BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM

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?

I also quite agree that if two people stick to the same partners for life then they are not likely to get the HIV virus. But what sort of cloud cuckoo land do you live in if you think that is a viable proposition? Many people will try multiple partners no matter what you say. It is not promiscuous to do so. It is normal. They can do so quite safely as long as they practice safe sex. Which a lot are not doing. Which is why the education program needs to re-invent itself so more will take notice.

Seemples.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:21 AM

OK Dave if it's Not promiscuity transmitting HIV at such massive rates, what is it?

I have heard no other explanation than increased testing affecting the figures.......At these rates? That is idiocy, or worse.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:32 AM

I have already said, ake, that until you answer my question I am not answering any more of yours. Seeing as the uptake of testing and screening for the HIV virus is on the increase, why is the virus still spreading? You reckon that the only way to curb it is increased testing but it has already been pointed out, by Keith, one of your only supporters, that increased testing is not working.

What I will say is that you have already provided the answer to your first question. You will never stop what you term promiscuity, in any demographic. You will never, as much as you would like to, ban 'dangerous sexual practices'. So the best option is to cut the risks. How are we going to achieve that?

(Hint: Look back at my posts to see what I recommend)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:25 AM

Many seem to post that homophobia plays no role I HIV transmission. Could there be a reason for such denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 11:37 AM

Since when was risk taking associated with gay sex? Or dangerous practice?or promiscuity?

They are associated with sex.

Not gay sex, but sex.

You filthy disgusting specimen. You should hang your head in shame and stop polluting this website with your hateful bile and criminal comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 12:25 PM

Increased testing very much helps the extra infected folk who get tested.
More testing would help more.
Enough testing would halt the epidemic, which is what we all want.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 12:31 PM

Pink News.

"In September, the deputy executive director of the United Nations' HIV/AIDS agency said the worldwide HIV epidemic could potentially be over by 2030 – but only if infection rates among most at risk populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM), fall substantially.

Last week, film producer and director David Furnish said in the London Evening Standard that high rates of HIV among gay men living in London was not something that could be ignored.

He wrote: "At the end of this month it is National HIV Testing Week. We need a big national push to get ourselves and our friends tested —without stigma, without shame and without stalling." "

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 12:32 PM

Pink News.

""Professor Noel Gill, head of Public Health England's HIV and STI department, said: "In the UK, people who are unaware of their infection are likely to be those most at risk of transmitting HIV to others. We must increase the speed at which we're reducing the number of undiagnosed HIV infections by encouraging earlier and more frequent HIV testing, especially by those most at-risk. Earlier diagnosis will help reduce new HIV infections across the UK.

"Around half of men who have sex with men recently diagnosed with HIV received their diagnosis the first time they tested, which is a strong indication that many men who should be testing are not. National HIV Testing Week gives people a great opportunity to get tested."

National guidelines recommend that HIV testing should be offered routinely to everyone admitted to hospital and people registering with a GP surgery in areas of the country with HIV prevalence greater than 2 per 1000 people. Introducing additional ways to get tested, such as home-sampling services, is also encouraging more people to test."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
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

P.S. Better yet, being as you 'aren't splitting hairs', but like to argue, name ONE LASTING benefit to society of promiscuity.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 12:42 PM

'Guest': "Many seem to post that homophobia plays no role I HIV transmission. Could there be a reason for such denial."

'Homophobia' as defined by who?
'Homophobia' as defined by those who would allow more people to be infected and/or die because of some preposterous, stupid political notion???? We, the living, have a right to want to have ANY preventable disease prevented, and not be called by some ridiculous name, overused and misapplied by some idiot faction of politics!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 01:09 PM

Dave, I don't require to answer your question as to whether or not I am a "homophobe", as it has nothing to do with this thread.
I could say I was the King of Scotland and you would be non the wiser.

However asking your views on HIV transmission rates is relevant to the thread, and education although helpful, has not worked well in the past, we also need a quick fix, as the MSM infection rate is rising so fast.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 02:26 PM

Akenaton: "...education although helpful, has not worked well in the past, we also need a quick fix, as the MSM infection rate is rising so fast."

THEY DON'T CARE!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 02:50 PM

Ever feel like you have dropped through a hole into an alternate dimension?

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:02 AM

... PHE do the calculation and publish their conclusion, that there is a real increase in infection as well as increased testing.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 12:25 PM

Increased testing very much helps the extra infected folk who get tested.
More testing would help more.
Enough testing would halt the epidemic, which is what we all want.

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 05:32 AM

...Seeing as the uptake of testing and screening for the HIV virus is on the increase, why is the virus still spreading?

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 01:09 PM

Dave, I don't require to answer your question as to whether or not I am a "homophobe", as it has nothing to do with this thread.

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


...Well being as the supporters of homosexuality and/or other forms of promiscuity

Me, just now. What the F...?

Does anyone on here actualy remember what has been said before?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 03:42 PM

Dave the Gnome: ""...Well being as the supporters of homosexuality and/or other forms of promiscuity"
Me, just now. What the F...?""

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

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:04 PM

Nah, dinosaurs never died out. It's just that we now call them birds. Ask my missus: when I walk into the garden every morning I always greet them "Mornin' dinosaurs!"

Careful Steve! You'll only confuse Pete.

Dinosaurs and birds are different species, and Pete knows that evolution cannot change one species into a completely different other.

For the rest of us, it is necessary to understand and always emphasise that birds ARE NOT dinosaurs, but simply descendants evolved FROM dinosaurs.

Lastly Ake is absolutely certainly NOT a bird!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

Troubadour, your shit gets more baffling with every post!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:12 PM

THEY DON'T CARE!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:21 PM

"Musket and Troubadour, I think you are wrong to suggest that the situation 30 years ago has any influence on current infection rates."

The point of the historical effect is that it produced a proportionately larger pool of infection in the MSMs (in the West only) than in Heteros before the disease was diagnosed and could even start to be treated.

This means that sex (promiscuous or not) between male homosexuals carried, and still carries, a greater risk of infection than sex between heteros (in those areas where the index cases were predominantly MSM).

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.

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

And BTW, in response to Goofy's later comment, it ill bhoves you to talk about other people not accepting facts, when you still claim homosexuality to be behavioural in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:37 PM

GUEST T, you are simply wrong.

"Gay and bisexual men
In addition to working to build on the successes in these
populations, it is also critical to accelerate progress in
combatting the current HIV crisis among gay and bisexual
men. Community and public health prevention
efforts led to dramatic success in this population in the
early years of the epidemic. 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. This underscores
the need to sustain and re-invigorate prevention efforts
for gay and bisexual men of every race and to ensure that
each generation is effectively reached."

The epidemic was almost under control in 1990, but infection rates have been rising steadily up until the present time amongst MSM.

Young MSM are the ONLY demographic in which infection rates are rising

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.