressed at last. As Keith says, lets keep it that way, just stick to the issue.

So, we've heard most of the views, how about some conclusions?
What do you think is the best way forward? Are the agencies abdicating responsibility by not targeting those demographics most affected?
Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness?
Should we leave things as they are and rely on procedures which have failed abysmally in the past?
Does anybody give a toss?

Let's hear it!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 02:32 PM

I thought you had gone, Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 02:03 PM

Naked Guest makes some good points. Has this thread outlived its usefulness? The new information seemed to stop coming in about a hundred posts ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 09:03 AM

"I'll see it when I believe it"
slip of the tongue by psychologist Thane Pittman.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true"
Francis Bacon (in discussing self-serving patterns, and bias from personal belief assessments, and attributions).

"My opinion, my conviction, gains infinitely in strength and success, the moment a second mind has adopted it"
Novalis

"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure (nature) hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you actually don't know"
R. Persig. - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 04:54 AM

they all suffer from boorish politicians who see the need to demonise them.

I am not aware of that.
Can you give an example Musket?

They do suffer from a health care service that does not adequately target their needs.
You yourself are evidence of a political cause behind that failing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 04:05 AM

Keith thinks you can talk of the biological effects of human nature without bringing human nature into it. Fascinating and explains a lot.

Meanwhile, akenaton repeats his assertion that gay men are all too promiscuous to be in loving relationships. About the same sentence where he says he isn't a homophobe.

Tell you what, next time gay friends stop over, I'll ask which is predatory and give him a set of keys in case he wants to slip out in the night and find someone to poke his willy into.

A word to the wise. You can't keep repeating and stressing hateful bigoted comments and then say those who are repulsed by it represent a liberal plot. Blaming your lack of education isn't defence either.

To bring the two sides together. You will never eradicate or control lifestyle health problems by stigmatising the lifestyle. They just get driven underground. Gay men are in a risk demographic they share with people of African descent and prisoners. To a slightly less extent we can add substance misuse.The groups are not mutually exclusive but they all suffer from boorish politicians who see the need to demonise them.

Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 03:45 AM

It is a verifiable fact that sharing needles can lead to HIV transmission.
People's opinions on the morality of illegal drug use are, or should be, irrelevant.

If someone makes the link between drug use and transmission, claiming they are opposed to illegal drug use does not change the verifiable fact that IDU facilitates transmission.

I was asked to set out my views on homosexuality.
I am open about those views and have expressed them before, but I was disappointed that it was felt relevant in what should have been a purely dispassionate, scientific/technical discussion.

Claiming someone is a "bigot" has been used as a reason to ignore a verifiable fact that that has been put up for consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 12:00 AM

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

OK...So, is abstaining from promiscuous sex, and not sharing needles, which would stop the transmission of HIV/AIDS, is it a topic of morality, or the practical?

I've found that in most cases, morality and practicality are pretty closely related!....what is 'practical' over a period of time, gets to be 'moral'.....other than that, "Stupid is as stupid does"~~Forrest Gump

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 06:32 PM

Bollocks. You cannot say 'I believe that homosexual men should do...

Did anyone say that?
If they did they would have immediately changed the subject away from "Discussion of HIV transmission."

No-one has the right to say how a thread goes, but did it go?
I have never stopped discussing HIV transmission, which is a technical discussion based on verifiable fact, and not belief or views of morality.

There have been enough threads on belief and morality.
This was intended to be different.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:54 PM

Hi, you're up....Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:33 PM

Sorry about that, the post came up on two different threads.....I think???

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:27 PM

Jack B, There IS a difference, I do not curse at you or call you an idiot.

These issues are going to affect society in the future, HIV Infection, the secular society versus religious faith, "liberalism" versus social conservatism, they deserve serious discussion.

Knee jerk reactions are unacceptable, blanket "stoppers", like "equality", "discrimination", "homophobia", "racism", don't cut it on a discussion forum like this.

I have seen no homophobia, or racism here for years and out in the real world equality does not exist under our economic system.

Just keep calm and make your case, you are not God, your ideology is not worth more than mine or any other member of this forum, unless you can prove it to be better.

An example. A guest/ member called me a homophobic bigot on my statement that many male homosexual "marriages"/ unions are different from conventional marriage, in that they are often "open" relationships containing several sexual partners, I posted a link backing my statement and it was completely ignored. A couple of posts later the same person called me a homophobic bigot again....Its all meaningless bullshit, simply an intimidation tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:24 PM

Bollocks. You cannot say 'I believe that homosexual men should do ...' and not expect your views on that group not to have a bearing. Besides, who died and made you boss of how threads should go anyway?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:20 PM

The is a "Discussion of HIV transmission." not another belief thread.

It should be a technical discussion based on known facts.
There is no place in such a discussion for anyone's views on morality.

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

No point in continuing really is there? Not when someone advocating radical changes in the way homosexual men conduct themselves does not believe that their views on homosexuality has any relevance to the discussion. And believes that anyone who does not think that way must be a loony liberal. I think we are entering the Twighlight Zone...

Doo doo doo doo. Doo doo doo doo.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:09 PM

Keith reads websites at face value.

Everything I have said is accurate and true.
Not one thing you can challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

My last post is missing. Odd that.

Either technical gremlins or otherwise.

In any event, in reply to Q's comment, I am giving the UK public health perspective, based on being fucking important or whatever it is. I chair strategic bodies where public health epidemiology is the subject, so whilst not a consultant in public health myself, I do articulate the epidemiology input to health planning in certain areas.

Keith reads websites at face value.

Controlled fury isn't difficult when decency is censored, worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 02:21 PM

Wow!!.....Great stuff Keith.....controlled fury.

Wish I could do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 01:15 PM

Unless there were comments from an epidemiologist in this thread, don't bother to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:56 AM

You are arguing about a risk that barely produces two cases per CENTURY!

Meanwhile the ANNUAL infection rate for one group is the highest ever recorded at 3,250 in 2012.

Ignorance.
Complacency.
Denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:45 AM

Last case in 1999.
Infection rate calculated from risk, one case per forty years.

In any discussion of HIV transmission, this should not even be mentioned.
PHE annual figures are rounded to the nearest 10!

For all your "importance" and your executive toilet, you really know nothing about this subject.
The "plebs" you avoid in the corridor must know more than you do.

No wonder the National Aids Trust despairs over the NHS incompetent treatment of HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:36 AM

Because there is a risk that someone will accidentally relate it, after reading your confusion of two index causes with the word needle, in the way I remain convinced you are supporting.

The rate of conversion from exposure to HIV + blood is of the order of 0.3% according to the occy health info I am looking at. PEP (prophylaxis) can reduce this by an even larger factor. A study quoted on our page reckons by 80% but that is just one study. Of the 255 needle sticks in the 1997 to 1999 study, one had seroconversion, which will be the one you refer to. We are both reporting both a success story and same figures. However, the accuracy of voluntary submission data has on average a tolerance factor of 15% which with such small figures makes complacency dangerous.

Needle stick testing is usually regardless of knowledge of contamination unless the blood is from a known to be negative source, although Hepatitis being a co factor, most wish the tests to be done. Even fucking important mandarins can end up tested. I was attacked with a syringe needle during a review of a sectioned patient when I was carrying out such duties for MHAC. Assurances that he was "clean" don't cut it at the time.

Working out how a sex worker worker who shoots up contracted it isn't quite so easy without contact tracing. A bit like wondering which baked bean caused that last fart. Another statistical caution to add to the list of your definitive data.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 07:06 AM

I do not challenge your figure of one infection every forty years by this method.
That sounds about right.

Why are you wasting our time over such a ridiculously small figure?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 06:50 AM

"The last case of an HIV seroconversion in an occupationally exposed healthcare worker was reported in 1999."
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/needlestick-injury

If you have evidence to the contrary, show us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 06:36 AM

What are you wittering on about now?

Since 1997, surveillance of blood borne viruses has been national. By 1999, there had been eight UK HIV by needlestick for healthcare professionals. Since then, although reporting of testing has a voluntary aspect, it is estimated that 1 in 255 of HIV infected needlestick will result in contraction. Or one every forty years.

Hence my comments regarding testing to risk which you had got your facts about arse faced when referring to sexual transmission. My point, for which I apologise as I was addressing the majority intelligent Mudcat readers, was differentiating testing to occurrence.

The last needle stick test of a healthcare worker in The UK was possibly today. At any rate, there are enough per year to make that assumption.

You tried muddying that with needle share which is a high risk of occurrence factor when contact tracing, root cause analysis and profiling.

Why do you do that Keith? You have said Akenaton is wrong so why keep twisting the figures to support him?

I would much rather be wrong in my conclusion. I really would.

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

"The last case of an HIV seroconversion in an occupationally exposed healthcare worker was reported in 1999."
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/needlestick-injury

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

You are being dishonest again.
You were listing all the most common means of transmission, so of course you meant needleshare.
Why would you have left it out.

Needlestick infection must be incredibly rare as a means of transmission, if it has ever happened at all.
PHE do not even refer to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:31 AM

Yes. That's what I said. Do you have a problem with me pointing out the low occurrence causes that we need to be vigilant about?

You have taken the trick of removing from context to an art form. Still, being fucking important and all that, I notice such tricks. Do you search your mate's posts before stating he never days anything remotely bigoted or hurtful towards a section of society?

A proportion of testing for HIV that doesn't make the statistics that you claim are definitive are the full number of post needlestick tests on healthcare professionals. Some occupational health bodies report them as patient tests, some don't. The reason being HPA used to get their figures from HES data, which don't include OH costs.

Just another reason why your dogmatic approach to public information is fine till used to push or support a point. They are accurate enough, not comprehensive by any means but accurate enough for historical prevalence when planning and funding tackling this awful situation.

But every time I point this out you attack me.

I am free to draw conclusions as to why. And from where I sit* they aren't fucking pretty ones.




* A fucking important office in a fucking important office block with my own fucking important shit house I can use without going into the corridor and bumping into plebs.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:13 AM

Musket, the number of infections due to needleshare was 120 and falling, compared to 3, 250 and rising for MSM in 2012.

We have both said "needlestick" instead of "needleshare."
This is you,
"It's a needlestick issue, a birth issue and a healthcare acquired issue too, but 78% of it is sexually transmitted."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:01 AM

"What 'authority' are you seeking????"

Within you, you already know that I'm right....why compromise??
Why not want the BEST for people?..not second, not third...not fix the illness...and deny there is a problem out there. Why not support safe and healthy behavior? Don't you think there are safe and loving traditional marriages with families, and that that is the best to grow up in?? Do you think discouraging people to TRY, as to fulfill a concept of yourself as a 'good and dutiful liberal'......and to be useful, 'liberals' need 'fuck ups'?...How about holding UP some HIGHER values??...After all, the traditional, loving family is the basic, nuclear thread of any society.....that works.

Instead of ennobling faults that you don't want to correct, get a backbone and stand up for that which is right, and that which works!!
Why not tell people to stop 'fucking around', by fucking around? Why not tell a homosexual, "Hey, why don't you get tested, just to be safe?...and while you're at it, stop fucking around, it could kill one of you?"
It sure beats trying to argue with me about it, and make a dork out of yourself!
take the high ground!!

GfS

P.S. As per aforementioned, You already know I'm right...knock off with the head games.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:07 PM

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

Yours??? Muskrat's????..whomever you approve, who is steeped in 'so-called liberal talking points'????????

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

"Argument from Authority" ...OK....answer this, which I gave to the muskrat:
"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!"

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

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:31 PM

OFF to bed now, Up early for work tomorrow...hope it's fine.

Thanks for the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:28 PM

Sorry, didn't finish.

Black Africans, also had a high rate of infection, but much of that infection was acquired abroad (by migrants), where the sexual culture is very different from the US or UK.
Although the infection rate was high, it has been falling steadily for around 10 years in the UK and now stands at about 1000 new infections per annum.
MSM is the demographic with the highest infection rate in percentage terms AND in real numbers.....the rate is also rising annually and this points to a very serious problem for male homosexual health.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:20 PM

The Health agencies do not agree with your assessment Guest T
(See Keith's post above)


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

IDU's are more at risk because the infection may be passed on through needle sharing, they are also tested more often than the general population, but infection rates are still relatively low in that demographic....and falling.