BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:00 PM

The only thing I would discuss is the fact that it is hardly given any coverage as it used to be at least in the UK. I don't mean the scare mongering public safety TYPE warnings a while ago but HIV awareness that brought it to people's attention be it soap operas or dramas which for some it was an ideal way to get a message across that it exists.

Although as someone mentioned there was a program on BBC4 which is good an informative but it is still very few and far between it's as if it has been forgotten or put on the back burner. Even magazines easily accessible don't seem to cover it as often or am I just imagining this? One UK soap (Emmerdale) is going to cover it where the people involved are from an older age group not the usual stereotype because of that it will be interesting to see how they handle the storyline in a sensible informative way I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:56 PM

Cappy Jack: "How about a publicity campaign warning people what the danger signs are and asking them to look at those signs to see if they need to be tested?"

Would you consider hanging out with a lot of promiscuous people a 'danger sign'?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:08 PM

The Catholic church forbids the use of condoms because their purpose is to prevent conception - maybe a hangover from times long ago when the population was small and under threat; procreation was encouraged for everyone as it was necessary to continue the human race.

Procreation was (is) encouraged for Catholics, by condemning birth control, in order to keep Catholic numbers up. Cynical yet true.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:36 PM

"'Religion' literally means 'way of life'"

It certainly should!   If only it did, but I'm afraid that going to church on Sunday and spending the week cutting others' throats to get to the top of the heap, far outweighs the few who actually live a religious life.

If there were ever a day of judgement, Hell will be so full of self styled "Christians", there'll be hardly any room for Atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:14 PM

We know how HIV is transmitted. The thread has degenerated into who did what with whom and were they moral about it. That's as it may be

Today, the greatest spread of the disease is among the MSM group. (I think that comes from either the WHO or the UN. Anyway, I can find the article again if anyone needs it to satisfy their intellect as opposed to their curiosity.) Some people just don't listen worth a plug nickle. But folks in the heterosexual population don't hear so good either. And that's the problem regardless which group you come from.

Used to be in the early years of HIV/HIV (1981-5 ish) there were jokes about it all. I think the best I heard was a Newfie joke, likely started by Newfoundlanders.

Jarge had a fellow come accost him with a syringe. The assailent held the needle to Jarge's neck and said, "Gimme your money or I will inject you with HIV." Jarge said, "Go ahead!" The bad guy did, then ran off. Jarge's buddy said, "Jarge, you're gonna die." Jarge replied, "It's ok. I forgot to take off the condom when I left my girlfriend's."

Today, we should know better, but we don't. The issue is not one of which area of sexuality you live in but rather which area of reality you inhabit. I suppose the thing we can be thankful for is that HIV/AIDS does in ten years what it takes the hemmoraghic fevers ten days to do. It at least gives time to consider the problem.

The religion-side of the issue is a non-starter. I posit that the Pope has so little power to over-ride the instincts/feelings of the Catholic people that few have followed his strictures, ever. I might be wrong, but I heard a fine lady once mention that penny royal was available OTC in the early 1900s. It was known about by most menstruating females. Celibacy? Not a &^^%# chance. We aren't made that way--nor were we I hasten to add :-)

We either treat HIV/AIDS as we did smallpox or polio or plague--that is through research and education--or we can say goodbye to a million people a year.

I see I have blabbed on long enough, but I do have one more thing to say: work the problem, people. (That line is from Armageddon, the movie. Parts of it I love.)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:36 PM

Troubadour: "It certainly should!   If only it did, but I'm afraid that going to church on Sunday and spending the week cutting others' throats to get to the top of the heap, far outweighs the few who actually live a religious life."

Stop going to the mosque, then.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 02:19 AM

"The Church condemns fornication, sodomy and adultery many more times than condom use."
Now you are simply becoming evasive, as all religious hypocrites I have ever met do.
The use of condoms is discouraged and where possible is forbidden - simple as that.
The use of condoms is encouraged by those working to prevent the spread of AIDS.
In taking the stance they do, the church is standing in the way of a major form of AIDS prevention.
Your solution - total abstinence.
Your stance on this is exactly the same as that of a church that has condemned millions of people to death.
It is little wonder that the church is in rapid decline - long may that be the case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 02:27 AM

You are being silly Jim.
The Church forbids sex between men anyway, so the condom rule is completely irrelevant.
However much you want to make this an issue of religion, it just isn't.
You really are obsessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 02:28 AM

Go ahead and report me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 09:49 AM

"The Church forbids sex between men anyway, so the condom rule is completely irrelevant.
However much you want to make this an issue of religion, it just isn't."

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 10:57 AM

Cappy Jack: ""The Church forbids sex between men anyway, so the condom rule is completely irrelevant.
However much you want to make this an issue of religion, it just isn't."
Exactly.""

One of the problems that a lot of politicos have, and is a misconception, is that when they attack a 'religion' or church, they mistakenly think they are attacking 'God', in hopes that they can 'quiet' that little voice inside them, that keeps reminding them that they're on the wrong path.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 03:43 AM

So why are MSM at such high risk.
Ake suggested some reasons, and was branded a homophobe for it.
Here health professionals give exactly the same reasons.

"Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. But there may be biological reasons for the enhanced risk as well. For example, there is an 18 times greater risk of HIV transmission through anal sex than through vaginal sex, which may explain why the virus continues to thrive in gay men, despite the fact that they still receive the bulk of HIV awareness and treatment public-health messages. "If HIV infection in MSM is heavily biologically determined, do present approaches to HIV programming for MSM, which rely heavily on information, education and behavior change strategies, make sense?" the authors write. "The epidemiology suggests that urgent reform is needed."

"In another paper in the series, researchers document the fact that many health care providers aren't trained or equipped to screen, treat or advise gay men about their HIV risk."

One positive suggestion is that healthy MSM should be persuaded to take drugs that give some protection. This is called Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP.
Is that a rights abuse?
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show/

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:05 AM

I would have thought that most health-care providers (I expect that means doctors and nurses) know how to advise and screen gay men, and anybody else, with regard to HIV risks. It isn't rocket science is it? With regard to treatment, I imagine all who have a positive result would be sent initially to a specialist, then medication distributed and monitored at their local GP surgery. I don't see why gay men should be any more disposed to high-risk behaviours such as promiscuity drug use, sharing needles etc than the straight population. When I visited in prisons, I learned that about 80 per cent of the inmates used drugs, and about half of those used and shared needles. (By the way, the ever-hot tea urn on each 'landing' was nearly always used to store these shared needles, and the officers turned a blind eye usually!) There were hardly any gay men in any of the prisons I entered, but a slightly larger-than-the-norm level of HIV infection. Many of the straight youth today have sex promiscuously with many partners. I feel it isn't useful to separate gay and straight people when looking at HIV. The risks, prevention and treatment can't differ much surely?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:23 AM

The risks do differ dramatically.
Infection is at epidemic levels and rising in MSM.
It is rare and falling among non-MSM.
The piece I linked to gives reasons for that difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:51 AM

Thanks for that link, Keith. I would advise that everyone reads it and pays particular attention to the sections that say

Public health messages about safe sex practices and testing targeted to gay men have waned in the intervening years, and now, some experts say, a new generation of at-risk men have to be educated about the disease.

And

Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. But there may be biological reasons for the enhanced risk as well.

As well as

"If HIV infection in MSM is heavily biologically determined, do present approaches to HIV programming for MSM, which rely heavily on information, education and behavior change strategies, make sense?" the authors write. "The epidemiology suggests that urgent reform is needed."

That's why the latest data on using HIV treatments to protect healthy people from infection, a strategy known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), are of particular interest to public health experts.

Which is what I suggested ages ago. I am certainly no expert but education and research sounded, to me, a good idea while compulsory registration and testing is just wrong.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:03 AM

You did Dave, and you are vindicated.

And also,
"Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. "
is what Akeneaton said and he was accused of "stereotyping" for it.
Is he vindicated?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:40 AM

I have never suggested that that linking high-risk behaviours to making gay men more vulnerable was stereotyping. Me, and others, objected to stereotyping gay men as promiscuous. I also objected to people labelling gay men as perverts and linking them with paedophilia. I also posted the line you have put, including the all important BUT that you have omitted. Just in case you missed it

Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. But there may be biological reasons for the enhanced risk as well. (Emboldening is mine)

Ake is still guilty of branding gay men as promiscuous perverts and linking them to paedophilia so, no, no vindication from me on that score. Sorry.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 10:02 AM

I put the "but" in my original post.

We are told that "HIV experts" have traditionally blamed factors including "having multiple partners" for the high rate.

Why is Ake "stereotyping gay men as promiscuous" when he said exactly the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM

Also, you omitted this sentence that followed the "but" sentence,

"For example, there is an 18 times greater risk of HIV transmission through anal sex than through vaginal sex, which may explain why the virus continues to thrive in gay men, despite the fact that they still receive the bulk of HIV awareness and treatment public-health messages"

Akeneaton flagged that as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:13 PM

Ake is still guilty of branding gay men as promiscuous perverts and linking them to paedophilia

Musket accused him of making a link to paedophilia.
I thought that was a false accusation, as did Joe.

I do not think Akeneaton deserves the opprobrium heaped on him.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:32 PM

Quote from Keith A.

>>One positive suggestion is that healthy MSM should be persuaded to take drugs that give some protection. This is called Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP.
Is that a rights abuse?
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show<<<

Not a rights abuse. But not a practical solution. I think the Time Article you posted is a PR piece for a drug company.

Here is what www.newyorker.com has to say.


Gilead provides assistance to purchase the drug, which has a sticker price of thirteen thousand dollars per year.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:10 PM

I do not think Akeneaton deserves the opprobrium heaped on him.

Fair enough. You don't. I do. Ain't life a bitch.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:20 PM

Just in case you wonder why, this was a quote from ake a few posts back.

Someone on TV last night described the "liberal agenda" as "a sort of madness", they were discussing "liberal" attempts to have the age of sexual consent lowered to 10 years of age. :0(

As I said at the time, I feel it is quite a feeble attempt to link the same 'liberal agenda', as ake puts it, that accepts gay relationships, with paedophilia. If you don't see it as that, fair enough, but lots of people do.

Oh, and following up on your post One positive suggestion is that healthy MSM should be persuaded to take drugs that give some protection. This is called Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP.
Is that a rights abuse?

No, it isn't. Note the word persuaded. It is not the same as forced. To be forced to do something against your will is an abuse of human rights. To be persuaded is something that will never happen on Mudcat but does not infringe anyone's liberties.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 09:41 PM

AIDS =Annally Injected Death Serum

AIDS =Adios Immoral Dick Sucker

These terms were frequently used in a So Cal athletic office in the mid 1980's.

Sincerely,

Gargoyle

In 2014 a few people have N1H1 influenza and everyone starts wearing masks.
Millions of people have aids and no one wears condoms

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 09:43 PM

Pretty much explains you, Greg.

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

Ake is known for his views on liberalism.
The media, and not just the Mail, has been discussing the activities of NCCL in seventies where gay rights were being promoted (good) and childrens' rights to sex with adults (bad) were being promoted simultaneously.

Of course Ake would use that against his reviled libs.
He did not suggest that gays were paedophiles.
That was made up.

Jack, thanks for that info.
I wondered why I had never heard of PrEP before.
I was also surprised that they made so much of "the biological factor" of anal sex.
As Musket rightly pointed out, that is not just a gay thing.

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

Here is a piece from Friday by a gay/AIDS activists that suggests Truvada, a PrEP drug, is in common use now as an alternative to condoms.
Also very revealing about a tension within the gay community about HIV status.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-staley/gay-on-gay-shaming-the-new-hiv-war_b_4856233.html

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 03:45 AM

"Ake is known for his views on liberalism."
Now this thread has arrived at where it was heading for in the first place
Ake has never made any secret of his homophobia - he is noted for his contempt for gays and their 'evil practices'.
His progressive attitude on world affairs was summed up by his suggestion that mass-murderer Anders Breivik had a point that should be listened to.
Support for someone on a thread professing to express concern for AIDS if paying lip-service to the subject in hand - homophobes circling their waggons in defence onf one anothers' views.
Christians dismissing the intervention of their Church's interference in the prevention of the spread of AIDS only confirms this.
Isn't it a always the case that hypocrites who start threads expressing concern usual corner themselves into having to expose their real vies - Homs Horror all over again.
Well done lads, you never disappoint me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 03:46 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-staley/gay-on-gay-shaming-the-new-hiv-war_b_4856233.html

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:01 AM

This article has a suggested explanation for the rise in young cases in US.
http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/versatile_sex_1667_24534.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:01 AM

He did not suggest that gays were paedophiles.
That was made up

Neither did I Keith. My exact words were

I feel it is quite a feeble attempt to link the same 'liberal agenda', as ake puts it, that accepts gay relationships, with paedophilia.

What he is doing is putting paedophilia in mind when talking about liberals and gays. A classic tactic for undermining someone is to try and link them with something wrong. That is what is happening. And I am afraid, Keith, that you are also doing it - When you say 'That was made up' in a response to me, you are implying I made it up. As I just proved, I did no such thing.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:05 AM

I am sorry Dave.
I did not mean to suggest that you had made anything up.
I was referring to Musket who did make that claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:07 AM

Oh - And the link that you provide is very interesting. Forced registration and testing will work wonders to stop the stigma of AIDS won't it :-S

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:09 AM

I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:10 AM

Er, I mean I agree that it would not be a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:34 AM

No problem, Keith. I knew what you meant that time :-) Now, if only ake and the Daily Mail would stop trying to link people who are trying to do some good with paedophiles we really would be getting somewhere!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 05:11 AM

Jim,
Christians dismissing the intervention of their Church's interference in the prevention of the spread of AIDS only confirms this.

Incomprehensible, but your only contribution to this discussion has been a contrived and ridiculous attempt to blame religion for the spread of HIV.
Religion is not at all an issue in this, and you need to find another platform to ride your favourite hobby-horse across.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 05:22 AM

Ake has never made any secret of his homophobia

Completely untrue Jim.
He has always strenuously denied being in the least homophobic.
Your other accusations do not stand up either.
Why can you never just challenge what people actually say, instead of just slandering them?

I get the same thing from you.
We discuss something.
You fail to make your case, but later, on an unrelated thread, you start misrepresenting what was said weeks, months or years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:34 AM

"He has always strenuously denied being in the least homophobic."
He would say that, wouldn't he?
You have always strenuously denied being the Islamophobic racist that you are - despite your "implants" and defence of racist sites...
The proof of the pudding...
A church denying the right of contraception to devout Catholics in areas where AIDS is rampant - that's what I call "incomprehensible".
Suggesting that this has nothing to do with religion is beyond words.
You (wisely) haven't mentioned Ake's support for Breivik's ideas I notice.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:43 AM

Yes, and Hitler would have denied being a monster...

I have been folowing this thread with interest. Partly because as a registrar doctor, I am doing my three month attachment in community sexual health clinics, (GU medicine.) I deliver the details of test results to people, both from screening and referral most days, together with next step advice.

Luckily, HIV is fairly rare, compared to most sexual health issues and in a large city, seeing about 40 patients per clinic, four clinics per week, I have yet to find a new HIV case. Statistically, I shall before the end of this month. A GP contacted me this morning over one they have picked up, a needle share in this case.

Musket quoted the figures for England for 2012/13, and when the naysayers called him a liar, he then posted a link to an independent HIV advice website that has the figures, as well as saying they can be found on NHS CHoices and Public Health England websites.

So I find it rather interesting to see spurious statistics are being banded around and the historical actual numbers dismissed as liberal propoganda. I won't be making a career in sexual health, (I major in endocrinology) but I do take a huge interest in it of course, as even low key issues such as chlamydia can cause long term issues and infertility. HIV and hepatitus are conditions you are reminded of each and every day for the rest of your life.

Some of the homophobia this website has to put up with by those equating sexual health with a small part of the population beggars belief. This is not a gay issue. The majority of people I see walking into the drop in clinics for screening are indeed gay, as historically they were a majority when it comes to sufferers, but even with that history, as you can see when you look up this thread, they may be the largest single group but they are by no means the majority. Added to whcih, as statistics have to always be treated with caution, NHS coding in some areas of the country class needle stick and needle share as MSM if the person ticks themselves as gay on the screening form. New nationally consistent coding criteria is something Public Health England are bringing out from this April, (and likewise under service level agreements for Scotland, Wales and NI.)

The moral, religious, social and sexual aspects of sexual health are perhaps interesting debating points if you can stomach some of the rather astonishing words used by presumably intelligent people, but when it comes to the clinical side, well.... You can't throw figures around because this is a field of healthcare with the most subjective data you can get. The Health Protection Agency had access to GP and hospital figures but had to estimate from commissioning statistics the confidential clinic figures. From April, a more representative prevalance dataset will be used, so in just over a year, the picture will, the experts think, look more like that forcast by one of our Profs, who you know as Musket. He is in The USA at present, presenting a paper on World Health Organisation alignment of screening. (To include cancers, his pet area etc. not by any means just STDs.)

I was told that last week, speaking to medical students, he mentioned Mudcat as an example of intelligence not being an indicator of objectivity. I'm not surprised...

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


"He has always strenuously denied being in the least homophobic."
He would say that, wouldn't he?

You stated "Ake has never made any secret of his homophobia"
That means he admits it, which is a lie.

Islamophobic racist that you are

And now you start telling lies about me.

- despite your "implants" and defence of racist sites...

More lies about me.

You are incapable of challenging what I actually say and have to quit the discussion, then weeks, months or years later misrepresent what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:51 AM

Cemetry (sic),
he then posted a link to an independent HIV advice website that has the figures,

No, he/you did not.
He/you have just made that up.

as well as saying they can be found on NHS CHoices and Public Health England websites.

NHS Choices use HPA/PHE figures.
"Public Health England" also use the same figures as HPA has been subsumed by them.
There are no other HIV infection stats. for UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:08 AM

NHS Choices using HPA stats.

"The number of people with HIV in the UK is rising, and gay men are one of the highest risk groups.

Around 83,000 people in the UK are living with HIV. According to the Health Protection Agency, around a quarter (27%) of them don't know they have it.

Dr Valerie Deplech, an HIV expert at the Health Protection Agency, says: "We are seeing an ever-increasing pool of people living with HIV and AIDS in the UK." "

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/LGBhealth/Pages/HIV.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:35 AM

I must admit, I hadn't realised the scale of the issue.

The issue being the elngths some people will go to in order to perpetuate evidence that fits their views.

There are many sources of data and Public Health England collate some, as per the work they inherited from The Health Protection Agency, and from next year, they will have data that HPA never collected. The NHS uses their data, chiefly because PHE is the national advisory body, and commentaries on the data are published by many bodies, including PHE, (archived HPA at present.)

The data Musket referred to can be found on the PHE site, NHS Choices site, and nicely put together in one page of links by this site;

NAtional Aids Trust historical statistics 2012

I am most curious as to why Keith A of Hertford (sic) insists on this trivial but important idea that the defunct HPA are the only source of data, when they wre the main advisor, using data supplied by others? If he knows something The Dept of Health doesn't, perhaps he would like to share it.

By the way, Dr Deplech doesn't work for HPA, but she is quoting the statistics Musket quoted above, and for some reason Keith is quoting the same figures in order to say Musket and I were lying? I do accept that PHE re for now calling that fucntion HPA, but it is a department in an organisation, it isnt a definitivee anything as it doesnt in itself exist. What's more, from April, its functions will be spread out anyway. Advisory function is moving to a core PHE role and public health observatory will pick up the anaysis. Use of HPA will, according to The Health Service Journal still be used casually, in the same way as health authority is now. I understand your confusion but your petulant insistence that HPA still exists can only be to spread doubt on the words of others. A pity, as Mudcat can be such a good place for debate when your tactics aren't on view.


Quoting figures that shape our work and then calling the only two people who declare their professional interest liars? A pity Musket isnt around at the moment, as I seem to be flying his flag, which is a bit presumptious. (He is one of my assessors after all!)

What point are you trying to make? Do you have any data to back it up? You seem to be using the same data as we do, but come to different conclusions. I suggest you submit a paper to BMJ, you are wasted here on a music website.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:21 AM

"That means he admits it, which is a lie."
It means no such thing - he constantly rants on about homosexuals as he has here and elsewhere
I have yet to meet a racist like yourself who has admitted to being a racist, but their/own views make it clear that they/you are exactly that.
No lie - just taking what is written as read - from both of you
"More lies about me."
To sate that the male gender of an entire racial community is "implanted" is racist, whoever says it - you have said it therefore you are a racist.
You've requested me to put it up often enough - I'm happy to do so again if you wish
Or maybe you would explain how such a statement isn't racist
It really doesn't get any more difficult that that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:43 AM

I don't see what Akenaton is doing as ranting. I believe that he is probably misinterpreting statistics to conveniently fit his argument. but he is quite calm about it.

Dr. Cemetry Made a good point about the statistics, in the manner described, any male contracting AIDS would be presumed to have got it from MSM, while there is no reason to conclude that there was NOT a percent who would get the virus by the same vectors as the rest of the community.

The statistics are just that. They are not conclusions. We extrapolate and draw conclusions at our peril.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:51 AM

The statistics are just that. They are not conclusions. We extrapolate and draw conclusions at our peril.

Just what I have been saying for ages about umpteen other things as well! Thanks Jack - You put it far simpler and more concise that I ever did.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 10:33 AM

HPA produced the last several annual reports of HIV stats.
It is now part of PHE whose name is now on the last report, published last November.
There is no other source.
NHS Choices, National Aids Trust and Office National Statistics all use those same figures.

If there is another source, please identify it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

"I don't see what Akenaton is doing as ranting."
Ake has a track record going back at least five years on this forum
He dislikes homosexuals, believes them to be unnatual and in need of treatment
As a Christian who believes homosexuality tp be a replacement for paternal affection I doubt if it registers as 'ranting' on your scale - it takes all kinds!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 12:36 PM

"
As a Christian who believes homosexuality tp be a replacement for paternal affection I doubt if it registers as 'ranting' on "

I think I see the problem here now. I did not say any such thing. I was talking about reasons for rebellion in young men and was speculating that gay young men brought up by authoritarian fathers, as I was, who did not believe being gay was a choice, as mine did, would be likelier to rebel than most. I had it bad enough and experienced many a rant because I liked movies and reading. My theory about this is not that of a homophobic or fundamentalist "Christian?" It stems from trying to understand the young man's point of view through the perspective of my own experience.

I don't know how you get the idea that what Akenaton is doing is ranting. But he doesn't curse or insult or go off on wild tangents. Nor does he personally attack people based on what they have said on other threads, not I have seen.

He does seem to constantly repeat erroneous conclusions that he has formed from UK Health Ministry data. A practice which is irritating, but in my opinion, not ranting. I'd like to see him back down because the data he produces does not support his premises. But I have not seen him rant.