BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 01:53 AM

Don: "Please provide evidence of this statement, as I contend I have done nothing of the sort. That is illogical thinking. Like with others, I suspect many homosexuals have no interest in producing children of their own. Sex in humans goes beyond reproduction, regardlessof what some religions try (have tried, unsuccessfully ) to contend."

The thread is about the transmission of the HIV virus, not proving jack shit one way or the other about homosexuals and their trips about having kids.

BTW, the HIV/AIDS virus has a 'will' or 'instinct' to survive and reproduce, the carriers, homo or hetero, are merely their host...and promiscuity is the most common method of transferring the virus. Wouldn't you NOT want your kids to be vulnerable??? IF, they would ever ask your advice, about one partner or another, wouldn't you advise either your kid, or the 'partner' to get checked out????

But then, I don't know if either one of you stuck around that long...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:21 AM

Musket, he said "many" not "most" and it is the cause of high infection rate in sexual transmission.

Re. Seaham's post, you said,
"Correct.
That's what I said.
Do you have a problem with that?"

You remembered saying it but forgot who you were.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:40 AM

No Keith.

You said I said it. I am comfortable with it so accepted I said it.

Tricks and deceptions only work insofar as they are still tricks and deceptions.

That two people working in different capacities in healthcare form similar professional judgements is not surprising. That they both fly in the face of bigotry and lies is comforting.

Next.



Goofus. You are rather weird aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 04:26 AM

It is carefully and emphatically worded.

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

You would remember constructing it, and you do, but you are not likely start being honest now.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:46 AM

My output each day in all areas is rather frightening. My own fault for learning how to type. Writing up a paper right now that needs cropping because I've read shorter novels.

The odd five mins playing with the children on Mudcat is a quick light relief from reality.

Buggered if I know exactly what I write. For what it's worth, I would be comfortable writing it although I may have padded a couple of qualifiers in it if it were my post or indeed my style.

I could be a registrar attached to the armed forces I suppose, but never thought myself clever enough at school to find out. Anyway, Derek isn't around now, and was rather disappointed by the idiots and nasty bastards here, your good self included, so no idea if he will be back. He said not. He has moved on now, so I won't be seeing him at my lectures either.

You really are grasping at straws aren't you? You never forgave me for seeing your slip admitting support for a right wing loony political party... Don't worry, I had you weighed up far before then. I deal with your sort before breakfast back in reality land.

You have up up your game a bit if you want to be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 07:30 AM

I always knew it was you anyway, and I am sure I was not alone.
No more proof needed but fun to see you squirming.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 08:44 AM

""The thread is about the transmission of the HIV virus, not proving jack shit one way or the other about homosexuals and their trips about having kids.""

So, if so, why did you bring the topic up in a post(what was your purpose in doing that)? Since you refer to the importance of "facts", I was merely correcting a statement you posted on that topic, one that was clearly inaccurate, (as you used the word "ALL"). So, should one get from your "prickly" response that you give don't "jack shit" for factual accuracy? Or, should one get the message that you can't admit to a factual error you make, and get all heated up and defensive when an error you make is brought forward?


BTW, on your other point, the OP is below, as a refresher (since you brought the purpose up). jts clearly intended to have the topic broader than HIV transmission alone. Experience in prevention programs was noted. In addition, this did not limit the topic to the UK nor the USA, but to the global situation where prevention programs seems more promising. (the word "civil" was also included, which means respectful).

(As I noted before, many people who have sexual relations, state they have have no interest in reproducing, this includes homosexuals and those with other sexual orientations). Most reasonable people are ok with their personal decision.




OP-

""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: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 11:16 AM

""What I said is what is known because what I said is from the latest PHE report, and what you said was wrong according to that.
If you have more up to date figures show us.""

You quote the ""latest" report, now two years out of date.

Musket is dealing on a daily basis with the current situation, which is not yet on any report.

So, who do we think has the latest gen?

A CLUE!......IT AIN'T YOU!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

"Anybody got any ideas,"

Yes Ake, the World Health Organisation, the link to which you couldn't, apparently, be arsed to read, but I don't think you'll like their ideas.

" WHO has defined five key components—the "5 Cs"—that must be respected and adhered to by all HTC services. These components are:

    Consent
    Confidentiality
    Counselling
    Correct test results
    Connection/linkage to prevention, care and treatment.

The five Cs, and the key principles they entail, apply to all models of HTC services:

    People being tested for HIV must give informed consent to be tested. They must be informed of the process for HTC, the services that will be available depending on the results, and their right to refuse testing. Mandatory or compulsory (coerced) testing is never appropriate, regardless of where that coercion comes from: health-care providers, partners, family members, employers, or others.
    Testing services must be confidential, meaning that the content of discussions between the person tested and the health-care worker, testing provider, or counsellor, as well as the test results, will not be disclosed to anyone else without the consent of the person tested.
    Testing services must be accompanied by appropriate and high-quality pre-test information or pre-test counselling, and post-test counselling.
    Provision of correct test results. Testing must be performed and quality assurance measures followed according to internationally-recognized testing strategies, norms, and standards based on the type of epidemic. Results must be communicated to the person tested unless that person refuses the results.
    Connections to HIV prevention, treatment and care and support services should be supported through concrete and well-resourced patient referral, support, and/or tracking systems."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 11:51 AM

"BTW, the HIV/AIDS virus has a 'will' or 'instinct' to survive and reproduce,"

Little knowledge of the subject on display there Goofy.

A virus is not thought to be "alive" in the normal sense of the word, and therefore has neither will nor instinct.

I suggest you get yourself some education.

BTW, I was the Guest who posted the World Health organisation, but emphatically not the anonymous Guest in the recent conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 12:07 PM

There are so many anonymous guests posting on this thread that it is almost impossible to hold a serious discussion.
What's wrong with you, that you won't use a consistent handle?

I least we know who "Dr Cemetery" is now.....Mr Hyde and Mr Hyde I think. :0)

GUEST? I don't see how what you have quoted from WHO is going to quickly arrest the epidemic amongst MSM....They are pretty general ideas which don't really address the current problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 01:11 PM

""GUEST? I don't see how what you have quoted from WHO is going to quickly arrest the epidemic amongst MSM....They are pretty general ideas which don't really address the current problem?""

Ok, I will bite, since the op asked for suggested treatments. Beyond compulsory testing-which is unworkable, and will most likely make things worse, what are your treatment solutions to arrest the global HIV pandemic impacting many groups. Your chance to put it forward, with the benefit of what has been posted and linked here.

A question, what have you learned from the 700 posts in this thread, and does your position remain the same as in other threads. If nothing is gained/learned and your position remains intact, what is your purpose participating in the discussion, (beyond promoting one one solution, you seem to hold firm to). However, if you have benefited from others (beyond those who shared your viewpoints in other threads and here), can you sum it up using respectful terms (for example, please omit any reference to your earlier views as to "a perversion")?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:25 PM

Yeah, I'm Dr Cemetery. If it keeps you happy.

I suppose the idea of anyone working in a sexual health clinic as a doctor questioning your motives is too much to handle eh? No, must be that Musket.

I suppose if I am Seaham Cemetery, as you want me to be, I'll have to start believing Akenaton sells unwanted puppies to a builder who kills them to order. After all, that's what he and his greyhound rearing wife reckon. I notice the Greyhound Action website does refer to a Scottish trainer with your first name, so I'd watch myself anyway. A word of advice regarding Barlinnie, take your own soap eh? I'd hate you to be spurious statistic....

zzzzzzzzz

What are your other names Akenaton? Oh.. You don't need any. Your twisted bitter hatred comes over loud and clear in every post you make.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 02:26 PM

Musket: "Goofus. You are rather weird aren't you?"

Just sane...to you that must seem 'weird'!

Musket: "Buggered if I know exactly what I write. For what it's worth, I would be comfortable writing it although I may have padded a couple of qualifiers in it if it were my post or indeed my style."

You mean like,
"Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm a schizophrenic,
And so am I"?

Musket: "A virus is not thought to be "alive" in the normal sense of the word, and therefore has neither will nor instinct."

'Will' as in 'free choice'??...Gosh take that up with Dave the Gnome..for some reason he believes certain people have 'no choice', either....I guess you don't think they're alive either, huh?...Oh, and BTW, viruses ARE alive....methinks YOU'RE the one who needs the education....and this is just folly, ""A virus is not thought to be "alive" in the normal sense of the word..."
That's what happens when you try to fit reality into 'spin'!....so as per aforementioned:

"Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm a schizophrenic,
And so am I"?

Musket: "The odd five mins playing with the children on Mudcat is a quick light relief from reality."

Your posts are certain proof of that!

GfS

P.S....or are you sure you can tell the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:25 PM

Troubadour, the PHE report has the latest national data.
Musket, whatever his job, has produced nothing newer or better.

He might have a subjective impression that established trends have reversed, but if such a thing had happened it would be reported in the press.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 03:53 PM

Troubadour, remember Musket was completely wrong about the things I picked him up on.
Whatever his job, he does not actually know much about this.

Can you think of one single fact that he has contributed to this whole debate?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 05:43 PM

Gosh take that up with Dave the Gnome..for some reason he believes certain people have 'no choice'

Quite right. I did say we had no choice in whom we love. You mean to say you have? Or are you so sane that you do not know what love is? Or by 'certain people' do you mean that homosexuals do have a choice? That they are somehow different form us 'ordinary' people? I don't think that even ake considers that to be a valid point of view.

You don't half talk twaddle sometimes.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 14 - 06:20 PM

Dave the Gnome: "I did say we had no choice in whom we love. You mean to say you have?"

Here is your quote, Dave, "What are you talking about choices when having sex for?"

(and the answer to the first one is), the choice IS TO love, as in a place you live...and ALWAYS KEEP YOUR WORD...just be careful who you give it to...and 'WHY?'...might just be the measure on how much it is really love.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 03:19 AM

Male Homosexuals(MSM), are defined by who they like to have sex with, NOT by who they love.
That is not to say that they are not capable of love.

"Love" is hard to define most couples are "loving" some days, "hating" some days, "mildly irritating" MOST days :0) Couples stay together chiefly to raise their family in doing so they develop a deep emotional bond, they become comfortable with one another.

The bond, and the fact that their actions affect their extended family keeps most of the men monogamous....I think most women with children are naturally less disposed to promiscuity than men.

Heterosexual marriage is an excellent template for society, but the prevalence of "open relationships" amongst the male homosexual community, is extremely risky and unhealthy in todays sexual climate.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 03:25 AM

You are being dishonestly selective in your 'quotes' GfS. Here is what I actually said.

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.

The point is, yes we do have a choice who we have sex with but we have no choice in who we love. You assert that "the choice IS TO love, as in a place you live". Are you saying that who we love is as simple as picking somewhere to live? That is blatant nonsense.

As to "ALWAYS KEEP YOUR WORD...just be careful who you give it to...and 'WHY?'..might just be the measure on how much it is really love." Sorry, but I really have no idea where you are going with that one.

Keith. Do I recall correctly that you were found out in posting under multiple names some time back? That you admitted to doing the same? Why are you jumping up and down in glee at having 'outed' someone doing the same? Someone who, I add, has denied doing do. Should you not be a bit more careful in the arguments you are using? People in glass houses and all that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 03:37 AM

Male Homosexuals(MSM), are defined by who they like to have sex with, NOT by who they love.

What nonsense. A homosexual is perfectly capable of loving his or her partner and never having sex with them. Does that make them any less homosexual?

"Love" is hard to define most couples are "loving" some days, "hating" some days, "mildly irritating" MOST days :0) Couples stay together chiefly to raise their family in doing so they develop a deep emotional bond, they become comfortable with one another.

More rubbish. There are millions of people in partnerships with no children. Do they love each other any less? Maybe you did not love your wife before you had children but I certainly did. I would not have married her otherwise. Do you really believe that this 'deep emotional bond' is the preserve of the nuclear family? If so, then sorry, but you have no grasp of what people are really like and should keep quiet on anything to do with relationships.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 04:03 AM

This is how hate organises and vies for credibility. Keith keeps repeating that I have not brought any data since the last published ones to the debate and thinks that is wrong?

He tries saying I am playing down the gay prevalence when I quoted the latest PHE data even before he did. I did say that the heads up preliminary figures for the final quarter of 2012, which in NHS Speke is actually the first three months of 2013 indicate that for the year, the gay sexually acquired statistics show a small drop which should put them just below rather than just above the 50% of all positive tests. Keith uses this to call me a liar who has a subjective opinion.

Interestingly, I don't have opinions on such matters. I wouldn't be of use to anyone if I applied a prejudice to my deliberations. In any event, sexual health is a very small part of what I involve myself in. Although when a doctor working in sexual health contributed to the debate, he got the same snide comments and dismissal as I did.

No. Keith uses the word subjective. In his direction I use the word bigoted. His cherry picking of the HIV picture is almost as bad as the disgusting fool behind Akenaton, who thinks we are all as thick as him when he uses figures for one country to suggest criminalising lifestyle in another.

His latest hate, saying that gay people get together for sex rather than love is all you need to read. The best way to see his evil intent is to do no more than repeat his own words. Disgraceful.

Luckily, society has moved on. I am rather proud of living in a country where another social barrier has come tumbling down. Just got ethnicity, disability and socio economic barriers to address now.

Did you know there are more openly gay conservative MPs in the house than all the other parties put together? Another sign that bigotry is dying. The death rattles seem to be a bit loud, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 04:20 AM

Not correct Dave.
About ten years ago, discussing the Troubles in Ireland, a Guest was aggressively attacking me with things that were not true, and refused repeated demands to retract or substantiate.

To make the point, I logged on in his Guest name and in a single post had him make a grovelling apology and admit lying.
He would never have done that so everyone knew at once it was me, and of course he came on very quickly furious that his name was taken in vain.

It was not an attempt to deceive the forum or to boost my credibility.
It was not dishonesty.
It was a harmless joke at the expense of someone who richly deserved it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 04:31 AM

I quoted the latest PHE data even before he did

That is not true.
I quoted them just a couple of weeks after publication to CONTRADICT what you were saying.
You responded that the brand new figures were "provisional," "superseded" and much else to discredit them.

We would all like to see the new figures you speak of (first quarter 2013) but you will not produce them.

You said MSM infections were less than half when the newly published figures contradicted that.

You said I was wrong to say hetero infections were falling.
They are and have been year on year for a decade.

You said it is not an epidemic when all the agencies are clear that it is.

Perhaps you could produce a list of correct info you have contributed.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 08:07 AM

So, you did post under another name then, Keith? Yet you have taken someone else to task for doing the same. You have admitted to doing it yet and it was proven. Yet Musket has denied doing it and no actual proof has been offered. You have offered an explanation for you did and and why and Musket has offered an explanation of what he said and why.

Can you not see how hypocritical this is?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 08:37 AM

What the UK Dr.s say

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 08:49 AM

Re the impact of homophobia stigma and MSM testing:

""The perception of stigma, from other gay men or from the wider culture, is a barrier to testing. Gay and other MSM have clear preferences regarding testing services, particularly for those that are community based, include non-judgemental and gay-positive service providers, and offer a high degree of confidentiality.""


Question:is it not reasonable to propose that some on this thread would be a poor choice to garner advice on promoting greater MSM testing, as there seems to be a clear lack of non-judgemental perspectives towards the gay community?


HIV testing among (MSM): Health Education Research

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:01 AM

""All you need is love"""

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 09:54 AM

My one post was not intended to deceive, and did not.
I did not bother to use a different computer to cover my tracks because it was obviously me and it was just done to annoy an annoying Guest.

You are not convinced that Musket did it.
OK, but I am.
You think it acceptable anyway.
OK, but I do not.

I had moved on anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 10:11 AM

Me too, Keith. But some have not.

To those who believe that homosexual love is somehow different, I point you to the "All you need is love" link provided by Guest, above. Not that you will believe it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 12:24 PM

The Nature of Prejudice

What's behind prejudice?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 12:34 PM

I got it from HPA and gave a link. Your page is superceded by the 2012-13 interim report.

You posted that on the 4th December.
My "page" was the 2012 report published just days before, and not "superseded" by anything then or since.

Four months later and still nothing.
I do not believe that there is a "2012-13 interim report" but would be happy to be proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 12:36 PM

"
""The perception of stigma, from other gay men or from the wider culture, is a barrier to testing."

This is plainly wrong. As I have stated a dozen times, "stigma, and discrimination" have decreased significantly over the last decade civil unions and homosexual "marriage" have been entered as legislation, homosexuals are massively over represented in the media and in the political sphere........yet STD rates among male homosexuals have been rising steadily during that period and are still rising.

Fear of death from AIDS cut the transmission rates amongst MSM at a stroke....now it is perceived to be "manageable" and many male homosexuals have reverted to their original behavioural patterns.

Only increased targeted testing and contact tracing in the MSM demographic, can halt the epidemic of not only HIV, but all male STDs.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 01:01 PM

""This is plainly wrong""

It is wrong only among those who have a very closed mind, no matter how many times these folks repeat it.


The impact of the stigma of homophobia and negative attitudes towards gays (and those impacted by HIV) is not ended as one would turn a light bulb on and off. The impact is long lasting, for gays, for many within society and among unenlightened individuals. The impact remains for some time, regardless of what common-sense changes are made in constitutional legislation.

An example of such a long term impact exists in the USA, where anti-black attitudes and impacts are still seen today, on the streets, in the workplace and in a multitude of research reports.(When in the USA, I find it interesting that many people who are very prejudiced towards blacks say, "no I am not prejudiced, I work and know many blacks and even have some black friends").

Some recent gay judgemental statements on this site serve as an example of attitudes towards gays that exist not far beneath the veneer of the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 01:11 PM

"The perception of stigma, from other gay men or from the wider culture, is a barrier to testing."

This is plainly wrong.

From the same person who said

Male Homosexuals(MSM), are defined by who they like to have sex with, NOT by who they love.

I rest my case. This person knows nothing about human nature or relationships outside his own narrow experience.

Guest.

Some recent gay judgemental statements on this site serve as an example of attitudes towards gays that exist not far beneath the veneer of the discussion.

It is not even slightly beneath the veneer. It is plain for all to see. But thanks for pointing it out anyway.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 03:16 PM

from the link provided earlier, "What the UK drs. say"

Reasons for low testing rates and hence low detection rates include:[8]
•Concerns about confidentiality, legal and insurance issues.
•Self perceptions of low risk in those who would test positive.
•Denial.
•Dislike of counselling.
•Wishing to avoid anxiety when waiting for results.

Fear and denial are the most common obstacles to HIV testing among those acknowledging that they have been at risk.

However, the most common reason is lack of time for pre-test counselling, even in GUM clinics.

(Stigma not even mentioned)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 03:41 PM

Surely concerns about confidentiality covers the worry of stigma does it not? Just because something is not specifically mentioned does not mean it is excluded.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 03:42 PM

Akenaton: "There are so many anonymous guests posting on this thread that it is almost impossible to hold a serious discussion.
What's wrong with you, that you won't use a consistent handle?"

Akenaton "GUEST? I don't see how what you have quoted from WHO is going to quickly arrest the epidemic amongst MSM....They are pretty general ideas which don't really address the current problem?"

You have considerable difficulty with comprehension, where people don't subscribe to your prejudice.

1. I only ever post as Guest Troubadour (and no other name)!

2. When, being human, I slip up and post before signing, I post again to rectify the omission, as I did to point out that it was I quoting the W.H.O., which of course you didn't notice.

3. The W.H.O. article was in fact (as you would have found out if you had read it), an explanation of why they oppose compulsory testing/tracking, in direct contradiction of your and K A's claim to be in touch with current medical opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 04:02 PM

Troubadour, I have never favoured compulsion, and I think Akenaton dropped the idea months ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 04:28 PM

""(Stigma not even mentioned)""

Not correct, you just have to look deeper before making that assessment. Check out the attachments. You will note a reference to a document (8) in the section. you refer to in your last post

Clicking on the link (8) in the footnotes, here is what you will find, that relates:

Overcoming barriers to HIV testing: preferences for new strategies among clients of a needle exchange, a sexually transmitted disease clinic, and sex venues for men who have sex with men.

""To determine strategies to overcome barriers to HIV testing among persons at risk.
RESULTS:

Barriers to testing included factors influenced by individual concern (fear and discrimination); by programs, policies, and laws (named reporting and inability to afford treatment); and by counseling and testing strategies...""


If you go further into reports linked to this section, you will find other studies listed under a (pdf) report titled, NICE: HIV testing among MSM: Final report Matrix Evidence | 15 November 2010:

One statement says:
""Three studies find that the fear of anti MSM prejudice among service providers and the broader society may be a barrier to testing...Participants in one study expressed a fear that being seen to take an HIV test would lead to the assumption that they engaged in risky sexual behaviour. One study finds that prejudices against HIV positive people among MSM may act as a barrier to testing""

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 04:53 PM

I am not in touch with medical opinion at all, but I have read the latest report on HIV, and I see no reason to disbelieve it.
Musket claims to know more and better, but I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 05:02 PM

Of course it is important to determine why male homosexuality carries such large rates of STD infection, but it is even more important to stop the epidemic.......I have not heard one quick and effective solution to the problem from any of the assorted apologists.

Regardless of what WHO says, all the health agencies suggest targeted testing thrice yearly for male homosexuals and contact tracing for any positive test......you know it makes sense!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 14 - 05:16 PM

all the health agencies suggest targeted testing thrice yearly for male homosexuals and contact tracing for any positive test......you know it makes sense!

For heavens sake. How many times do I have to say it. I agree. Testing and tracing will help. So will education. So will research and development. What you have miserably failed to provide is any mechanism of getting gay men to take tests or tracing their partners without infringing their human rights. You have shown a singular lack of understanding of gay people to the extent that you do not believe they can be gay unless they have sex with each other. You believe that gay people need apologists. You backpedalled on your original idea of forced testing but no-one is really convinced that you believe gay men should have equal status in everything.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:54 AM

Which health agencies?
PHE, NAT, Terrence Higgins trust, Stonewall, .....

Can you think of any that do NOT recommend double or triple annual testing for MSM?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 02:57 AM


Keith has read a book or article whatever on AIDS and now preaches answers.

No, I never have.
I have just used it to point out where contributions are contradicted by the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:00 AM

"I have not heard one quick and effective solution to the problem from any of the assorted apologists."

Can you not understand that there is no "quick" solution to what is a global pandemic involving many factors? However, effective progress is being made.

No one here needs to apoligise for anything. Many agencies are working on it.Progress is being made. Deniers will continue to wear blinders to this, and continue to whine that nobody but them care for the plight if those impacted. The refrain will continue to sound hollow for many.

You have had an opportunity to put your suggested strategies forward - quick, workable, innovative, or not. But, you have not put anything meaningful forward. It's past time to put up or...Repeating the same old refrain is fine in music, but boring and annoying in discussion. Why so? Have nothing new to contribute, as others have done so?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:05 AM

Being as the results from being tested takes about a week and a half to two weeks(depending on the place), I guess those being tested, would like to blame a 'stigma' on those who they accuse of giving them one about being a homosexual, than the real reason of having to wait an uncomfortable, high anxiety week and a half to engage in the very activity that defines them!

Sometimes idiots like to try to 'over-think' the obvious, and then try to engage others in their stupid antics!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:10 AM

Good try gfs. But, no cigar for that flawed reasoning.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 03:36 AM

A USA medical perspective 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:01 AM

Dave, you missed the most important word in my post TARGETED.

The group with the massively highest rates of STD infection MSM should be targeted for thrice yearly testing, there is no value in increasing testing in heteros, as the infections are very rare within most hetero demographics....it is simply not cost effective to do so.

The health agencies need to get involved with the homosexual organisations to make it clear that the present state of affairs is not acceptable. It should be made clear to active male homosexuals that not to be regularly tested is socially unacceptable....the lead must be taken from within the homosexual community itself, that the prevalence of promiscuous and risky behaviour must be amended.

The infection rates must be brought under control, if they are not, and HIV/AIDS and other STDs like syphilis become almost exclusively associated with the male homosexual community, then it will be too late.