BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:58 PM

The person behind Akenaton has already shown us his criminal tendencies. He isn't fit to be displayed in public.

He now thinks I am someone else too. Considering I have met the person who signs as Seaham Cemetrey and that he is a doctor working in sexual health, the disgraceful slurs of Akenaton are amazing only by their bitter hatred.

I repeat. I am not the person who feels Akenaton sold unwanted racing puppies to a builder in Seaham who killed them to order before going to prison for it. I didn't make the link regarding Scottish greyhound trainers with a certain first name.

If Akenaton wishes to state I made those allegations, perhaps he would wish to substantiate it?

Keith. The reporting year 2012/13. I gave the figures. Slightly irrelevant as historical trajectory is just one factor. The 2013/14 figures will include the ones I gave for annual comparison which are in the public domain by the way, and I gave them. No spin. No lies. Just data as collected and analysed by PHE. You can't quote a body then say it lies. I am not a spokesman for them but in this, the person writing as Musket can and does speak on behalf of NHS strategy and rationale. Although not when prompting idiots on a silly website in order to expose their stupidity.

I guess it is 1.3 million liars working in The NHS or two twisted bigots. Take your choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:36 PM

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 01:32 PM

This thread was supposed to encourage a discussion of HIV transmission rates. I think all the valid points have been raised and anyone reading it will have the information to formulate an opinion on the best way to halt the epidemic within the MSM demographic.
The post above and the post from Dave , contain statements which I have never made; in fact, some of the statements are completely contrary to what I have actually stated.

Anyone who wishes to verify this, can easily do so by reading the complete thread and paying attention.

I am not interested in the personal views of Dave, and even less so of the other person, the thread is about HIV transmission rates and I think it has served a useful purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:15 PM

At last, the twisted trolls are exposed. Just as I supposed, the chief abuser and NHS "advisor" is exposed as a cheat who makes up fake personas to bolster his lies and obfuscation.

Well at least those who do read this thread will be able to separate truth from fiction.
It is truly amazing where being addicted to an idiotic agenda leads
God help the NHS.

And those who read this will also be able to see those who say one thing and do another. Ake, you really are the master of twisting what people say to suit yourself and then whinging on about others. Fortunately, apart from a couple of supporters, everyone can see just what you are and what you do. We don't need to make you look an idiot. You are quite capable of doing that with no help.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:15 PM

At last, the twisted trolls are exposed. Just as I supposed, the chief abuser and NHS "advisor" is exposed as a cheat who makes up fake personas to bolster his lies and obfuscation.

Well at least those who do read this thread will be able to separate truth from fiction.
It is truly amazing where being addicted to an idiotic agenda leads
God help the NHS.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:21 PM

Perhaps you have forgotten.
You stated that new MSM infections were less than half the total.
It was true once, but they overtook all others combined in 2011.
You said my figures were out of date and you had better, but it was you who was hopelessly out of touch.

Then you said that hetero figures were rising when they actually are falling and have been year on year for a decade.

No twisting.
My figures were correct and showed that you were hopelessly out of touch and wrong.
Or were you trying to twist the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:05 PM

I only gave figures to correct things that you had said.
You either twisted them or you got them wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 03:49 PM

I have twisted nothing.
The only figures I have given were from the latest PHE report.
Untwistable.

Show one example of a twisted figure Musket/Seaham.

Confident prediction- you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:51 AM

Like I said. So what? You are purposely confusing campaign with campaign. I notice that two people working in healthcare, one a doctor for at matter, seem to have no issue with health promotion campaigns that include certain groups, and for that matter, you need to target your efforts for greatest good.

I think the origin of the word campaign in this debate was more to do with a certain homophobic campaign of persecution as a solution to a minority of a problem.

I'll tell you what I am insinuating about you. Nothing. I am stating as a fact though that you twist figures to support the overt homophobic evil intentions of the person behind Akenaton whilst claiming his diatribe isn't bigoted.

Nothing to insinuate. Plenty to ponder.

The only reason I am bothering at all is that somewhere, buried deep, there might have been a conscience. But if ill informed pedantry is all you can offer, you either have a condition I am not qualified to deal with (although Goofus reckons he is) or I am right all along.

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:05 AM

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

Is that, a campaign for promoting HIV/AIDS awareness, or letting it run rampant, because to inform the carriers, would 'insult their sensitivities'???....and therefore be branded by the nutcases as being 'homophobic' for doing so???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:04 PM

Actually it was Dr. Cemetry who said it.

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

Campaigns ARE focussed on gay men.

What are you insinuating about me, and on what grounds?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

Correct.

That's what I said.

Do you have a problem with that?

Or do you just like to play with context in support of homophobia? A health promotion campaign is about all people at risk, including gay men.

If anybody is still desperate enough to be reading this, Keith has purposely confused legitimate targeting (aiming health promotion) at a section of society with Akenston's campaign to stigmatise them. Out of interest,

I hope you are very pleased with yourself Keith. At least have the courage of your conviction to say what you really think about gay men.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 10:42 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 09:18 AM

See?

Where have I said it is homophobic to target the most at risk group?

Never.

Quite the opposite in fact.

You say targeting is being done. I know. You don't have to tell me. I help allocate the fucking resource! I am satisfied that gay men remain the most at risk single demographic, (if sexual preference is used as a demographic) and the second largest demographic (if urban socio economic is used.) I am also convinced of the argument that historical data alone will not inform future planning as other consequences of heterosexual promiscuity translate into long term issues. A&E, GP and colo rectal referrals indicate a worrying trend that requires vigilance in screening of those demographics, who hitherto have not come forward at the rate gay men do.

You will be pleased to know that to the best ability of those knowledgable in these things, the resources are being targetted fairly well. From next month, future incidence figures will help plan said resources even better. So long as councils don't use the money they will get for sexual health to fund more frequent dustbin collections.. (Don't laugh, don't shake your head. Pickles has made it clear that QIPP (moving healthcare resource into community and social care) is not ring fenced where councils get it.

NAT doesn't say that gay men need to be forced by law to be screened for STDs. NAT is nothing whatsoever to do with gay men, and has no mandate for them. It has a mandate of sorts for gay men who happen to be sexually active with anal penetrative sex without protection, which is a small percentage of gay men. It is also a small rising percentage of teenage girls for that matter.

If NAT said what Akenaton says, it's directors would be in court.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:31 AM

Musket, it is you not listening to reason.
Reason says that scarce resources should be targeted to do the most good.
You say it is homophobic to target the most at risk group, but that actually is existing policy.
It is being done and you did not even know it and only you and your ilk would think it homophobic.
This is not about discrimination or persecution.

your wish to stigmatise and persecute sections of society

All I see is a wish to reduce suffering and save lives.

Akeneaton is not saying anything that NAT does not say.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:15 AM

The only discrimination is from the likes of Akenaton. If it feels that "truth" on health matters is discriminatory, perhaps it would do well to wear tin foil on its head to protect it from other sources of it's paranoia.

Pleased with yourself Keith?

65,000,000 of my ilk in The UK. There are a few hundred thousand homophobic criminal bigots though. If you want to give them a veneer of respectability rather than listen to reason, be my guest.

I hope you pray for them.

By the way worm, "so called" health professionals work in the interest of all without fear nor favour. Your fantasy has no parallel in the world of decent people. If reality doesn't support your wish to stigmatise and persecute sections of society, it isn't reality that needs to seek help.

Irrelevant, wrong, small minded, bitter and twisted. Although what Mudcat did wrong to make you think anybody agreed with your odious outlook, I don't know. Even Keith is hesitant to support you, and his right wing religious zeal is on record.

Just you and Goofus.

Have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:59 AM

"To you, the truth is inflammatory.
That tells us much about you and your ilk."

Yes Keith, bang on the button, very well said.
Anyone reading this thread and wondering about the anger and abuse being thrown around by two or three people, should think hard on what you have said.

Filling posts with Orwellian jargon to obfuscate and confuse is almost laughable.....the truth is there for all to see at present, but before long results by demographic will be banned, the epidemic will be obscured and the so called health professionals will be able to claim that HIV infection rates are falling and all is well in the world.

It will have become "discriminatory" to tell the truth about serious health matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:01 AM

To you, the truth is inflammatory.
That tells us much about you and your ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 05:08 AM


Of course gay groups tell the truth, both objectively and favourably. Who said otherwise?
So do children's charities , cancer organisations, diabetes, dementia, mental health and myriad others.

So why say they pour petrol on the fire?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 04:00 AM

Of course gay groups tell the truth, both objectively and favourably. Who said otherwise?

So do children's charities , cancer organisations, diabetes, dementia, mental health and myriad others.

And guess what? They are all bidding to influence priority in healthcare provision and awareness.

I haven't quite decided whether I actually needed to explain that?

Did I really?

You see, I am trying to work out whether Keith is intelligent but with odious views or just not capable of reading something without wondering what that means?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:37 AM

Troubadour, your idiosyncratic theory of epidemiology has nothing to do with reality.

This is what National Aids Trust say,

"So people
with multiple sexual partners, such as
homosexually active men, commercial
sex workers, and people in (formal or
informal) polygamous relationships, are
more likely to have sero-discordant sex
than those with fewer partners'.2

This point was also made by a number
of participants at the NAT expert
seminar. It is certainly the case that the
probability of having sex with someone
of a different HIV status increases with
the number of sexual partners you
have. This has been a fundamental
insight into the spread of sexually
transmitted infections, linking numbers
of partners to risk of STI infection and
STI incidence. Of course incidence is
also affected by other factors such as
condom use, overall STI prevalence in
a population and in a sexual network,
and sexual mixing - factors we will
consider further.
Recent results from the Gay Men's
Sex Survey (GMSS) conducted
by Sigma Research suggests the
correlation between high numbers of
sexual partners and infection with STIs
including HIV"
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/July-2010-Parternship-Patterns-and-HIV-Prevention.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:27 AM

Do keep on looking in the public domain as you call it.

What do you call it?
All my figures and facts have come from PHE.
Where else should I have got them from?

If those providing sexual health services got it wrong all the time, they'd be doing their patients a disservice

Not all the time, but NAT is of the opinion that they ARE doing patients a disservice.

there is a lot of misleading information out there, some of it "official" and subject to scrutiny itself.

Anything I have posted?
If so, please identify it specifically.

Confident prediction, you won't.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 05:05 PM

Don't worry, there's plenty out there, especially in gay pressure groups ironically, to pour petrol on Akenaton's fire

Do not be silly Musket.
What will you get from gay groups but the truth?
The truth should be what we all want.
Why are you afraid of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 03:22 PM

Yes, I have been known to get things wrong. A while ago, I thought you were capable of understanding, assimilating and judging views, evidence and points.

I got that fucker wrong for starters...

Do keep on looking in the public domain as you call it. Most of what is important is up there, and given time, more still. NHS England and PHE are trying to take on board their bit of the duty of candour, but as ever, there is a lot of misleading information out there, some of it "official" and subject to scrutiny itself. If you thought scientifically rather than doggedly, you'd possibly realise that. If those providing sexual health services got it wrong all the time, they'd be doing their patients a disservice, so scrutiny and meta analysis reigns I'm afraid.

Sorry about that. Anyway, I co wrote an article recently about screening in general and how we still haven't joined it at the hip with PHE. It is in the innovation section of HSJ.

Don't worry, there's plenty out there, especially in gay pressure groups ironically, to pour petrol on Akenaton's fire. Bring kindling..... You are doing a good job to date.

After all. He hasn't said anything homophobic has he? Or at least, you don't seem to think so. I wonder why that is?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 03:17 PM

Infection rates in the MSM demographic fell swiftly between the mid 80s and the early 90s, the epidemic was under control, then infection rates began to rise and have been rising steadily ever since.

Why did infection rates amongst MSM fall to reasonable levels? Obviously the fear of death from a new disease caused them to self regulate their behaviour. As the condition was gradually thought to be manageable, MSM resumed their original behaviour patterns, with the consequences we now see, 70% of new infections among 0.75% of the population.

The same pattern seems to apply to new Syphilis infections.....where the disease did not originate amongst male homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 01:05 PM

"No-one came back with any other issue.
Those ARE the issues that determine infection rate in sexual transmission."

OK, one last attempt to elicit understanding.

Take two groups with infections, in the period between first infection and the index diagnosis

In group 1, two percent acquire the infection.

In group 2, 33 percent acquire the infection.

The infection is one that doesn't go away, being manageable, but not curable.

A single sexual encounter with anybody in group 1 carries a one in fifty chance of infection.

A single encounter with a group 2 partner carries a one in three chance of infection.

Once the cause is discovered and research into treatment begins, the infection rate drops, but like drink/drive cases, after a time starts to rise again.

Since the infection is still there in the same proportions, which group is going to show the higher rate?

And that will happen with or without promiscuity being involved, because we are talking about proportional risk, and the MSM proportion is the same as it was because the virus doesn't go away.

In other parts of the world the proportions are very different and the infection rates reflect that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 12:47 PM

"Why are telling me to ask Akenaton......."

Because he is the one who stated that it is so, and givn how far up his arse you are, it's hard to believe that you would disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 10:04 AM

I get my information from reports in the public domain that can be seen in context and scrutinised by anyone interested.

We just have to take your word for your claims, and you so often get things wrong.

In my view, if you can not produce your evidence, it is not evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 09:58 AM

Actually, you are right there Keith.

I wrote HPA where I should have written PHE. You of course knew and understood that, so had a pop for the same reasons I do. The difference being I poke you with a stick to get a reaction, you on the other hand look more absurd the more you claim to be serious.

I apologise. I apologise for inadvertently using the wrong acronym. Having been involved with HPA for so many years, it is an easy mistake to make. Or at least, it is for fucking important people such as Musket eh?

I get it by the way from meetings I attend, minutes and reports I read, commissioning strategies I write, lectures I attend (and occasionally give for that matter) etc. You see, that's one of the key responsibilities of PHE, to advise commissioning of NHS and local government provision in health and social care. So I get it from er... Being advised? Err.. Forming judgements from said advice and proposing them? Prat.

Where do you get your bits?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:58 AM

People who promote it....AND...every time you've had sex with someone, even your wife, was it a choice?

You really have lost it, GfS. You think these 'promoters' are actively making people become homosexual? Is that it? What are you talking about choices when having sex for? Do you think that being homosexual is just about having sex? Neither you nor I had any choice whatsoever in who we loved. Homosexuals are no different.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:51 AM

HPA advise that the risk for heterosexual sex derived HIV is higher than ever.

The last report by HPA, (published as a PHE report because HPA is finished) states that hetero infections have fallen year on year for a decade.

Where do you get this stuff?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:47 AM

Musket, opening sentence of your post,
"HPA advise that the risk for heterosexual sex derived HIV is higher than ever. The two reasons being;"

Have you forgotten that there is no HPA and has not been for a year?

From your last post, you do not have any new figures.
Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:39 AM

"Why are you referring to HPA as if it still exists."

That was Keith by the way. Misinterpreting what I said on purpose.

You can't educate pork so I shan't. The last UK figures are, with refinement from the final quarter, basically what are published. The next figures relate to a period that has not ended yet. (April 13 to March 14.) I also said that risk is not just historical trends but Akenaton wouldn't wish to read that, and for reasons unknown, Keith chooses to ignore it too.

Goofus thinks being gay is a choice. A bad one at that. Possibly thinks you can cure choice? That was tried in parts of Europe in the '30s. Didn't work then either.

Akenaton picks up figures for clusters of a country a few thousand miles away and proposes draconian curbs of human rights on a section of society here based on such figures.

Hanging is too good for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 03:33 AM

National Aids Trust.
"Available evidence indicates
many MSM in the UK have high
numbers of sexual partners
and that there are significant
opportunities for sexual mixing.
Given the importance of partnership
patterns to HIV transmission, we should
look at what we know about such patterns
amongst MSM in the UK. The 2007
Gay Men's Sex Survey states:
'As every year, respondents were
very varied in their number of sexual
partners. Among the men who had a
male sex partner in the last year, 21.4%
indicated they had one male partner
only; 27.6% had two, three or four
male partners; 24.4% had between five
and twelve male partners; 13.4% had
between thirteen and 29 male partners;
and the remaining 13.4% had thirty or
more male partners in the last year'"

"In short, evidence suggests a strong
association between higher partner
numbers and infection with HIV as well
as other STIs"

http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/July-2010-Parternship-Patterns-and-HIV-Prevention.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 02:46 AM

Troubadour, 24 hours ago I posted this,

"Anal sex is far more risky than vaginal, but as Musket says, heteros do it too.
Unprotected sex is far more risky.
That is an issue for all preferences.
Multiple, concurrent partners is far more risky.
That is an issue for all preferences.
Does anyone know a different issue, or are these the issues that determine infection rate in any preference group?"

No-one came back with any other issue.
Those ARE the issues that determine infection rate in sexual transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:01 PM

'Troubadour': "
"Notice: They won't even address addicts sharing needles..."
Goofy, before you make an even bigger arse of yourselfe, ask Ake how the needle sharer infections compare.
He's been stating for some time that they are tiny compared to MSMs."

Why are telling me to ask Akenaton...if he posted the numbers, and the sites, you'd all be ignoring them and calling him a 'homophobic bigot'....at least that's what you've been doing for about three years now......'About time you two got up to date, don't you think?'

"And don't keep calling me a liberal! I'm further from that than you are. The difference is that I have a few more working brain cells than you."

OKAY.....Besides, I called you a 'so-called liberal'..would you prefer , "YOUR MOST HIGH LIBERAL SUPREME"??....the incense is already lit...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 09:08 PM

"My money would be on promiscuity, risk taking and dangerous sexual practices; all associated with male homosexuality."

Ake, you really need to get out more, if you think there is a difference between gay males and hetero males and females as regards sexual adventures.

Do yourself a favour and go look at the queue outside any nightclub.

Then come back and admit that the number of females with all the goodies on show, out on the pull, is far and away greater than the number of gay men in the whole city.

Do you think that they are looking for enlightenment,.........OR SEX?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:58 PM

"Notice: They won't even address addicts sharing needles..."

Goofy, before you make an even bigger arse of yourselfe, ask Ake how the needle sharer infections compare.

He's been stating for some time that they are tiny compared to MSMs.

About time you two got up to date, don't you think?

And don't keep calling me a liberal! I'm further from that than you are. The difference is that I have a few more working brain cells than you.

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

So do you have any new figures or not Musket?
And why are you referring to HPA as if it still exists?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 03:10 PM

"And I still have no idea who or what 'supporters of homosexuality' are."

People who promote it....AND...every time you've had sex with someone, even your wife, was it a choice?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:57 PM

You just don't get it do you, GfS. Homosexuality is NOT a form of promiscuity. It is NOT a lifestyle choice. People cannot choose to be homosexual any more than they can choose to be black or white. You also say ...seem to think that increased screening is an 'impolite imposition', and/or 'homophobic' No I don't. I think increased screening can only be a good thing. I do not think that forced registration or testing is. I do not think that demonising homosexuality can help. And I still have no idea who or what 'supporters of homosexuality' are.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:17 PM

HPA advise that the risk for heterosexual sex derived HIV is higher than ever. The two reasons being;

1. Complacency by this group combined with the recent high prevalence of anal issues requiring surgical intervention on younger women.

2. From April 2014, the statistics for all screening, tests and interventions will combine at source for the first time. So primary care testing will be added to the HES (secondary care) data and registration requirement of private healthcare to provide statistical data of screening activity. (Positive tests are already collected.)

Then, we can talk about figures for The UK. The system is not so harmonised in The USA and CDC are in about the same position as HPA were prior to The Health Act 2006 tightening up.

It may well be that MSM prevalence follows historical trajectory. If so, we shall have a better understanding of that concern and the scope. It may well be though that the non London figures, (as with many health statistics I may add) shape the general approach.

Pressure groups and high clusters of many issues, sexual health and mental health chiefly amongst them, lead to extrapolation of small clusters and inappropriate actions. The best example I can give as an ex miner is that in the old coalfields, COPD is a huge issue, but as it is less prevalent in London, it does not have a national service framework, yet diabetes does. Some of us are a bit fed up with London solutions to national problems, the consultant contract being chief amongst them.

So... Sorry, but I don't buy into media and popular views. I am briefed on reality and advise NHS England in my particular sphere of influence accordingly. I teach at a university accordingly. I lead on service redesign and improvement within a large teaching trust accordingly. I used to regulate services (including sexual health) accordingly. NHS care still has a long way to go, and so does private healthcare for that matter, but the setting up of NHS England and associated buy in for Scotland, Wales and NI means that at long last, we can start tackling issues based on the epidemiology rather than the political pressure.

Just that someone needs to tell the Secretary of State that his predecessor set this up for that purpose......

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:07 PM

Dave the Gnome,
Let's take another look at my post.....

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 12:32 PM

Dave the Gnome: "It isn't splitting hairs at all, GfS. It is an important distinction. Promiscuity does not spread the virus, as you stated. I have already agreed that promiscuity increases the spread but that is not what you said.
Fact: Promiscuous sex, of any group, spreads the HIV/AIDS virus.
Remember?"

"Well being as the supporters of homosexuality and/or other forms of promiscuity seem to think that increased screening is an 'impolite imposition', and/or 'homophobic', it's a little hard to rely on the 'consideration' and 'good graces' of horny infected people who are also carriers of any number of STD's. So to be 'safe', let's just say promiscuity DOES spread the increased risk of being infected...but we don't want to 'split hairs', do we???"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:43 PM

OK - I take out the word 'and' and we get "...the supporters of homosexuality or other forms of promiscuity". It is still just as stupid. You are still suggesting that homosexuality has 'supporters' and it is a form of promiscuity. I guess the language I speak must be different to yours. I am quite pleased about that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:00 PM

Musket: "Goofus. Stop saying that people don't care when they possibly do. And possibly spend a lot of their professional time caring."

'Possibly'???
You must deal with a LOT of facts, huh?

Dave the Gnome: "I understand and/or perfectly thanks. It is the whole phrase the supporters of homosexuality and/or other forms of promiscuity I am trying to get my head round."

Ok...take out the word 'and', and what do you get? It certainly appears that you haven't 'got your head around it'....maybe I should have posted, "....OR needle sharing"...then you'd see that 'OR' meant something separate....'AND' was inclusive..'OR denotes another (possibility)

Maybe you should confer with Musket...he's seems to be into 'possibilities'.

Keith, 'Troubadour' is just too far gone....He's been making up stuff for years, and sadly, too many people believe the stuff he makes up...ask Musket!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:13 AM

So why Akenaton insists on saying young MSM is the only rising demographic

Young MSM in US.
Older MSM here.
No non-MSM demographic is rising, unless you have new information to share with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:57 AM

From CDC factsheet on HIV infections(all demographics)

"After new HIV infections
among men who have sex with men (MSM) peaked in
the mid-1980s at more than 75,000 new infections a year,
the number of new infections plummeted to less than
18,000 per year by the early 1990s. Unfortunately, after
years of steady progress, new infections again began to
rise among MSM throughout the 1990s.7 While in recent
years, prevention efforts may have helped stabilize infections,
they are occurring at far too high a level (29,800 per
year.)8 Additionally, young MSM are the only risk group
in which new infections are increasing."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:19 AM

There is a worrying trend of older people testing positive for HIV (and other conditions through STD cause) and whilst increasing testing availability will help, it helps more with younger people as the evidence demonstrates that through sex education in schools and other initiatives, younger people are quicker to come forward and less prone to taking risks. The high percentages of younger people have to be taken in with the statistically low numbers overall, plus primary care test figures don't, in England at any rate, enter into the figures till next month.

An interesting comparison being motorbike injuries. More older people who think they are too old and wise to ever crash.

So why Akenaton insists on saying young MSM is the only rising demographic when it isn't could baffle people. Unless you take into account the way in which evil people lie in order to spread their homophobic hatred.

It really is fascinating actually having such a beast on these threads. Sickening but fascinating.



Goofus. Stop saying that people don't care when they possibly do. And possibly spend a lot of their professional time caring. I spend time in GU clinics, looking for ways of improving how the staff are supported to make the services better and more responsive. Take it from me, they care. They care a lot.

Even the pox doctors' clerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 06:24 AM

GfS What part of 'and/OR' don't you understand?

I understand and/or perfectly thanks. It is the whole phrase the supporters of homosexuality and/or other forms of promiscuity I am trying to get my head round. Firstly, what or who are the supporters of homosexuality? Secondly, why would homosexuals need supporters anyway? Finally, do you really believe that homosexuality is a form or promiscuity?

I do hope your name was chosen to be ironic.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 06:08 AM

Troubadour.
I don't know why you find that so difficult to understand, that one gay encounter might still carry ten or more times the risk of a similar single hetero event.

Because it is wrong Troubadour!

Anal sex is far more risky than vaginal, but as Musket says, heteros do it too.

Unprotected sex is far more risky.
That is an issue for all preferences.
Multiple, concurrent partners is far more risky.
That is an issue for all preferences.

Does anyone know a different issue, or are these the issues that determine infection rate in any preference group?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 03:34 AM

Troubadour.
Which destroys the absurd notion that heteros are somehow remaining celibate or monogamous, while gay men are raving sex maniacs.

No-one has had that absurd notion.
You just made it up.

The infection may have started among MSMs here all those decades ago, but it crossed into the hetero population very quickly.
It was expected to become widespread in the hetero community, but it never did.

In Britain we did have an influx of people infected in sub-Saharan Africa who were hetero.

Dave, the increase in testing was not enough to counter the increased rate of infection.
That does not mean that increased testing "does not work."
It does.

As an ex-teacher I would never deny the value and importance of education, but I do not believe that anyone leaves our schools system unaware that STIs including HIV are transmitted sexually and that condoms offer some protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 07:47 PM

He doesn't care...he is only concerned with the falsely based propaganda, which happens to be part of the 'so-called' liberal' agenda. He will continue to try to shift the thread topic away from the transmission of HIV/AIDS...to his views on homosexuality.
This thread is NOT about homosexuality. They only came into it as a recognized major carrier of HIV/AIDS...that for some VERY lame reason, the 'politicos' want to make 'political hay' of them, and dismiss and sweep under the carpet the KNOWN FACT of them being major carriers, as the fear that common sense will undermine their political agendas.
Now that wasn't difficult, nor hard to understand, was it?
Notice: They won't even address addicts sharing needles...

GfS