BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

Jack, epidemic is exactly defined and is used correctly by health professionals and here by Ake.

Please answer my question.

>>>Jack, if health professionals and "HIV experts" state that multiple partners is a factor in the over-representation of MSM, you can not vilify Ake merely for repeating it. <<<

Ake is arguing that that over representation means that there is and EPIDEMIC and that all MSM are to be tested whether they have multiple partners or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:43 AM

Jack, if health professionals and "HIV experts" state that multiple partners is a factor in the over-representation of MSM, you can not vilify Ake merely for repeating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:35 AM

Jack, epidemic is exactly defined and is used correctly by health professionals and here by Ake.
Musket is wrong to claim it means different things in different places!

Dave I agree about interpretations, but I think we should only respond to what people actually say, and not by our own subjective interpretations of what they might have meant.
What Ake has actually said is that he does not regard gay people as perverts, and that not all are promiscuous, some being celibate and some monogamous.
No interpretation required.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:48 AM

Interesting health site

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:16 AM

Dave, the rapid spread of HIV requires promiscuity

No it doesn't. At least not my definition of promiscuity. If one person infects two others then each of those two infect two others and so on it will be a binary multiplication, which it is not. The first person has had 2 partners. The second and subsequent ones have only 3. 3 partners, promiscuous? How does that fit with the above statement?

IT IS NOT SPREADING ALL THAT FAST!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:07 AM

"There are other preventable deaths, but this debate is about HIV.

"Statistics are just figures. It is how you interpret them that matters."
Is anyone misinterpreting them?
How? "

You're kidding right?

By Ake's figures, 1 in 79 of the demographic is being infected per year. But he doesn't bother with that math. He calls that "alarming" that the PERCENTAGE of all those infected is majority MSM, but he ignores the fact that the entire group is only a few thousand people per year.

He says people living with AIDS is part of the "epidemic" those number in the 10s of thousands. But 10s of millions are living with chicken pox. Where is the alarm?

Keith I don't think EPIDEMIC is well defined at all. Would you care to look at the numbers and tell us how an infection rate of 1 in 79 indicates an epidemic on such a scale the the entire population needs to be sanctioned, tested and denied equal rights under the law?

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

Well fuck me professor!

Sorry you can't understand irony. Are you sure it isn't Hartford rather than Hertford? In any case, infection is not a prerequisite. Obesity isn't an infection unless you catch pork pies by tongue kissing a big lass. But it is reaching epidemic proportions, (HPA, touché). Burning your arse on the lightbulb isn't either but you can catch it from obesity in the same way.

Yes, you can read the word epidemic, but because we have a pedantic mischief making fool on this thread, I insist that the word is taken in context rather than in the emotive sense. HIV is certainly not a widespread occurrence in a single community at a particular time when relating to The UK at this time.

In public health terms, the word is used in the noun sense. In the media, it is an an adjective.

The adjective is more emotive hence the worm found it a scare word to use.

I note you find his words unhelpful. The legislation on inciting hatred and the Equalities Act both have words similar to unhelpful, (or Jack's unfortunate "old fashioned") but they tend to have other ways to describe those who spread malicious distorted and plain untrue information to justify taking action against sections of the community for reasons of bigotry.

I'd tell you what they are, but I like to see my posts posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:48 AM

Semantics, Keith. I have never said I am short, fat, bald and bearded but the name Gnome implies it. I interpret what ake has said one way. You interpret it another. Don't expect me, or many others, to agree with your interpretation.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:32 AM

One main reason for Canada's significant progress in HIV is this program in BC (below), where they have had VG success without regressive "round up and brand all those homos, pard" right-wing approaches.

The very "right-wing" federal conservative government (in power in Canada since 2006), not the left-leaning liberal party, nor the socialist NDP party, has not embraced this "successful program" nationally, as the approach has been recently adopted in other countries.


""Made-in-Canada HIV strategy embraced internationally — but not here
A made-in-Canada strategy for fighting HIV/AIDS is being embraced internationally, but Ottawa refuses to adopt it.

The Treatment as Prevention strategy, pioneered in B.C., calls for the immediate provision of highly effective antiretroviral therapy to those living with HIV.
By: Julio Montaner Published on Sun Dec 01 2013

As Canadians, we should be proud on World AIDS Day that our country is the birthplace of a pioneering strategy that significantly reduces HIV transmission rates, improves and saves the lives of those infected, and saves public health dollars. At the same time, it's shameful that this scientifically proven program — supported by the government of British Columbia — is being adopted internationally but not in Canada.

The Treatment as Prevention strategy, pioneered in B.C., calls for widespread HIV testing and immediate provision of highly effective antiretroviral therapy to those living with HIV. Such treatment can eliminate progression of HIV infection to AIDS and premature death, and significantly decrease the amount of virus in the blood and sexual fluids, thereby stopping transmission of HIV.

This past week, the government of B.C. and the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS signed a memorandum of understanding with China to extend the use of the Canadian strategy in that country. The agreement marks the formalization of a strong three-year relationship with China, the first country to adopt Treatment as Prevention as its national HIV/AIDS policy. Earlier this year, China announced that it had surpassed its HIV detection and treatment goals since adopting Treatment as Prevention.

Meanwhile, B.C. remains the only jurisdiction in Canada to use this strategy and promote widespread and fully government-supported access to HIV testing and life-saving drug therapy. And, importantly, B.C. remains the only province to demonstrate a significant and consistent decline in new cases of HIV.

In contrast to a growing list of countries and international organizations, Ottawa has chosen not to adopt Treatment as Prevention as the national strategy to fight HIV and AIDS. This short-sighted approach has led Canadian provinces to unnecessarily carry the burden of new infections and costs. According to new research, there is no material decrease in HIV rates in Canada outside of B.C. Annual rates of new HIV diagnoses in Saskatchewan and Manitoba increased; rates remained unchanged in Alberta and in the Territories; and rates declined only slightly in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

China is no longer the only country embracing our made-in-B.C. Treatment as Prevention model. In October, France and Brazil both announced adoption of the strategy as their national policies. And the World Health Organization fully incorporated Treatment as Prevention in their new Global HIV Treatment Guidelines.

The U.S. has also identified ours as a key strategy to achieve an AIDS-free generation. This month, U.S. senators and members of Congress from both parties signed a letter asking Barack Obama to strengthen his support for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, chiefly around the issue of Treatment as Prevention. Even at a time when the economy and partisan politics are consuming the domestic agenda, the U.S. has placed a priority on increasing the number of people on treatment from six million to 12 million worldwide by 2016.

Avoiding a national strategy costs all Canadians, financially, physically and emotionally. Research by the Canadian AIDS Society suggests the lifetime cost of each HIV infection is more than $425,000, including health care costs and lost productivity.

The case for support is very simple.

Every year, 3,300 men and women in Canada are diagnosed with HIV. An estimated 71,300 Canadians are now living with HIV, a number that could double within the next 15 years if the current rate of new infections continues and treatment is not expanded across Canada.

The federal government has a unique opportunity to turn around the HIV epidemic at all levels of Canadian society, if it implements Treatment as Prevention as a national strategy. We estimate Canada can realize a decrease in new HIV infections by at least 90 per cent in just five years if we fully implement this strategy.

It can be done; we're doing it in B.C. If we can mobilize nationally and successfully to address issues like SARS, H1N1 and other pandemic diseases, we can do the same with HIV and AIDS.

The choice is ours. It's time for Canada's leaders to emulate the government of B.C. and adopt this as the national strategy to stop HIV/AIDS.

Dr. Julio Montaner is director of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the Chair in AIDS Research and Head of Division of AIDS in the Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, and past president of the International AIDS Society.""

Source

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM

Musket, breast cancer is not infectious.

From the latest published PHE report on HIV,
"In the UK, the epidemic is largely concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM) and black-African heterosexual men and women. "

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:23 AM

Dave, you can accuse him of attempting to stereotype gay men as promiscuous, but he has never said anything to justify that.
It is one factor in transmission is all he has ever said.
It is a factor in hetero transmission too.

He still refers to homosexuality as a perversion.
I agree that is not helpful.
It is not quite the same as calling gay people perverts.
He states that he has warm relationships with gay people, which you would not have with someone you regard as a pervert.

Why can we not just address what people actually say, not what we infer them to mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:17 AM

Don't worry Dave, he has just tried a similar trick above. I'm not biting though. I have already said that it is a pandemic and that it has been an epidemic here, although the epidemiological definition in terms of infectious viral conditions makes it a chronic rather than notifiable epidemic.

Some groups, mainly religious and far right groups tend to scaremonger because epidemic is an emotive word. Breast cancer is far more prevalent and rising faster, but we don't use the word.

Semantics.

But with a purpose.

And not always a nice one.



The World Health Organisation has a bit to say about pandemic / epidemic of course, and I was at one of their conferences the other day as it happens, talking about something different but I sat in on a HIV session. It calls The UK situation "relatively small" and also notes the increase in prevalence in line with the increase in screening and recognition of the condition. (Sadly, many substance misuse sufferers died of other conditions and still do without knowing that another time bomb was waiting.)

The scaremongering on this website fails to point out the increase through effective screening or the evidence for such a claim. Basically, in 1995, 1,723 people died of AIDS in The UK, whilst in 2012, it has fallen to 490. This has no bearing on the prevalence of HIV but is evidence for the success of screening, and increased screening picks up more cases earlier. Still, if you are picked up and go onto antiretrovirals soon enough, your life expectancy will be statistically 13 years less than if you hadn't contracted it.

Gay men and black heterosexual men are the statistically most at risk, and heterosexual younger women are the unmet need risk for future consideration. Prior to 1995, there were six times as many men diagnosed than women. Today, it has gone to twice as many. The number of women living with HIV is increasing in The UK, only 2.1 male sufferers to every female suffer, compared to 6 to 1 a few years ago. But let's not forget, there are far greater risks to public health. The reason this is still in the news years after western health services got a handle on it, is that it is an excuse to hate gay people for something they aren't even a majority with, but they were years ago before we realised the issue. The excellent responsible attitude of most gay men who are sexually active has helped get us to this situation.

The "dramatic" increase in people living with HIV in The UK since the '90s is good news, not bad. The operative word is "living."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:10 AM

""Policymakers need to adopt Treatment as Prevention as a national strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, urges researchers at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE) in an article published this month in HIV Medicine.

New HIV diagnoses in British Columbia are continuing to decline at a rate faster than in other Canadian regions, report researchers after analyzing Health Canada data from 1995 to 2011.

"British Columbia, of all Canadian jurisdictions, has had the largest decline in the rate of new HIV diagnoses and in lifetime costs averted over the study period," write the authors, who include Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the BC-CfE, and Dr. Robert Hogg, director of the Epidemiology and Population Health Program at the BC-CfE. "Further efforts are needed to optimize the potential impact of Treatment as Prevention in the whole of Canada."

B.C., where the Treatment as Prevention strategy was pioneered and implemented, is the only province to promote widespread and fully government-supported access to HIV testing and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). As a result, B.C. has seen HIV-related morbidity and mortality decline by approximately 90 per cent since the early 1990s, and the number of new HIV diagnoses has fallen from approximately 800 per year prior in 1996 to 238 in 2012.

"The consistent and sustained decrease in new HIV diagnoses in B.C. reinforces Treatment as Prevention as a highly effective approach in the fight against HIV/AIDS," said Dr. Montaner. "The evidence should be absolutely clear: Treatment as Prevention is the best way to achieve an HIV- and AIDS-free generation. It's time for Canada's leaders to emulate the government of B.C. and adopt this as the national strategy to stop HIV/AIDS."

In Canada, there are an estimated 71,300 individuals living with HIV. While annual rates of new HIV diagnoses declined slightly in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, B.C. demonstrated the most significant decline between 1995 and 2011, from 18.05 to 6.49 per 100,000 population. In comparison, rates in Saskatchewan increased from 2.76 to 16.17 per 100,000 population, and in Manitoba they increased from 4.52 to 6.53 per 100,000 population. Rates of new HIV diagnoses in Alberta and in the Territories remained constant over the study period, demonstrating neither an increase nor a decrease.

It is estimated that B.C. has averted $3.06 million per 100,000 population in lifetime costs for averted cases of HIV infection since 1996, compared to $1.38 million and $432,000, respectively, for Ontario and Quebec. In contrast, it is estimated Saskatchewan and Manitoba have incurred an additional cost of $2.06 million and $956,000, respectively, per 100,000 population for the increase in new cases since 1996.

"The evidence we reviewed really demonstrates further efforts are needed to optimize the potential impact of Treatment as Prevention in the whole of Canada," said Dr. Hogg. "We should look at what has been accomplished in British Columbia and apply those lessons to other jurisdictions without further delay." The World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have adopted the Treatment as Prevention strategy, as have other jurisdictions throughout the world, including China and, most recently, France. In addition, the U.S. has identified Treatment as Prevention as a key strategy to achieve an AIDS-free generation.""







BC at leading edge

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:02 AM

I am accusing ake of is attempting to stereotype gay men as promiscuous perverts and of pushing an agenda that would demonise them further. That is what I have always said.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:49 AM

Perhaps I have lost track Dave.
Sorry.
What exactly are you accusing Ake of saying about promiscuity?
He has said it was a factor, and it is.
He has not said it was the only factor.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:42 AM

I think one of us has lost track, Keith. The question was

Who has said that promiscuity is not a factor?

Your answer was

Dave, what did Ake do but state that multiple partners was a factor?

Which makes no sense to me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:37 AM

Dave, what did Ake do but state that multiple partners was a factor?
He has certainly not stated it was the only factor.

Musket, remember about 22000 people have undiagnosed HIV.
That is what I was referring to.

Instead of me looking up a definition of "epidemic," how about you asking all those public health bodies why they call it an epidemic?
Are you saying that all those health professionals "should know better" like what you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:34 AM

A word to the wise SC, you should have started that last post by shouting 300!

It impresses the locals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:23 AM

I cannot work out whether you are being ironic Mr Hertford.

Judging by your posts, I put you firmly in the camp of those whose attitudes sadden me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:10 AM

If it is OK for "HIV experts" to consider promiscuity as a factor, why is it wrong for Ake?

Now who is using words that were not said? Who has said that promiscuity is not a factor? It is a factor. Just not the only one.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:05 AM

Scaremongering eh?

Well, let's see now. You have the figures, I have the figures.

With me so far?

The worm said "but the real numbers of infections will be many times higher." Troubadour questioned this (calling him Pharoh) and you replied, wait for it...

"The Pharoh was right and you are wrong."

You see, that's what gets me. You have no clue whatsoever what you say. Your ignorance on most subjects is not a problem as I am sure most members are more accommodating than you could ever be, yet even when you do not know what you are talking about, you insist on telling people they are wrong and you are right.

It would be bad enough if you were right. That would just make you a boorish person who needs to be avoided, especially socially. But being out your depth is just the start of it. There is nothing random about your lack of knowledge. You insist on repeating nonsense only when it fits a right wing bigoted cause. Gay issues, HIV, Israel, WW1, religion......

By the way, look up epidemic in the sense of epidemiology would you? There's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:01 AM

Dave a few days ago I put up an extract including this.

"Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection"
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show/

If it is OK for "HIV experts" to consider promiscuity as a factor, why is it wrong for Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:00 AM

"...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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:46 AM

...or even write to them.

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

The gene therapy story is good news.
It holds out the prospect of a cure one day.

As with current treatment, it will only save lives if screening identifies the virus in time.

Thanks for the info that there are ignorant people out there, some of whom right to BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:38 AM

I have quoted stats. only from PHE report.
Which ones are "scaremongering" and should be hidden?

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

I am working in a sexual health clinic at present, I am a registrar.

At the team meeting early this morning, I gave the technical side of a news story concerning the breakthrough in HIV shielding using gene therapy. There is a very good balanced article on The BBC News website at present under health.

One of the staff told me that the comments in BBC Have your Say include many people stating that such research is wrong as it "could lead to rampant homosexuality." Some of the more odious posts had disappeared when I took a second look after 1st clinic.

I'll tell you what, there are more wild interpretations of data and even more false figures being used there. Some of the supporters of homophobia on this thread are mere amateurs compared to the disgraceful behaviour The BBC are entertaining at present. They do eventually delete homophobic postss though, which is more than I see here. (Or don't see, if they did.)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:36 AM

Dave, the more promiscuity, the faster the spread.

Not quite the same as 'requires promiscuity' is it Keith?

On emotive subjects I think we should avoid "He said X so he must mean Y"

Agreed, but this is not the case here. One can either say that homosexuality is a perversion or that homosexuals are perverts. Most people understand that both versions are the same. What you are doing is just playing with words.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:33 AM

It is "disturbing," "disturbing indeed" that someone in your position is so complacent and out of touch with the reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:27 AM

It is not scaremongering to quote relevant statistics.
It is being honest about the situation.
Why do you seek to suppress the facts?

You said, " But they are not spreading extensively and rapidly, they are not a widespread occurrence at a particular time and whilst those definitions could have been applied to certain clusters at certain times, especially in the '80s, they do not make the public health definition of epidemic."

PHE refers to it as an "epidemic" in their latest published report, as do all other public health bodies.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:16 AM

Yes.

Your point?

I said they are a pressure group and a very respected one at that. As are most healthcare awareness bodies. Their credibility outside of London is less tangible though as they lobby for national solutions to local issues. Their funding is largely from Trust for London, which does a sterling job of pointing out London based inequality.

Not so relevant in a prison in Northumberland where by just being there you stand a far greater chance of becoming a sufferer.   The large city I am sitting in at present has a way below average African descent population so again, their solutions are not terribly helpful here if their ideas were taken on board nationally.

They are an excellent organisation and I have spoken at conferences they put on, representing the commissioning side of things. I have also taken them to task both with them and in my blog as an example of London solutions for national issues. (Together with, to be fair, the NHS consultant contract, cancer registries and centralised planning of major trauma centres, but I digress as ever.)

Why do you insist on this? Why do you analyse and denounce everybody who doesn't demonise gay people yet support the lies, false facts and bigotry of Akenaton?

Why do you say you "support" gay marriage?

Why do you insist on scare mongering statistics to support the idea of society "doing something" about gay lifestyle?

Read up the thread. It isn't just me who has rumbled you and your little friend. Even Jack seems to have stopped calling him "old fashioned" at long last.

Disturbing reading. Disturbing indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:52 AM

Musket, from NAT,

"Awareness of symptoms of HIV is poor amongst
health professionals and at risk communities. There
are repeated failures to diagnose people, with
symptoms and indicators of HIV being ignored or
missed - over half of people diagnosed in 2010 were
diagnosed late, after the stage that treatment should
have begun. For this reason more needs to be done
to ensure health professionals and communities at
risk recognise symptoms of HIV infection, including
early symptoms, so they know when to test. "

"Yet despite this, the testing rates amongst gay and
bisexual men and Africans are still far too low - the
numbers of gay and bisexual men who reported
'ever testing' for HIV in a 2008 survey was only 75%,
with a far lower number testing in the last twelve
months (as recommended in NICE guidelines).5

Amongst Africans, a 2008/09 survey found that 40%
of Africans had never tested for HIV."

"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;"
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/Oct-2012-HIV-a-strategy-for-success.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:46 AM

Dave, the more promiscuity, the faster the spread.
It is an issue along with condoms, mouth dams, PrEP, and all the other factors relationg to transmission.

On emotive subjects I think we should avoid "He said X so he must mean Y"
Why not stick to what is actually said?
Not damaging enough?

Musket, the quote, "NAT has little credibility with the NHS at the best of times " was tacked on the end of this very long post.
The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket - PM
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 08:06 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:22 AM

Ake has called no-one a pervert (so why claim it?), but he has described homosexuality as a perversion.

Oh, good grief Keith. I thought you were better than that. A pervert is one who practices a perversion. If homosexuality is a perversion then those who practice homosexuality must be perverts. Surely you do not need that spelling out.

Dave, the rapid spread of HIV requires promiscuity

No it doesn't. At least not my definition of promiscuity. If one person infects two others then each of those two infect two others and so on it will be a binary multiplication, which it is not. The first person has had 2 partners. The second and subsequent ones have only 3. 3 partners, promiscuous? How does that fit with the above statement?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM

Well considering my posts get deleted, as you can be homophobic here but not challenge homophobia it seems, I assume the top NHS bureaucrat gets his or hers deleted before I see them? I work alongside lots of people who can be disparagingly called top NHS bureaucrats, and am fascinated by their intelligence in the face of political pressure, media nonsense, poor care in places and, in this context, scare stories perpetuated by people who don't even have the excuse of looking after shareholders in their newspapers. Must be common or garden bigotry then.

In any event, perhaps Keith can use his hobby of searching for snippets that support his diatribe to find where anybody said "NAT has little credibility with The NHS at the best of times." I'm curious. I have criticised NAT in terms of unrealistic expectation by the way, but that's what pressure groups are for. Their website is an excellent repository of facts and information about the condition. A bit London centric but credible. I fear context is a victim here. And no, not "mistaken" but as ever, maliciously.

As I said before, many times, and despite Keith saying I don't tell the facts, there they are again for The UK;

These figures represent the calendar year 2012. Whilst NHS commissioning bodies have the raw data for the final quarter of 2012/13, they will form part of the 2013 figures. Now The Health Protection agency no longer exists, the successor body aims to harmonise figures to budgeting years to allow harmonised investment in services.

There is an estimate, an official estimate based on prevalence rather than risk, but as good as estimate as any other, that just over 20,000 people could have been sufferers of HIV in The UK and not aware.   During that year, to include both screening and diagnosis from symptom, we picked up 6,360 new cases. Of these, just under half were late stage, or in other words, the prognosis would have been better if they had been picked up earlier, as with any disease or disorder.

We do not know how many people were tested for HIV in that period. We know that the NHS sexual health services, (paid for by The NHS regardless of who supplied it) carried out 903,000 or thereabouts tests, as it can be calculated from invoices to put it crudely. We do not know however the exact number carried out in primary care (GP practices who carry it out rather than referring to sexual health) or most secondary care, where it is one of a range of tests carried out, say, prior to an operation if you fall into a high risk group. Positive tests are in the figures but negative ones can be in bundles of tests, so aren't unpickable if negative. Also, prison testing where the prison service provides the healthcare direct rather than commissioned do not necessarily report the number of actual screening. This is unfortunate as the prison population is very high risk, not only sexually but through needle share and other blood hygiene contraction.

So... If the figures are accurate, which is moot but workable, then it appears that 0.03% of the population may have undiagnosed HIV. 0.15% of the population are living with HIV. More specifically, 0.06% of the population got their infection status through male on male sex, (41,000 men) and of those yet to be diagnosed, the figures suggest a further 7,300.

Now, these figures are awful. But they are not spreading extensively and rapidly, they are not a widespread occurrence at a particular time and whilst those definitions could have been applied to certain clusters at certain times, especially in the '80s, they do not make the public health definition of epidemic. They do, curiously enough, feed into an global pandemic, but western world epidemiology suggests we have contained the spread, if not the risk.

It is however a chronic condition, not only in terms of living with the condition, but that with international travel, migrancy and relocation, it is chronic as it will be with us in a way polio and smallpox aren't.

If you want a success story, it is this. The fact that one in four people with a positive HIV status are over 50, the message is getting through loud and clear. Younger people are more prone to practice safe sex, according to GU services in general and this has a knock on effect for anal sex. The not so good news that cannot be extrapolated from historical prevalence is that audits of colo rectal issues in surgical terms suggests that more young women see anal sex as part and parcel of life, whereas this wasn't the case only a few years ago, and that could identify the next hard to reach group.

Try to read this quickly eh? In a couple of hours, you can read all about how it is a pack of lies.
zzz

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

Eliza, thank you for reminding us about the very different and much worse situation in Africa.

Dave, the rapid spread of HIV requires promiscuity, but most gay men do not get HIV.
Promiscuity is an issue and is relevant to any debate about the infection.
It is not a judgement.
I would have been more promiscuous when I was single if I could have been.

Ake has called no-one a pervert (so why claim it?), but he has described homosexuality as a perversion.
It used to be an accepted description well within living memory.
Most of us no longer describe it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:54 AM

No picking up on my points about gay men being labelled promiscuous perverts then, Keith.

Very good points, Eliza.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:38 AM

Sorry to bang on about Africa, but I do have an inside view so to speak. I do know that, even after testing and diagnosis, many people there flatly refuse to do anything about protecting their partners/clients from catching the virus. Because symptoms aren't evident at first, they stick their heads in the sand and pretend all is well. They have a fatalistic view of life in many cases. They are poor, hungry and desperate to make some money. A disease that doesn't flatten them immediately is set to one side for the urgencies of today. The point I'm trying to make is that grinding poverty and deprivation are key elements in the HIV situation. If only one could address that (impossible I know) one would succeed in getting the sufferers to be more proactive in controlling the spread of AIDS.
A man who rented a shanty shack in my in-laws compound used to use prostitutes. His wife accepted this (no choice in their culture) He became very ill, was tested by a charity clinic and found to be HIV positive. He stopped work (rubbish collector) and continued to have sex with his wife. She became ill and then gave birth to a sick baby.
He died and was buried the same day. She took in another man. He became ill too. She died. He moved away. The orphaned baby, (probably HIV positive too) together with their other children, was collected by an elderly 'granny'. This scenario is re-enacted daily in Africa. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:25 AM

There are other preventable deaths, but this debate is about HIV.

"Statistics are just figures. It is how you interpret them that matters."
Is anyone misinterpreting them?
How?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:16 AM

Of course people care, Keith. Ake says he does, and he may well do, but his 'care package' of tagging and testing is unacceptable. As is his branding of gay men as promiscuous perverts. You do not care for someone by telling them that they are perverts. And yes, the deaths are preventable. As are lots of others. Did you know, for instance, that in 2010 there were 1143 deaths from asthma in UK. 90% of these are likely to have been preventable. All deaths by car accident, sky diving and drug abuse were preventable. Statistics are just figures. It is how you interpret them that matters.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:44 AM

1,990 people died of AIDS in UK in 2012.
These were people in the prime of their lives whose deaths were wholly preventable by screening.

I know we are all concerned about that, but Akeneaton alone has expressed it.

We have seen on these threads that even a top NHS bureaucrat can be complacent and out of touch on this.

Dismiss what I say, but here is a director of the National Aids Trust saying the same in the Guardian a few weeks ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/14/strategy-needed-hiv-epidemic

Top NHS bureaucrat on Mudcat,
"NAT has little credibility with the NHS at the best of times "

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:31 AM

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

Been telling certain people for years that they were as dependable as a cardboard rubber.....and now they actually make them???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:09 AM

Facebook? Twitter?.....Hmmm, there IS intelligence there, "but not as we know it Jim"

Facebook has 350 million members. Twitter around 250 million. Even if 90% of these have accounts on both there is still an impressive number of people. And they are all idiots according to ake. Still, shouldn't be surprised really. Anyone who can label gay men as promiscuous perverts is capable of generalising anything.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:46 AM

Troubadour.

"BUT THE REAL NUMBERS OF INFCTIONS WILL BE MANY TIMES HIGHER."
Another unguided missile from the twentieth century Pharaoh with one of the finest minds of the twelfth century.

The Pharaoh was right and you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:43 AM

"Epidemic" is a neutral and well defined word.
We are in an HIV epidemic that effects one demographic much more than others.
Troubadour, if there were not undiagnosed infections, there would be no AIDS and no deaths.
Sadly there are many.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:04 PM

Good news! Janie, thank you for bringing the article to our attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Janie
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:30 PM

Probably not of much interest on this thread, or some one would have already posted it, but this is some encouraging science reported today in multiple major news outlets. New Research on potent HIV Antibodies....

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:16 PM

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

"Well that's fuckin' Charmin", I though"

Abso-f**Kin'-lutely ULTRA!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Daniellank
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:04 PM

Hello. And Bye.

[url=http://somepaydaylounz.com]mr fitz[/url]

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:19 PM

Please tell me what an epidemic is in your opinion and why if it is an infection rate of 1 in 50 or less why should we be alarmed.

It's about one in 600 this end. We should be concerned. Not scaremongered, just concerned.