BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: gnu
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:52 PM

I assume abstinence and monogamous relationships are the key. Failing that, condoms. After that, well, ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances... I think. But I never bothered to educate myself as I decided after my divorce that I would be celibate until married. Of course, that would require a prior aids check. I have heard that such are not "100%" but, again, I have never researched it as I feel no need to get married again. Plus, cupid shoots arrows and I got yer bulletproof vest and some HD ordnance fer good measure. >;-)

Bitter? No thanks, I'll have a Bud.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:55 PM

Wow Gnu! Thanks for the honesty. I was thinking of the question more in terms of public policy, but all comments are welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: bobad
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:07 PM

I just read this article this morning. It is an indictment of Canada's right wing, Conservative/evangelical government which is doing everything in it's power to close down a program which has led to a dramatic decrease in HIV among injection drug users in Vancouver. The bastards are pushing their political and religious agenda at the expense of the health and well being of their citizens.

Canada's drug policy is in with the wrong crowd

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: bobad
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:27 PM

Meanwhile, on another front, the Egyptian military junta claims it has practically cured AIDS and Hepatitis C.

Gawker

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:28 PM

Thanks Bobad, interesting Op-Ed. The Russian epidemic is alarming. 72,000 cases per year from drug use alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:15 PM

There was a brief piece about the beginning of the HIV virus on BBC4 tonight, (about past Horizon programmes). The science was most interesting. The virus actually becomes a part of the cell, and is in every cell, so one cannot attack it without destroying all the cells of the body. And the statistics show that in Africa (where there are many millions of victims) it is mainly heterosexually-transmitted, plus across the placenta to the foetus, and there are statistically not very many homosexually-transmitted cases in that continent. There are (and I've met some) cases of HIV in prisons, from needle-sharing. It seems strict use of condoms for all sexual activity would be the way forward, and education for all those at risk. It would be great if a vaccine could be developed, but it looks unlikely given the ability of the virus to mutate and adapt rapidly.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:26 PM

I think you know what I believe, Jack. Education and support must be increased again. After this I will leave you to it. Unless anyone decides to label AIDS sufferers promiscuous perverts of course.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:14 PM

Africa.   From a 2009 study in Malawi, Namibia, and Botswana.
Overall, HIV rates were substantial, and risks for HIV infection from sex with both were men and women were common. The participants were generally young, though there was a significant association between HIV and age. Excluding the few men above the age of 49, overall more than one-third (35.7%, 95%CI 26.3–46.4) of MSM between the ages of 30–49 were HIV infected. These data suggest that this is not a new epidemic of HIV among African MSM which is spreading more rapidly among younger MSM, as has been seen observed among MSM in other settings such as Russia [16]. Because younger men were much less likely to be HIV infected, prevention programs targeting younger MSM in these populations could have marked potential for avoiding future infections.

37.5% of MSM were found to be infected with HIV
The national average infection rates are around 10%, including the MSM demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: gnu
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:23 PM

ake... gosh! The figures are staggering. Five years on, I hope there is significant change.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:41 PM

As I posted on an earlier thread, the infection rate in the US has been falling in 'most' demographics, due to medical advances and education. It is still a problem in the younger gay groups where it is hard to educate enough individuals quickly enough. In 3rd world cultures in Africa, it is doubly hard, due to lack of education and certain cultural values.

Quoting statistics is interesting, but does not address the root problems. We need to know the extent of the problem, but must be careful what we recommend.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:42 PM

do you have a link to that Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Janie
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:50 PM

Treatment for HIV (in the USA) has advanced to the point that those people who receive and participate in appropriate drug therapy will have viral loads that are not detectable and the risk of infecting a sexual partner are close to zero even if safe sex practices are not followed.

Lay websites and forums on HIV, just as is the case regarding countless other issues, medical and otherwise, are full of anecdotal and uniformed 'information' some of which is accidentally accurate and some of which is not. It takes a significant amount of lay research skill to suss out the medical research sites and to then understand what one is reading, or to feel empowered enough to question one's medical providers to comprehend the research findings. Would be great if some of the infectious disease clinics at the forefront of treating hiv would launch good websites geared to the lay community about such things as the risk of transmitting hiv when one's viral load is undetectable. I suspect one reason this hasn't happened, and I understand this, is that treatment for hiv is very expensive and it should never be considered to be an incidental infection that doesn't matter "as long as you stay on your meds." The effective social engineering hasn't been worked out yet with regard to the message in terms of public health - so fear is the default public health message in terms of prevention.



Still not a good idea to not practice safe sex since one can never really know if a partner may have HIV and not yet know it, or may be some one who forgets to keep medical appointments or to take medications on time.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: mg
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:52 PM

Read up on coconut oil and its antiviral properties. I think it can provide some hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Janie
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:57 PM

Widespread fear and ignorance have never proven to be effective public health interventions.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:22 AM

In UK, older not younger MSMs are the highest risk group.
I see that as an achievement of education, and it gives hope for the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:58 AM

In the UK, the risks are similar to any other Western country, whilst digging into demographics shows inner city clusters of certain risk groups, more rural and provincial risk is spread more evenly.

The HIV risks in what we call third world countries, and especially most of Africa are exacerabted by mother to child transmission. Ignorance and access to not only drugs such as antiretrovirals but decent diet, (critical for antiretrovirals to suppress pathogens) make this a huge issue in these countries. Sadly, scapegoating and denial by desperate governments, sometimes egged on by malicious organisations in the west pile on the woe. It really is a sad bad situation.

It, like many others, is predominantly a blood borne virus, so risks include anal sex, Vaginal sex during menstruation or wall tear, needle share and needle stick, as well as a (getting rarer thankfully) blood transfusion risk. Other unlucky instances too, but they are the large ones. Historically, anal sex has been the most prevalent cause, and indeed it is. (It was explained to me as saying suppositories work fast because colon wall is a fast track access to blood stream from outside. Penis wall less so, but you'd be playing Russian roulette to rely on it.)

In the same way as alcohol, the baby boomers are the most vulnerable in that older people think it is a young person condition. However, picking up HIV through screening and picking it up through presentation of symptoms shows marked difference between groups. Gay men are most prevalent in screening and younger women and their male partners though presentation and tracing. (Source - HRG returns through NRLS 2012-13.). This pattern for England is, according to the World Health Organisation, typical for our peer group.

Health promotion and sexual health services here reiterate the risks and target at risk groups but also point out that HIV is statistically a lower risk of contraction than some other STDs, some of which, hepatitis C and cervical cancer are aggressive life changers or limiters themselves.

One of the sadder aspects of this virulent condition is how it has been politicised in order to identify fault in sections of society. Uganda and Nigeria are not odd in their demonisation of gay people, they are rather a norm many people would like to see elsewhere, and using this condition to nurture such views is a stain on society.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:24 AM

One of the sadder aspects of this virulent condition is how it has been politicised in order to identify fault in sections of society.

Is that really true? I can think of no examples of that in UK, and in Uganda and Nigeria it is not really the justification for their anti-gay legislation.
HIV is an issue as much for heterosexuals in Africa.
What examples do you have in mind please?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:38 AM

It is inevitable that the rabid right will latch on to the plight of aids sufferers to promote other agendas, such as anti-immigration - there's at least one contributor to this thread (so far) to whom the two subjects go hand-in-hand "like a horse and carriage".
See Migration watch, as a fine example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MigrationWatch_UK
Jim Carroll

HIV testing[edit]
In January 2004, it was revealed that the British government was considering introducing HIV testing for potential immigrants in the light of a Health Protection Agency report that found two in three heterosexuals being diagnosed with HIV had contracted it in Africa.[44][45] HIV testing of immigrants had previously been criticised by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS, who argued that it would simply serve to stigmatise HIV-positive people.[46][47] The plan was also criticised by the Terrence Higgins Trust[44] and a report by Richard Coker of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine suggested that a testing policy would result in driving people with diseases including HIV and tuberculosis underground.[45][48] The plans were dropped in July 2004 for this reason.[49]
MigrationWatch had supported plans to introduce testing, arguing in June 2004 that "implementation of such screening would be beneficial to public health and to public funds in the UK and to actual and potential immigrants themselves"[50] and in December 2004 publishing a further briefing paper supporting testing, pointing out that 47 other states, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States had policies requiring HIV testing of immigrants[51] (though the US government has since lifted its ban on HIV-positive immigrants).[52]

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:00 AM

Anti-gay propaganda and oppression in Africa don't IMO stem from issues to do with AIDS. They are religion-based. Both Muslims and Christians there are condemnatory of gay activity because they say God tells us it is sinful. Gays there hide their sexuality, or they'd be attacked, even killed. Regarding testing of immigrants to UK for HIV, I think it would be a good idea from all points of view. Testing for TB is mandatory now, but only for immigrants of certain countries, which is silly. If someone is discovered to have a life-threatening disease, it's in our interest and theirs to get it identified and treated. One of the major problems in Africa is the male-dominant attitude whereby a man is not disposed to protect his wife/woman from his infection by using condoms. If women were rather more empowered, they might feel they have the right to insist on this. My husband tells me that in Cote d'Ivoire, the younger women in the cities are now far more assertive about safe sex, which can only be a jolly good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:26 AM

Eliza, they are very religion based. Homophobia is almost exclusively religion based. We get our hard wired hatred of others from scriptural justification over the ages. The success of this is in how many people who aren't religious still harbour bigotry encouraged from the pulpit to their ancestors. Even now, the established churches cannot bring themselves to see everybody as "God's children."

The European missionaries did their bit to stamp it out in Africa and elsewhere in the name of god.

And that is, according to Archbishop Desmond Tutu where the fun began.

Screening for HIV would pick a few more up on entry, as far as immigration is concerned. But only for those unaware at the time who are symptom free.   The overwhelming majority declare their status rather quickly. Sadly, the lure of free care and drugs is one of the categories in what we call economic migrancy. Communicable disease doesn't fall into this government's denial of access to care. We have to treat such conditions regardless as a public health measure from arrival.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:52 AM

Jim, I think the excesses of the "rabid-right," or left, are of little interest to ordinary decent folk.
I am surprised you think there is such a contributor on this thread, or this whole site.

Musket, in the days of Empire, everyone was anti-gay.
It is invidious to suggest the church was behind it.
It was an issue of culture, not religion, and that is the case in Africa today too.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:05 AM

No they weren't.

The so called pink revolution of the '70s and '80s was concerned with "outing" hypocrisy.

Granted, prior to 1967, there were very good reasons to keep your love life quiet but it wasn't just tea bagging in public schools and buggering altar boys you know. Noël Coward, Quentin Crisp, etc. They weren't notorious by their rarity but their demonstration of a reality churches asked us to look away from.

Still do as a matter of fact.

Just think how many died of AIDS because of the influence of the churches in shaming people for existing, making them a hard to reach group in healthcare.

Makes you think. Certainly doesn't make you pray though.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:24 AM

There was a culture in every society in the world that led to the criminalisation of gay people.
There is no justification for singling out Religion.

Hitler was no churchman, and he tried to exterminate all gays.

Not this from the Guardian,
"It's true that an awful lot of lobbying remained to be done (to change the law in the 60s). The HLRS got off the ground in 1958, following a letter to the Times signed by 30 of the great and the good, including former Prime Minister Clement Attlee, philosophers AJ Ayer and Isaiah Berlin, poets C Day Lewis and Stephen Spender, playwright JB Priestley and various bishops. (From our perspective of the early 21st century, when the churches seem so afraid of homosexuality, it's interesting that in this period they consistently and visibly backed reform.)"

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/jun/24/communities.gayrights

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:29 AM

Amongst others....

Piss off and let's not turn this into another Keith v reality soapbox eh? Others might wish to speak of HIV transmission and turning the spotlight onto gays suits your agenda, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:33 AM

I made valid points.
Why the attack?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:39 AM

It's ok, I'll correct your typos.

You make INvalid ATTACKS. Points tend to have an air of objectivity not objectionable.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:47 AM

My points were valid and I attacked no-one.
Why can you never just engage in amicable discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:51 AM

I do.

All the time.

With amicable people








Funnily enough

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:54 AM

"There is no justification for singling out Religion."
Religions - all religions, Christianity included, has reserved a particular place in their various hells for homosexuals -
Christian churches around the world specifically target homosexuals as at best ill and in need of treatment, but where possible criminals in danger of "polluting our society" (whatever that particular society might be. But, as Muskie wisely points out "let's not turn this into another Keith v reality soapbox"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:21 AM

Persona humana[edit]
In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the document Persona humana dealing with sexual ethics. It stated that those who "have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people" do so "in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people". It noted that "a distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable".
It criticised those who held that for the latter class of homosexuals the tendency "justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage". It stated that in Scripture homosexual acts "are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God", a condemnation that "attest[s] to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of".[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:41 AM

"Others might wish to speak of HIV transmission and turning the spotlight onto gays suits your agenda, not mine.

If we are talking of HIV transmission in the UK or US, it is associated almost exclusively with one demographic, MSM.
This demographic makes up 1% of the population, yet accounts for .... on the latest figures, 70% of all new infections.

Would some one please explain why this is the case, and why no one seems at all concerned?

gnu was startled by the MSM infection rates in Africa, but in some areas of the US 20% of male homosexuals carry the virus.....and rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:49 AM

Jim, did you read the guardian extract that showed that the churches led the fight to decriminalise in the 60s?

And, why is this thread being turned into just another anti-faith, religion bashing thread?
You people are obsessed!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:08 AM

Bill....why is it "difficult to educate" young male homosexuals, as opposed to young male heterosexuals?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:18 AM

"Jim, did you read the guardian extract that showed that the churches led the fight to decriminalise in the 60s?"
And I am also fully aware that the world's largest, most wealthy and powrerful Christian church not only still considers homosexuality a mortal sin, but it has pledged itself to fight the move to make it acceptible.
Your attempts to use these threads to peddle your personal agendas and dominate thread after thread with them into the ground one after another has to end somewhere - here is as good a place as any - once again, "as Muskie wisely points out "let's not turn this into another Keith v reality soapbox""
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:05 AM

1) The means of HIV transmission are pretty much agreed upon by all informed people.

2) Why a preventable disease is not more fully understood by people it affects is another question, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:48 AM

Ok. The figures for end of 2012 are now available on myriad websites for The UK, a couple of which have been updated to include the final quarter of the reporting year, (to end March 2013.)

Allow me to quote them.

HIV from sexual rather than other contact accounts for 95% of all cases.

In 2012, there were 6,360 new cases. 72% of these were men, and 28% were women. Of the men, just under half were from MSM (gay sex.). 47% of the 72% to be exact. Or 2,152 by my own calculation of those percentages.

1% of the population with HIV died during that year. 1% of the population without HIV died too for that matter.

It is estimated that approximately 7,300 undiagnosed cases of HIV exist in The UK. This estimate is extrapolated from meta analysis of the following known data;

98,400 people in The UK living with HIV. 95% of these are from sexual contact. Of which, 53,000 Are heterosexual and 41,000 are gay.

One in 650 chance of contracting HIV. From this, despite the lower figures overall, being male gay is still statistically strongest at one in 20, followed by being African origin heterosexual, male or female at one in 25.

Not an advert for a gay epidemic, and these are historical. Bear in mind the figures for estimated "now" figures are based purely on trajectory from history, so do not take into account the perceived rise in young female sexual contraction that is already showing in symptom rather than screening figure. (Going to see your GP feeling unwell rather than turning up for screening because you feel you may be at risk.)





If anybody wants to use that to speak of a gay epidemic, be my guest, but don't expect me to resist spitting in your face if I have the misfortune of seeing you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 10:04 AM

Musket, Don't you think that Keith has a point about the culture? It seems to me that for cultural reasons, age being one of them in the recent past, that xenophobes and people resistant to change, repressed and angry gays, in this country at least, tend to be concentrated in the church going population. I know that conservative politics and religion go hand in hand, pretty much everywhere. But the radical left, antipoverty movement is based in churches.

I don't see the attack that Keith made. He did disagree and presented what, I thought were reasonable opinions.

Of course, HIV is politicized. Right wing politicians play on fear and ignorance. What is scarier and less well known than AIDS?

Akenaton, a few people including a Canadian epidemiologist in bobad's article have mentioned drug use and needle sharing as a major transmission vector. Also, I have questions about your focus on MSM. You say the infection rate is growing fastest in MSM but you do not say what percentage of the population that represents. Lets talk about the overall impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 10:59 AM

I gave the figures above. If Akenahateon wishes to defy them, it makes no odds whatsoever to the relevance of his input. Small men with small agendas can be swatted like flies.

Just because our ancestors culturally, encouraged through a religious culture for that matter, used to vilify people for being themselves doesn't make it respectable. Up till yesterday and possibly tomorrow, vicars and priests raped and will rape children but that it has gone on without challenge for Clapton knows how long doesn't all of a sudden make it respectable.

You can't judge today by yesterday. Although judging yesterday by today seems a preoccupation of UK courts according to many '70s celebrities....

After all, 50 years ago, here in The UK, we used to execute criminals. Can you believe that? Yes, that's right. We'd kill them and a judge gave us permission! You see, civilisation gets to keep the word "civilised" so long as the path is towards a just fair society. So saying hate is cultural is like condoning strapping explosives to your body and shouting Allah Akbar! In a crowded market.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:09 AM

Musket, Please give the one of the myriad sites you quote here.
I am particularly interested in one that has the new data.
I am a little surprised you did not think to give us a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:27 AM

"I gave the figures above. If Akenahateon wishes to defy them, it makes no odds whatsoever to the relevance of his input. Small men with small agendas can be swatted like flies."

Speaking of "civilized" the above has no place in civil conversation.

"Just because our ancestors culturally, encouraged through a religious culture for that matter, used to vilify people for being themselves doesn't make it respectable."

Which cultural meme are you using to "Akenahateon" on the post I am quoting? If vilification is wrong for churchgoers is it not just as wrong for non-believers?

The point being made, one which is better made by Howard Jones on another thread is that in most cases society sets the norms and religion and religious communities tend to reinforce those norms. It is not religion that causes vilification. Vilification is a human trait. It happened in sandboxes, it happens in Parliament. It happens in church.

Have you noticed how far your last post was from the topic of preventing AIDS transmission? Can we please return to that track and try to minimize the vilification?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:32 AM

Musket, none of the sentences in your stats. post is a quote from any site.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 12:21 PM

"Bill....why is it "difficult to educate" young male homosexuals, as opposed to young male heterosexuals?"


Because they ARE young and overconfident and don't follow 'news'. They use social media for.... being 'social'... but don't commonly read sites with clear advice, possibly because they'd be told to alter their behavior! It is pretty well documented that young people 'feel invulnerable' and take chances in many activities... even those not involving sex.

It is also the case that in a number of US states, all education involving sex is still considered embarrassing and is often not taught... or not well taught... in schools. Kids, straight and gay, trade bad information among themselves in ways they have for hundreds of years. Parents can make a difference, but often don't know how to counter the 'youth culture'.
Progress is being made, but it still leaves the young ones at greater risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:07 PM

Bill, I understand that young people are overconfident and take risks, but why is there a difference between the "education" of young homosexuals and young heterosexuals?

You imply that the massive difference in transmission rates of HIV, between young male homos and young male heteros, is down to the fact that young male homosexuals are "difficult to educate"....why?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:19 PM

I have no need to address the figures which have been presented by the poster above, they have no recognisable source, and make no sense.
They completely contradict the HPA figures which have been recognised as definitive for several years.
The epidemic is not within the general public, so stop muddying the water.
The epidemic is confined to the MSM demographic, to present it as anything else is obfuscation. The infections are very small in number when related to the general population, but massive when applied to the MSM demographic which contains 78% of new infections amongst males.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:25 PM

Education is not the only factor.

Young males, regardless of sexual orientation engage in way more risky behavior than any other group. Males, in general, have a looser attitude toward sex than females. Homosexual males sometimes respond to a childhood of oppression and shame and abuse from their fathers with promiscuity and prostitution. Some females do that too. But stripping and oral sex are much less likely to spread AIDS.

You can't blame the parents for the sexual orientation. But no doubt many are responsible for reckless behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:04 PM

I believe the information I have used is available on public websites. At least, the minutes I lifted them from say so. What makes you think I use internet when I have access professionally, you stupid gormless twat?

Try nat.org.uk or NHS choices to help you. I have quoted the best figures available for The UK.

My authority is that of Health Protection England, although the figures refer to The UK as a whole.

They are supported by the archived HPA website, with minor adjustment for the fourth quarter.

In fact, as I type, I have just looked on nat. They seem to have used the same figures as us, as we all use PHE for the raw data.

If anyone wants to see Akenhateon apologise and Keith say he is sorry, try looking at the following first. They will never apologise to me as I sussed and exposed their disgraceful lies, but they might apologise to those they try to fawn over?

http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-Facts/Statistics/Latest-UK-Statistics.aspx

When Akenhateon says the epidemic (there isn't one by any definition) is confined to gay people, he is lying through his teeth because the far right websites he gets his figures from (PHE monitors them in case looney councillors start quoting them to health professionals in overview and scrutiny committees) don't tell him how to deal with the figures, freely available, which I have quoted.

Now... Having quoted them, which I was reluctant to do, I also say they have to be treated with caution as trajectories for public investment in services also take into account the harder to reach young female demographic who, mainly through the availability of hardcore porn in the internet age, are expected to see anal sex as part and parcel by impressionable young men who have effectively been reared on porn.

Is it enough gay men to demand action? Is it enough gay men to round them up and put them on a register? What about the majority of sufferers? Not just the approx 7,000, some of whom are gay, that we feel are walking around waiting for symptoms to exist?

Try looking at the figures. You might just end up joining me in my condemnation of criminal elements on this website.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:32 PM

"...to see anal sex as part and parcel by impressionable young men who have effectively been reared on porn."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:39 PM

Musket, you said the figures were " now available on a myriad websites" but you could not give us a single one!

You then said, "Allow me to quote them" but you did not.

Why did you laboriously transcribe from print when they are so available on line?

Is it because it is all made up?
If not, give us something we can look at.

If figures for up to March 2013 are really available already, we would all like to see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM

To whom it may concern, I do not visit "right wing websites" or trawl for figures, all my stats come from either CDC or HPA.
All my figures are genuine and not made up to suit my agenda from different sources.