BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

Yeah...and that hasn't worked out too well for either one of you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:17 PM

Sorry, I forgot to close quotes.
The final para is not part of the quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:13 PM

Nothing more to say really.
If I notice you making more misleading or plain wrong statements I might point them out.

The position can be put simply that MSM rates are very high and rising.
Some of the increase is due to increased testing, but PHE states,
"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 (not just diagnoses) annually and 7,200 MSM undiagnosed in 2012, with little change over the last decade (Figure 3). The large majority of new infections stem from MSM unaware of their infection [4].

The National Aids Trust accuse NHS of failing to diagnose as many as it could and failing to trace contacts of those it does.
Complacency?
Denial of the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:51 PM

You'd better believe it Goofus!

That's why I usually hand you over to the good professor to deal with. Isn't that right boy?

"Woof!"

As to Bill and Ben, the bigoted men.... A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words. Which in their case is the most respectable option.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:19 PM

Musket: "That's more like it! See? I told you I was fucking important!"

A true legend in his own wine!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:04 PM

>>Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:17 PM

Tuesday Wednesday Football team taking Man United to a nil nil tie and scoring on its self in penalty time

Not a footie man, are we, Wackers? :-) <<

Again pshaw, you are not my intended audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:50 PM

Keith?

Your mate is saying there is no epidemic.

Any chance you can hold him to account for thousands of needless deaths?

Perhaps you can use your precious fucking google to show us why HIV is only an epidemic if you relate it to one demographic? Or alternatively, try calling him a liar. It's easy. You'd be on the button for once too. It's alright, he won't take offence. On account of having no shame in the main, but being beyond hope too.

If he wants you on a register for being gay, I wonder what his solution is for being a black gay migrant?

Weather ok here in Edinburgh. Looks a bit dark to the west, but I'll be ok. They are choosy who they allow in The Malt Shovel. I doubt it is one of those where you have to wipe your feet on the way out. We are meeting friends. I'll have to watch my arse though, Akenaton reckons they are into multiple partners these gay blokes, and some of our friends we are drinking with fall into his favourite category.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:33 PM

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

Regarding Black Africans (many of whom are migrants), infection rates peaked at 4050 in 2003, and have fallen steadily every year and now stand at 1522.....infection rates seem to be under control in this demographic, only in the MSM demographic are infection rates rising year on year.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:17 PM

Tuesday Wednesday Football team taking Man United to a nil nil tie and scoring on its self in penalty time

Not a footie man, are we, Wackers? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 11:55 AM

Mandarin! That's more like it! See? I told you I was fucking important!

You've got to be important to be responsible for "thousands of easily preventable deaths." Irrelevant nobodies couldn't pull that one off with aplomb. Kneel in my presence knaves!

Goes with being a Co Messiah. AND Jack is basing a novel on me! Someone who goes round pointing and laughing at people coming out of church apparently. If the film rights get the go ahead, I reckon George Clooney to play me.

Scene 1. The star character is giving a speech, saying that there is still an epidemic with regard to people being infected by religion. A member of a neo nazi far right group is at the back of the hall tweeting that our hero is denying the epidemic.

Writes itself Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

Oh Dear!

Now Mr' A has also disqualified himself.

I fear Mr. Max Speigel that the Mudcat is about to become the cesspool it seems to have been designed to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:19 AM

"Hugh Janus"
So droll Musket.
You are killing us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:15 AM

My dear Guest,
Musket told you that hetero infections were rising.
The truth is they have fallen every year for a decade.

Musket told you that less than half new infections were MSM.
In fact they surpassed all other groups together in 2012 and have been steadily rising for years and still are.

Musket told you there was no epidemic.
There is.

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

You call that winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:08 AM

Musket, you are a disgrace.
An over-paid NHS mandarin who has some responsibility for all this, shown up by a couple of interested amateurs with things you do not know but should.

You were shown to be completely out of touch with the trends and their direction.
You underestimate the issues to the extent that when the true figures are put in front of you, you call it scaremongering.
If only it would scare you out of your complacency.

If someone in your position is scared of and disbelieves the truth, there is no hope.
You did not even understand that you are dealing with an epidemic!

Some of the blame for those thousands of easily preventable deaths and ruined lives falls squarely on YOU.
Fucking important?
You are a fucking disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM

My Dear ______

Respectfully I must disagree. Mr Musket was winning the argument until he disqualified himself with this.

"Luckily, neither the worm not his coach are important, so society can get on with reality and leave them to their odious selves."

It is like the figure skater upon doing a flawless performance did a victory lap and poked the judge in the eye with his middle finger while his time was still running.

Its like Tuesday Wednesday Football team taking Man United to a nil nil tie and scoring on its self in penalty time because it would rather be considered talentless and pathetic than be thought of as good sports. Sad sad so sad......

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:08 AM

My dear Musket. You have won the argument and your earlier suspicions regarding the true colours of Akenaton and Keith A of Hertford have borne fruit, which is an excellent example of Mudcat debate.

You don't need to rub it into them. They are either ashamed or not capable of being ashamed. Your point is made and try moving on.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:01 AM

Luckily, neither the worm not his coach are important, so society can get on with reality and leave them to their odious selves.

By the way Keith, your apology seems to have either been deleted or failed to post. If you could check at your end, thanks.

I don't need to respond to the worm's latest smear of decent people. You just need to read what he puts, no commentary or explanation needed.

At least it helps us understand why we need laws to protect the more vulnerable in society. I'm not vulnerable, I suppose . I'm far too fucking important! Nice to see you reading old posts Keith. Perhaps as part of your apology you can read back some of the worm's awful comments to give context to what you have been supporting. If it keeps you busy, the report on HIV prevalence by Prof. Hugh Janus is on the archived HPA website. You might find it right up your street.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:54 AM

Only someone who is acting the fool, would claim that the MSM demographic is not suffering an epidemic

I have never claimed that. I have said it is not an epidemic IN TERMS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. It is using scaremonger tactics to headline this as an epidemic when you know full well that most people will take that to be a danger to themselves. Typical gutter press headlining. I know people should read further than the headline but I'm afraid a lot don't.

Would it really be "discrimination" to state that this demographic deserves "special status" in regard to health care?

No, it wouldn't unless the 'special status' meant demonising them. Which some of the measures you suggested earlier did. I am happy that you have changed your stance from compulsory registration testing but the reason you gave, 'unworkable', should be substitued with immoral.

Now, you have still not answered my questions.

Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?

How about you stop prevaricating and answer them.

The bit about education is complete nonsense BTW. You have no more idea what my education is that I have of yours. You are making assumptions based on pure guesswork.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:27 AM

"Ake. What do you mean by 'a more basic education'. What makes you think mine was any different to yours? Why bring it up anyway?"

Simply because your continued negativity, obstructionism, and personalising of this issue, makes you look a fool, which I know from your posting history, you are not.

Now I have had only the most basic of educations, yet can formulate arguments which address the issues associated with HIV infection, and put forward positive procedures for the curtailing of infection rates in the massively worst affected demographic, MSM.

Why can you not do the same? Only someone who is acting the fool, would claim that the MSM demographic is not suffering an epidemic of not only HIV, but syphilis and most other STD's.....would it really damage your agenda so much to admit this fact?

Would it really be "discrimination" to state that this demographic deserves "special status" in regard to health care?

Stop acting the goat, and treat the issue seriously."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 05:01 AM

" I am fucking important. Important enough to know what I am talking about."

Not on this subject obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:33 AM

Hang on, just popped back to see how Keith's apology worked out..

Err... Not much of an apology is it Keith? I didn't ask for my words to be twisted again. I am getting somewhat bored with that.

I'll check again later. You get WiFi on the train, (off up to Och Aye the Noo land later) and his deep apology will be nice to read.

I'm sure he is working on it.

A pity he thinks I am important. I'm not really. I support important people though and give them the space to work, including many behind the websites he keeps repeating. It would be funny if there wasn't such a sinister agenda behind his rants. Funny how when I say something I am lying but when he reads exactly what I say on a website it is true? But I'm still a liar... On anything else I'd laugh and shake my head as I do with his silly Israeli or WW1 nonsense, but healthcare, even though I am not speaking in my day job persona, I still cannot put up with such dangerous talk that vilifies sections of society. We should speak up and put it down, looking the other way just encourages them. Healthcare is a very wide subject and there are no black and white definitive because it is delivered by methods other than dogma. Protocols are about as far as it gets, because there are two sides to every story with a valid third tugging away. The dichotomy of providing health statistics in a spirit of candour and openness and the risk of people drawing inferences or insisting on unhelpful words as official or authoritative to defend a viewpoint.. It is a well worn dichotomy and helps fill a few newspapers. It shouldn't fill adult debate though.

You can get help Keith. Just don't expect me to have any sympathy. You don't have the defence of ignorance like you mate does. Pig ignorance maybe, but not ignorance. You know exactly what you are saying and why. That's why you should be ashamed of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:01 AM

So, Keith. I think this summarises what just happened. I asked ake the following questions Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males? I got no answers but I did get a reply including Dave....Why are you here? and I have probably had a much more basic education than you. Now, why bring up my right to be on the thread and why use education as an excuse? It is in every politicians toolbox; when you don't want to answer a question, change the subject. Can you see why I do not take ake's words at face value?

As to If you mean NAT, they were advocating testing and contact tracing. No. I didn't mean NAT. I meant the link you provided that summarised the Lancet's papers in a Time Magazine article that said Public health messages about safe sex practices and testing targeted to gay men have waned in the intervening years, and now, some experts say, a new generation of at-risk men have to be educated about the disease. and you felt 'vindicated my stance on education.

Ake. What do you mean by 'a more basic education'. What makes you think mine was any different to yours? Why bring it up anyway?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:59 AM

Public Health England
"In the UK, the epidemic is largely concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM) and black-African heterosexual men and women."
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317140300680

National Aids Trust
"in tackling the HIV epidemic both globally and in the UK."
"as a national epidemic HIV needs to be addressed nationally. "
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/Oct-2012-HIV-a-strategy-for-success.pdf

NHS Choices
"a promising new strategy to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic."

http://www.health-friends.org/Article/459

"The person behind Musket is as good a source of public health information as any in that regard."

It is easier to believe that all those renowned agencies are right and you are talking bollocks again.
You were the source of information that told us hetero infections were rising, and MSM infections were still less than half the total.

You are an ignorant, ill-informed person who boasts about how "fucking important" he is, and demands to be believed over the recognised experts in the field.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:41 AM

Oh yeah? You want me to apologise to Akenaton?

That's an amazing slur on my character. How, why, should or even could anybody apologise to someone who states the most despicable outrageous homophobic lies and hatred? That's assuming there is something to apologise for. I apologise to anybody who is hurt by reading his posts. I did try to get them taken down, but freedom to upset people is in the rules Jack kindly keeps repeating apparently. Must be in the small print.

Perhaps you should be the one apologising for defending the indefensible? Keith A Hole of Hertford would like to say something. Over to you Keith?

You should be more like Keith A of Hertford who keeps saying he likes to correct things that are stated wrongly. He might want to start with the dark disturbing comments of Akenaton that he glosses over without challenge, whilst decent people get their comments analysed to the extent of twisting every word they says in order to cast doubt. Is the real you like the Mudcat character you portray? Can he sleep at night?

And whilst you are at it, if you tried to analyse his words instead of the words of decent well adjusted people, your moral authority might not be so low as to be swept up with the other rubbish.

By the way, "epidemic" is, in relation to UK HIV prevalence exactly what I said it is. The website you read the authority of that statement is Mudcat.org. The person behind Musket is as good a source of public health information as any in that regard. You read enough to pass a few tests as to your knowledge, (such as cancer and notifiable, used correctly but worded to need clarification,) so I can only conclude your participation on this debate is purely to defend hatred. As you read "official" websites and draw wrong conclusions, I can't help you. I can ensure other people reading this website aren't drawn in by your attempts to justify homophobia and bigotry though.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:18 AM

Thanks Keith.... and Sanity(very good post)
Busy right now will post later.    Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:40 AM

Musket, you have said,
" When Akenhateon says the epidemic (there isn't one by any definition)"

" they do not make the public health definition of epidemic."

I have quoted Public Health England describing it as an epidemic, and I can quote NHS Choices, National Aids Trust and any agency you like saying it is without any qualifier like "chronic."

No-one has ever said it is a "notifiable" epidemic, just an epidemic.

Someone in your position might be expected to know the meaning and usage of "epidemic" but you have shown us that you do not.
Akeneaton used the word correctly, and did not deserve to be attacked over it.
An apology is owed.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:05 AM

"2. Akenaton just said that apparently gay marriages (or "marriages" in his awful wording) are open marriages with multiple partners."

I belong to a fairly large organization (several hundred members) where there happen to be, coincidentally, several same-sex couples. These couples, I know, have been together--monogamously--for several years, and when same-sex marriage became legal in Washington State, they immediately went out and got married. None of them are "open marriages with multiple partners."

And a member of the writers' group to which my wife and I belong has been living with the same partner for several years. They just got married.

What Ake said is simply not the case.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:28 AM

1. Keith said there is an epidemic and claimed I said otherwise. Sadly he said it only a couple if posts after I explained why the term epidemic is still used, despite the situation in The UK not hitting the infection spread test of the word.

2. Akenaton just said that apparently gay marriages (or "marriages" in his awful wording) are open marriages with multiple partners.

Instead of finding new ways to define epidemic Keith, you might help us with your sanitised definition of sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:16 AM

Don, no-one is now advocating compulsory testing.
Ake has read and thought on all that has been posted by yourself and others, and revised his view on it.

That does not happen very often on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:41 PM

Let me ask a couple of simple questions here:   suppose a gay man feels, correctly, that he is disease free and does not want or need to be tested.

What are you going to do with him? Send out a couple of bully-boys to grab him, hog-tie him, and drag him into a testing facility?

And how are you going to know that this particular man is gay?

Are you going to require him to register as "homosexual?"

(Why do I hear the echoing sound of jackboots?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:29 PM

DtG: "Tell you what. Let's ask. Ake - Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?"

"Tell you what. Let's ask. Ake - Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural?"

Unnatural in which regards?? For procreation, yeah....for a way to get your rocks off, to an 'understanding partner', no. For people who do not regard their inner being worth passing down, no...it's 'normal'...it's normal for people who are 'reproductively impaired' because of emotional issues.....and for so-called liberals, who need yet another tool at making the natural nuclear family, something to be scorned, and disrespected... and to create a bias against a traditional nuclear family...but then those who have a bias against a traditional nuclear family, who cares what they think??!! For those who'd like to discourage a traditional nuclear family, they must have either an unhappy childhood, or a retarded political agenda...in which case, homosexuality would be something to defend...which they do.
People recognizing this, the value of a traditional nuclear family, does it make them a 'bigot' or 'homophobic'?..fuck no...It may just mean that they have a focus on the family, as a naturally produced, and cared for family...it doesn't mean they hate anybody....Do those who accuse people, who normally don't think a lot about homosexuals, of being some flavor of 'hater'...THEY are the haters!..They are hoping for validation, and HATE the thought of other people thinking that they are full of shit..unless they are validated!

DtG: "Do you believe it is a perversion?"

Depends on what they are trying to legitimize!

DtG: "Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?"

Why wouldn't they want to? There's homosexual dating websites..they register onto that.....but not for health reasons????
You'd think anyone in their right mind, who had different sexual partners would WANT to, either be screened, or their next potential sex partner screened. Why would anyone oppose that???? You'd think that they'd be insisting on it...and volunteering to have it done....
but I started that premise with, "You'd think anyone in their right mind,...."

Which pretty much sums up the logic employed by the political blinders, that is killing them!!!

Ake, Does that pretty much sum it up?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:25 PM

Increased testing and contact tracing in this demographic, is the only way forward in the fight against HIV.
Did you not read the article that Keith posted stating otherwise?

If you mean NAT, they were advocating testing and contact tracing.
I think Stonewall and Terence Higgins are saying the same, certainly about testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:31 PM

Dave....Why are you here?   Have you no positive contribution to make to this thread, other than try to prove what a bigot, homophobe, racist, witch etc, I am?

Even if you could prove that I was a "bad" person, what difference would that make to the issue under discussion?

Address the facts of the issue as presented, try to form a counter argument and put it forward in a way that may change the outlook of your opponents......negativity and personal attacks make you look weak and stupid.....I know you are neither of these things, but there are more people reading these threads, than actually post here.

I have probably had a much more basic education than you, but I still make an effort to provide a reasoned response to point brought up, even by those who see this discussion in personal terms.

I have stopped responding to only two people here, not because of their views, which oppose my own, but because they are stalkers and vicious trolls.

I'm sure you can make an excellent contribution if you just relax and give it a go. You appear at least, to have an interest in the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:15 PM

Increased testing and contact tracing in this demographic, is the only way forward in the fight against HIV.

Did you not read the article that Keith posted stating otherwise? And once again: Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?

I am glad you have accepted that compulsory testing is 'probably unworkable'. A step in the right direction anyway.

DtG

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

You are quite correct Keith, I said further up the thread, that I thought compulsion was "probably unworkable", and I have also said that the homosexual agencies like Stonewall,Terence Higgins, etc should be promoting the idea of three monthly testing for all sexually active male homosexuals and contact testing is tests prove positive. I believe that in time, this course of action will encourage an attitude, that to be sexual active in that demographic and NOT be regularly tested for HIV, would be socially unacceptable.

Increased testing and contact tracing in this demographic, is the only way forward in the fight against HIV.

Politics should not be brought into the sphere of Public Health!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:02 PM

Ake is an atheist so I am sure he did not say all those things.

Tell you what. Let's ask. Ake - Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:54 PM

I don't think for a moment, that homosexual "marriage" will have any effect, for good or ill on HIV infection rates.
The MSM rates are rising in countries which have had Civil Union or homosexual "marriage" for years, uptake rates are low, and being "married" does not mean being monogamous.
Apparently homosexual "marriages" are often "open marriages" where partner exchange is encouraged. I believe that generally, this is a symptom of the fact that homosexuals are unable to produce their own children or an extended family structure.....which IMO is the reason that most heterosexual couples generally remain monogamous.

I see "GAY MARRIAGE" as a political construct, to bolster a bankrupt "liberalist" agenda, the whole idea being promoted by the news and entertainment media, to a confused and dumbed down audience of children.....of all ages.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:34 PM

Even more worrying for male homosexuals, if 56% came from the MSM demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:14 PM

1 in 79 would be over 700 000 a year for the general population UK.
That would be considered quite worrying.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:58 PM

>>Jack, I DONT think there is a relationship between homosexual "marriage" and infection rates.

What makes you say that?....There must be some confusion.<<

Fantastic! So that is NOT the reason that you oppose Same-sex marriage. So you will not bring up HIV in relation to Same-sex marriage from now on? FANTASTIC!!!

So what about this idea that you have that 1 in 79 getting infected per year is an "alarming epidemic" that must be addressed by treating all MSM people the same and requiring uniform testing and registration?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:52 PM

You must have come across real homophobes.

A real homophobe would say, "They don't get tested, so let them die"
A real homophobe would not advocate effort and expense to save their lives.

When I said I would do all in my power to enforce testing on my sons if they were high risk, no-one suggested that was evidence I hated my sons.

It is a long time since Ake has mentioned compulsory testing.
Since then he has advocated opt-out testing and contact tracing.
What is your latest thinking Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:52 PM

Jack, I DONT think there is a relationship between homosexual "marriage" and infection rates.

What makes you say that?....There must be some confusion.

ED et al... IF there is an epidemic amongst MSM, and I believe there is.... along with every authority who's conclusions I have studied, there are bound to be a large number of that demographic who are infected, but undiagnosed.
The only way to find these infectious and undiagnosed people is to increase testing and contact tracing.
This is the case, whether I happen to be a bigot, a homophobe, a racist, a witch, or any other term of abuse you wish to employ, to cover the paucity of your argument.

Abusing me personally does not improve your case in reference to HIV infection rates among MSM.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:43 PM

Ake is an atheist so I am sure he did not say all those things.
Has he ever said anything derogatory about gay people?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:18 PM

What has Ake actually said by which you judge him?

Something specific? Homosexuality is against nature, is perverted and is a sin in the eyes of God. Plenty of evidence if you look. Most else is implied but pretty obvious.

If he said "I am not a racist but" and then said nothing racist

That is complete twaddle and you know it. No-one would ever say "I'm not a racist but" if they did not believe the comment following could not be construed as racist. If it can be construed as racist, it will be offensive to someone.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

GfS I haven't misrepresented Ake's argument. I have said that he has not shown that HIV is a current epidemic in that demographic and that he has not shown a relationship between same-sex marriage and high infection rates in 1 to 2 percent (far less than 1% if i don't use his figures) of the Gay male population.

It is getting harder and harder to say that he is not a bigot even though I think it is still not polite to berate him.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

Jack, I am not clear what question you want me to answer.

Musket, you said HIV was not an epidemic but it is.
You were wrong.

Dave if someone starts "I am not a racist but" and says something racist, I would judge him a racist by what he actually said.

If he said "I am not a racist but" and then said nothing racist, I have no way of seeing into his soul and reading his thoughts to judge him a racist and would not.

What has Ake actually said by which you judge him?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM

sket: "Eh?

You say listen to what he says?

He said gay marriage is a liberal plot.

He said gay people are perverts.

He suggested they are forced to be tested for HIV.

He suggested other gay people could ensure they present for registration.

He said they are against natural law.

He said they are against Christian teaching.

Your move."

Eh?

You say don't listen to what he says?

He said gay marriage isn't a liberal plot.

He said gay people aren't perverts.

He suggested they aren't forced to be tested for HIV.

He suggested no gay people could ensure they present for registration.

He said they are natural law.

He said they aren't against Christian teaching.

Your move.

Is there a point somewhere in all this???...or just more blathering back and forth?

GUEST,Ed T: "...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington

Great post!!!!
That same tactic is used all the time in here....and to those who employ it, it is patently dishonest!
I know one person in particular, who has been called REPEATEDLY by myself and several other posters on this very thing....note: it is a dishonest ploy and used by deceptive promoters of bullshit agendas, who, if they were being straight up and honest, nobody would buy into their nonsense...they have to rely on dodging the FACTS of the issue, and resort to trickery, to play on the emotions of the consensus!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:55 PM

IT IS NOT SPREADING ALL THAT FAST!!

I know it isn't, Jack. Which is why I said "and so on it will be a binary multiplication, which it is not". Probably a little unclear but I meant the spread is not as rapid as people are making out.

I think we should only respond to what people actually say

Sorry, Keith. Absolutely not. Do you believe everything that people say? How about stories that start 'I'm no racist but...' How about the email that says you have inherited £20 million? I am sure a certain chancellor Hitler did not say he was going to exterminate 6 million people. You cannot take what people say, or do not say, at face value and cannot, therefore, objectively respond to it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:51 PM

jack, if the whole MSM demographic was affected by HIV, it would only account for 1 in 100 of the whole population.
Would that mean that no swift and serious action should be taken to stop the "epidemic" amongst MSM?

To suggest that is ridiculous. I said already that in percentage terms, HIV is almost exclusively a disease of male homosexuality, in the UK and US.
Although new infections are only slightly higher for MSM, in real numbers, the percentage rates are massively different....and the percentage rates are what matter to male homosexuals.

If infection rates continue to rise in the MSM demographic at present rates, some real action will become imperative.
This demographic cannot wait for "education education", they have been immersed in "education" for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 12:50 PM

Err. Keith. You said health professionals use the term properly then you said I didn't. Make your mind up. I am not a healthcare professional but I am a professional in healthcare so either quote me or deny me. You can't have it both ways. Less than half public health specialists are healthcare professionals, but all are professionals working in healthcare. Stop purposely confusing matters to make me look an idiot. I'm not.

HIV spread was an epidemic that turned into a pandemic in the '80s. It is still an issue and we still refer to the epidemic that has left us with this present situation.

I don't know who this Musket is who you tells you it means different things in different places but this Musket said it has chronic epidemic status. I also differentiated between the noun and adjective use, causing you to embarrass yourself by not understanding and thinking I called a cancer an epidemic in the public health sense. I used it purely because the HPA used it in that different sense, prat. Don't quote what you don't understand!

Epidemic is only exactly defined as "of interest to epidemiology." I gave a healthcare definition of widespread occurrence within a single community at a given time. HIV is not an epidemic in that sense. It retains the term due to it having that status in the past and not eradicated yet. Hence chronic epidemic.

It is also exactly defined by Akenaton and yourself. The less said about that the better. Society deserves better than your shocking slurs. Akenaton merely repeating is about as innocent as Orange Lodge members "walking on The Queen's pavement" and designed to be just as nasty towards a whole section of society.

Bigots are bigots. Reason doesn't stand a chance, so I feel bad for giving them opportunity to repeat their awful wishes to round people up for being perverted and, as Akenaton so eloquently put it, against natural law.   What did he mean by that Keith?

Eh?

You say listen to what he says?

He said gay marriage is a liberal plot.

He said gay people are perverts.

He suggested they are forced to be tested for HIV.

He suggested other gay people could ensure they present for registration.

He said they are against natural law.

He said they are against Christian teaching.

Your move.