BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:53 AM

Thank you, Keith.

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:02 AM

But stop saying that I, and others, have argued things that we have not argued.

I have argued that heterosexual infections have risen at a faster rate in the uk than have other demographics. This sign true.

I have argued that the reason HIV has not been more prevalent in British heterosexuals is NOT just because they behave better. Their behaviour is as risky as is that of other groups and the proof is in the rates of abortion, teenage pregnancy and other STI's

UNAIDS say that britain is at the top of the table for undiagnosed heterosexual carriers.

de Cock argues that behaviour is NOT the principle reason for the shape of the different epidemics of HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:06 AM

You will have to explain that!
He says "no generalised epidemic."
You say there is one or is about to be one.
He says "a heterosexual epidemic is very unlikely."
You say it is very likely.
Either he is wrong or you are.
You are making an arse of yourself.
Keep going. I am happy to help you.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:23 AM

Finally, some hard evidence from Royston!
He says "UNAIDS say that britain is at the top of the table for undiagnosed heterosexual carriers."

No link though.
Anyway, we know that those heterosexual carriers are overwhelmingly confined to a single high risk group.
It is not generalised.
So, not worth posting really.
Just making an even bigger arse of yourself.
Keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:37 AM

No, Keith, I do not say those things.

Look.

I say that a generalised African-style epidemic is unlikely in Western Europe. Is that clear enough for you, Keith.

The UN says the same thing.

You say the same thing.

Is that clear now?

I say that there has been a 500% increase in heterosexual UK-acquired infections year on year. That is true, you do not dispute it.

You said "there is no risk to our heterosexual population. That is wrong and dangerous.

I say that there has only been a 74% increase in homosexual infections over the same period. That is true, you do not dispute it.

I say that behaviour alone is not what differentiates straight from gay or black from white. HIV is spread by unprotected intercourse. The prevalence of other diseases, acquired by unprotected intercourse, in straight people proves that the behaviour alone, of straight people, is just as risky as is the behaviour of gay people.

So what differentiates the groups is some other factor. It is wrong to say that homosexual practice and behaviour alone is the 'cause' of gay HIV prevalence. It is no more the sole-cause than is the behaviour of straight people.

Do you agree to those things? They are the things I am saying. They are simple, they are right in front of your nose. Everyone can see them as well as you can. So answer me. Do you agree these things? Yes, or No?

As a secondary issue, de Cock says that what differentiates is sexual networks. Those worst affected happen to be in sexual networks where there are tighly overlapping sexual, or other-vector, relationships.

That is prostitutes and their punters, sexual minorities with a greatly reduced pool of available partners (like gay men) and needle-sharing drug users. I had to introduce "other-vector" networks because, of course, junkies don't necessarily contract HIV sexually, the vectors in their network are the needles they share.

The generalised epidemic in Africa started in tightly overlapping sexual networks but spread because of political or labour-driven mass migration of male workers that provided the high-volume sexual networks necessary to propagate the disease - prostitution and prion-style homosexuality and, to some extent, rape as weapon of war.

They then took the disease back home and infected their families and children because of ignorance about the disease and lack of access to healthcare and treatment. Bingo, generalised epidemic.

That is unlikely here for all the obvious reasons. We are very lucky not to live in such political, economic and social conditions. We have healthcare and treatment on-tap.

But anyone practicing risky behaviour is at risk of contracting HIV. Go to any town-centre nightclub on a friday or saturday and you'll witness a real meat-market of overlapping sexual relationships. Things probably won't get 'Africa' on us, but they could get pretty fucking back for a lot of people. The risk gets worse with every carrier out there - diagnosed or not.

Unless we get stronger intervention, support, socially tolerant and inclusive attitudes, pervasive general - as well as targeted - education programs.

The last paragraph is, of course, my opinion but it is also advocated by UNAIDS and every UN government.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:38 AM

Keith, the link to UNAIDS statement about the undiagnosed sraight cases is in my 04:05. I can't repeat it here, you will just have to scroll down and read.

Are we going to get a reply to the specific points from you any time?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:10 AM

I have played your game so many times where you put up points and I have to respond.
You have excelled yourself with this list.
Let me have a turn.
On 11th Jan you said,
"This is how it played out in Africa, it is how it will play out here"

Do you now accept that you were wrong?

I have not been "twisting and turning."
I have been steadily attacking that position you took on 11th Jan.
I say that in UK there is no significant infection and certainly no epidemic outside the high risk groups.
Am I right?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:25 AM

What I said on 11 Jan was wrong. It certainly went beyond the available evidence.

The only thing that can be concluded is that it "Probably" won't happen. Exactly as de Cock says.

Now are you ready to withdraw your "no risk to our heterosexual population" comment?

And are you ready, finally, to engage on the real reasons for HIV prevalence in certain groups - which cannot be differentiated by behaviours, as these behaviours are shared by the most affected and by the least affected groups.

It is the essence of this whole debate: that minorities suffering most with HIV are not suffering because their behaviour is "worse" or "less good" or "more risky" than the behaviours of others. That there should be no moral judgement against some, in the fight to control and defeat the spread of HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:30 AM

And seriously, if you don't hold reactionary views against gay men or black people, do you understand that people will find that hard to accept from someone who said:

"The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is to do with their practices."

And that you might have to rethink some of your assumptions about yourself and your motivations?

It's a rhetorical question, one that everyone should ask of themselves. I do regularly: recheck my assumptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:34 AM

Keith: "I have played your game so many times where you put up points and I have to respond.
You have excelled yourself with this list."

That sounds a lot like you do agree with me, but just can't bring yourself to say it.

Putting up points, stating beliefs, raising issues is exactly what a debate is about isn't it?

There has to be a point, doesn't there?

You've made yours with your "practices" comment, haven't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:48 AM

I do not hold those reactionary views, and the statement carries no stigma.
What is your correct, PC ending to the sentence,
"The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is ....." ?

Fair play to you for withdrawing your earlier assertion.

De Cock said "very unlikely" and said there is "no generalised epidemic"

"No risk to heterosexual population" should read "Except for high risk groups, there is negligeable risk to heterosexual population."

Behaviour and practices. De Cock says it is "important" Why should I doubt him?

"minorities suffering most with HIV are not suffering because their behaviour is "worse" or "less good" or "more risky" than the behaviours of others"
I would have to leave in "more risky."

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:43 AM

Keith a lot of your 08:48 is good and fair enough.

But is unfair of you to keep quoting de Cock as saying "Behaviour is important..." without quoting the rest of that sentence, which continues

"...but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection."

And I invite people to consider a reasonable contraction of that statement:

Behaviour is important...but doesn't explain the differences between populations...sexual networks...from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection

Because that is my point. That the circumstances people faultlessly and blamelessly find themselves in, from an epidemological viewpoint, are more efficient at spreading infection, than just behaviour.

Behaviour is patently important - don't have sex and you certainly won't contract HIV unless you are staggeringly unlucky. But given that all groups share and practice the same sexual transmission vectors, the reasons for differing outcomes lie elsewhere

We can go further with the at-risk heterosexual groups. Let's leave the numbers for a moment, talk about common sense issues.

Chlamydia and other STI's spread by promiscuous sexual activity involving unprotected penetrative sex. They can also hit the unlucky person that has one encounter with a carrier.

The people most at risk of contracting STI's are the most sexually active people - typically adolescents and "young adults".

So that is consistent with, it explains, the prevalence (up to 10%) of some STI's amongst young women, for instance. They were either statistically unlucky on a one night stand in a sexual network of overlapping partners or they acuired it by being a regular member of such a network.

That is exactly the sexual network that propagates HIV. All it takes is for the virus to be introduced into the network. That the networks exist is proven by the prevalence of other STI's. All that's missing is a few HIV+ people in each town centre on a friday or saturday and we know the numbers of carriers are rising and that we are particularly singled out by UNAIDS for late-diagnosis of heterosexual carriers.

So it is clear that if we are to prevent pockets of HIV outbreaks in these at-risk heterosexual people - and quite a lot of them as well - then we have to be looking at a more concerted general education and outreach program, don't we? We need to persuade these at-risk young men and women to come and get tested, don't we? Or should we, as Ake says, bring in compulsory testing annually for them? As well as for gay men?

It is, of course, silly to send condoms and leaflets to Granny, there is no point blanket testing WI meetings, but all sexually active people outside of a monogamous relationship are at risk and there is no real differentiation between gay straight, black or white when it comes to prevention.

Incidentally, while the only safe sex is to abstain until married and then never "stray". the reality (and reality is all that matters) is that this does not happen universally. A couple, where one or both has a sexual history, could not declare themselves "safe" until 6 months of celibacy with an HIV test at each end and then a lifetime commitment to each other. Food for thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:46 AM

What is your correct, PC ending to the sentence,
"The difference between general population UK, effectively zero prevalence, and the MSMs and African born, is ....." ?

...that HIV has thus far not infiltrated the sexual networks of the majority in the UK, to the extent that other diseases have.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:00 AM

...that HIV has thus far not infiltrated the sexual networks of the majority in the UK, to the extent that other diseases have.
That is inadequate.
There have to be reasons or it would have, decades ago.
Behaviour and practices are important factors.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:04 AM

On the subject of risk.

Insurance companies used to ask "Have you had an HIV test?" or similar words with the same effect.

They largely stopped doing that. Actuaries realised that the underwriting risk was not particularly associated with those people that did choose to get tested. They were a somewhat better risk than someone of the same demographic that didn't.

So the question tended to shift to one along the lines of "Have you ever been medically advised to take an HIV test", because they worked out that the greater risk came from people who were contracting other STI's, turning up at the GUM clinic in ignorance, testing positive for Herpes or Chlamyidia or whatever, and were then told that this proved them at high risk of contracting HIV and that they ought to be tested for it for their own safety and that of others.

And France, USA and UK are still top of the UN for late diagnosis - that is the level of undiagnosed - heterosexual HIV.

Food for thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:06 AM

"Behaviour is important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection."

You must keep the "all" in the first sentence or the meaning is changed.
A higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships is the kind of difference in behaviour I am talking about. That must stay in.
Also, concurrent sexual partnerships

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:10 AM

Can't you two just get a room ?????

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:11 AM

Keith: That is inadequate.
There have to be reasons or it would have, decades ago.
Behaviour and practices are important factors.

For gawd's sake, practice and behaviour is important. The expert says not as important as types of sexual network.

HIV has had low heterosexual prevalence in the UK, because the gay men that were unlucky (or silly) enough to get it were hardly likely to spread it to Doris, Maud, Janet and Jane, were they?

Recently the numbers of straight carriers were dramatically increased by folks who got it somewhere else and brough it here.

There has been a contingent rise (500%) in the rate of HIV infections acquired in this country.

You're not arguing statistics, Keith, you are desperately trying to hang on to your earlier racist and homophobic statement.

We've got your number, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:23 AM

The expert says not as important as types of sexual network.

No he does not.

And, in 40 years, there has been ample opportunity to cross into heterosexual community via bisexuals.
But it has not happened.
And, there is still no sign of it doing so.
If you deny that you are wrong according to the experts.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:30 AM

Or rent a holiday villa ?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:38 AM

OK, Keith. Enough is enough.

As I rather suspected, if we take away your numbers, you are left arguing an unsupported right-wing, reactionary position that gays and black are dirty and bring the consequences of HIV upon themselves in ways that other 'normal' folks don't.

There is nothing 'neutral' or 'academic' or 'impartial' about your interventions.

I suspect you will be in a minority of two (possibly three) in opposing that assessment.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:10 AM

Sounds nice Smedley.
He says he has my number.
I'll wait for the call!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:18 AM

I need the numbers to make my argument objective.
I make quantitative, objective, verifiable statements instead of loaded value judgements.
I think that is a good thing.

If the virus had a shred of Left/liberal credentials, it would attck all groups equally.
I am sorry that it does not, but it is not my fault.
I just report it.
The virus is racist and homophobic.
I am not.
You only try that on because you have no other reply.
And you say that I am a nasty piece of work!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:21 PM

Oh my, Keith. Now you sound very silly and very deeply prejudiced.

You are very good at telling us who is affected by the virus. That is the easy bit, the numbers.

It is the "why" where you fall down and expose your prejudice for all to see.

Like I said, fewer people will be prepared to regard you as an impartial reporter of facts from now on and, to that extent, a lot of good has been achieved here.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 02:42 PM

But I don't know why in 40 years it has not crossed over to heterosexuals via bisexuals, needle sharers and early blood doners.
Behaviour and practices is all I can think of though.
Please educate me with the unprejudiced reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:06 PM

It's all in black and white, Keith. From me and de Cock. I can't explain it any more clearly and you are the only one having difficulty with it. Save for Ake, who will have difficulty with anything and everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:08 PM

But then, Keith, we know what you are and why you choose to carry on this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:36 PM

Are you running away from this Royston?
I ask you again.
What are the (ideologically sound) reasons why there has been no heterosexual epidemic despite 40 years exposure via bisexuals, needle sharers and infected blood transfusions?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:40 PM

Another 11th jan post you may want to withdraw Royston.

And while we are being candid, let's just clear up this whole 'gay plague' thing. As a percentage of the whole group, gay men suffer disproportionately with HIV infection.
The numbers show that this will soon be a historical irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:42 PM

Another.
The numbers show it is on the way to being a mostly heterosexual problem in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:46 PM

Another couple of years and UK Caucasian Heterosexuals will have caught up nicely.
14th Jan

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:56 PM

Watch Keith run from the current discussion back to picking away at old news and numbers. Laughable. What a one-trick pony.

At present, more straight people are newly diagnosed each year than gay people - regardles of where they got it, they are here.

So it only a matter of time before HIV in the UK is mainly, numerically, a heterosexual phenomenon.

Now you just play away Keith. You're doing a grand job.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:03 PM

And here is just one scientific explanation for the slow spread of HIV in straight people in the UK. They are lucky enough that the principal strain of HIV sub-type doing the rounds in straight circles just happens to be slower in transmission.

It's easy to find this information if you try. If you choose to try. If you are not a bigoted fool.


http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=NEWSLINK_EN_C&RCN=31290&ACTION=D

There seems to be quite a good discussion about networks and clustering of HIV - a lot of the things I have been saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:58 PM

Errrhhhh.... Nobody is listening. Why don't you just ask Keith for his home number so you can ring him and save bandwidth! You will never accept that anal sex between two men, and the passage of semen/blood that results causes Aids will you? Drone on baby!!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:16 PM

"So it only a matter of time before HIV in the UK is mainly, numerically, a heterosexual phenomenon."
So, you are reinstating the opinion you withdrew a few hours ago.
EXCELLENT!
Now again you are expressing and asserting beliefs diametrically opposed the the people who are supposed to be world experts.
OUTSTANDING ROYSTON!
You should contact de Cock at once. He will be so gratefull.
He probably has no one down at the WHO who knows as much about AIDS as you do.
You have now made a complete arse of yourself, and with only minimal help from me.
I am so enjoying this.
Now we have the results of 10 days frantic googling.
A different strain of the virus.
You still have not told us why the main strain could not cause a heterosexual epidemic Royston. They have been exposed to it for 40 years. It can not be differences in behaviour because that would be ideologically unacceptable.
The virus must know that obviously!
And the different strain is the one found in subsaharan Africa!
Who would have thought it!
How ever did it get here and who ever might be carrying it?

I do not go in for abuse.
I will just remind you of some epithets you have used recently.
Dim.
Idiot.
Shit For Brains.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:29 PM

Keep crowing Keith, you just look more and more stupid.

There will probably not be an African style epidemic here.

Only 4% of gay men are HIV+ - that is tiny compared to Africa.

If, every year, more straight people are diagnosed than are gay men, and if that continues, then how could HIV fail to become - in time - a disease that mainly, numerically, affects straight people.

That is very simple, all the statements are compatible.

You are degenerating rapidly, but that's fine.

You know, it just occurred to me that if you claim to be on an impartial quest for factual knowledge, how is it that after all your efforts you fail to find the academics that find against your ideas?

By the way, that academic paper about the different strains - 2 minutes googling on a blackberry. How or why did you miss it. You are one that claims to have scoured the earth for facts and truth. I never made any such claim. I prefer issues.

If you have anything new to say on today's points then I will respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:40 PM

And anyway, it is not for me or you to discover why HIV is not more prevalent in UK heterosexual populations.

It is enough to have proven that the low prevalence is not primarily or mainly a result of their sexual behaviour. That is the issue in debate here. The prevalence of STI's in straight people shows appalling sexual hygiene and behaviour.

De Cock reckons that networks are a more important epidemiological factor, the scientists at Edinburgh with their peer-reveiwed paper also assert this. They also find a different, slower in transmission, strain of the virus.

It's all out there for you Keith, you just have to have an intelligent, open and enquiring mind.

But you will run away from these issues. Ho hum. We tried.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:02 PM

Crikey Keith,

You will come to regret asking me to google stuff.

in the last 10 minutes (including reading a few long articles, I found this from the BMJ

"The number of people becoming infected with HIV through heterosexual intercourse in the United Kingdom is rising steadily. As the number of heterosexuals living with HIV (diagnosed and undiagnosed) in the United Kingdom grows, the likelihood of heterosexual transmission within the country will increase, particularly among ethnic minorities."

Which confirms what I say about the rise of HIV that is coming for heterosexual people in this country notwithstanding the truth - that remains - that we will probably never have an African-scale problem.

How did your detailed research miss that Keith?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7503/1303

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:30 PM

Keith, hang on to your breeches, you'll love this.

Correction to AIDS Story in The Independent, 8 June 2008
New York, 11 June 2008

http://data.unaids.org/pub/PressStatement/2008/20080611_notetomedia_en.pdf

We wish to clarify misinterpretations concerning WHO and UNAIDS' positions on the status of the AIDS epidemic in recent media articles. The story in the Independent on Sunday titled: "Threat of world AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits" contained a few seriously misleading statements that have led to inferences and conclusions that bear no relation to the highly complex realities of the HIV epidemic.

First and foremost, the global HIV epidemic is by no means over. At the end of 2007, an estimated 33.2 million people were living with HIV. Some 2.5 million people became newly infected that year, and 2.1 million died of AIDS. AIDS remains the leading cause of death in Africa.

Worldwide, HIV is still largely driven by heterosexual transmission. The majority of new infections in sub-Saharan Africa occur through heterosexual transmission. We have also seen a number of generalized epidemics outside of Africa, such as in Haiti and Papua New Guinea.
Heterosexual transmission continues to drive the epidemic among sex workers, their clients, and their clients' partners.

In addition, prisoners, injecting drug users, as well as men who have sex with men, may also engage in heterosexual relationships. In sub-Saharan Africa almost 60% of adults living with HIV were women, 48% in the Caribbean.

HIV prevention and treatment efforts are showing results. Building on these successes will require improved outreach to populations most at risk with evidence-informed approaches based on local HIV epidemiology — an approach we call "knowing your epidemic." In all settings, a supportive environment is required, free from stigma and discrimination, legal barriers or other obstacles that prevent access to services. AIDS awareness campaigns and school-based efforts are essential to promote sexual and reproductive health, ensuring young people have the knowledge and ability to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases, and teenage pregnancy.

UNAIDS and WHO remain focused on strengthening monitoring of the epidemic to refine responses further and to recognize changes in transmission patterns should they occur.

To recap: AIDS remains the leading infectious disease challenge in global health. To suggest
otherwise is irresponsible and misleading.

Dr Kevin M. De Cock
Director
Department of HIV/AIDS
WHO, World Health Organization

Dr Paul De Lay
Director
Department of Evidence, Monitoring and Policy
UNAIDS, Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:34 PM

So the experts do in fact agree with everything I said about outreach, removing stigma, caring. In particluar they do agree with my assertion that schools-based, generalised education is very important.

You laughed at me and derided me for that. I stuck to my guns, I was right. I didn't even need to go googling for the truth (but I've found the activity quite compelling this evening.)

You are just not very bright are you, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:35 PM

In fact, I am filing you in the same bin as Ake and Paco.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM

I really am going to stop now.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:45 PM

""Now we see that most of those are accounted for by a newly arrived high risk group.
They caused your dogleg up turn.""

NO! THEY DID NOT!

The 500% increase is in UK acquired HIV. Therefor it is not as a result of African import.

If those people acquired it here, it matters not where they came from, because they didn't initiate it, they caught it from contact with indigenous carriers.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:54 PM

""Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.""

""Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries.""

The above are two sentences from the same post, by Keith.

So Keith, which is it? You can't even quote him consistently in the course of typing a two minute post.

And we should take what you post as factual because............?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 07:12 PM

""Errrhhhh.... Nobody is listening. Why don't you just ask Keith for his home number so you can ring him and save bandwidth! You will never accept that anal sex between two men, and the passage of semen/blood that results causes Aids will you? Drone on baby!!""

Barmy indeed.

Anal sex between men does NOT, and never did, cause HIV/AIDS.

It merely transmits it, when one of the men is infected.

The idea that anal gay sex causes it was discredited years ago, and only ignorant, bigotted, twerps like your good self are stupid enough to still believe it.

Why don't you educate yourself, then rejoin the discussion when you know what you're talking about. By the looks of things, it will still be going strong.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 01:05 AM

Not one valid point in all those posts.
I am going to enjoy knocking each one down.
Bear with me, it will need a few posts.
Inorder ot posting.
"So it only a matter of time before HIV in the UK is mainly, numerically, a heterosexual phenomenon."

I showed days ago that at this rate the growth will make it a rare disease in heteros for well over a hundred years.

"By the way, that academic paper about the different strains - 2 minutes googling on a blackberry. How or why did you miss it. You are one that claims to have scoured the earth for facts and truth. I never made any such claim. I prefer issues."

I did not miss it. Hetero AIDS here is overwhelmingly confined to black African Communities. The report acknowledges that.
And they have brought with them the sub Saharan strain.
And that is what your researches found.
An African strain in African people, less virulent because transmission is so much easier there.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 01:10 AM

"And anyway, it is not for me or you to discover why HIV is not more prevalent in UK heterosexual populations."
So you could not come up with a politically correct reason, and try to avoid the question.

Your BMJ piece just goes over the same ground again. The hetero epidemic is a black African epidemic. That is what it says.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 01:14 AM

The Independent correction by de Cock does not retract a single thing that he said about AIDS in the developed world.
He was just worried that people might infer that the global epidemic was over.
Don T, he made both those statements.
I was not being inconsistent at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 01:17 AM

Here is the cut and paste Don.
Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 01:19 AM

The 500% increase is in UK acquired HIV. Therefor it is not as a result of African import.

Yes it is and it is confined to their communities.
There is no generalised epidemic.
Just the high risk groups.