BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada's drug policy is in with the wrong crowd

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

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

Gawker

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

do you have a link to that Ake?

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No they weren't.

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

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

Still do as a matter of fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amongst others....

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

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

I made valid points.
Why the attack?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do.

All the time.

With amicable people








Funnily enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow me to quote them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education is not the only factor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

Yes Jack I understand that, but why the massive difference in transmission rates between young heteros and young homos?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:28 PM

"From: akenaton - PM
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

Yes Jack I understand that, but why the massive difference in transmission rates between young heteros and young homos? "

Would you please not say "homos" on this side of the Atlantic that is a slur.

A guy just can't run rampant and have sex with and girl he wants. Girls want to be courted, girls want to be bought dinner and do it in a nice bed. Girls say "no" sometimes. Musket's point about male anal sex is valid. But a girl is is having anal sex to please a boy is IMHO much more likely to insist on a condom than a boy doing it to get even with his father.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:15 PM

"...why is there a difference between the "education" of young homosexuals and young heterosexuals?"

I didn't say there is such a difference. The point is that YOUR concern is covered by the general situation! BOTH are resistant to being told what to not do, but there is a bit less issue for totally heterosexual youth. (They still have some STDs and pregnancy to be concerned about)

I dunno, Ake... you can't seem to separate your obsession with certain statistics from alternate interpretations of statistics.

I wish everyone could be educated to practice sensible sexual behavior... but it is folly to expect they will refrain FROM sexual behavior... and those whose orientation is toward the same sex WILL find a way.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:26 PM

Sorry Jack, no slur intended, simply an abbreviation.

Bill ..."your obsession with certain statistics".....this IS a thread on HIV transmission, I think my question is perfectly valid and is not being answered.

We know that young sexually active people want to have sex, but why the difference in transmission rates?

This is extremely important if we really want the epidemic amongst one specific demographic to be halted.

Why is education on infection, "less of an issue for hetero youth"?
That just does not seem to make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:52 PM

Cappy Jack: "Would you please not say "homos" on this side of the Atlantic that is a slur"

Is 'heteros'?

Some people think the term 'gay' is a slur against happy people.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:59 PM

Why? Because totally hetero people have a smaller chance of HIV... I acknowledge that. There IS a difference in transmission rates. It is smaller than it used to be here... partly because HIV has been spread widely enough in straight populations, and partly because gay populations have some better treatments and education.

That's not a difficult thing to understand... but all you wish to focus on is ONE part of the population..... and you have been pressed enough to admit that you think they 'ought to be controlled' by some outside agency.

That is why some folk suspect that there is a deeper motive to your 'concern'.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:46 PM

There is nothing "modern" about anal sex. Historically its vilification is not rooted in health concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

I'd hazard a guess that a major driver towards anal sex between men and women is fear of pregnancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:47 PM

Came late to this thread (mainly because I am suffering from WHITE (WHacko-Initiated Thread Exhaustion), and I may not stay, but this:
There is no justification for singling out Religion
is the most egregiously naive and in-denial comment about anything I've read for weeks!

As for this:

A guy just can't run rampant and have sex with and girl he wants. Girls want to be courted, girls want to be bought dinner and do it in a nice bed. Girls say "no" sometimes. Musket's point about male anal sex is valid. But a girl is is having anal sex to please a boy is IMHO much more likely to insist on a condom than a boy doing it to get even with his father.

Well where the hell did this tripe come from! Is this supposed to be serious?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:56 PM

Someone is forcing you to read the "tripe" are they Mr. Shaw? Something is keeping you from staring more interesting threads are they?

Please try to be more polite.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:30 PM

Bill,
There IS a difference in transmission rates. It is smaller than it used to be here

Are you sure?
How can the difference be smaller if gay rates are rising and straight rates falling?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:22 AM

Richard Bridge: "I'd hazard a guess that a major driver towards anal sex between men and women is fear of pregnancy."

Try it....and you won't have to 'hazard a guess'.
There ARE different reasons besides that one...


Steve Shaw: "A guy just can't run rampant and have sex with and girl he wants....Musket's point about male anal sex is valid. But a girl is is having anal sex to please a boy is IMHO much more likely to .....Well where the hell did this tripe come from!"

'Tripe'????

Gosh, and I was thinking you were just into anal sex with humans!!..but you never know...this is Mudcat, after all!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:57 AM

"Having anal sex to please a boy" - "get even with his father"????
It seems to me that the moralists among us have written some sort of manual on why young people have sex the way they do, attributing their own personal motives rather than consulting the young people concerned on why they do what they do.
This is the type of moralising agenda that the church has peddled in order to make sex "dirty" - "an evil necessity" which has brought about the twisted morality that has fouled up the Christian church today - correct me if I'm wrong Jack, but you do claim to be a Christian, don't you?   
Tripe indeed!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:06 AM

Bill, that is not an answer to my question, it is at best obfuscation, at worst a mild personal attack.

Would it not be more productive to address the issue, rather than express opinions on my personal motivations.

The fault lies not with those who suffer from this condition, but with a sector of society who view unrestricted "liberty" as beneficial, even when unrestricted "liberty" results it ever increasing rates of infection.
Increased testing and contact tracing has been pointed out by all the health agencies, as the way forward in the battle to combat the epidemic.....only one demographic is affected at anything near epidemic rates.
Political agendas come second to public health.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:09 AM

This thread is not about religion Jim.
Many others are.
Please pursue your obsession elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:52 AM

Whether I have anal sex, if so in what role, and why is an irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:53 AM

I feel this thread should be a little more about science. After all, the important thing now is research, using virology, epidemiology, protective strategies, education and the final goal, vaccination or a permanent cure. Moral, religious or ethical issues are beside the point. I also think testing is vital, to identify, help and advise those who are infected. We should approach this danger with a practical, scientific and factual attack, not condemnatory rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:35 AM

"This thread is not about religion Jim"
Then why take part in a discussion about it - you chose to defend the church's role (your church - that is, you've always been happy to attack other religions' attitude to sex in the past, particularly those nasty Muslims).
Eliza rightly introduced the subject by pointing out the anti-gay religious propaganda in Africa - you chose to respond by defending that propaganda.
Now you have lost the fight to defend the church's behaviour regarding homosexuality you are attempting to retreat by making the subject 'thread drift' as you always do.
Religion and church teaching has been the major influence in forming our attitude to sex recently and hsitorically.
Some denominations of the church have been forced to loosen their grip on our behaviour and minds.
Where the church, particularly the Christian Church, remains an influence, it continues to attempt to control sexual (and general) behaviour by using that influence ruthlessly.
The Church in Ireland has pledged to fight the move towards same-sex marriage despite the the Churches own behaviour regarding the on-going revelations of widespread homosexual and heterosexual rape of children by members of its own clergy .
It will no doubt use the threat of excommunication against those politicians who go against its wishes in the same was it did against those who opposed the changes in pregnancy-termination laws.
We haven't even begun to discuss the implications of the Christian church's anti-contraception stance on the spread of Aids.
You don't want to discuss religion in relation to this subject, then don't, I doubt that your 'infallible' contribution will be missed.
Do not presume to tell the rest of us what we should and should not be discussing - it's none of your business.      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:43 AM

Honestly Jim, the subject is "HIV transmission."
Look at the top. See?

the anti-gay religious propaganda in Africa - you chose to respond by defending that propaganda.

It is completely untrue that I defended any anti-gay propaganda.
I deplore it, and you for making that false claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:41 AM

You chose to defend the church propagating that anti Gay propaganda
"It was an issue of culture, not religion, and that is the case in Africa today too."
Religion was already and continues to be a part of this discussion despite your efforts to stop it.
It has been mentioned 18 times so far on this thread - the church 27 times, Christianity 9 times, by me a few time, by others far more.
You were happy to take part in this aspect until you fell foul of your own stupidity - now you are attempting to divert away from it
Do not presume to tell us what we can and cannot discuss in relation to "HIV transmission" because it doesn't suit your Christian agenda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:55 AM

You have not shown me supporting propaganda, and you never could.

I am entitled to complain when obsessive people try to use a thread about HIV transmission as just another platform for their tedious, repetitive and predictable rants against religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:16 AM

I am sick to the back teeth of your seizing control of these threads and attempting to censor discussion with accusations of "thread drift"
I have never carried out the various threats I have made in order to stop your you manipulating threads in this way and I will not bother making them again, but the next time you attempt to steer discussion into your comfort zone by making certain aspects taboo I will not bother to respond to you but will simply request that the thread administrators prevent you from doing so.
If you persist I will ask that you be removed from this forum altogether.
Your manipulative and censorious behavior has now become a major threat to free discussion on this forum.
I will mot respond to anything yo have to say directly and will think all my birthdays have come at once if you will do the same.
General point to all -
Archbishop MacDaid of Dublin has just announced that he believes that the Church is out of step on the matters of sex: contraception, homosexuality, same sex marriage.... all matters pertaining to sex.... with the majority of Irish Catholics.
The strongest weapon against the spread of Aids is the practicing of safe sex, and the most effective means of doing that is by contraception, the use of a condom.   
Any Catholic in a country where the Church has any great degree of influence, is forbidden the use of a condom.
In the 'more enlightened' countries, where the Church has lost much of its influence, the clergy will do their level best to dissuade the faithful from using condoms, (or any form of contraception, for that matter).
As somebody who comes from a traditional Catholic background, it has been my lifelong experience that the priest will target the woman of the family in his (no women clergy remember) efforts, insisting that abstinence is the only practical alternative if she doesn't wish to have children.
In practice, the church is abusing its power to a lethal extent to prevent people from practicing safe sex.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:33 AM

Howze about a rousing chorus of either Goodnight, Irene or Boil Them Cabbage Down?

You two have been through this so many times before that by now you should be able to cut and paste from old posts. Be careful with that method though because word meanings sometimes change over the course of decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:43 AM

Does anyone believe there is one single sexually active gay man in the whole world who is influenced not to use a condom because of Catholicism?
If he was that influenced, he would not be sexually active anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:59 AM

Well said Keith, Hatred of religion and those who practice it".....Wonder if their is a "liberal" epithet to go with that.....shouldn't think so. :0)

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(

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:47 AM

I said, right early on After this I will leave you to it. Unless anyone decides to label AIDS sufferers promiscuous perverts of course.

They haven't as yet but I think ake's latest comment is even worse. According to him...

- Liberals are asking for gay marriage.
- Liberals do not agree to registration and tagging of homosexual men
- I am therefore a liberal by his reckoning. (I'm not BTW but no point in arguing that)
- Liberals want to have the age of sexual consent lowered to 10 therefore
- Liberals are pedophiles

You may as well just go ahead and say it ake. You describe me as a homosexual, promiscuous, perverted, pedophile. And than you have the nerve complain if anyone dares to throw the odd insult at you.

Sick

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 09:20 AM

[i]'Archbishop MacDaid of Dublin has just announced'[/i]

Jim! Keep up with the times, it's Diarmuid Martin. McDaid has been gone for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:13 AM

Wow Jim, sorry, the thread is about HIV. I wasn't trying to moralize. I was remembering my own acting out in my late teens, mostly because of a nasty dynamic in the home. Binge drinking, speeding, bar fights, all sorts of reckless behavior. Lots of my peers were like that. But those with better home lives generally were not. No girl let me have unprotected sex with her.

I can imagine two boys of that age, suffering all the abuse that I did plus a layer of hate from their fathers for not being the football playing he-man they wanted, being sexually attracted to each other and being less than diligent than the girls I dated. I can imagine a boy trying to get the love he missed from his father in the bed of an older man.

Maybe your knowledge of psychology is so much deeper than mine that you can dismiss this out of hand. But in my view of the world, it explains why some people do some things that are so reckless that it is beyond the imagination of others. It explains the motivation of many "sex workers" as well.

Condoms are very cheap insurance. Its a given that every curious teenage smart enough to use the Internet knows what a condom is and what it is for. The question is why don't they?

Jim Carroll, no doubt, religion is part of the debate. For one thing, youthful rebellion is a stereotype, and therefor known to be common, among some religions. Hopefully we can all keep the religious aspect in perspective and not have it be the only perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:29 AM

Jim Carroll: ""This thread is not about religion Jim"
Then why take part in a discussion about it - you chose to defend the church's role (your church...."

'Religion' literally means 'way of life'...and to those who love anal sex, anal sex is a 'way of life', an answer to the prayer for the 'anal sex Jones' rolling around in their heads.
So Jim, you answered your own question, "Then why take part in a discussion about it - you chose to defend the church's role..."

....and my!...how they will defend it!

The 'political movement' is more akin to laundering their 'drives' out to the public for 'acceptance'....sorta like 'laundering some sort of guilt'...or maybe just advertising....who gives a shit?!?

Makes ya' wonder, why they can't just have their butt fucks, and shut the fuck up about it! Now EVERYBODY has to deal with it...and the fact is, NOBODY cares...AND/OR, if you will, takes anyone seriously who feels the need to announce it to the world, for everyone to accept!...as if they have the corner on their 'special sacrament'.

Nobody cares!...EXCEPT, in their 'quest' to get butt fucked, the urge often outweighs the responsibility of not endangering the health of other people...whose 'pleasure' may last a few minutes, in the heat of passion, but then are carriers of a lethal illness.........but you know what they say, "A hard dick has no conscience"......(Goes for either heteros or homos)!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:31 AM

Regarding condom use, I do know that in W Africa for example (not a particular 'hotspot' for HIV as are central and southern Africa admittedly) males refuse outright to use them as they reduce sensitivity and pleasure. Even men who know they are HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex with wives/girlfriends/prostitutes simply because they like it like that. My husband tells me that some prostitutes demand extra money for non-use of condoms, and some men are prepared to pay more for the pleasure. They don't seem to consider that they're putting themselves at terrible risk of HIV and all other STDs, and so are the women. That's why I said above that science, education and testing are the way forward. In Gambia (another country I've visited many times) black male prostitutes entertain white tourist-clients of both sexes and are a source of HIV transmission. It's definitely a poverty thing. There's a lot of money to be made, because even £5 is a fortune for them. So in third-world countries, poverty is obviously part of the machinery of the spread of the disease.
I must add that neither I nor my husband have ever been personally involved in these scenarios!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:51 AM

"I must add that neither I nor my husband have ever been personally involved in these scenarios!"

:-D I don't think that you did have to add that. You don't come across as a "John" or as anyone who would have one in your home. Much less the other players in your scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:58 AM

"McDaid has been gone for a while"
Thanks Peter - they all look the same to me in those frocks!
"Wow Jim, sorry, the thread is about HIV"
Any discussion about HIV must encompass its causes, possible prevention and all the consequence arising from it - to prevent such discussion is simple censorship, compounded by the fact that such attempts are now being used on a regular basis by someone who declares himself a practicing Christian.
It is not just a matter of the Church preventing the use of condoms - which they do when they are able.
The use of condoms needs to be actively encouraged and superstitious hoodoo, far from doing this, acts as yet another barrier to sexual health, which (your) god know, has been interfered with enough by your church and others down the ages..
Priests are supposed to be celibate - it didn't stop some of them from raping unknown thousands of children and continuing to call themselves Christians - and not infrequently telling their victims that what was happening to them was "gods will"   
Your somewhat facile analysis of homosexuality beggars belief - paternal-love substitution - you cannot be serious?
Why not go the whole hog and claim it can be cured with a simple trappaning procedure; your analysis seems to coincide with that era?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:37 PM

to those who love anal sex, anal sex is a 'way of life'

To those who like custard creams, custard creams are a way of life.

To those who like wearing brown shoes, brown shoes are a way of life.

To those who like feeding birds in their gardens, feeding birds in their gardens is a way of life.

To those who like to talk like complete twats, talking like complete twats is a way of life.

I think I've just found someone who the cap fits.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:46 PM

Steve, you have outdone yourself for stupid posts!...but then maybe you DO equate custard cream and brown shoes to anal sex.....

Good grief!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:46 PM

I sleep late, and find myself so far behind I don't know what to comment on..... and once certain personalities get involved, the signal-to-noise ratio gets pretty bad.


Keith-"Are you sure?
How can the difference be smaller if gay rates are rising and straight rates falling?"
That is not what I said: I said: (translating into simpler terms) **because the straight populations are now a significant part of the HIV statistics and the gay populations rate overall EXCEPT in younger demographics, is declining, the difference in transmission rates is smaller.**

And Ake.... your view has simply become part of the discussion IN THIS FORUM, partly because OF your views on what society should do about the issue. My answer addresses what you asked

"Why is education on infection, "less of an issue for hetero youth"?
That just does not seem to make sense."

Because IF a person is straight, there is less chance they will encounter HIV! They still might if they become involved with someone who got HIV thru injury, transfusion or sex with someone who is NOT totally straight.
(why must I explain what seems so simple, and is not the core issue?)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 12:58 PM

Jim Carroll,

"No doubt, religion is part of the debate. For one thing, youthful rebellion is a stereotype, and therefor known to be common, among some religions. CERTAINLY MANY YOUNG PEOPLE ENGAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOR OUT OF REBELLION AGAINST THEIR CHURCH. I imagine that includes some rebelling against sexual abuse. Hopefully we can all keep the religious aspect in perspective and NOT have it be the only perspective. "

You may be happy to find that no church I ever sat in forbade the use of condoms.

I also find it unlikely that two men about to engage in risky sexual acts are thinking "Oh! No! We are about to engage in a risky behavior, but we can't use condoms because Father Buttock Bruiser says it is a sin!"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:17 PM

Bill...."(why must I explain what seems so simple, and is not the core issue?)"
Because you had previously implied that there was only a slight difference between homosexual and heterosexual infection rates.

You seem to be trying to minimise the difference between an epidemic, and a rare form of infection.

In your last post you say that there IS a problem with HIV infection in the MSM demographic, that is not in the heterosexual one.....A change of stance?   Perhaps brought about by my "stupid" questions? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:21 PM

Akenaton, Everyone recognizes that there is a problem. It is just the the rest of us are taking it in perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:24 PM

Because IF a person is straight, there is less chance they will encounter HIV!

In many parts of the world this is patently untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:29 PM

Where?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:40 PM

"You may be happy to find that no church I ever sat in forbade the use of condoms."
Once again Jack you are dealing with religious brand-names - I don't give a toss what church you sit in - the richest and most powerful Christian Church on the planet either forbids or strongly opposes the use of condoms - your sectarian approach to that fact is distasteful, to say the least.
"NOT have it be the only perspective. "
In context of the fact that HIV is the major problem that it is, a church exerting its influence to prevent the use of a major contributor to the prevention of its spread is assisting in spreading that disease and your trying to shuffle around that fact is religious hypocrisy at its murderous worst.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:07 PM

Jim,

Do you have statistics to support your albeit indirect assertion that AIDS is spreading because religious hierarchies condemn the use of condoms?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:12 PM

[Rwanda News Agency]:60 per cent of people living with HIV infections in Africa are women. On average about eight out of every 100 Ugandan women are infected with HIV compared to five out of 100 Ugandan men. Among young men and women aged 15 to 24 years, for every one man, four women are infected with HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:14 PM

Hmm...I dunno Jack, you seem to be concentrating on the 1 in 20 figure, but every new infection within the demographic adds to the numbers living with HIV.
When you develop AIDS there is only one exit door and the rates are increasing annually.

HOW DO YOU KEEP THAT IN PERSPECTIVE?

Is "liberalism" more important than life, or a healthy life?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM

I'm sure that I have read that there are advances in HIV treatments, so that many aids suffers may live out the same lifespan they would have had if they had not got HIV.

I'm sure I have read that some assert that this will lead to the ability to cure HIV positive status and aids.

When this comes about will Akenhateon and Keith (our other most prominent resident queer-basher) start saying that everyone is entitled to have anal sex because it isn't dangerous?

I should Coco!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:11 PM

With early treatment, HIV infection need not prevent normal life expectancy.
When AIDS symptoms appear, it is too late.
I have no problem with anyone's sexual activities, even ones involving cocoa.
All I have done is provide accurate figures and expose misleading and incorrect figures.
No bashing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:11 PM

"Do you have statistics to support your albeit indirect assertion that AIDS is spreading because religious hierarchies condemn the use of condoms?"
Why on earth should you want such irrelevant data?
If condoms offer some sort of protection against aids
If churches forbid the use of condoms on religious grounds
If believers are in any way discouraged or forbidden from using condoms in areas were Aids is prevalent
Put then together and what have you got - bippety-boppety-boo
Are you really demanding a body count before you condemn this inhuman behaviour?
You are like no Christian I have ever associated with - what kind of people are you - what kind of god do you worship
You reinforce my atheism no end.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:17 PM

Akenaton.

The 1 in 20, those living with AIDS are in no way relevant to your argument about prevention. They already have it. You can't prevent them from getting it.

The figure you need to look at is what you would call MSM newly infected divided by the total number of MSM people in the "demographic"

This comes out to 1 new infection per year per 79 MSM people. according to your figures and according to your proposal 4 of those 79 people (1 in 20) would already have been known to have HIV, so testing them would certainly a waste of resources.

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:24 PM

Jim,

The Church condemns fornication, sodomy and adultery many more times than condom use. I have heard such condemnation in church many times. If the church's views really had a sway in this there would be no sex before marriage. There would be no AIDS among Christians. IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:43 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.
Condom use between people of the same sex would make no difference to the chances of conception, though sex between people of the same sex might distract them from activities that would result in procreation, and so might be looked on with disapproval by those concerned about the continuation of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:48 PM

Hmmm, Interesting POV. I think the ban on contraception is on married couples. They don't have much sway there either.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

Jim, you are a liar.
I do not "dislike" or hate homosexuals.
I do not believe them to be "unnatural"....whatever that means.
I do not their behaviour would respond to "treatment" and I have never said such a thing.
Jack, I think the data which I quote, proves there is a huge problem associated with male to male sexual intercourse. Not just HIV, but all other sexually transmitted diseases are hugely over represented in the MSM demographic, in every country in the world, including African countries which have a high infection count due to a promiscuous heterosexual culture.
The MSM rates of infection are still many times worse.

Dave, I think Homosexuality is a perversion which is extremely dangerous for those males who practice it.
I do not think that homosexual have any more of an interest in paedophilia than heterosexuals.
The priest scandal and history suggest that they ARE attracted to youths and teenage boys, but that is NOT paedophilia, it is simple homosexual assault.
I view paedophilia as sexual contact between adults and pre-pubescent children.
I have also said that male homosexuals should be persuaded by their agencies, to present themselves for regular HIV testing and contact tracing.....before long, it should be seen as socially unacceptable Not to be tested, by the male homosexual demographic.....compulsion probably would not work, but already the health agencies like HPE and CDC, are pushing the "opt out" system of routine testing in "designated areas"
Anyone who does not see serious health problems associated with male homosexuality, must be blind, or wilfully stupid.

Guest Seaham Cemetery, says that he/she knows me personally, he/she has printed lies concerning my treatment of dogs in my care, as well as other stuff of a personal nature......he is also a stalker and a troll. I have had to have many of his posts removed by admin, who describe his posts as "extremely creepy"
Does this MO sound to anyone here, like a qualified doctor?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 02:24 PM

"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."

Jack could you explain what that statement means please? and how it relates to my views on the HIV epidemic among male homosexuals

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 03:31 PM

Radio Lab: Patient Zero

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 03:41 PM

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.

Actually it is a very silly point that no informed person would make.

People involved in high risk behaviour actually getting infected by indulging in much lower risk behaviour will never be significant.

The opposite case is not at all silly however.
To many people, especially from some Asian and African cultures, to be gay is the most deeply shaming thing imaginable.
They may well claim to have become infected in a different way.

So the only likely effect of this factor is to hide some MSM infections.
The true figures for MSMs would be even worse than reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:05 PM

???

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:32 PM

Is pedophilia between an adult male, with an male child a form of homosexuality?...as opposed to a a pedophile who chooses little girls? ..or are you just cherry picking, and defending homosexuals, in general??

GfS

P.S. I don't see Akenaton or Dave, or Keith 'hating' anyone, as a group. HOWEVER, that being said, some of those on here tend to paint them as 'haters' and homophobic, as a means to create a bias, because a CONSENSUS can be formed, to give the accuser an excuse for not dealing with the FACTS, and shout the accused down, just to promote their baseless, erroneous 'point'!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 05:21 PM

From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 12:36 PM

...Nor does he personally attack people

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:54 PM

...Cant believe anyone with a brain wrote that.

No, Jack. Ake never makes personal attacks. He is the perfect saint. I suppose you have covered yourself with 'not that I have seen'. Well, now you have seen.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 05:31 PM

GfS - Now you are linking homosexuality and paedophilia. Why? And why do homosexuals need defending? They have done nothing wrong1

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:30 PM

Ake says that he "does not "dislike" or hate homosexuals".
I prefer to take him at his word, unless proven otherwise.

However, I draw attention to two statements, which seem to be problematic (and may lead people to conclude he is insensitive, takes liberties with data- not fully looking at all possible factors, and is less than logical and "clear thinking" on many aspects of this issue (less than logical than on discussions of other issues presented on Mudcat, that is):

"I think Homosexuality is a perversion"
(Oxford Dictionary: Perversion: 1) Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something. 2)sexual behaviour that is considered abnormal and unacceptable).

The use of this "extreme", if not offensive word could lead some to put Ake in a camp of people who are anti-homosexual for a number of reasons. It is certainly insensitive to this broad group of people.

"Anyone who does not see serious health problems associated with male homosexuality, must be blind, or wilfully stupid".

This statement confounds me, as it is insiteful, is limiting to logical discussion, does not take all factors into consideration, and is simplistic in nature (for example, does not take into consideration heterosexual/homosexual factors of transmission, does not consider the prostitution factor in HIV transmission, and that some higher risk sexual acts transcend any sexual group. More seriously, it does not consider that, increasingly, many loving male homosexual couples (regardless of what sexual acts they engage in at home) are not promiscuous, engaging in sex only with their partner (probably at a similar rate as those in the heterosexual community).

Many of these discussions on this topic has occurred on Mudcat previously. What amazes me is how little advancement is made through so much discussion:(

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:54 PM

Another dimension, Ed, is that both Ake and Guffers ex-amity are both utterly obsessed with homosexuality. I find that to be rather suspicious, actually. It is the favourite topic of both by a country mile. Yet one claims to be a socialist and the other claims that he has counselled people with all manner of personal problems. You shouldn't be so amazed that no progress is made here in humanising these two people. There is something horridly obsessive, vindictive and thoroughly ingrained about their prejudice. You don't change people like that in a hurry.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:41 PM

>>From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 03:41 PM

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.

Actually it is a very silly point that no informed person would make.

People involved in high risk behaviour actually getting infected by indulging in much lower risk behaviour will never be significant.<<

Unless their MSM behavior is monogamous, or celebate, or with condoms and they share needles, or they got it from their wives, or blood transfusion.

I don't know who is informing you, but it seems they tend to jump to conclusions based on incomplete data.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:59 PM

Ed. I've pointed out all of those things to Akenaton at different times. But I think it was very difficult to cut through the noise.
People tend to get their backs up when badgered.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 11:51 PM

Dave the Gnome: "GfS - Now you are linking homosexuality and paedophilia. Why? And why do homosexuals need defending?"

Noooo, you are jumping the gun....my first question asked "Is pedophilia between an adult male, with an male child a form of homosexuality?...as opposed to a a pedophile who chooses little girls? .."

The next question, (a separate question): ".....or are you just cherry picking, and defending homosexuals, in general??"

Homosexuality is sex with two of the same gender....pedophilia, is with minors, more over, prepubescent children. Now, if a male pedophile prefers males, over females....wouldn't you agree that there is an element of homosexuality involved??

HINT: (SSSSHHHHH....the answer is ......Shhh........'yes'...but don't tell anybody.....they'll accuse you of being a homophobic hater, of whales sunning themselves in the Arctic, to relax, because of global warming......for Jesus!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:13 AM

GfS,

You seem to be implying that the pedophile who prefers girls is somehow not so "perverted." Is that what you are trying to say?

I think pedophiles, in fact all "sexual predators" are equally bad no matter who they prey upon. How about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:40 AM

Cappy Jack: "You seem to be implying that the pedophile who prefers girls is somehow not so "perverted." Is that what you are trying to say?"

How in the hell did you come up with that????????????
(Working overtime trying to balance politics with reality).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:41 AM

GfS

I think pedophiles, in fact all "sexual predators" are equally bad no matter who they prey upon. How about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:44 AM

Cappy Jack: "I think pedophiles, in fact all "sexual predators" are equally bad no matter who they prey upon. How about you?

Sex with two people of the same gender, is homosexuality...How about you?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:45 AM

GfS

Cappy Jack: "You seem to be implying that the pedophile who prefers girls is somehow not so "perverted." Is that what you are trying to say?"

How in the hell did you come up with that?

I came up with it from reading your post. I said "you seem" because I was not clear on what you were trying to say.

Its a simple question which you now seem to be avoiding. Would you please answer it "yes" or "no."

Thanks in advance.

"Cappy"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:10 AM

Well read it again, straight...not through the filter of 'political correctness'....I'm not implying anything that I didn't post. What I said was by definition, without spin, true. Not that all homosexuals are pedophiles...I never said that....I said that those males who prefer young males have an element of homosexuality. True??...Being as it would be with the same sex.
Now the element of being a predator is yet another issue.
A male predator usually gets close to the male child first, as a way of 'disarming' them...gaining their trust....(or at least talking themselves into believing they have their trust). Those male predators who prefer females, usually do so by force.
True?
So there is a another behavioral element involved, wouldn't you say?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:26 AM

Jack,
Unless their MSM behavior is monogamous, or celebate, or with condoms and they share needles, or they got it from their wives, or blood transfusion.

The means of infection is reported by the patient.
In the above situations, it would not be recorded as MSM infection.

(no-one has been infected by transfusion for years, and needle-stick infection a very small number)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:34 AM

"Those male predators who prefer females, usually do so by force.
True?"

Nope. Not true, at least in two cases I know personally. Had more to do with hero worship and seduction.

Incidentally, I reject the term "sex WITH a child." It is sexual activity forced upon the child, and is in no way consensual or mutual.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:49 AM

"I do not "dislike" or hate homosexuals."
Now you have become like Keith in denying your own postings
You have made clear your contempt for homosexuals and their abnormalities over years.
You have become notorious in doing so.
You are a rabid homophobe.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:59 AM

Jack, from the latest UK report.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317140300680


"People who inject drugs and other groups.

The number of infections acquired through injecting drug use and through other routes has
remained low (Figure 7).After adjusting for missing data, 120 new HIV diagnoses in 2012 were
infections acquired through injecting drug use and 110 through other means such as mother-to-child transmission and through exposure to contaminated blood products abroad. In 2012, 52%
of new diagnoses among people who inject drugs were among people born abroad. "

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:07 AM

Jim, when you accuse me of denying what I have posted, you have never been able to actually find a post I have reneged on.
That is because you make false memories of what I have said.

I am sure you do the same with Akeneaton.
You claimed just yesterday that he did not deny his homophobia.
In fact he has always denied it strenuously.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:10 AM

Ake – your contribution to one thread "PE stops you being Gay" – enough hatred and intolerance to last a lifetime, but that's the firs one I came across.
You are a homophobic bigot
Jim Carroll
29 Apr 13 - 05:01 PM "Q....Where did the 10/15% come from?
The recognised percentage of homosexuals in the population is 2/3% (CDC...HPA)
The hypothesis that Physical Education stops people becoming homosexual is obviously nonesense.
People become homosexual for many reasons, mostly psychological, a genetic link has not been found.
The genetic make up of homosexuals and heterosexuals is identical."
"Allan, I dont "know", I have opinions, just like you or others who believe homosexuality is based on genetics....a "third sex"
It used to be widely accepted that homosexuality was based on a childs relationship ....or lack of one, with his or her parents.
Sexual, physical, or mental abuse in childhood was also thought to be a factor.
Both of these explanations seem more sensible than hitching ones wagon to an invisible gene.
Surely, with the advancement in genetics in recent years,any link should be patently obvious, but despite millions of £s and the best efforts of science, the pink gene remains undiscovered?
In the meantime science can trace our DNA back into antiquity, make the most amazing discoveries about our ancestors, yet cannot show homosexuality to be anything other than learned, or aquired behaviour.
On "Gat Pride" marches, my position has always been, that if hetero's were to hold such demonstrations, they would surely fall foul of anti discrimination legislation......."Proud to be Hetero is definitely a NO-NO" :0)"

"Tia...with the greatest respect, homosexuals are not defined by whom they "love", but by whom they are sexually attracted to.
I love my sons and other male family members, but have never been sexually attracted to other men.
In common with most heterosexuals I find the idea repulsive.
I believe this "Ughh" factor is natures way of pointing out the right direction in sexual matters.
In saying that, I am not a "hater", I believe people shoul be allowed to chose how they conduct themselves in sexually, but I do not think legislation to promote this sort of behaviour is in the long term interests of society or homosexuals, for the reasons that I have oft repeated."
"Ian...Your hypothesis leaves out the thorny problem of ever increasing homosexual STD rates......unless of course you can explain why they are so bad?
Unfortunately this has always been the elephant in the room that no one wishes to talk about.
"Dont respond to or debate with Akenaton....it gives him an air of respectability"
You and others of your ilk are a joke.......Joke liberals! :"
"There are still a large number of people worldwide who oppose "gay marriage", not on health grounds, for most of them are quite unaware of the official statistics....but on grounds of religion, or family structure, etc.....their views are just as valid as those of people who believe in "equality""
"02 May 13 - 12:36 PM I am against Homosexual "marriage" on the grounds that it is bad for the structure of society, but primarily on the horrendous sexual health figures associated with the behaviour."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:53 AM

No, GfS. You linked homosexuals and pedophiles. Yes, you are quite right, there is the likelihood some pedophiles being homosexual but I have no idea how the percentage measures against the number of heterosexual pedophiles. If you were not trying to tar them with the same brush, why mention it in the first place? And you never answered why you believe homosexuals need defending.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 04:48 AM

Eyup! Back from the land of Jack the Sailor, Goofus, Joe Offer and myriad contributors to this interesting tapestry we call Mudcat.

Seaham Cemetery seems to have published the same link as I did. I do hope some people read it, as it includes the HPA data Keith cherishes, and is just about spot on with the figures I gave. I don't get mine from a website, I get them direct from PH reports, but anyway.

Notice something Keith just did? Seaham Cemetery spoke of needle share, and Keith pointed out contraction from needle stick is rare. Two different things entirely. You have to watch what he types because he is just about clever enough to get away with sounding plausible.

So, what have I missed?

After a couple of people defend Akenaton saying he isn't malicious or ranting, he spoils it by repeating that gay people are perverts. He also assumes everybody who is gay takes it up the arse. Presumably also thinks every heterosexual woman is sexually active too.

Keith questions the figures he originally supplied, and Seaham Cemetery must get around to using his spell checker or type slower. (Even with the typos, it is an oasis of sanity, but let's not forget, unlike us, he is presently working in the field. I am just as much a talking head as anyone else here, except the government pay me to waffle.)

Talking of sanity. Hi Goofus! Nice to see you contributing. Silliness from some of my UK can get a bit sinister at times. I can read your contributions without getting angry though. If I ever knew where you stood on an issue, I still wouldn't understand what you say. I assume, as you have a pop at me at times, you don't always agree with me, but I have absolutely no idea what you are saying, you cheeky chappy! Mind you, if Jack is onto something regarding your comments about degrees of paedophilia, I won't let the good professor play with you in future. "Isn't that right boy?" "Woof!"

Seems I haven't missed much at all. Posts demonising gay people are still allowed and some of my challenges are deleted. C'est la vie!




I brought back a can of spray cheese. Seriously. Had fun when I got home from the airport in the garden. I sprayed it into the air, the dog tried catching the cheese in his mouth. Hours of fun! Sorry for saying disparaging things about spray cans of cheese, I had no idea how much enjoyment could be had from it.




You can keep the buckets of greasy chicken though. I don't see me in a KFC any time soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:18 AM

When I said "needlestick" I meant needle share.
"120 new HIV diagnoses in 2012 were infections acquired through injecting drug use"


The only link given by "either" of you was to National Aids Trust which use the same figures I have given.

You refuse to give a source for your figures that we can look at.
I think that is because you are making them up.

Keith questions the figures he originally supplied,

No keith does not.
You made that up as well.
I stand by everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:49 AM

I quoted the figures. I said you can see them on the sites I gave. As Jack rightly points out, statistics are just that, and I have also spoke of the factors other than historical extrapolation those charged with planning and delivering healthcare services take into account.

What in the name of all that is holier than thou is difficult about that?

You said a few days ago that I was quoting wrong figures! I quoted the same as you, and when you insisted that we go on the internet to get our figures (silly naive thought) I did have a quick look to see if NAT were up to date with the ones I supplied, and they are.

If I am making them up, then shame on you for repeating them, and shame on NAT for publishing them. Find a few more non existent arms length bodies are call them official. That's what you usually do before reverting to calling everyone liars. At least by doing that, you have reached the end of objectivity and de facto giving up the crusade of the moment.

Fight the good fight, with all thy might!
Christ is thy strength, and Christ thy right!

Honestly. Keep going, let everyone else see how foolish you are. No, really, please do! It isn't difficult. Just keep going.

So... Using the figures I have provided above, tell me about this gay epidemic you and your mate are so concerned about? Have you been reading American Christian Right websites again? I told you about that and where it will get you...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:05 AM

I quoted the figures. I said you can see them on the sites I gave.

You gave no sites.
Will you now?

The NAT gets its figures from PHE, like I did.

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

The latest estimates for homosexuals in the population of the UK is 1% (Soc for National Statistics 2012).....this figure includes female homosexuals(not affected by HIV)and homosexuals who are not practicing.
From the remaining fraction of a percentage, comes almost 70% of ALL new cases of HIV and Syphilis ......Is there anyone out there who honestly thinks that this is not an epidemic amongst MSM?
Is there anyone who thinks this rate of infection is acceptable?
Is there anyone who thinks that the mantra of "equality", means that a sector of society which is so badly affected by such an epidemic, should be deprived of procedures which would cut infection rates at a stroke(increased testing and contact tracing), on the grounds that to do so would be "discrimination"

This is the MADNESS of "liberalism". An ideal which should have been a boon to society has been all too often distorted into a tyranny which hurts and discriminates against those in real need.

An epidemic must be fought with all available weapons...those who seek to weaken that fight, are not real liberals, but agenda driven fools.   Those who do so from positions of power are despicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:11 AM

Jim, there is nothing in any of the posts that you have copied, that I would wish to withdraw and although printed out of context, they portray my views pretty accurately.

I don't think any of them verify your opinion of me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:24 AM

What would "homosexuals who are not practicing" be, and how would that ever be determined/evaluated, or kept up-to-date to be of any actual use?

Ake, for the benefit of the discussion, please link the source of the information in your last post. Not that I accuse you of anything, but there is a tendancy for some folks to "over-reach" when using survey information to make a case.

Note:
Considering there is major prejudice against homosexuals (we all define prejudice differently) among many, I suspect that there would be major "confounding" factors that would make most survey estimate, like the ones Ake refers to, but did not link, suspect and likely useless.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:32 AM

" they portray my views pretty accurately."
I have no doubt whatever that they do - it makes you the homophobe that you are - and they are the tip if a very old and very large iceberg.
You are a passive 'queer-basher', plain and simple
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 08:04 AM

I attach some information on HIV in Canada, which seem starkly different from the case that Ake puts forward for HIV in the UK.
Why the difference?
Possibilities:
Technical difference in gathering and interpreting information
Poor reporting
Different demographics
Progress in detection, education and prevention
A more tolerant society to Homosexuality (for example, protection of gay rights, societies acceptance of gay unions/marriages in society)


Canada: Number of HIV cases

Since HIV reporting began in Canada in 1985, a cumulative total of 76,275 positive HIV test reports have been reported to PHAC. In 2012 alone, 2,062 HIV cases were reported up to December 31st, which represents a 7.8% decrease from the 2011 reports (2,237 cases) and is the lowest number of annual HIV cases since reporting began in 1985.

Canada: HIV Age and sex distribution

In 2012, 23.1% of all cases were females. Over the past decade, the proportion of female cases has remained generally stable at approximately one-quarter, with only slight fluctuations since 2001 and a peak of 27.8% in 2006. It is important to note that, overall, the age distribution of positive HIV case reports for females varies from that for males, the diagnosis generally being made at a younger age in females. From 1985 to 2012, the proportion of case reports attributed to the three youngest age groups was higher among female than male cases: 1.9% of female cases versus 0.6% of male cases were within the 0 to 14 years age group; 3.9% of females versus 1.1% of males were within the 15 to 19 years age group; and 31.3% of females versus 23.7% of males were within the 20 to 29 years age group. In contrast, among males there was a higher proportion of case reports attributed to the three oldest age groups: 39.0% of male cases versus 36.8% of female cases were within the 30 to 39 years age group; 24.3% of males versus 17.7% of females were within the 40 to 49 years age group; and 11.3% of males versus 8.5% of females were within the 50 years and older age group


Canada: HIV Exposure
In 2012, 57.9% of all reported adult (≥15 years) AIDS cases included information on exposure category. The largest proportion of AIDS cases among adult males was attributed to the heterosexual contact exposure category (42.1%). This was followed by the MSM (31.6%) and the IDU (23.7%) exposure categories. In 2012, the majority of adult female AIDS cases were attributed to the IDU exposure category (56.5%), followed by the heterosexual contact exposure category.

Canada HIV exposure category distribution, footnote:

Trends in exposure category have shifted since HIV reporting began in 1985. In the early stages of the epidemic, over 80% of all cases with known exposure category were attributed to the "men who have sex with men" (MSM) exposure category. Although this exposure category is still the predominant one in Canada, the proportion has decreased significantly over the years. In 2012, 50.3% of all adult (≥15 years) positive HIV test reports with known exposure category were attributed to the MSM exposure category; in adult males alone, the MSM exposure category accounted for 65.1% of positive HIV test reports.

The second most reported exposure category among adults in 2012 was heterosexual contact, at 32.6% of case reports; 13.2% were attributed to heterosexual contact among people born in a country where HIV is endemic (Het-Endemic), 9.9% were attributed to heterosexual contact with a person at risk (Het-Risk), and 9.6% were attributed to having heterosexual contact with someone with no identified risk (NIR-Het). These proportions varied by sex, heterosexual contact being the most reported exposure category among adult females at 73.2% versus 20.7% among adult males. The Het-Endemic exposure sub-category showed the biggest difference between the sexes, accounting for 51.8% of heterosexual contact cases among females and 28.6% among males.

The third most frequently reported exposure category among adults in 2012 was injection drug use (IDU), accounting for 14.0% of positive HIV test reports. Overall, a higher proportion of adult females than adult males acquired HIV through IDU exposure (24.5% versus 10.9%). See Figures 4 and 5 for complete exposure category breakdowns by sex.

HIV and Canadian Immigration

On January 15, 2002, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) added routine HIV screening to the Immigration Medical Examination (IME)Footnote ix. IME HIV testing undertaken in Canada is managed and reported in the same manner as all other positive HIV tests among Canadians. As well, since September 2004 CIC has been reporting positive HIV test reports for immigrants tested overseas to provincial/territorial health authorities.

Between January 15, 2002, and December 31, 2012, 5,777 applicants who underwent an IME tested positive for HIVFootnote x. In 2012 alone, 534 applicants who underwent an IME tested HIV positive. Of these, 231 were identified through HIV testing in Canada, and 303 were identified outside of Canada.

Of the 534 HIV-positive diagnoses in 2012, 312 (58.4%) were born in Africa and the Middle East, 139 (26.0%) in the Americas, 58 (10.9%) in Asia and Oceania, and 25 (4.7%) in Europe.

Canadian Perinatal HIV Surveillance Program:

Between 1984 and 2012, there were 3,805 infants in Canada who were identified as being perinatally exposed to HIV. The number of HIV-exposed infants reported per birth year increased between 2005 and 2008 (from 191 to 241), and has fluctuated in recent years. In 2012, there were 225 reported cases of infants who were perinatally exposed to HIV, down from 234 in 2011.

Although the number of infants perinatally exposed to HIV has increased over time, the proportion of infants born in Canada and confirmed to be HIV infected has decreased gradually from greater than 25% before the advent of antiretroviral treatment during pregnancy (AZT monotherapy after 1994, HAART after 1996) to less than 2% in 2011. At the time this report was prepared, there were no confirmed HIV transmissions in the 225 perinatally exposed infants born in 2012. Correspondingly, the proportion of HIV-positive mothers receiving antiretroviral therapy has increased over time and was 94.2% in 2012Footnote xi.

Between 1984 and 2012, 74.0% of HIV-exposed infants were born to mothers whose HIV status was attributed to the heterosexual contact exposure category, and 23.7% were attributed to IDU exposure.

On examination of the racial/ethnic distribution of perinatally HIV-exposed infants, it was found that the highest proportion were reported as Black and represented nearly half (49.0%) of all cases for the period 1984 to 2012. This was followed by 25.8% of cases reported as White and 16.7 % reported as Aboriginal. The remainder were reported as Asian (3.3%), Latin American (1.2%) and Other (1.7%).

Source HIV in Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 08:05 AM

Last Guest post was from Ed T

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 08:06 AM

The figures.. Just look up at the ones I put, not just a link but put so you can read them. I also put a link to them as portrayed on the NAT website a couple of posts later. Seaham Cemetery kindly did the same, as a blue hyperlink. (I haven't got the hang of drawing highlighted text on the ruddy iPad yet.)

Where is this mythical 70%? Why have you now added another disease? Why not reinforce it by including sales of scatter cushions?

There is a silver lining to this cloud. Despite everything, western society remains, despite religious attempts to thwart it, an inviting melting pot. Cosmopolitan attitudes give the lie to attempts to point out differences. When we throw a party, especially our annual big BBQ, I have three barbies on the go. A full Monty one, a halal one and a vegetarian one. I am adept at non alcoholic cocktails for many of our friends (although I don't drink the buggers..) and I know that throughout the land, people befriend people.

Bigotry is dying out and the death throes are merely cackling away their throaty rasp. In time, we can discuss health conditions without the baggage of perceived false blame based on hatred.

Not just yet, but before long...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 08:08 AM

Ed, these are from the National Statistics survey 2012.
Have to rush out to work now ,but I'm sure I linked on the last thread.   Just type into google National Statistics 2012 sexual orientation, or Latest MSM infection rates HIV......seemples.

I'm sure you are not implying that I tell lies :0), but why don't you try questioning some of the others on the other side of the discussion, who have been caught lying on numerous occasions.
If it had not been for Keith's interventions to keep the record straight, some here might have believed their lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 08:36 AM

Musket, you gave no sites.
You posted a rambling essay with numbers.
No extracts.
No quotes.
No links.

It was not possible to verify a single word or digit.

When I give figures I provide a link so they can be seen in context and anyone can check if I omitted anything.
That is what most of us do.

I think I know why you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:26 AM

Musket, you stated," Keith says heterosexual transmission is falling but it isn't."

I got my figures from HPA/PHE.
Where did yours come from, and do you now admit that I was right and you were wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:35 AM

Keith, the site that you gave plus figures given by Ake, show that the figures do not support do not support his two arguments that Same-sex marriage causes AIDS and that all Gays should be forcibly tested in order to fight AIDS.


"70% of ALL new cases of HIV and Syphilis ......Is there anyone out there who honestly thinks that this is not an epidemic amongst MSM?" -Ake, You have told me there are 350,000 MSMs in the UK, The report Keith link to says there were 6300 new cases of HIV that year,

Do the math and you get one HIV infection per 79 gay men in the UK that year.

Obviously if some significant percentage were to get married and be faithful. they would be less likely to be infected. Obviously your country can't violate the rights of 350,000 every year to keep 4400 from getting sick.

Musket, SC, You have made your overall point and have made some good points along the way. But as you put it about the other disease, you may as well be arguing about tea cozys as about statistics being misinterpreted to support flawed conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:40 AM

Jack, I only posted figures to challenge misleading claims.
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything.
I just think people should be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:53 AM

Let's just look for a mo at Ake's "epidemic". We've had HIV in the UK for at least thirty-odd years. Fewer than 100,000 people are currently living with HIV. That's fewer than one person in 600. It's a fair guess I should think (someone may correct me) that in most years since the infection was first noted the number living with HIV has been in the same ballpark. Last year (or was it the year before) there were fewer than 7000 new cases. I'm not going to argue exact numbers with anyone but those numbers give a reasonable idea of the scale of the matter in my view.

If 100,000 Brits caught flu in a single year we'd all be breathing a sigh of relief, saying that flu has passed us by this winter. If only 6000-odd people caught flu in one year we'd almost be declaring it extinct. So what with "epidemic", Ake? It is the wrong word. That isn't to say that HIV is not a cause for concern. Of course it is. But a cause for concern is not the same thing as a cause for scaremongering. Rattling on about an epidemic that requires every weapon, etc., is, considering the scale of the problem, scaremongering. A lot of very intelligent, skilled and measured people are working to combat HIV. It would be constructive for the rest of us to retain a sense of proportion (not complacency - just a sense of proportion). The only people who see value in scaremongering, and you know who they are because HIV to them goes hand in glove with their imagined brand of reckless homosexuality, are homophobes. The cap fits a couple of people around here.   

And thanks for this, Jim. I must have missed it first time round:

In common with most heterosexuals I find the idea repulsive.

Well I'm "a heterosexual" (except when I'm not thinking about/doing sex, of course), and I don't find the idea repulsive. Very few, if any, of the people I know are in that camp. Whilst I have no figures of course, I'd say the commonest attitude is "let 'em get on with it". By making an unsupported assertion that most of "us" are repulsed at the very thought of homosexuality, you are simply demonstrating your own fear on at least two levels and you are trying to sneak yourself into a respectable place within the common masses. Well you can take it from me that you are out on a limb, and your views expressed down the pub the way you express them here would quickly have a lot of people talking behind their hands about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:53 AM

No Ake, I am not in any way suggesting you are "telling lies". I would not suggest that about any poster, as it seems disrespectful, and adds nothing to a discussion.

Does it not seems reasonable to review posted statements before adopting them as factual? It is normal to incorrectly review/analyze situations, as well and related and unrelated surveys/research. That is why it is important to post sources, (versus a "trust me" approach), so Mudcat "peers" site can detect potential errors,odd sources, or confounding factors in assesment-type statements.

I do not intend to "single you out", or to single out anyone. If it seems so, "sorry about that".

I do not read all of the "back and forth - dueling, posts" that seem to add much to the discussion. However, when someone makes a claim that seems "out of whack" to me, I ask questions. Where I notice this with others (I may have missed some, as I (cautiously) came in here late, and as I noted, have not carefully read all posts, as many do not seem to have much content (or, at least new content) related to the topic). I suspect I may get around to asking similar questions, if I stay and if content "fits the criteria" to request more information, or note errors in interpretation-statements (IMO).

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:54 AM

I just think people should be honest.

I thought we had already accepted that to be honest we do not need corroborative proof? Remember the left testicle argument? If I tell you that I have an itch on my left testicle and cannot find evidence to corroborate this, am I lying?

Sorry if it set's yours off again, Jack :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:11 AM

My name is Keith A of Hertford and I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to Musket for saying he never gave a link to a website and I further apologise to everybody else on this thread for saying things aren't there when any fool can scroll up and see that Musket gave the figures and when I asked if they existed in the public domain he gave a link direct to NAT and suggested they are also available via PHE / HPA.



There. That didn't hurt did it? I supplied the figures, now debate them.

I notice someone asking why Canada shows a very different picture to that Akenaton says is the case in The UK. That's easy. Akhenaton has never supplied the figures. He says he gets them from HPA ( the now defunct collator of figures to advise the government and inform public health planning) but as you can see from the actual figures I posted, which are HPA by the way, The UK and Canada are not that dissimilar.

The majority of people living with HIV in The UK are not gay and not all gay sufferers acquired their condition through sexual contact.

That said, MSM is still a significant group, although we are fairly confident the large numbers of gay people presenting for screening boost these numbers. Sadly, a larger number of women than men are diagnosed through symptom referral. In other words, when it is beginning to affect their health.

It isn't difficult. It doesn't take Keith hoping everybody can't be arsed to find my post from a few days ago. It doesn't take lies or trying to confuse intelligent Mudcat members. I doubt any normal decent person will become a bigoted specimen on the basis of reading what Keith and his mate write.

Anyone wish to talk about HIV? A fascinating subject. Especially if you don't use it to promote hate and bigotry for either religious or plain obnoxious ignorance purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:12 AM

I see no advantage to this discussion in adding "personal value judgements" or (somewhat) offensive words about another persons lifestyle or sexual preference.


If you openly share them (especially in an agressive manner), IMO, it tends to taint the effectiveness of in having your posts (which, may include useful information on the topic) taken seriously and without prejudice. Additionally, sharing them also opens up to comments of those with the different values-viewpoints. All and all, IMO, they just tend to "get in the way", and limits and skews logical and civil discussion on the OP topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:18 AM

Ebbie: "Incidentally, I reject the term "sex WITH a child." It is sexual activity forced upon the child, and is in no way consensual or mutual."

'Forced upon', as opposed to, 'usually do so by force.' I guess if you want to split hairs over semantics, be my guest...the thought and deed is the same. That said, I do agree with your final thoughts, "Incidentally, I reject the term "sex WITH a child. "It is sexual activity forced upon the child, and is in no way consensual or mutual."

If a predator 'gains the confidence of a child' or is disarming to a child, the adult does have an unfair 'advantage'. 'Consent' is also confused with 'confused and intimidated', and I think we'd both agree, 'a type of forcing'.

BTW, should I write another script, I'd certainly inquire, if you'd be interested in being the proof reader!!!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:23 AM

A few years back, I purchased a Toyota. I then noticed many Toyota"s on the highway. I concluded that may more people were making the choice I made, to buy a Toyota.

Fortunately, I noticed my logical error in thinking this. It was not that many more people were making the same car-choice as I was, but, it was merely a change in my behaviour, that I was for the first time, focusing on this brand, while driving.

As similar errors in logic and judgement can arise when we have positions and choose what research we focus on, when we determine what the research presents, and what associations we make between material that we see. That is why I ask to "see it for myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:25 AM

>>>From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:40 AM

Jack, I only posted figures to challenge misleading claims.
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything.
I just think people should be honest.<<<

Please be honest then. It seems to me that you are posting things to catch people (mostly Musket) in small inaccuracies so that you can count coup on them (him, mostly Musket)by getting them (him, mostly Musket) to explode when you accusing them (him, mostly Musket) of being a liar.

No one is going to catch AIDS because a statistic is allegedly misquoted here. No one is under oath. There will be no Nobel Prize in medicine for any of us. Can we please stick to the topic and limit the head games?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM

Re epidemic.
From Latest report on HIV infection UK.
" In the UK, the epidemic is largely
concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM) and black-African heterosexual men
and women"
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317140300680


Musket,
I supplied the figures, now debate them.
The NAT figures are just extracted from the HPA/PHE figures I provided months ago, and you disputed.
You actually rubbished NAT!

You said you had alternative and better figures.
When will we see them?

You said you had more recent figures.
When will we see them?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:21 PM

One thing that I really like, during a controversial subject, is when a post includes the source of where people arrived at their figures....more so then when someone digs up an opinionated post that verifies a position they have, that they really DON'T have that much knowledge about.
I think Akenaton and Keith (amongst others) have supplied MORE than ample FACTUAL links supporting their claims...only to have those who are NOT up on the figures, but have a political view, try to disclaim their positions....(making asses out of themselves, in the progress!). Methinks it is far more advantageous and profitable to go with the FACTS...and let the chips fall where they may, rather than trying to replace FACTS with an erroneous consensus! One, all you have to do is present the FACTS...the other, tries to stir up resentment and divisions to gather a falsely opinionated consensus. Politics relies heavily on falsely opinionated consensuses!
Reality is that which lasts and remains!!...whether it coincides with one's opinion or not!!!
So, do we 'go with the facts', or believe in a CREATED bias?
It's all in perception, perception, perception! Motives can be manipulated, but when it's all said and done, the truth will still stand!
HIV transmissions are far less, in fact, almost non-existent in a traditional, loving, family situation, than ANY form of promiscuous life 'style'!
....and that's the truth!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:56 PM

Ed, It seems the Health agencies in the UK have stopped printing the new infection rates by demographic, this allows them to say the rates are static or falling slightly while ignoring the fact that infection rates amongst male homosexuals are rising steadily.

It is an abdication of responsibility by HPE and is ignoring the epidemic going on amongst the MSM demographic.

Fortunately the agencies in the US have no such qualms, here is an excerpt from the 2013 factsheet.
By Risk Group

"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available."

These figures are for 2010, but infection rates have risen every year in the MSM demographic so must be a lot worse when brought up to date.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:32 PM

Ake, any suggestions why the infectiin rates seem to be falling in Canada? If accurate, and not an anomality, could more tolerence, (encouraging homosexuals to join in the community and enter into formal relationships and be more health aware), better health that results in reduced, versus increasing, HIV infections? It seems too important an issue (like you say) to rule this out and not to seek alternative solutions to progress to lowering the rates (versus other heavy-handed approaches that could lead to fewer feeling free to identify themselves seek more health information and care and to reduce new unintended exposures ).

It may be prudent to check the infection rates in a number of countries with similar movement towards tolerence and greater integration of this group into mainstream society- just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:37 PM

Ed, on the 2013 factsheet, final figures were

HIV acquired by male to male sexual contact 30573
HIV acquired by heterosexual contact 13402.

Male homosexuals make up only 1/2% of the population.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:41 PM

Haven't checked the figures for Canada, but the agencies say that HIV incidence is many times higher in the MSM demographic, than any other risk group......in every country in the world where testing is carried out.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:49 PM

Ake, the HPA/PHE stats are very detailed and thorough.
Use the link I just gave.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:16 PM

Oh dear... The health agencies in The UK have stopped reporting infection rates! Those nasty HPE (sic) liberals are feeding the paranoia of bigots again! We have all been discussing the most recent figures, for the year April 2012 to March 2013. We are still in the next reporting year.

Go on Keith, you tell him rather than me. He respects you, which says as much about you as him, but I digress. You might use the PHE / HPA or you might use the slightly revised estimates public health bodies use for their local consideration that are able to estimate confidential access statistics that do not reach national figures (based on commissioning returns and voluntary private sector acquired figures). They are just about the same, give or take the final quarter of the 2012/13 year. You would have to make use of your hobby of internet trawling to get them though. Most CCG and CSU websites should either publish them or refer to them in minutes of board meetings held in public. I can say that locally, with a combined population of 1.2 million, city, town and rural mix, the figures stayed on course, so add about 25% or so to the 2012 numbers and you won't be far off. I have no idea what you have to take off for the first quarter of the calendar year of 2012 but as you are more clever than those I work with, I am sure you will get there. In a couple of months time, the 2013/14 figures will be out nationally. Hopefully the first annual report of PHE will give regional breakdowns, which are important as stigmatised communities tend to cluster.

Oh, piss off by the way Keith. If you existed in real life, you'd get on my tits.

Goofus makes a point I can understand and agree with at the end of his last post. A monogamous relationship has a far lower chance of contracting HIV through sex than a promiscuous lifestyle.

I wonder what we can do about that? I know! Marriage open to all members of society! That's a good start. Accepting people in any respect who are different and not demonising them till they get pushed to the fringes of society..

As for those with a promiscuous lifestyle, they are with us, have always been with us and at points in my life, I've happily and merrily enjoyed being of their ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:32 PM

I provided a link to tge Cdn. situation earlier Ake, if you wish to check (just a click of the mouse)?
The message I get is HIV infection rates are in decline in Canada. Additionally, the MSM rates versus other groups seem to be far lower than you indicate is the case in Uk and USA, where tolerence of gay relationships seems much lower (IMO).

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:46 PM

Hi Ed, just looked at the Public Health Auth of Canada, don't see much difference?

Incidence of HIV among MSM....44.1%
Incidence of HIV among Heterosexuals....36.3%

The heterosexual figure includes females, but IDU's and others are left out of both figures.

I suppose the ratio of male homosexuals in the Canadian population should be about the same as in UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:54 PM

Musket, this started in December when I pointed out that a couple of your statements were contradicted by HPA/PHE figures.

You insisted that you were right and the figures wrong.

As you now accept that HPA/PHE figures are correct, our differences are over and we can move on.

Best wishes,
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 04:24 PM

Musket,
Hopefully the first annual report of PHE will give regional breakdowns, which are important as stigmatised communities tend to cluster.

Existing reports already do.
You will find graphs of Geographical trends of new HIV diagnoses among heterosexuals and MSMs.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 04:35 PM

Check deeper ake, I even cut out some material below (see Guest- 04 Mar 14 - 08:04 AM)
"Since HIV reporting began in Canada in 1985, a cumulative total of 76,275 positive HIV test reports have been reported to PHAC. In 2012 alone, 2,062 HIV cases were reported up to December 31st, which represents a 7.8% decrease from the 2011 reports (2,237 cases) and is the lowest number of annual HIV cases since reporting began in 1985."
Note the term "decrease"

""Canada: HIV ExposureIn 2012, 57.9% of all reported adult (≥15 years) AIDS cases included information on exposure category. The largest proportion of AIDS cases among adult males was attributed to the heterosexual contact exposure category (42.1%). This was followed by the MSM (31.6%) and the IDU (23.7%) exposure categories. In 2012, the majority of adult female AIDS cases were attributed to the IDU exposure category (56.5%), followed by the heterosexual contact exposure category. ""
Note the term adult male heterosexual, and IDU exposure

Ake, if you support tgecstatement you made below, why would you not consider (or deny) those at risk other approaches that may work - beyond your approach which has potential to make things worse?

Ake quote:
"An epidemic must be fought with all available weapons...those who seek to weaken that fight, are not real liberals, but agenda driven fools."  

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:33 PM

"Incidence of HIV among MSM....44.1%
Incidence of HIV among Heterosexuals....36.3%"

Ake, you're saying that 44.1% of Canadian MSM and 36.3% of heterosexuals are infected with HIV?

I simply do not believe that!! That's got to be a gross exaggeration. Are you sure you have the decimal points in the right places?

The way you manipulate statistics is highly creative. There is a difference between saying that 100% of those who have prostate cancer are men and 100% of men have prostate cancer.

Not quite the same thing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:02 PM

The figures are the proportion of reported AIDS cases that were from those groups in that year.
44.1% of them were hetero exposures.
36.3% were MSM exposure.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:51 PM

Ake and his figures, his wishful interpretations thereof and his unsupported extrapolations would be insulting if they weren't so pathetically hilarious. I have an auto-shutoff switch in my noggin when I see threads with masses of figures being fruitlessly chucked around. So I just googled "Aids statistics UK" and in about 90 seconds I got the picture (as described in my last post and supported by Musket's shortly after). It's that easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:53 PM

Which is it??....you reversed 'em.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:59 PM

Brain shuts off, then posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:21 AM

Very sensible Steve.
What did you find out?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:46 AM

Glad to see Keith agreeing that HPA used to collect and publish figures and that PHE will carry on doing that. As PHE includes responsibility for screening and analysis for commissioning support units, they will be able to publish data that more reflects the situation on the ground. Something HPA struggled with as it could only have codified (paid for at PCT level, known as HRG but too many acronyms!) which in short means that data could only be brought down to 100 levels as there were 100 commissioning bodies. More in depth estimates came from something known as Townsend scores, which looked at socio economic groupings at council ward level and adjusted for deprivation etc.

In short, in The UK (non English health funding buys into the old HPA systems that PHE are reviewing and developing) we will at long last be able to advise governments of the state of the health of the nation in a way The Black Report (mid 70s) wanted but successive governments failed to act on. The new system , once up and running will also help us to address poverty based on reality rather than political stunts. Hence the refusal by LibDem ministers to approve Osborn's attempt to classify poverty last week.

For HIV? The people who use illness as a weapon to turn society against identifiable groups will still have lots of figures they can bandy around to create doubt but they will be more robust and harder to cast doubt on. Planning and delivering healthcare services in The UK will have some of the guesswork taken out of it. We have a single system here and the state pays for most care , with private providers having to provide data in a way many other countries don't. It is frustrating that we still have a degree of guesswork. In theory we should be able to care for the true picture out there purely because we can have the most confidence in our statistics. This is perhaps the one single section of the government health reforms that has cross party support.

Be careful when comparing countries for prevalence of a medical condition. The World Health Organisation puts a huge health warning on the subject of apples and pears. I was at a conference on that very subject only the other day. (I do not speak for or about sexual health but, in this case, cancer registries. There was a time I used to speak about bulk solids handling, but there is a difference in having credentials and advocating what those with credentials say.)

I advise anyone to look at the links provided in NHS Choices regarding HIV, prevalence and support. If you have hitherto formed your views on media and political / religious dogma you may find the reality alters your view. Even now, I read recently of a GP who is awaiting a fitness to practice hearing (GMC) and when it comes up it might make a news story. He told a gay person under his care that HIV was God's punishment. (Put a few allegedly clauses in that sentence. Although he doesn't deny saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:53 AM

Glad to see Keith agreeing that HPA used to collect and publish figures and that PHE will carry on doing that.

Actually it was me who told you about it in December last year, when you were disputing their figures.
Here is the post.

29 Dec 13 - 05:28 PM

What we both called HPA is now PHE.
Did you not even know that musket?
Follow my HPA link and you will find it is a PHE report.

So, I linked to the HPA/PHE 2012 figures published in November 2013.
What other ones are you talking about?
Do you even know?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:53 AM

Sorry Ed, your figures just don't make sense....50% of infections from IDU's?
IDU's are one of the lowest rated affected groups, yet your figures make them higher than any other group?

The latest figures, which I quoted, give IDUs as having a new infection rate of 16%, which in itself seem very high compared to IDU rates in other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:59 AM

Three months later, you still have not shown us the better and more recent figures that you claim exist.

(Shown us as opposed to just telling us about them)

All the sites you have mentioned recently use PHE figures exclusively, which supports my contention that there are no others.

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

Ake, it was 56% of adult female AIDS cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:31 AM

Not my figures, Ake, they are taken directly from a government of Canada site.
If you actually have an interest,you can check them out directly on the site. You have to look at the whole site to get a broad perspective , or accept their assessment, if you dont.

You say you are concerned about routes to deal with what you call a serious epidemic. You indicate your displeasure that government adencies and others are not concerned, and are not doing enough to deal with it.

So,if you are actually have concern for all groups impacted by HIV ((now and future), I would expect you would take the time to look at situations elsewhere to seek possible alteratives to your "one approach". Rather than selectively looking for statistics- or possibly skewing or interpreting them to suit a cause -to back up what seems to be a "fixed position" (some sources provided, others not), why not have a similar concern for all impacted, regardless of their sex, age, sexual orientation,marital status, lifestyle or nationality?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:43 AM

What is Keith rattling on about now?

Buggered if I know.

Seriously, can anyone work out what he is saying? He originally said HPA were definitive, which they aren't, weren't and never could be. He said health services are planned using the figures because they are official, whatever that means.

I pointed out that public health input into health service planning and commissioning takes more into account as they have access to their local picture rather than extrapolation. The local pictures refine, not contradict.

If Keith were right, we can sack over 300 consultant grade doctors, 300 odd specialists and possibly over 2,000 support staff who interpret data as part of their public health roles. As most are employed by councils rather than NHS contracts now, he may get his fucking wish!

He also clearly doesn't know the difference between 2012 and 2012/13. HPA used to publish using the final quarter of the previous year, whilst public health functions use the financial year in order to influence the commissioning cycle. But that's the public sector for you.

I wonder if Keith has a black and white telly to go with his black and white mindset? I always assumed Mudcat could attract slightly more sophisticated talking heads but with him and his mate...   It isn't just queer bashing either. Any subject, just as simple in approach. I wish the world spun with them in that regard.

But no other.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:11 AM

Very sensible Steve.
What did you find out?

I found out what I said in my post. You can google the same as I suggested if you like. I wanted to see the overall picture, not get dragged into a statistics game with you in which we lose sight of what it is we're actually talking about. The overall picture is that it is, and always was, very unwise as well as inaccurate to regard HIV as some kind of gay plague, that it is a constant cause for concern rather than a cause for panic or scaremongering, and that some people casually reading stuff from the likes of Ake might be pleasantly surprised to discover that HIV infection is very uncommon. Yes there are some groups with higher rates of infection, as with any transmissible illness. That does not generally trigger a moral crusade, nor should it in the case of HIV. There are more constructive ways of dealing with the problem. Singling out HIV on thread after thread as some sort of threat to humanity perpetrated by bunches of promiscuous, irresponsible, repulsive and ruthless perverts says quite a lot about the people who do the singling out but sheds no light whatsoever on the matter to hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:14 AM

If there are other figures, show them to us, and spare us more long explanations.

If the figures for January-March 2013 are available, we would all want to see how the trends are going.
Show them to us, and spare us more long explanations.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:17 AM

I have been doing that for months Steve.
The overall picture is that MSM rates are high and rising, while hetero rates are low and falling.
Agree?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:19 AM

Steve, I do agree with your comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:26 AM

spare us more long explanations.

Said without irony. Dearie me! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:03 AM

I do not agree that comment Steve.
I keep my posts short.

Musket has written pages and pages about these mythical figures but, 3 months down the line and we still have not seen anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:15 AM

Go onto the mythical website and read the mythical fucking figures.

The (actually, strictly speaking) mythical HPA, or PHE, or the mythical NAT for that matter.

The mythical figures of those I gave are there for your non mythical eyes to stare at, as you have and quoted. You only call them mythical when I refer to them!

Just because you believe fantasy, it doesn't make reality mythical. We have a certain type of doctor who may be able to help you understand that. Your GP should be able to refer you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM

I do not agree that comment Steve.
I keep my posts short.

Indeed. But, looked at in the round, they are interminable.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:58 AM

I have been using those figures all along.
They are the HPA/PHE figures.
NAT and Choices use them.

When I pointed out that statements of yours were directly contradicted by them, you claimed that you were right and the figures wrong.

You claimed there were other, better and more recent figures.
So show us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:03 AM

" Keith says heterosexual transmission is falling but it isn't."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:34 AM

Ed, here is the Canadian site.


Public Health Agency of Canada

www.publichealth.gc.ca
   
Home > Infectious Diseases > HIV/AIDS > Reports and Publications > HIV/AIDS - Epi Updates - 2010 > HIV/AIDS Among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in Canada


HIV/AIDS Epi Updates

Chapter 9: HIV/AIDS Among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in Canada

HIV/AIDS Among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in Canada (PDF Document - 584 KB – 19 pages)

At a Glance
◾In 2008, the MSM (men who have sex with men) exposure category continued to account for the largest proportion of positive HIV test reports among adults, representing 45.1% (557) of positive tests reported.
◾The estimated number of new HIV infections attributed to the MSM exposure category also accounted for the highest proportion of new infections in 2008, representing 44% of estimated new infections.
◾In 2008, an estimated 19% of men in the MSM exposure category were unaware of their HIV infection. This is lower than the overall estimated percentage (26%) of people living with HIV in Canada who were unaware of their HIV positive status. Still, this translates to an estimated 6,000 (4,500-7,500) people living with HIV in the MSM exposure category who were unaware of their HIV positive status.
◾HIV transmission among MSM in Canada is ongoing; recent research indicates that certain subgroups of MSM continue to be at considerable risk of HIV infection by engaging in risky sexual practices, such as unprotected anal intercourse with serodiscordant partners or partners of unknown HIV

45% of new positive HIV tests amongst male homosexuals.

That means that EVERY other demographic combined, present 55% of new positive HIV tests.

AS male homosexuals make up only 1/2% of the population of Canada, these stats show a massive over representation of MSM in the HIV new infection figures.

The only demographic anywhere which displays epidemic rates of HIV, is MSM......end of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:47 AM

Here are the incidence and prevalence figures for Ontario, Ed.
They are simple to read, why are you getting confused?

Table 1: HIV Incidence and Prevalence by Population 2008


Population

HIV incidence

%

HIV prevalence

%


MSM 745 46% 15,072 57%
MSM-IDU 30 2% 617 2%
IDU 96 6% 1,988 7%
HIV-endemic 466 29% 4,878 18%
Heterosexual 282 17% 3,920 15%
Blood transfusion 0 0 152 <1%
Total 1,618 100% 26,627 100%

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 10:50 AM

You post the 2008 Canaduan figures Ake, but not those show changes by 2012.

Curious as to why you would do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:02 AM

These were the most up to date I could get Ed.

I should think the 2012 figures would be worse , just as they are in the UK and the US, but I would be interested to see what you have, please post a readable version direct from the site, as I have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:02 AM

Musket.
" Keith says heterosexual transmission is falling but it isn't."

PHE say they are falling, and have been for a decade.
Any other figures on that?


"Less than half new HIV+ diagnosis results are from make to male transmission"

That was true before 2012, but they overtook during 2012 according to PHE.
You accused me of using old data, but it was your figures that were out of date.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:09 AM

Ake and Ed, the 2012 data for Canada is here.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/survreport/2012/dec/index-eng.php

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:18 AM

>>>AS male homosexuals make up only 1/2% of the population of Canada, these stats show a massive over representation of MSM in the HIV new infection figures.

The only demographic anywhere which displays epidemic rates of HIV, is MSM......end of story.<<<

Sorry. No. Not end of story.

To make the case that it is massive epidemic, you have to compare the new infections per year number to the overall population.

To make the case that same-sex marriage makes the problem worse, you need to find a MSM married population and compare the new HIV infection rate to that of the whole MSM population.

It looks like you are saying that something on the order of 1 to 2% (I don't have time to do the precise math)of Gay males are being infected per year as opposed to on the order of .04 % of the general population. In comparison that looks alarming, but keeping in mind that in total we are only looking at two or three of thousand people per year. It is just isn't that alarming.

You have no data to conclude that same-sex marriage has any bearing and you have no data to show that the MSM population is universally promiscuous.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:20 AM

Thank you Keith.

Canada 2012......New HIV diagnosis.

In ALL adults tested, MSM accounted for 50.3% of all positive tests
In adult MALES, MSM accounted for 65.1% of all positive tests.

ED???

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:24 AM

Thanks for the Canadian report Keith.

I wonder what is going on in Sask?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:34 AM

Jack, it is an epidemic amongst MSM, not the general population. The condition is actually very rare amongst heterosexuals in "developed countries"

It is almost exclusively a disease of male homosexuality, and that is where the EPIDEMIC occurs.

The confusion arises over percentage rates and real numbers, male homosexuals are only a small demographic, but contain huge rates of infection......the Canadian figures say that around 10/ 15% is the median, that means that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 15, MSM carry the HIV virus. That is an epidemic, which if it pertained to heteros, would be absolutely devastating for society.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 11:59 AM

'The condition is very rare amongst heterosexuals in "developed countries"'
That may be so, but one just cannot dismiss the heterosexual sufferers in undeveloped countries. They number millions of men, women and children. The title of the thread doesn't specify '..but not in the Third World". Why are homosexuals in the West being spotlighted here, when the disease is global and if the numbers in Africa etc considered, killing huge numbers of heterosexual people? The thread title also concerns transmission. It's well-known how it's transmitted. Could we perhaps talk about education, prevention and possible scientific advances in immunisation/vaccination, not to mention addressing the social repercussions on orphaned children, sick and dying people without support and even economical adverse effects? Some folk seem obsessed with gay sufferers (and of course, they matter) to the exclusion of all the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 12:22 PM

Eliza....even in Africa and all other countries where testing is carried out, MSM rates of infection is are much higher that those amongst heteros.
Heterosexual infection rates are falling EVERYWHERE, even in Africa.

The epidemic amongst MSM could be slowed or stopped almost immediately, by targeted testing and contact tracing, but the "liberal" agenda, takes politics before lives, or life sentences of ill health.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 12:43 PM

HIV SurveillanceNumber of cases

Since HIV reporting began in Canada in 1985, a cumulative total of 76,275 positive HIV test reports have been reported to PHAC. In 2012 alone, 2,062 HIV cases were reported up to December 31st, which represents a 7.8% decrease from the 2011 reports (2,237 cases) and is the lowest number of annual HIV cases since reporting began in 1985.

Figure 1 illustrates the trend in annual HIV case reports since 1996, highlighting a steady decrease in the number of reported cases up until the year 2000. During the period 2002 through 2008, the annual number of HIV case reports fluctuated between 2,440 and 2,619, and since 2008 there has been a steady decrease.

Exposure category distributionFootnoteiv

Trends in exposure category have shifted since HIV reporting began in 1985. In the early stages of the epidemic, over 80% of all cases with known exposure category were attributed to the "men who have sex with men" (MSM) exposure category. Although this exposure category is still the predominant one in Canada, the proportion has decreased significantly over the years. In 2012, 50.3% of all adult (≥15 years) positive HIV test reports with known exposure category were attributed to the MSM exposure category; in adult males alone, the MSM exposure category accounted for 65.1% of positive HIV test reports.

The second most reported exposure category among adults in 2012 was heterosexual contact, at 32.6% of case reports; 13.2% were attributed to heterosexual contact among people born in a country where HIV is endemic (Het-Endemic), 9.9% were attributed to heterosexual contact with a person at risk (Het-Risk), and 9.6% were attributed to having heterosexual contact with someone with no identified risk (NIR-Het). These proportions varied by sex, heterosexual contact being the most reported exposure category among adult females at 73.2% versus 20.7% among adult males. The Het-Endemic exposure sub-category showed the biggest difference between the sexes, accounting for 51.8% of heterosexual contact cases among females and 28.6% among males.

The third most frequently reported exposure category among adults in 2012 was injection drug use (IDU), accounting for 14.0% of positive HIV test reports. Overall, a higher proportion of adult females than adult males acquired HIV through IDU exposure (24.5% versus 10.9%). See Figures 4 and 5 for complete exposure category breakdowns by sex.



Hiv rates Canada 1985 to 2012 
Ake et al,
You must confuse me with others you are debating with?
I have not taken issue with statements that MSM is a leading factor in HIV infections (while, I suspect it is much more complex than that). I do feel it is a big jump, and also unfair, to brand all homosexuals and such relationships with the same HIV brush. I also contend that there may be positive options to reduce rates of infection through education and greater social acceptance of homosexuals (versus the negative approach frequently promoted by ake). I provided an example where rates have decreased, Canada. I suggested that this reduction may be due to new acceptance of homosexuals in this society,( including gay marrages).







However, my point is that rates are invthecdecline

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

Homosexuality and statistics

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:15 PM

"The confusion arises over percentage rates and real numbers, male homosexuals are only a small demographic, but contain huge rates of infection......the Canadian figures say that around 10/ 15% is the median, that means that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 15, MSM carry the HIV virus. That is an epidemic, which if it pertained to heteros, would be absolutely devastating for society. "

YES AKE and it is YOU who is confused. The number of people who "Carry" the virus is not a relevant factor in deciding whether it is and EPIDEMIC or not. To decide whether it is an epidemic you have to look at whether or not a significant percentage of the population is currently catching it. I'll wager that at least 70% of the adult population in the US and Canada the chicken pox virus. That's a lot more than 10% of male Gays. Why aren't you alarmed at that?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Accuracy squad
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:29 PM

""male homosexuals""

Ake is 'oft not too concerned about accurate-my observation, (intentionally, I suspect maybe to prop up his pet theory, which is his) so I will intervene.

I suspect he means:

"promiscuous male homosexuals, not in a monogamous relationship, and not practicing safe sex"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:35 PM

Since he is arguing that accepting same-sex marriage is a de facto promotion of HIV, I suspect that his manner of using the statistics implies all Gay men are in this category.

""promiscuous male homosexuals, not in a monogamous relationship, and not practicing safe sex"

I hope I am wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:15 PM

Jts, if ake is suggesting that, I have no time for his argument.
I hope you are wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:24 PM

Ed, over the last decade, total HIV infection rates have been falling almost everywhere.
In the MSM demographic, they have been rising.

You do not seem to be taking this issue seriously, do you not realise what the difference in population percentages mean?

GUEST AC.
""male homosexuals""

Ake is 'oft not too concerned about accurate-my observation, (intentionally, I suspect maybe to prop up his pet theory, which is his) so I will intervene.

I suspect he means:

"promiscuous male homosexuals, not in a monogamous relationship, and not practicing safe sex"

No, I am at present referring to the MSM demographic which consists solely of "men who have sex with men"....no matter if the definition concerns 1 "man", or 50 "men".....it is YOU who is inaccurate.

Jack, I don't think all homosexuals are in this category, some may be celibate.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:43 PM

Just for information purposes, I have no "hatred" for homosexuals, I know several, I work for several couples, I get on fine with them on a social level.

My engagement in these threads is chiefly to highlight the epidemic which the media and the agencies are trying their best to conceal.
Concealment is NOT in the interests of homosexuals.

Also to illustrate the madness associated with many aspects of political "liberalism", of which, treatment of the HIV epidemic amongst Male homosexuals is a stunning example.

There are many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:07 PM

Ed, In the UK in 2012 the Office of National Statistics conducted the biggest ever survey on homosexuality rates in the general population.

It came up with the figure of 1.5%


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/03/gay-britain-what-d

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:14 PM

Breaking News "MSM HIV Rates Decreased in Canada since 1985"

""Trends in exposure category have shifted since HIV reporting began in 1985. In the early stages of the epidemic, over 80% of all cases with known exposure category were attributed to the "men who have sex with men" (MSM) exposure category. Although this exposure category is still the predominant one in Canada, the proportion has decreased significantly over the years. In 2012, 50.3% of all adult (≥15 years) positive HIV test reports with known exposure category were attributed to the MSM exposure category; in adult males alone, the MSM exposure category accounted for 65.1% of positive HIV test reports.""

ake, I do take the issue seriously-though I do not buy your definition of an epidemic, nor it is a liberal plot. Hold off on the tin foil hat.

If you also care, demonsrate it by fully reading othercfolks posts. If you do not have a closed mind, you will find the Canadian rates among male homosexuals have decreased (D-E-C-R-E-A-S-E-D).

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:15 PM

My engagement in these threads is chiefly to highlight the epidemic which the media and the agencies are trying their best to conceal.

If you are genuinely concerned, try Facebook and Twitter instead. Don't have the stats to hand but I am sure you can find out. I suspect the readership of both mentioned social media sites is considerably more than that of Mudcat.

Engagement on these threads is like trying to stop the great fire of London by pissing in the Thames. And the readership here will take absolutely no notice of you. Once again, you are spouting complete bollocks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:24 PM

Get a grip Ed, in 1985 HIV/Aids was almost exclusively amongst MSM.
The disease began to affect the heterosexual community to a greater extent (but nothing like MSM rates) up until the mid 90's, when heterosexual rates began to fall and have been falling ever since.
MSM rates are continuing to rise, and will soon be back at the 1985 figure of 80%....BUT THE REAL NUMBERS OF INFCTIONS WILL BE MANY TIMES HIGHER.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:32 PM

Thank you for that contribution Dave.
Facebook? Twitter?.....Hmmm, there IS intelligence there, "but not as we know it Jim"

Thank you, but No Thankyou. I'll take my chances with the trolls, stalkers, and many fine people on these pages!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:43 PM

Ed, to simplify even further, in Canada in 2009 the infection rate for MSM was 44%, in 2012 it was 50.3%.
The heterosexual infection rate fell during that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:09 PM

"I keep my posts short."

Attention span deficit, as when you only read two lines of anybody else's input!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:17 PM

"Some folk seem obsessed with gay sufferers (and of course, they matter) to the exclusion of all the others."

The best description yet, of K A of H and his Egyptian ruler mentor.

That's it Eliza! Homo perverts bad, Hetero sufferers too few to bother with.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:34 PM

Jts, if ake is suggesting that, I have no time for his argument.
I hope you are wrong?

Our answer is below, out hopes are dashed.




"promiscuous male homosexuals, not in a monogamous relationship, and not practicing safe sex"

No, I am at present referring to the MSM demographic which consists solely of "men who have sex with men"....no matter if the definition concerns 1 "man", or 50 "men".....it is YOU who is inaccurate.

Jack, I don't think all homosexuals are in this category, some may be celibate.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:36 PM

"BUT THE REAL NUMBERS OF INFCTIONS WILL BE MANY TIMES HIGHER."

Another unguided missile from the twentieth century Pharaoh with one of the finest minds of the twelfth century.

The above reads as an insupportable supposition that all homosexuals still in the closet are infected.

Anybody who had the slightest interest in the health of gay men would welcome monogamous marriage with open arms, no matter how small the uptake.

I've never had an STD in my life, which I attribute to nearly 50 years of heterosexual marital fidelity.

STDs have never been more prevalent in the hetero community, EXCEPT for the long term married.

Why would the same not be true for gay marriage?

But Ake KNOWS that all gay men are promiscuous, and NO gay men are interested in anything but sexual gratification.

If that were true, gay men would fuck anything that couldn't outrun them, MALE, FEMALE, or KNOT HOLES in a wooden fence.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:38 PM

I give up ake, as my assessment is my attempt at logical discussion with you does not seem to prevail (yes, my weirdo meter just went off).   

Good luck with your (cement-headed) approach of reinterpreting clear statistics for your what "epidemic" cause (note ake,s definition of epidemic, not mine, nor Oxfords) From your comments, (and regardless of what you claims of innocence), my gut now tells me it really cloaks something else (more nasty) underneath, that I don"t want to be part of in a discussion. Peace be with you;) Peace and health to all the gays in the worlds society, also.

JTS, Curious? Why on Earth did you open this thread, considering you are aware that it has been discussed by "the same suspects" before with little tangible result? I suspect you knew it would gather the same discussion with the same cast, like flys to honey, with non-profitable results?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 06:41 PM

Our hopes are dashed.

Akenaton. Please give us one more try to allow you the benefit of the doubt. Please tell me what an epidemic is in your opinion and why if it is an infection rate of 1 in 50 or less why should we be alarmed. Tell us also please why we should be alarmed about monogamous couples and people practicing safe sex no matter what the demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:16 PM

But Ake KNOWS that all gay men are promiscuous, and NO gay men are interested in anything but sexual gratification.

If that were true, gay men would fuck anything that couldn't outrun them, MALE, FEMALE, or KNOT HOLES in a wooden fence.

Saw a bloke in Morrisons the other day walking around with his dick in a toilet roll.

"Well that's fuckin' Charmin", I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 07:19 PM

Please tell me what an epidemic is in your opinion and why if it is an infection rate of 1 in 50 or less why should we be alarmed.

It's about one in 600 this end. We should be concerned. Not scaremongered, just concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Daniellank
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:04 PM

Hello. And Bye.

[url=http://somepaydaylounz.com]mr fitz[/url]

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:16 PM

"Saw a bloke in Morrisons the other day walking around with his dick in a toilet roll.

"Well that's fuckin' Charmin", I though"

Abso-f**Kin'-lutely ULTRA!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Janie
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:30 PM

Probably not of much interest on this thread, or some one would have already posted it, but this is some encouraging science reported today in multiple major news outlets. New Research on potent HIV Antibodies....

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:04 PM

Good news! Janie, thank you for bringing the article to our attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:43 AM

"Epidemic" is a neutral and well defined word.
We are in an HIV epidemic that effects one demographic much more than others.
Troubadour, if there were not undiagnosed infections, there would be no AIDS and no deaths.
Sadly there are many.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:46 AM

Troubadour.

"BUT THE REAL NUMBERS OF INFCTIONS WILL BE MANY TIMES HIGHER."
Another unguided missile from the twentieth century Pharaoh with one of the finest minds of the twelfth century.

The Pharaoh was right and you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:09 AM

Facebook? Twitter?.....Hmmm, there IS intelligence there, "but not as we know it Jim"

Facebook has 350 million members. Twitter around 250 million. Even if 90% of these have accounts on both there is still an impressive number of people. And they are all idiots according to ake. Still, shouldn't be surprised really. Anyone who can label gay men as promiscuous perverts is capable of generalising anything.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:31 AM

Steve Shaw: "Saw a bloke in Morrisons the other day walking around with his dick in a toilet roll."

Been telling certain people for years that they were as dependable as a cardboard rubber.....and now they actually make them???

GfS

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

1,990 people died of AIDS in UK in 2012.
These were people in the prime of their lives whose deaths were wholly preventable by screening.

I know we are all concerned about that, but Akeneaton alone has expressed it.

We have seen on these threads that even a top NHS bureaucrat can be complacent and out of touch on this.

Dismiss what I say, but here is a director of the National Aids Trust saying the same in the Guardian a few weeks ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/14/strategy-needed-hiv-epidemic

Top NHS bureaucrat on Mudcat,
"NAT has little credibility with the NHS at the best of times "

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:16 AM

Of course people care, Keith. Ake says he does, and he may well do, but his 'care package' of tagging and testing is unacceptable. As is his branding of gay men as promiscuous perverts. You do not care for someone by telling them that they are perverts. And yes, the deaths are preventable. As are lots of others. Did you know, for instance, that in 2010 there were 1143 deaths from asthma in UK. 90% of these are likely to have been preventable. All deaths by car accident, sky diving and drug abuse were preventable. Statistics are just figures. It is how you interpret them that matters.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:25 AM

There are other preventable deaths, but this debate is about HIV.

"Statistics are just figures. It is how you interpret them that matters."
Is anyone misinterpreting them?
How?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:38 AM

Sorry to bang on about Africa, but I do have an inside view so to speak. I do know that, even after testing and diagnosis, many people there flatly refuse to do anything about protecting their partners/clients from catching the virus. Because symptoms aren't evident at first, they stick their heads in the sand and pretend all is well. They have a fatalistic view of life in many cases. They are poor, hungry and desperate to make some money. A disease that doesn't flatten them immediately is set to one side for the urgencies of today. The point I'm trying to make is that grinding poverty and deprivation are key elements in the HIV situation. If only one could address that (impossible I know) one would succeed in getting the sufferers to be more proactive in controlling the spread of AIDS.
A man who rented a shanty shack in my in-laws compound used to use prostitutes. His wife accepted this (no choice in their culture) He became very ill, was tested by a charity clinic and found to be HIV positive. He stopped work (rubbish collector) and continued to have sex with his wife. She became ill and then gave birth to a sick baby.
He died and was buried the same day. She took in another man. He became ill too. She died. He moved away. The orphaned baby, (probably HIV positive too) together with their other children, was collected by an elderly 'granny'. This scenario is re-enacted daily in Africa. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:54 AM

No picking up on my points about gay men being labelled promiscuous perverts then, Keith.

Very good points, Eliza.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:06 AM

Eliza, thank you for reminding us about the very different and much worse situation in Africa.

Dave, the rapid spread of HIV requires promiscuity, but most gay men do not get HIV.
Promiscuity is an issue and is relevant to any debate about the infection.
It is not a judgement.
I would have been more promiscuous when I was single if I could have been.

Ake has called no-one a pervert (so why claim it?), but he has described homosexuality as a perversion.
It used to be an accepted description well within living memory.
Most of us no longer describe it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM

Well considering my posts get deleted, as you can be homophobic here but not challenge homophobia it seems, I assume the top NHS bureaucrat gets his or hers deleted before I see them? I work alongside lots of people who can be disparagingly called top NHS bureaucrats, and am fascinated by their intelligence in the face of political pressure, media nonsense, poor care in places and, in this context, scare stories perpetuated by people who don't even have the excuse of looking after shareholders in their newspapers. Must be common or garden bigotry then.

In any event, perhaps Keith can use his hobby of searching for snippets that support his diatribe to find where anybody said "NAT has little credibility with The NHS at the best of times." I'm curious. I have criticised NAT in terms of unrealistic expectation by the way, but that's what pressure groups are for. Their website is an excellent repository of facts and information about the condition. A bit London centric but credible. I fear context is a victim here. And no, not "mistaken" but as ever, maliciously.

As I said before, many times, and despite Keith saying I don't tell the facts, there they are again for The UK;

These figures represent the calendar year 2012. Whilst NHS commissioning bodies have the raw data for the final quarter of 2012/13, they will form part of the 2013 figures. Now The Health Protection agency no longer exists, the successor body aims to harmonise figures to budgeting years to allow harmonised investment in services.

There is an estimate, an official estimate based on prevalence rather than risk, but as good as estimate as any other, that just over 20,000 people could have been sufferers of HIV in The UK and not aware.   During that year, to include both screening and diagnosis from symptom, we picked up 6,360 new cases. Of these, just under half were late stage, or in other words, the prognosis would have been better if they had been picked up earlier, as with any disease or disorder.

We do not know how many people were tested for HIV in that period. We know that the NHS sexual health services, (paid for by The NHS regardless of who supplied it) carried out 903,000 or thereabouts tests, as it can be calculated from invoices to put it crudely. We do not know however the exact number carried out in primary care (GP practices who carry it out rather than referring to sexual health) or most secondary care, where it is one of a range of tests carried out, say, prior to an operation if you fall into a high risk group. Positive tests are in the figures but negative ones can be in bundles of tests, so aren't unpickable if negative. Also, prison testing where the prison service provides the healthcare direct rather than commissioned do not necessarily report the number of actual screening. This is unfortunate as the prison population is very high risk, not only sexually but through needle share and other blood hygiene contraction.

So... If the figures are accurate, which is moot but workable, then it appears that 0.03% of the population may have undiagnosed HIV. 0.15% of the population are living with HIV. More specifically, 0.06% of the population got their infection status through male on male sex, (41,000 men) and of those yet to be diagnosed, the figures suggest a further 7,300.

Now, these figures are awful. But they are not spreading extensively and rapidly, they are not a widespread occurrence at a particular time and whilst those definitions could have been applied to certain clusters at certain times, especially in the '80s, they do not make the public health definition of epidemic. They do, curiously enough, feed into an global pandemic, but western world epidemiology suggests we have contained the spread, if not the risk.

It is however a chronic condition, not only in terms of living with the condition, but that with international travel, migrancy and relocation, it is chronic as it will be with us in a way polio and smallpox aren't.

If you want a success story, it is this. The fact that one in four people with a positive HIV status are over 50, the message is getting through loud and clear. Younger people are more prone to practice safe sex, according to GU services in general and this has a knock on effect for anal sex. The not so good news that cannot be extrapolated from historical prevalence is that audits of colo rectal issues in surgical terms suggests that more young women see anal sex as part and parcel of life, whereas this wasn't the case only a few years ago, and that could identify the next hard to reach group.

Try to read this quickly eh? In a couple of hours, you can read all about how it is a pack of lies.
zzz

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:22 AM

Ake has called no-one a pervert (so why claim it?), but he has described homosexuality as a perversion.

Oh, good grief Keith. I thought you were better than that. A pervert is one who practices a perversion. If homosexuality is a perversion then those who practice homosexuality must be perverts. Surely you do not need that spelling out.

Dave, the rapid spread of HIV requires promiscuity

No it doesn't. At least not my definition of promiscuity. If one person infects two others then each of those two infect two others and so on it will be a binary multiplication, which it is not. The first person has had 2 partners. The second and subsequent ones have only 3. 3 partners, promiscuous? How does that fit with the above statement?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:46 AM

Dave, the more promiscuity, the faster the spread.
It is an issue along with condoms, mouth dams, PrEP, and all the other factors relationg to transmission.

On emotive subjects I think we should avoid "He said X so he must mean Y"
Why not stick to what is actually said?
Not damaging enough?

Musket, the quote, "NAT has little credibility with the NHS at the best of times " was tacked on the end of this very long post.
The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket - PM
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 08:06 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:52 AM

Musket, from NAT,

"Awareness of symptoms of HIV is poor amongst
health professionals and at risk communities. There
are repeated failures to diagnose people, with
symptoms and indicators of HIV being ignored or
missed - over half of people diagnosed in 2010 were
diagnosed late, after the stage that treatment should
have begun. For this reason more needs to be done
to ensure health professionals and communities at
risk recognise symptoms of HIV infection, including
early symptoms, so they know when to test. "

"Yet despite this, the testing rates amongst gay and
bisexual men and Africans are still far too low - the
numbers of gay and bisexual men who reported
'ever testing' for HIV in a 2008 survey was only 75%,
with a far lower number testing in the last twelve
months (as recommended in NICE guidelines).5

Amongst Africans, a 2008/09 survey found that 40%
of Africans had never tested for HIV."

"Partner notification, the process of contacting the
sexual partners of someone diagnosed with HIV,
is a highly effective way of getting people tested
and diagnosed. Audits show up to 37% of partners
traced and tested through this process were
diagnosed HIV positive as a result.7
Despite this, the
role of partner notification in prevention and testing
is neglected and under resourced;"
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/Oct-2012-HIV-a-strategy-for-success.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:16 AM

Yes.

Your point?

I said they are a pressure group and a very respected one at that. As are most healthcare awareness bodies. Their credibility outside of London is less tangible though as they lobby for national solutions to local issues. Their funding is largely from Trust for London, which does a sterling job of pointing out London based inequality.

Not so relevant in a prison in Northumberland where by just being there you stand a far greater chance of becoming a sufferer.   The large city I am sitting in at present has a way below average African descent population so again, their solutions are not terribly helpful here if their ideas were taken on board nationally.

They are an excellent organisation and I have spoken at conferences they put on, representing the commissioning side of things. I have also taken them to task both with them and in my blog as an example of London solutions for national issues. (Together with, to be fair, the NHS consultant contract, cancer registries and centralised planning of major trauma centres, but I digress as ever.)

Why do you insist on this? Why do you analyse and denounce everybody who doesn't demonise gay people yet support the lies, false facts and bigotry of Akenaton?

Why do you say you "support" gay marriage?

Why do you insist on scare mongering statistics to support the idea of society "doing something" about gay lifestyle?

Read up the thread. It isn't just me who has rumbled you and your little friend. Even Jack seems to have stopped calling him "old fashioned" at long last.

Disturbing reading. Disturbing indeed.

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

It is not scaremongering to quote relevant statistics.
It is being honest about the situation.
Why do you seek to suppress the facts?

You said, " But they are not spreading extensively and rapidly, they are not a widespread occurrence at a particular time and whilst those definitions could have been applied to certain clusters at certain times, especially in the '80s, they do not make the public health definition of epidemic."

PHE refers to it as an "epidemic" in their latest published report, as do all other public health bodies.

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

It is "disturbing," "disturbing indeed" that someone in your position is so complacent and out of touch with the reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:36 AM

Dave, the more promiscuity, the faster the spread.

Not quite the same as 'requires promiscuity' is it Keith?

On emotive subjects I think we should avoid "He said X so he must mean Y"

Agreed, but this is not the case here. One can either say that homosexuality is a perversion or that homosexuals are perverts. Most people understand that both versions are the same. What you are doing is just playing with words.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:36 AM

I am working in a sexual health clinic at present, I am a registrar.

At the team meeting early this morning, I gave the technical side of a news story concerning the breakthrough in HIV shielding using gene therapy. There is a very good balanced article on The BBC News website at present under health.

One of the staff told me that the comments in BBC Have your Say include many people stating that such research is wrong as it "could lead to rampant homosexuality." Some of the more odious posts had disappeared when I took a second look after 1st clinic.

I'll tell you what, there are more wild interpretations of data and even more false figures being used there. Some of the supporters of homophobia on this thread are mere amateurs compared to the disgraceful behaviour The BBC are entertaining at present. They do eventually delete homophobic postss though, which is more than I see here. (Or don't see, if they did.)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:38 AM

I have quoted stats. only from PHE report.
Which ones are "scaremongering" and should be hidden?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:45 AM

The gene therapy story is good news.
It holds out the prospect of a cure one day.

As with current treatment, it will only save lives if screening identifies the virus in time.

Thanks for the info that there are ignorant people out there, some of whom right to BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:46 AM

...or even write to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:00 AM

"...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:01 AM

Dave a few days ago I put up an extract including this.

"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"
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/hiv-continues-to-spread-among-gay-men-studies-show/

If it is OK for "HIV experts" to consider promiscuity as a factor, why is it wrong for Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:05 AM

Scaremongering eh?

Well, let's see now. You have the figures, I have the figures.

With me so far?

The worm said "but the real numbers of infections will be many times higher." Troubadour questioned this (calling him Pharoh) and you replied, wait for it...

"The Pharoh was right and you are wrong."

You see, that's what gets me. You have no clue whatsoever what you say. Your ignorance on most subjects is not a problem as I am sure most members are more accommodating than you could ever be, yet even when you do not know what you are talking about, you insist on telling people they are wrong and you are right.

It would be bad enough if you were right. That would just make you a boorish person who needs to be avoided, especially socially. But being out your depth is just the start of it. There is nothing random about your lack of knowledge. You insist on repeating nonsense only when it fits a right wing bigoted cause. Gay issues, HIV, Israel, WW1, religion......

By the way, look up epidemic in the sense of epidemiology would you? There's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:10 AM

If it is OK for "HIV experts" to consider promiscuity as a factor, why is it wrong for Ake?

Now who is using words that were not said? Who has said that promiscuity is not a factor? It is a factor. Just not the only one.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:23 AM

I cannot work out whether you are being ironic Mr Hertford.

Judging by your posts, I put you firmly in the camp of those whose attitudes sadden me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:34 AM

A word to the wise SC, you should have started that last post by shouting 300!

It impresses the locals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:37 AM

Dave, what did Ake do but state that multiple partners was a factor?
He has certainly not stated it was the only factor.

Musket, remember about 22000 people have undiagnosed HIV.
That is what I was referring to.

Instead of me looking up a definition of "epidemic," how about you asking all those public health bodies why they call it an epidemic?
Are you saying that all those health professionals "should know better" like what you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:42 AM

I think one of us has lost track, Keith. The question was

Who has said that promiscuity is not a factor?

Your answer was

Dave, what did Ake do but state that multiple partners was a factor?

Which makes no sense to me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:49 AM

Perhaps I have lost track Dave.
Sorry.
What exactly are you accusing Ake of saying about promiscuity?
He has said it was a factor, and it is.
He has not said it was the only factor.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:02 AM

I am accusing ake of is attempting to stereotype gay men as promiscuous perverts and of pushing an agenda that would demonise them further. That is what I have always said.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:10 AM

""Policymakers need to adopt Treatment as Prevention as a national strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, urges researchers at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE) in an article published this month in HIV Medicine.

New HIV diagnoses in British Columbia are continuing to decline at a rate faster than in other Canadian regions, report researchers after analyzing Health Canada data from 1995 to 2011.

"British Columbia, of all Canadian jurisdictions, has had the largest decline in the rate of new HIV diagnoses and in lifetime costs averted over the study period," write the authors, who include Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the BC-CfE, and Dr. Robert Hogg, director of the Epidemiology and Population Health Program at the BC-CfE. "Further efforts are needed to optimize the potential impact of Treatment as Prevention in the whole of Canada."

B.C., where the Treatment as Prevention strategy was pioneered and implemented, is the only province to promote widespread and fully government-supported access to HIV testing and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). As a result, B.C. has seen HIV-related morbidity and mortality decline by approximately 90 per cent since the early 1990s, and the number of new HIV diagnoses has fallen from approximately 800 per year prior in 1996 to 238 in 2012.

"The consistent and sustained decrease in new HIV diagnoses in B.C. reinforces Treatment as Prevention as a highly effective approach in the fight against HIV/AIDS," said Dr. Montaner. "The evidence should be absolutely clear: Treatment as Prevention is the best way to achieve an HIV- and AIDS-free generation. It's time for Canada's leaders to emulate the government of B.C. and adopt this as the national strategy to stop HIV/AIDS."

In Canada, there are an estimated 71,300 individuals living with HIV. While annual rates of new HIV diagnoses declined slightly in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, B.C. demonstrated the most significant decline between 1995 and 2011, from 18.05 to 6.49 per 100,000 population. In comparison, rates in Saskatchewan increased from 2.76 to 16.17 per 100,000 population, and in Manitoba they increased from 4.52 to 6.53 per 100,000 population. Rates of new HIV diagnoses in Alberta and in the Territories remained constant over the study period, demonstrating neither an increase nor a decrease.

It is estimated that B.C. has averted $3.06 million per 100,000 population in lifetime costs for averted cases of HIV infection since 1996, compared to $1.38 million and $432,000, respectively, for Ontario and Quebec. In contrast, it is estimated Saskatchewan and Manitoba have incurred an additional cost of $2.06 million and $956,000, respectively, per 100,000 population for the increase in new cases since 1996.

"The evidence we reviewed really demonstrates further efforts are needed to optimize the potential impact of Treatment as Prevention in the whole of Canada," said Dr. Hogg. "We should look at what has been accomplished in British Columbia and apply those lessons to other jurisdictions without further delay." The World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have adopted the Treatment as Prevention strategy, as have other jurisdictions throughout the world, including China and, most recently, France. In addition, the U.S. has identified Treatment as Prevention as a key strategy to achieve an AIDS-free generation.""







BC at leading edge

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:17 AM

Don't worry Dave, he has just tried a similar trick above. I'm not biting though. I have already said that it is a pandemic and that it has been an epidemic here, although the epidemiological definition in terms of infectious viral conditions makes it a chronic rather than notifiable epidemic.

Some groups, mainly religious and far right groups tend to scaremonger because epidemic is an emotive word. Breast cancer is far more prevalent and rising faster, but we don't use the word.

Semantics.

But with a purpose.

And not always a nice one.



The World Health Organisation has a bit to say about pandemic / epidemic of course, and I was at one of their conferences the other day as it happens, talking about something different but I sat in on a HIV session. It calls The UK situation "relatively small" and also notes the increase in prevalence in line with the increase in screening and recognition of the condition. (Sadly, many substance misuse sufferers died of other conditions and still do without knowing that another time bomb was waiting.)

The scaremongering on this website fails to point out the increase through effective screening or the evidence for such a claim. Basically, in 1995, 1,723 people died of AIDS in The UK, whilst in 2012, it has fallen to 490. This has no bearing on the prevalence of HIV but is evidence for the success of screening, and increased screening picks up more cases earlier. Still, if you are picked up and go onto antiretrovirals soon enough, your life expectancy will be statistically 13 years less than if you hadn't contracted it.

Gay men and black heterosexual men are the statistically most at risk, and heterosexual younger women are the unmet need risk for future consideration. Prior to 1995, there were six times as many men diagnosed than women. Today, it has gone to twice as many. The number of women living with HIV is increasing in The UK, only 2.1 male sufferers to every female suffer, compared to 6 to 1 a few years ago. But let's not forget, there are far greater risks to public health. The reason this is still in the news years after western health services got a handle on it, is that it is an excuse to hate gay people for something they aren't even a majority with, but they were years ago before we realised the issue. The excellent responsible attitude of most gay men who are sexually active has helped get us to this situation.

The "dramatic" increase in people living with HIV in The UK since the '90s is good news, not bad. The operative word is "living."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:23 AM

Dave, you can accuse him of attempting to stereotype gay men as promiscuous, but he has never said anything to justify that.
It is one factor in transmission is all he has ever said.
It is a factor in hetero transmission too.

He still refers to homosexuality as a perversion.
I agree that is not helpful.
It is not quite the same as calling gay people perverts.
He states that he has warm relationships with gay people, which you would not have with someone you regard as a pervert.

Why can we not just address what people actually say, not what we infer them to mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM

Musket, breast cancer is not infectious.

From the latest published PHE report on HIV,
"In the UK, the epidemic is largely concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM) and black-African heterosexual men and women. "

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:32 AM

One main reason for Canada's significant progress in HIV is this program in BC (below), where they have had VG success without regressive "round up and brand all those homos, pard" right-wing approaches.

The very "right-wing" federal conservative government (in power in Canada since 2006), not the left-leaning liberal party, nor the socialist NDP party, has not embraced this "successful program" nationally, as the approach has been recently adopted in other countries.


""Made-in-Canada HIV strategy embraced internationally — but not here
A made-in-Canada strategy for fighting HIV/AIDS is being embraced internationally, but Ottawa refuses to adopt it.

The Treatment as Prevention strategy, pioneered in B.C., calls for the immediate provision of highly effective antiretroviral therapy to those living with HIV.
By: Julio Montaner Published on Sun Dec 01 2013

As Canadians, we should be proud on World AIDS Day that our country is the birthplace of a pioneering strategy that significantly reduces HIV transmission rates, improves and saves the lives of those infected, and saves public health dollars. At the same time, it's shameful that this scientifically proven program — supported by the government of British Columbia — is being adopted internationally but not in Canada.

The Treatment as Prevention strategy, pioneered in B.C., calls for widespread HIV testing and immediate provision of highly effective antiretroviral therapy to those living with HIV. Such treatment can eliminate progression of HIV infection to AIDS and premature death, and significantly decrease the amount of virus in the blood and sexual fluids, thereby stopping transmission of HIV.

This past week, the government of B.C. and the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS signed a memorandum of understanding with China to extend the use of the Canadian strategy in that country. The agreement marks the formalization of a strong three-year relationship with China, the first country to adopt Treatment as Prevention as its national HIV/AIDS policy. Earlier this year, China announced that it had surpassed its HIV detection and treatment goals since adopting Treatment as Prevention.

Meanwhile, B.C. remains the only jurisdiction in Canada to use this strategy and promote widespread and fully government-supported access to HIV testing and life-saving drug therapy. And, importantly, B.C. remains the only province to demonstrate a significant and consistent decline in new cases of HIV.

In contrast to a growing list of countries and international organizations, Ottawa has chosen not to adopt Treatment as Prevention as the national strategy to fight HIV and AIDS. This short-sighted approach has led Canadian provinces to unnecessarily carry the burden of new infections and costs. According to new research, there is no material decrease in HIV rates in Canada outside of B.C. Annual rates of new HIV diagnoses in Saskatchewan and Manitoba increased; rates remained unchanged in Alberta and in the Territories; and rates declined only slightly in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

China is no longer the only country embracing our made-in-B.C. Treatment as Prevention model. In October, France and Brazil both announced adoption of the strategy as their national policies. And the World Health Organization fully incorporated Treatment as Prevention in their new Global HIV Treatment Guidelines.

The U.S. has also identified ours as a key strategy to achieve an AIDS-free generation. This month, U.S. senators and members of Congress from both parties signed a letter asking Barack Obama to strengthen his support for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, chiefly around the issue of Treatment as Prevention. Even at a time when the economy and partisan politics are consuming the domestic agenda, the U.S. has placed a priority on increasing the number of people on treatment from six million to 12 million worldwide by 2016.

Avoiding a national strategy costs all Canadians, financially, physically and emotionally. Research by the Canadian AIDS Society suggests the lifetime cost of each HIV infection is more than $425,000, including health care costs and lost productivity.

The case for support is very simple.

Every year, 3,300 men and women in Canada are diagnosed with HIV. An estimated 71,300 Canadians are now living with HIV, a number that could double within the next 15 years if the current rate of new infections continues and treatment is not expanded across Canada.

The federal government has a unique opportunity to turn around the HIV epidemic at all levels of Canadian society, if it implements Treatment as Prevention as a national strategy. We estimate Canada can realize a decrease in new HIV infections by at least 90 per cent in just five years if we fully implement this strategy.

It can be done; we're doing it in B.C. If we can mobilize nationally and successfully to address issues like SARS, H1N1 and other pandemic diseases, we can do the same with HIV and AIDS.

The choice is ours. It's time for Canada's leaders to emulate the government of B.C. and adopt this as the national strategy to stop HIV/AIDS.

Dr. Julio Montaner is director of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the Chair in AIDS Research and Head of Division of AIDS in the Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, and past president of the International AIDS Society.""

Source

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:48 AM

Semantics, Keith. I have never said I am short, fat, bald and bearded but the name Gnome implies it. I interpret what ake has said one way. You interpret it another. Don't expect me, or many others, to agree with your interpretation.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:58 AM

Well fuck me professor!

Sorry you can't understand irony. Are you sure it isn't Hartford rather than Hertford? In any case, infection is not a prerequisite. Obesity isn't an infection unless you catch pork pies by tongue kissing a big lass. But it is reaching epidemic proportions, (HPA, touché). Burning your arse on the lightbulb isn't either but you can catch it from obesity in the same way.

Yes, you can read the word epidemic, but because we have a pedantic mischief making fool on this thread, I insist that the word is taken in context rather than in the emotive sense. HIV is certainly not a widespread occurrence in a single community at a particular time when relating to The UK at this time.

In public health terms, the word is used in the noun sense. In the media, it is an an adjective.

The adjective is more emotive hence the worm found it a scare word to use.

I note you find his words unhelpful. The legislation on inciting hatred and the Equalities Act both have words similar to unhelpful, (or Jack's unfortunate "old fashioned") but they tend to have other ways to describe those who spread malicious distorted and plain untrue information to justify taking action against sections of the community for reasons of bigotry.

I'd tell you what they are, but I like to see my posts posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:07 AM

"There are other preventable deaths, but this debate is about HIV.

"Statistics are just figures. It is how you interpret them that matters."
Is anyone misinterpreting them?
How? "

You're kidding right?

By Ake's figures, 1 in 79 of the demographic is being infected per year. But he doesn't bother with that math. He calls that "alarming" that the PERCENTAGE of all those infected is majority MSM, but he ignores the fact that the entire group is only a few thousand people per year.

He says people living with AIDS is part of the "epidemic" those number in the 10s of thousands. But 10s of millions are living with chicken pox. Where is the alarm?

Keith I don't think EPIDEMIC is well defined at all. Would you care to look at the numbers and tell us how an infection rate of 1 in 79 indicates an epidemic on such a scale the the entire population needs to be sanctioned, tested and denied equal rights under the law?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:16 AM

Dave, the rapid spread of HIV requires promiscuity

No it doesn't. At least not my definition of promiscuity. If one person infects two others then each of those two infect two others and so on it will be a binary multiplication, which it is not. The first person has had 2 partners. The second and subsequent ones have only 3. 3 partners, promiscuous? How does that fit with the above statement?

IT IS NOT SPREADING ALL THAT FAST!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:48 AM

Interesting health site

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:35 AM

Jack, epidemic is exactly defined and is used correctly by health professionals and here by Ake.
Musket is wrong to claim it means different things in different places!

Dave I agree about interpretations, but I think we should only respond to what people actually say, and not by our own subjective interpretations of what they might have meant.
What Ake has actually said is that he does not regard gay people as perverts, and that not all are promiscuous, some being celibate and some monogamous.
No interpretation required.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:43 AM

Jack, if health professionals and "HIV experts" state that multiple partners is a factor in the over-representation of MSM, you can not vilify Ake merely for repeating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

Jack, epidemic is exactly defined and is used correctly by health professionals and here by Ake.

Please answer my question.

>>>Jack, if health professionals and "HIV experts" state that multiple partners is a factor in the over-representation of MSM, you can not vilify Ake merely for repeating it. <<<

Ake is arguing that that over representation means that there is and EPIDEMIC and that all MSM are to be tested whether they have multiple partners or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 12:50 PM

Err. Keith. You said health professionals use the term properly then you said I didn't. Make your mind up. I am not a healthcare professional but I am a professional in healthcare so either quote me or deny me. You can't have it both ways. Less than half public health specialists are healthcare professionals, but all are professionals working in healthcare. Stop purposely confusing matters to make me look an idiot. I'm not.

HIV spread was an epidemic that turned into a pandemic in the '80s. It is still an issue and we still refer to the epidemic that has left us with this present situation.

I don't know who this Musket is who you tells you it means different things in different places but this Musket said it has chronic epidemic status. I also differentiated between the noun and adjective use, causing you to embarrass yourself by not understanding and thinking I called a cancer an epidemic in the public health sense. I used it purely because the HPA used it in that different sense, prat. Don't quote what you don't understand!

Epidemic is only exactly defined as "of interest to epidemiology." I gave a healthcare definition of widespread occurrence within a single community at a given time. HIV is not an epidemic in that sense. It retains the term due to it having that status in the past and not eradicated yet. Hence chronic epidemic.

It is also exactly defined by Akenaton and yourself. The less said about that the better. Society deserves better than your shocking slurs. Akenaton merely repeating is about as innocent as Orange Lodge members "walking on The Queen's pavement" and designed to be just as nasty towards a whole section of society.

Bigots are bigots. Reason doesn't stand a chance, so I feel bad for giving them opportunity to repeat their awful wishes to round people up for being perverted and, as Akenaton so eloquently put it, against natural law.   What did he mean by that Keith?

Eh?

You say listen to what he says?

He said gay marriage is a liberal plot.

He said gay people are perverts.

He suggested they are forced to be tested for HIV.

He suggested other gay people could ensure they present for registration.

He said they are against natural law.

He said they are against Christian teaching.

Your move.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:51 PM

jack, if the whole MSM demographic was affected by HIV, it would only account for 1 in 100 of the whole population.
Would that mean that no swift and serious action should be taken to stop the "epidemic" amongst MSM?

To suggest that is ridiculous. I said already that in percentage terms, HIV is almost exclusively a disease of male homosexuality, in the UK and US.
Although new infections are only slightly higher for MSM, in real numbers, the percentage rates are massively different....and the percentage rates are what matter to male homosexuals.

If infection rates continue to rise in the MSM demographic at present rates, some real action will become imperative.
This demographic cannot wait for "education education", they have been immersed in "education" for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:55 PM

IT IS NOT SPREADING ALL THAT FAST!!

I know it isn't, Jack. Which is why I said "and so on it will be a binary multiplication, which it is not". Probably a little unclear but I meant the spread is not as rapid as people are making out.

I think we should only respond to what people actually say

Sorry, Keith. Absolutely not. Do you believe everything that people say? How about stories that start 'I'm no racist but...' How about the email that says you have inherited £20 million? I am sure a certain chancellor Hitler did not say he was going to exterminate 6 million people. You cannot take what people say, or do not say, at face value and cannot, therefore, objectively respond to it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM

sket: "Eh?

You say listen to what he says?

He said gay marriage is a liberal plot.

He said gay people are perverts.

He suggested they are forced to be tested for HIV.

He suggested other gay people could ensure they present for registration.

He said they are against natural law.

He said they are against Christian teaching.

Your move."

Eh?

You say don't listen to what he says?

He said gay marriage isn't a liberal plot.

He said gay people aren't perverts.

He suggested they aren't forced to be tested for HIV.

He suggested no gay people could ensure they present for registration.

He said they are natural law.

He said they aren't against Christian teaching.

Your move.

Is there a point somewhere in all this???...or just more blathering back and forth?

GUEST,Ed T: "...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington

Great post!!!!
That same tactic is used all the time in here....and to those who employ it, it is patently dishonest!
I know one person in particular, who has been called REPEATEDLY by myself and several other posters on this very thing....note: it is a dishonest ploy and used by deceptive promoters of bullshit agendas, who, if they were being straight up and honest, nobody would buy into their nonsense...they have to rely on dodging the FACTS of the issue, and resort to trickery, to play on the emotions of the consensus!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

Jack, I am not clear what question you want me to answer.

Musket, you said HIV was not an epidemic but it is.
You were wrong.

Dave if someone starts "I am not a racist but" and says something racist, I would judge him a racist by what he actually said.

If he said "I am not a racist but" and then said nothing racist, I have no way of seeing into his soul and reading his thoughts to judge him a racist and would not.

What has Ake actually said by which you judge him?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

GfS I haven't misrepresented Ake's argument. I have said that he has not shown that HIV is a current epidemic in that demographic and that he has not shown a relationship between same-sex marriage and high infection rates in 1 to 2 percent (far less than 1% if i don't use his figures) of the Gay male population.

It is getting harder and harder to say that he is not a bigot even though I think it is still not polite to berate him.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:18 PM

What has Ake actually said by which you judge him?

Something specific? Homosexuality is against nature, is perverted and is a sin in the eyes of God. Plenty of evidence if you look. Most else is implied but pretty obvious.

If he said "I am not a racist but" and then said nothing racist

That is complete twaddle and you know it. No-one would ever say "I'm not a racist but" if they did not believe the comment following could not be construed as racist. If it can be construed as racist, it will be offensive to someone.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:43 PM

Ake is an atheist so I am sure he did not say all those things.
Has he ever said anything derogatory about gay people?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:52 PM

Jack, I DONT think there is a relationship between homosexual "marriage" and infection rates.

What makes you say that?....There must be some confusion.

ED et al... IF there is an epidemic amongst MSM, and I believe there is.... along with every authority who's conclusions I have studied, there are bound to be a large number of that demographic who are infected, but undiagnosed.
The only way to find these infectious and undiagnosed people is to increase testing and contact tracing.
This is the case, whether I happen to be a bigot, a homophobe, a racist, a witch, or any other term of abuse you wish to employ, to cover the paucity of your argument.

Abusing me personally does not improve your case in reference to HIV infection rates among MSM.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:52 PM

You must have come across real homophobes.

A real homophobe would say, "They don't get tested, so let them die"
A real homophobe would not advocate effort and expense to save their lives.

When I said I would do all in my power to enforce testing on my sons if they were high risk, no-one suggested that was evidence I hated my sons.

It is a long time since Ake has mentioned compulsory testing.
Since then he has advocated opt-out testing and contact tracing.
What is your latest thinking Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:58 PM

>>Jack, I DONT think there is a relationship between homosexual "marriage" and infection rates.

What makes you say that?....There must be some confusion.<<

Fantastic! So that is NOT the reason that you oppose Same-sex marriage. So you will not bring up HIV in relation to Same-sex marriage from now on? FANTASTIC!!!

So what about this idea that you have that 1 in 79 getting infected per year is an "alarming epidemic" that must be addressed by treating all MSM people the same and requiring uniform testing and registration?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:14 PM

1 in 79 would be over 700 000 a year for the general population UK.
That would be considered quite worrying.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:34 PM

Even more worrying for male homosexuals, if 56% came from the MSM demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:54 PM

I don't think for a moment, that homosexual "marriage" will have any effect, for good or ill on HIV infection rates.
The MSM rates are rising in countries which have had Civil Union or homosexual "marriage" for years, uptake rates are low, and being "married" does not mean being monogamous.
Apparently homosexual "marriages" are often "open marriages" where partner exchange is encouraged. I believe that generally, this is a symptom of the fact that homosexuals are unable to produce their own children or an extended family structure.....which IMO is the reason that most heterosexual couples generally remain monogamous.

I see "GAY MARRIAGE" as a political construct, to bolster a bankrupt "liberalist" agenda, the whole idea being promoted by the news and entertainment media, to a confused and dumbed down audience of children.....of all ages.

The unfortunate advent of "gay marriage" bears no relation to the ever worsening infection rates in the MSM demographic, which seem to continue to rise regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:02 PM

Ake is an atheist so I am sure he did not say all those things.

Tell you what. Let's ask. Ake - Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:09 PM

You are quite correct Keith, I said further up the thread, that I thought compulsion was "probably unworkable", and I have also said that the homosexual agencies like Stonewall,Terence Higgins, etc should be promoting the idea of three monthly testing for all sexually active male homosexuals and contact testing is tests prove positive. I believe that in time, this course of action will encourage an attitude, that to be sexual active in that demographic and NOT be regularly tested for HIV, would be socially unacceptable.

Increased testing and contact tracing in this demographic, is the only way forward in the fight against HIV.

Politics should not be brought into the sphere of Public Health!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:15 PM

Increased testing and contact tracing in this demographic, is the only way forward in the fight against HIV.

Did you not read the article that Keith posted stating otherwise? And once again: Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?

I am glad you have accepted that compulsory testing is 'probably unworkable'. A step in the right direction anyway.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:31 PM

Dave....Why are you here?   Have you no positive contribution to make to this thread, other than try to prove what a bigot, homophobe, racist, witch etc, I am?

Even if you could prove that I was a "bad" person, what difference would that make to the issue under discussion?

Address the facts of the issue as presented, try to form a counter argument and put it forward in a way that may change the outlook of your opponents......negativity and personal attacks make you look weak and stupid.....I know you are neither of these things, but there are more people reading these threads, than actually post here.

I have probably had a much more basic education than you, but I still make an effort to provide a reasoned response to point brought up, even by those who see this discussion in personal terms.

I have stopped responding to only two people here, not because of their views, which oppose my own, but because they are stalkers and vicious trolls.

I'm sure you can make an excellent contribution if you just relax and give it a go. You appear at least, to have an interest in the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:25 PM

Increased testing and contact tracing in this demographic, is the only way forward in the fight against HIV.
Did you not read the article that Keith posted stating otherwise?

If you mean NAT, they were advocating testing and contact tracing.
I think Stonewall and Terence Higgins are saying the same, certainly about testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:29 PM

DtG: "Tell you what. Let's ask. Ake - Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?"

"Tell you what. Let's ask. Ake - Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural?"

Unnatural in which regards?? For procreation, yeah....for a way to get your rocks off, to an 'understanding partner', no. For people who do not regard their inner being worth passing down, no...it's 'normal'...it's normal for people who are 'reproductively impaired' because of emotional issues.....and for so-called liberals, who need yet another tool at making the natural nuclear family, something to be scorned, and disrespected... and to create a bias against a traditional nuclear family...but then those who have a bias against a traditional nuclear family, who cares what they think??!! For those who'd like to discourage a traditional nuclear family, they must have either an unhappy childhood, or a retarded political agenda...in which case, homosexuality would be something to defend...which they do.
People recognizing this, the value of a traditional nuclear family, does it make them a 'bigot' or 'homophobic'?..fuck no...It may just mean that they have a focus on the family, as a naturally produced, and cared for family...it doesn't mean they hate anybody....Do those who accuse people, who normally don't think a lot about homosexuals, of being some flavor of 'hater'...THEY are the haters!..They are hoping for validation, and HATE the thought of other people thinking that they are full of shit..unless they are validated!

DtG: "Do you believe it is a perversion?"

Depends on what they are trying to legitimize!

DtG: "Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?"

Why wouldn't they want to? There's homosexual dating websites..they register onto that.....but not for health reasons????
You'd think anyone in their right mind, who had different sexual partners would WANT to, either be screened, or their next potential sex partner screened. Why would anyone oppose that???? You'd think that they'd be insisting on it...and volunteering to have it done....
but I started that premise with, "You'd think anyone in their right mind,...."

Which pretty much sums up the logic employed by the political blinders, that is killing them!!!

Ake, Does that pretty much sum it up?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:41 PM

Let me ask a couple of simple questions here:   suppose a gay man feels, correctly, that he is disease free and does not want or need to be tested.

What are you going to do with him? Send out a couple of bully-boys to grab him, hog-tie him, and drag him into a testing facility?

And how are you going to know that this particular man is gay?

Are you going to require him to register as "homosexual?"

(Why do I hear the echoing sound of jackboots?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:16 AM

Don, no-one is now advocating compulsory testing.
Ake has read and thought on all that has been posted by yourself and others, and revised his view on it.

That does not happen very often on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:28 AM

1. Keith said there is an epidemic and claimed I said otherwise. Sadly he said it only a couple if posts after I explained why the term epidemic is still used, despite the situation in The UK not hitting the infection spread test of the word.

2. Akenaton just said that apparently gay marriages (or "marriages" in his awful wording) are open marriages with multiple partners.

Instead of finding new ways to define epidemic Keith, you might help us with your sanitised definition of sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:05 AM

"2. Akenaton just said that apparently gay marriages (or "marriages" in his awful wording) are open marriages with multiple partners."

I belong to a fairly large organization (several hundred members) where there happen to be, coincidentally, several same-sex couples. These couples, I know, have been together--monogamously--for several years, and when same-sex marriage became legal in Washington State, they immediately went out and got married. None of them are "open marriages with multiple partners."

And a member of the writers' group to which my wife and I belong has been living with the same partner for several years. They just got married.

What Ake said is simply not the case.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:40 AM

Musket, you have said,
" When Akenhateon says the epidemic (there isn't one by any definition)"

" they do not make the public health definition of epidemic."

I have quoted Public Health England describing it as an epidemic, and I can quote NHS Choices, National Aids Trust and any agency you like saying it is without any qualifier like "chronic."

No-one has ever said it is a "notifiable" epidemic, just an epidemic.

Someone in your position might be expected to know the meaning and usage of "epidemic" but you have shown us that you do not.
Akeneaton used the word correctly, and did not deserve to be attacked over it.
An apology is owed.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:18 AM

Thanks Keith.... and Sanity(very good post)
Busy right now will post later.    Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:41 AM

Oh yeah? You want me to apologise to Akenaton?

That's an amazing slur on my character. How, why, should or even could anybody apologise to someone who states the most despicable outrageous homophobic lies and hatred? That's assuming there is something to apologise for. I apologise to anybody who is hurt by reading his posts. I did try to get them taken down, but freedom to upset people is in the rules Jack kindly keeps repeating apparently. Must be in the small print.

Perhaps you should be the one apologising for defending the indefensible? Keith A Hole of Hertford would like to say something. Over to you Keith?

You should be more like Keith A of Hertford who keeps saying he likes to correct things that are stated wrongly. He might want to start with the dark disturbing comments of Akenaton that he glosses over without challenge, whilst decent people get their comments analysed to the extent of twisting every word they says in order to cast doubt. Is the real you like the Mudcat character you portray? Can he sleep at night?

And whilst you are at it, if you tried to analyse his words instead of the words of decent well adjusted people, your moral authority might not be so low as to be swept up with the other rubbish.

By the way, "epidemic" is, in relation to UK HIV prevalence exactly what I said it is. The website you read the authority of that statement is Mudcat.org. The person behind Musket is as good a source of public health information as any in that regard. You read enough to pass a few tests as to your knowledge, (such as cancer and notifiable, used correctly but worded to need clarification,) so I can only conclude your participation on this debate is purely to defend hatred. As you read "official" websites and draw wrong conclusions, I can't help you. I can ensure other people reading this website aren't drawn in by your attempts to justify homophobia and bigotry though.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:59 AM

Public Health England
"In the UK, the epidemic is largely concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM) and black-African heterosexual men and women."
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317140300680

National Aids Trust
"in tackling the HIV epidemic both globally and in the UK."
"as a national epidemic HIV needs to be addressed nationally. "
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/Oct-2012-HIV-a-strategy-for-success.pdf

NHS Choices
"a promising new strategy to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic."

http://www.health-friends.org/Article/459

"The person behind Musket is as good a source of public health information as any in that regard."

It is easier to believe that all those renowned agencies are right and you are talking bollocks again.
You were the source of information that told us hetero infections were rising, and MSM infections were still less than half the total.

You are an ignorant, ill-informed person who boasts about how "fucking important" he is, and demands to be believed over the recognised experts in the field.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:01 AM

So, Keith. I think this summarises what just happened. I asked ake the following questions Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males? I got no answers but I did get a reply including Dave....Why are you here? and I have probably had a much more basic education than you. Now, why bring up my right to be on the thread and why use education as an excuse? It is in every politicians toolbox; when you don't want to answer a question, change the subject. Can you see why I do not take ake's words at face value?

As to If you mean NAT, they were advocating testing and contact tracing. No. I didn't mean NAT. I meant the link you provided that summarised the Lancet's papers in a Time Magazine article that said 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 you felt 'vindicated my stance on education.

Ake. What do you mean by 'a more basic education'. What makes you think mine was any different to yours? Why bring it up anyway?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:33 AM

Hang on, just popped back to see how Keith's apology worked out..

Err... Not much of an apology is it Keith? I didn't ask for my words to be twisted again. I am getting somewhat bored with that.

I'll check again later. You get WiFi on the train, (off up to Och Aye the Noo land later) and his deep apology will be nice to read.

I'm sure he is working on it.

A pity he thinks I am important. I'm not really. I support important people though and give them the space to work, including many behind the websites he keeps repeating. It would be funny if there wasn't such a sinister agenda behind his rants. Funny how when I say something I am lying but when he reads exactly what I say on a website it is true? But I'm still a liar... On anything else I'd laugh and shake my head as I do with his silly Israeli or WW1 nonsense, but healthcare, even though I am not speaking in my day job persona, I still cannot put up with such dangerous talk that vilifies sections of society. We should speak up and put it down, looking the other way just encourages them. Healthcare is a very wide subject and there are no black and white definitive because it is delivered by methods other than dogma. Protocols are about as far as it gets, because there are two sides to every story with a valid third tugging away. The dichotomy of providing health statistics in a spirit of candour and openness and the risk of people drawing inferences or insisting on unhelpful words as official or authoritative to defend a viewpoint.. It is a well worn dichotomy and helps fill a few newspapers. It shouldn't fill adult debate though.

You can get help Keith. Just don't expect me to have any sympathy. You don't have the defence of ignorance like you mate does. Pig ignorance maybe, but not ignorance. You know exactly what you are saying and why. That's why you should be ashamed of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 05:01 AM

" I am fucking important. Important enough to know what I am talking about."

Not on this subject obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:27 AM

"Ake. What do you mean by 'a more basic education'. What makes you think mine was any different to yours? Why bring it up anyway?"

Simply because your continued negativity, obstructionism, and personalising of this issue, makes you look a fool, which I know from your posting history, you are not.

Now I have had only the most basic of educations, yet can formulate arguments which address the issues associated with HIV infection, and put forward positive procedures for the curtailing of infection rates in the massively worst affected demographic, MSM.

Why can you not do the same? Only someone who is acting the fool, would claim that the MSM demographic is not suffering an epidemic of not only HIV, but syphilis and most other STD's.....would it really damage your agenda so much to admit this fact?

Would it really be "discrimination" to state that this demographic deserves "special status" in regard to health care?

Stop acting the goat, and treat the issue seriously."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:54 AM

Only someone who is acting the fool, would claim that the MSM demographic is not suffering an epidemic

I have never claimed that. I have said it is not an epidemic IN TERMS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. It is using scaremonger tactics to headline this as an epidemic when you know full well that most people will take that to be a danger to themselves. Typical gutter press headlining. I know people should read further than the headline but I'm afraid a lot don't.

Would it really be "discrimination" to state that this demographic deserves "special status" in regard to health care?

No, it wouldn't unless the 'special status' meant demonising them. Which some of the measures you suggested earlier did. I am happy that you have changed your stance from compulsory registration testing but the reason you gave, 'unworkable', should be substitued with immoral.

Now, you have still not answered my questions.

Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?

How about you stop prevaricating and answer them.

The bit about education is complete nonsense BTW. You have no more idea what my education is that I have of yours. You are making assumptions based on pure guesswork.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:01 AM

Luckily, neither the worm not his coach are important, so society can get on with reality and leave them to their odious selves.

By the way Keith, your apology seems to have either been deleted or failed to post. If you could check at your end, thanks.

I don't need to respond to the worm's latest smear of decent people. You just need to read what he puts, no commentary or explanation needed.

At least it helps us understand why we need laws to protect the more vulnerable in society. I'm not vulnerable, I suppose . I'm far too fucking important! Nice to see you reading old posts Keith. Perhaps as part of your apology you can read back some of the worm's awful comments to give context to what you have been supporting. If it keeps you busy, the report on HIV prevalence by Prof. Hugh Janus is on the archived HPA website. You might find it right up your street.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:08 AM

My dear Musket. You have won the argument and your earlier suspicions regarding the true colours of Akenaton and Keith A of Hertford have borne fruit, which is an excellent example of Mudcat debate.

You don't need to rub it into them. They are either ashamed or not capable of being ashamed. Your point is made and try moving on.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM

My Dear ______

Respectfully I must disagree. Mr Musket was winning the argument until he disqualified himself with this.

"Luckily, neither the worm not his coach are important, so society can get on with reality and leave them to their odious selves."

It is like the figure skater upon doing a flawless performance did a victory lap and poked the judge in the eye with his middle finger while his time was still running.

Its like Tuesday Wednesday Football team taking Man United to a nil nil tie and scoring on its self in penalty time because it would rather be considered talentless and pathetic than be thought of as good sports. Sad sad so sad......

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:08 AM

Musket, you are a disgrace.
An over-paid NHS mandarin who has some responsibility for all this, shown up by a couple of interested amateurs with things you do not know but should.

You were shown to be completely out of touch with the trends and their direction.
You underestimate the issues to the extent that when the true figures are put in front of you, you call it scaremongering.
If only it would scare you out of your complacency.

If someone in your position is scared of and disbelieves the truth, there is no hope.
You did not even understand that you are dealing with an epidemic!

Some of the blame for those thousands of easily preventable deaths and ruined lives falls squarely on YOU.
Fucking important?
You are a fucking disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:15 AM

My dear Guest,
Musket told you that hetero infections were rising.
The truth is they have fallen every year for a decade.

Musket told you that less than half new infections were MSM.
In fact they surpassed all other groups together in 2012 and have been steadily rising for years and still are.

Musket told you there was no epidemic.
There is.

How does that win him the argument please.
He knows nothing, makes shit up, and accuses those who know and understand the true facts of scaremongering.

You call that winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:19 AM

"Hugh Janus"
So droll Musket.
You are killing us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

Oh Dear!

Now Mr' A has also disqualified himself.

I fear Mr. Max Speigel that the Mudcat is about to become the cesspool it seems to have been designed to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 11:55 AM

Mandarin! That's more like it! See? I told you I was fucking important!

You've got to be important to be responsible for "thousands of easily preventable deaths." Irrelevant nobodies couldn't pull that one off with aplomb. Kneel in my presence knaves!

Goes with being a Co Messiah. AND Jack is basing a novel on me! Someone who goes round pointing and laughing at people coming out of church apparently. If the film rights get the go ahead, I reckon George Clooney to play me.

Scene 1. The star character is giving a speech, saying that there is still an epidemic with regard to people being infected by religion. A member of a neo nazi far right group is at the back of the hall tweeting that our hero is denying the epidemic.

Writes itself Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:17 PM

Tuesday Wednesday Football team taking Man United to a nil nil tie and scoring on its self in penalty time

Not a footie man, are we, Wackers? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:33 PM

Dave, I have stated a dozen times, that there is no HIV epidemic amongst the general population, only amongst male homosexuals(the MSM demographic......So we are agreed on that? That is progress.

Regarding Black Africans (many of whom are migrants), infection rates peaked at 4050 in 2003, and have fallen steadily every year and now stand at 1522.....infection rates seem to be under control in this demographic, only in the MSM demographic are infection rates rising year on year.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:50 PM

Keith?

Your mate is saying there is no epidemic.

Any chance you can hold him to account for thousands of needless deaths?

Perhaps you can use your precious fucking google to show us why HIV is only an epidemic if you relate it to one demographic? Or alternatively, try calling him a liar. It's easy. You'd be on the button for once too. It's alright, he won't take offence. On account of having no shame in the main, but being beyond hope too.

If he wants you on a register for being gay, I wonder what his solution is for being a black gay migrant?

Weather ok here in Edinburgh. Looks a bit dark to the west, but I'll be ok. They are choosy who they allow in The Malt Shovel. I doubt it is one of those where you have to wipe your feet on the way out. We are meeting friends. I'll have to watch my arse though, Akenaton reckons they are into multiple partners these gay blokes, and some of our friends we are drinking with fall into his favourite category.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:04 PM

>>Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:17 PM

Tuesday Wednesday Football team taking Man United to a nil nil tie and scoring on its self in penalty time

Not a footie man, are we, Wackers? :-) <<

Again pshaw, you are not my intended audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:19 PM

Musket: "That's more like it! See? I told you I was fucking important!"

A true legend in his own wine!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:51 PM

You'd better believe it Goofus!

That's why I usually hand you over to the good professor to deal with. Isn't that right boy?

"Woof!"

As to Bill and Ben, the bigoted men.... A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words. Which in their case is the most respectable option.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:13 PM

Nothing more to say really.
If I notice you making more misleading or plain wrong statements I might point them out.

The position can be put simply that MSM rates are very high and rising.
Some of the increase is due to increased testing, but PHE states,
"However, estimations of HIV incidence using a back-calculation analysis [3] indicate that HIV transmission among MSM remained high with 2,300-2,500 new infections (not just diagnoses) annually and 7,200 MSM undiagnosed in 2012, with little change over the last decade (Figure 3). The large majority of new infections stem from MSM unaware of their infection [4].

The National Aids Trust accuse NHS of failing to diagnose as many as it could and failing to trace contacts of those it does.
Complacency?
Denial of the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:17 PM

Sorry, I forgot to close quotes.
The final para is not part of the quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

Yeah...and that hasn't worked out too well for either one of you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 01:19 AM

"Back calculation."

Or in other words, using historical prevalence. Now... Who called me a liar for saying PHE/HPA rely heavily on that ? (The reorganisation is designed to ensure public health protection takes a more holistic and multi factorial approach in the future.)

Possibly someone who thinks that we only have access to third party websites same as him, and everything else is just Musket and his fantasy.

Rather funny really, seeing the ignorant sod quote what I have been saying, from what he calls "official" sources. I don't wish to put two and two together here , but the word "four" and the phrase "fucking important" appear to be related?

So as ever, we are left with the object of Keith's exercise, stigmatising gay people and supporting his mate.

Bill and Ben , the bigoted men.

So busy falling over each other to portray gay people in a bad light, they won't even question where their previous data and conclusions contradict each other.

Want to find some more statistics Keith? Find the number of suicides where stigmatisation or shame of their sexuality was the factor. Then carry on with your righteous campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 02:11 AM

Being honest about the facts does not make someone a bigot.
Denying them makes you a complacent fool.
Worse, that attitude leads to a failure to address the situation as it really is, and failing those in danger.
Wasted lives.

The calculation you refer to is just to identify the proportion of new diagnoses that really are new infections.
You have claimed that the increase is largely due to better screening and good news.
PHE calculates otherwise, and there are no alternative figure.
Your claim about that is another false one.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 03:06 AM

HIV/AIDS, is an extremely serious condition.
ANY demographic presenting the infection rates which presently pertain to MSM.....need to be treated as a "special status" risk group, whether they be Black Africans or ANY other designated demographic.
The important point, is to stop infection rates rising and only by increased testing and contact tracing can this be brought about.
No political agenda should be allowed to stand in the way, as
it is vitally important to determine why any one demographic is massively worse affected than others.

If the rates of infection which currently affect MSM, were transferred to the heterosexual community, it would already be too late, all the health agencies could pack up and go home.

Society would be decimated.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 04:14 AM

"Alternative figures." You do rely on Mudcat readers being thick don't you?

Tell you what, just for argument's sake. We'll allow predictions based on historical trajectory which is I think what you are meaning when you call analysis of figures alternative figures.

If you have any credibility whatsoever, take your mate to task.

Go on!





Just look at his last post above. Treat his comments in the same way you treat respectable peoples' comments.

Well?

Is there an epidemic of gay HIV but no other HIV epidemic? Care to see where HPE support his comments? Up to yet, I only see his comments echoed in far right and religious websites.

Anything you wish to tell us? Do you want reminding of where you are adamant his comments are false? Dare you upset him? Is it easier to demonise a whole group of society than expose hatred?

Busted flush.


Again.

Next!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 04:38 AM

If there are other figures relating to new infections, please show us.
We are not "thick."
If you do not show us, we will know why.

All I have done is state facts and quote PHE.
You can not argue against that, so all you can do is call me bigot.
A lie.

Your ignorance of the true facts, and your culpable complacency as someone of influence in NHS, is causing the real deaths of gay men.

By highlighting their true vulnerability and plight, I am arguing on their behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 04:40 AM

"Dave, I have stated a dozen times, that there is no HIV epidemic amongst the general population, only amongst male homosexuals(the MSM demographic......So we are agreed on that? That is progress."

Yes, but I have never denied that. Why do you intimate I have? At least it shows that you have read what I posted. How come you have not answered my questions?

Keith. I pointed out the link you posted. No comment? No further points about me misinterpreting what ake says? How can I when he will not commit?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 05:49 AM

A big difference between killing gay men and wishing them dead. I don't do the former and the latter is the ultimate aim of bigotry.

Stop misinterpreting facts. Stop denying trends. Stop purposely dragging figures out of context to support demonisation of a section of society.

Your continued support of someone who ignores the figures you cherish, let alone the bigger picture ruins the credibility you think you have.

Me however , being fucking important and all that, saw through you from the beginning. Not difficult. I deal with the politics of healthcare each and every day. The professionals can be a challenge. You aren't in their league. If you want to be selected for a council seat, you are going to have to provide Nigel with far better evidence of your suitability. I'd watch out too. He is back pedalling on demonising gays. He is sticking to migrants. Akenaton had a bit to say about them on his HIV judgment above too. Especially black ones.

Is Pharaoh worship worth losing what respectability you aspire to? Or am I just hurling abuse at innocent people for whom butter wouldn't melt in their mouths?

If you are talking on behalf of gay people or indeed people at heightened risk of HIV, you have a funny way of doing it. They don't seem to be briefing their spokesman very well. I'd leave the advocacy to Stonewall if I were you.

You could always say you speak up for HIV sufferers, most of which didn't acquire it by sticking their cocks up men's bottoms, especially the women. You could focus on the social stigma that endangers many gay peoples contact with sexual health services. You could use your talents in focussing on particular data at the expense of the rest to shut our resident homophobic bigot down for once.

Or you could carry on finding ways to vilify those who stand up to hatred.

Your move.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 06:42 AM

Stop misinterpreting facts.

I NEVER have.
Give an example why don't you?

Stop denying trends.

I NEVER have.
Give an example why don't you?

Stop purposely dragging figures out of context to support demonisation of a section of society.

I NEVER have.
Give an example why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 06:58 AM

Dave, does something in the link contradict something else?

Re Akeneaton, he and I have little in common.
I have not seen anything from him that would make him a bigot.
I have nor seen him make any derogatory remark about gay people.

Promiscuity is a factor in HIV transmission, whatever the orientation.

When I was single I would have liked to be more promiscuous myself.
I do not regard it as something to be condemned.
Few today would, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 08:22 AM

If you haven't read anything Akenaton had put that is derogatory about gay people, I suggest new spectacles or computer screen.

You ask for examples. I suggest you click on the blue text that says Keith A of Hertford and then click on the archive of his posts. Plenty in there, and what's more, they are on the internet so you can trust them as being official and definitive.

When I was single, I didn't wish to be more promiscuous. There weren't enough hours in the bloody day as it was. As far as promiscuity as a factor in HIV, it is true to say it is an increased exposure risk. First contraction is a single event, as you like to be so exact.



So, let's get this right. Do you support the data you have given or the data Akenaton has given? Do you agree with PHE/Musket use of the word epidemic or Akenaton's use of the word?

What else don't you have in common?

Do you put the word marriage in parentheses too when referring to people of the same gender? Is that not bigotry? What about gay people liking multiple partners even if married?

Do you realise how stupid your comment to Dave is?

Bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 11:59 AM

Dave, does something in the link contradict something else?


No but it does say that education should play an important part. Something which ake denies.

I have nor seen him make any derogatory remark about gay people.


Maybe not. But he will not answer these 3 very simple questions. Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

Did he deny education had a part to play Dave?
If he did, does it make him a bigot?
In UK, I do not believe that lack of knowledge about STI is an issue.

Musket, I deny all those things you claim I have done.
They are lies told to discredit me in the absence of any other argument.
If they are not lies, I challenge and defy you to produce a single specific example.

They are lies and you have no chance of producing anything, just as you could not produce any other figure for new infections.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:13 PM

"Musket told you there was no epidemic.
There is.

How does that win him the argument please.
He knows nothing, makes shit up, and accuses those who know and understand the true facts of scaremongering.

You call that winning?" K A of H
_____________________________________________________________________

"Fucking important?
You are a fucking disgrace."

YOU call THAT winning!

Jack the Sailor, where's your condemnation of the above?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:26 PM

Did he deny education had a part to play Dave?
If he did, does it make him a bigot?
In UK, I do not believe that lack of knowledge about STI is an issue.


No, he didn't. No it doesn't. He did suggest that I was better educated then he was. Which he does not know and is complete bollocks anyway. He did start to talk about education instead of answering the simple questions I posed. What the f**k are you on about?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:38 PM

"The unfortunate advent of "gay marriage" bears no relation to the ever worsening infection rates in the MSM demographic, which seem to continue to rise regardless."

The most ridiculous statement yet, given that HIV infections post Gay marriage wouldn't even show up for several months after the first gay marriages, in fact months after the first occurrence of infidelity, which exists only in your warped perception as yet.

Also, can you get it into that impermeable skull that the MEDICAL Profession now regard HIV as a manageable condition which need not reduce life expectancy.

I don't doubt that you would be very happy to see thousands of "perverts" die to prove YOUR theory!

If that should happen, I hope it will give you the satisfaction you deserve........NONE!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:48 PM

"HIV/AIDS, is an extremely serious condition."

Half the story yet AGAIN! The other half is the medical profession's assessment of "a manageable condition which should not affect life expectancy"

So what exactly ARE you ranting about?.......The cost of treatment?....Possibly!

The existence of homosexuals?......Almost certainly!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:36 AM

Troubadour, everyone on this discussion knows that infected people can now live a normal and full life with treatment, and become almost uninfectious, but thanks for your input anyway.

They also know that when the symptoms of AIDS appear, it is usually too late.

The problem that the rest of us have been discussing is that thousands of infected people have not been tested and do not know that they are incubating a highly infectious, incurable and deadly virus, and thousands still die of it every year.

I hope that helps you to understand the issues that concern us.

It was good of you to refresh my justified, accurate and non-abusive criticism of Musket.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:43 AM

BTW Troubadour, being unaware of infection is not an anti gay thing.
It is more prevalent among infected straight rather than gay folk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:58 AM

I don't doubt that you would be very happy to see thousands of "perverts" die to prove YOUR theory!

What a ridiculous claim, and how it demonstrates your ignorance Troubadour.

We are arguing that the preventable, unnecessary deaths of AIDS sufferers could be greatly reduced by more screening.
The complacency of those responsible, and denial of the scale of the problem, has allowed thousands of infected folk to go untested.

Musket is a classic example.
He did not even recognise that there is an epidemic that he should be dealing with.
He did not know that MSM infections are increasing to the extent that MSM infections now outnumber all others.
He even thought that hetero infections were rising when it is really MSM infections that are.

The national AIDS Trust is scathing of how the NHS fails to diagnose many people even when it sees them, and when it does diagnose someone they do not try to trace the contacts who are almost certain to be infected too.
And thus the infection spreads and people die of a treatable disease that treatment could have prevented.

Ignorance and complacency is what I am arguing against.
What is your case Troubadour?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:01 AM

Did he deny education had a part to play Dave?

Actually, Keith, having slept on it I am changing my mind about my last answer to that one. I am pretty sure that ake said education was not working. So, yes he did. I could be mistaken of course and I would ask him directly but as he has not answered my other questions I doubt if he would respond to that one.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:07 AM

Saying it is not working is not saying we should give up on it.
Saying it does not make him a bigot anyway.

Dave, do you think the situation is helped by denying the scale of it, refusing to accept the scale of it and being wilfully ignorant of the facts?

Do you think it stigmatises anyone to say they have this or that infection, and is it better to let them die rather than be honest about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:40 AM

Not much point in debating this whilst there are those for whom stigmatising a minority of sufferers is the aim.

Will you pray for them or pray for their sins when you get to your church today?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:48 AM

As Keith says, of course "education has a part to play", but "education" alone is not having the desired affect on MSM infection rates.
There can be few people who do not know the dangers of promiscuous and risky behaviour in todays world.
All agencies are aware that targeted responses are required, but political opposition inhibits effective procedures.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:00 AM

Saying X is not saying Y. I thought you felt we should avoid such things, Keith?

I am happy to answer your questions. No, no, no, yes and no. In that order. The yes is only partial BTW. Some people believe that AIDS is a stigma, some don't. But if some believe it is a stigma, yes, it does stigmatise them.

I am not sure why you keep asking me these things. I have never said any of them. Do you think that by asking me them it somehow suggests that I did?

Still no response on my questions I see. Can I ask them of you, Keith, in case you are more prepared to answer than ake? Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males put on a register?


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:00 AM

Dave, AIDS is not a "stigma", it is a medical "condition".

We cannot go through life avoiding certain issues, lest our motives be misunderstood by fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:48 AM

Dave, that is the first time I have asked you those questions.
I asked them because you are a serious participant, and I am interested in your view of those issues, which are hotly disputed here.

Re your questions,
Unnatural?
No.
Perversion?
No.
Registration?
No compulsion.

Musket,
Not much point in debating this whilst there are those for whom stigmatising a minority of sufferers is the aim.

To say that a group is targeted by a virus does not stigmatise them.
To deny the truth about it condemns thousands to death.
Denying the truth is what you do.
You call the truth "scaremongering."
You were ignorant of vital facts that your position should require you to know.
You allow young men to die needlessly for your worthless political convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:17 AM

This is why the Latin phrase "ad nauseam" exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:31 AM

Thanks Keith - I now know your views on those points. I still don't know ake's.

Ake. Dave, AIDS is not a "stigma", it is a medical "condition".


It is both to a lot of people. Now, Keith has answered my questions and found it easy. How about you?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 10:37 AM

Oh, and Sorry. Dave, that is the first time I have asked you those questions. Yes it is. My poor choice of words. 'These questions' did not relate to just those few. There was a lot of earlier ones.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 12:05 PM

There are two things at play here....and they are in the 'tactics'.
When I read the posts, both sides, somebody will post figures, and put the link up...but instead of an honest exchange of ideas to get to the truth, we get this(as posted by Ed T)"...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington."".......and then the ones using that tactic, proceed to use the premise to call the poster with the figures and link a bunch of misapplied names, based on their typical, 'hot button', create a bias playbook.
I prefer the FACTS and the Truth..and if it contradicts the political posturing, I think 'adjusting' the political posturing to match the TRUTH, is what is order....not the other way around.
It reveals that the political postures, and those who subscribe to them are a bit turned around.
When they insist, on their posturing, over the TRUTH, then is just makes them bullshitters!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 12:08 PM

400...and still avoiding the truth!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 12:11 PM

"A group being targeted by a virus."

Assuming it has sentient thought process, it's aim isn't very accurate.

The trick with vital facts is not to garnish them with fiction or assumptions borne of prejudice.

I wonder if Keith's yes, yes, no style reply to Dave can be construed as distancing himself from the comments of his mate? Does he still maintain that Akenaton's stand and comments are not showing bigotry?

Let's try another yes yes no game.

Homosexuality is perverted

Homosexuality is against natural law

Gay marriage is gay "marriage"

Gay marriage is a liberal plot

Homosexuals prefer multiple partners even when in a relationship

They should be forced to be tested

HIV is only an epidemic when applied to homosexuality

Similarities between homosexuality and paedopholia


Yes for agreeing with Akenaton
No for not agreeing
Sorry for supporting him and stating he has never expressed bigotry

Easy

Over to you Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 01:32 PM

This thread was supposed to encourage a discussion of HIV transmission rates. I think all the valid points have been raised and anyone reading it will have the information to formulate an opinion on the best way to halt the epidemic within the MSM demographic.
The post above and the post from Dave , contain statements which I have never made; in fact, some of the statements are completely contrary to what I have actually stated.

Anyone who wishes to verify this, can easily do so by reading the complete thread and paying attention.

I am not interested in the personal views of Dave, and even less so of the other person, the thread is about HIV transmission rates and I think it has served a useful purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:00 PM

Do you think by re-asking those questions, repeatedly, is supposed to alter the truth??? They've been answered over and over, and if you don't think so, scroll back over this thread, and a few others, dealing with the topic!
It looks like you're trying to find some answer that leaves room for more truth-altering talking points that run parallel to a predetermined 'talking point' premise, which is NOT based on FACT!!!
Get over it!
That being said, I'll answer it this way, and I'm only speaking for myself, and common sense...
I AM FOR the traditional nuclear loving family...which happens to not be vulnerable to HIV/AIDS or any other STD's. Promiscuity of any sort, is not healthy for the health of the body, mind or emotions.
You can champion any other unhealthy thing you want.....and you do!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

It's alright Goofus. Your homophobia is on record and you never deny your standing in decent company. Probably ignorance is bliss but don't worry. Gay people possibly can't understand what you prefer either.

Your mate however said all the above, many times, often on this thread in fact. He comes out with claims that don't exist in the healthcare world. Living there myself, I tend to know the neighbourhood. Denying his own words now? Err perhaps a quick "I was wrong" might mitigate the situation.

Let's ask Keith to dig up Akenaton's words, complete with time and date etc.

After all, Keith likes matters to be correct and usually goes out of his way to put the record straight.

Even when he may not agree with what it shows.

Isn't that so Keith?

Keith?


Hello!

Are you there?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:35 PM

Musket: "Your homophobia is on record and you never deny your standing in decent company.....blah blah blah"

Explain to me just how being FOR a loving, traditional family is homophobia!!!
You've just jumped from what I've been saying to turn it around and misstating it, to fit your 'tactic' of....."(as posted by Ed T)"...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington."".......and then the ones using that tactic, proceed to use the premise to call the poster with the figures and link a bunch of misapplied names, based on their typical, 'hot button', create a bias playbook."
It's not working!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

I disagree with Akeneaton on most things, including homosexuality.
When he has stated facts and figures, I believe he has done so truthfully and accurately.

Musket, can you identify any fact or figure he has stated that are false.

I have identified facts and figures of yours that are false Musket.

For all your claimed importance and professional knowledge, a couple of interested amateurs have shown you up as an ignorant, culpably complacent fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 05:44 PM

Well, one ignorant culpable fool to another, is epidemic only valid when applied to gay men?

When he states wild figures that contradict the "official" HPA figures you hold so dear when they suit you, why do you keep defending him?

You call me a liar. As I only state valid views amongst the healthcare sector, you are mischievous, bigoted lying rubbish. Don't call me a liar. The difference between us is that I couldn't if I wanted. Whatever makes you think for one minute that I could be remotely interested in compromising my credibility for the sake of an irrelevant right wing nutter?

You flatter yourself.

I'm glad you disagree with him. How, if he is telling the truth?

Prat.


Goofus. I have a friend who is white and married to a black wife. They attend a local church, where a fellow member said "I married a white woman."

Factual, succinct and nothing to be ashamed of.

Is there an American word that means the same as the English word "context?"

On second thoughts, just keep banging the rocks together.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 05:47 PM

Muskrat: "Goofus. I have a friend who is white and married to a black wife. They attend a local church, where a fellow member said "I married a white woman."

What does that have to do with the price of eggs???
Another focus shift????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:34 PM

The post above and the post from Dave , contain statements which I have never made; in fact, some of the statements are completely contrary to what I have actually stated.


Which statements have I made that are contrary to what you have stated?

Oh, sorry, you do not answer simple questions do you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:44 PM

Musket, I have totally different opinions to Akeneaton, including on homosexuality, but when he has stated facts and quoted figures on HIV, he has been truthful and accurate.
I asked you for any false claim he has made, and you failed to produce a single one.

You have shown complacency, ignorance and a denial of the truth because it offends your ridiculous politics, never mind that it leaves young men to die unnecessary deaths.

You did not even recognise that there is an epidemic that you should be dealing with.
You did not know that MSM infections are increasing to the extent that MSM infections now outnumber all others.
You even thought that hetero infections were rising when it is really MSM infections that are.

Ignorance, denial of the truth and deadly complacency.
You are a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:00 PM

ON homosexual open "marriages".
There are dozens of these links, it appears to be part of the culture.

Here

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:17 PM

"It is more prevalent among infected straight rather than gay folk."

Tell Ake, will you?

Because he doesn't give a cuss about straights, as long as he can rant about "perverts".

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:26 PM

"Troubadour, everyone on this discussion knows that infected people can now live a normal and full life with treatment, and become almost uninfectious, but thanks for your input anyway.

They also know that when the symptoms of AIDS appear, it is usually too late."


Says the supercilious, patronising twat who knows more than the medical profession, who have clearly found ways to prevent the progression to AIDS.

Worthy of the "Nobel Prize for Stating the Bleedin' Obvious".

Also the MSM community represent the highest take up of testing, while the STD infection of heteros, particularly young girls with Chlamydia and Gonorrhea is vastly under reported.

And don't bother JtS! After ignoring Keith's F-Word description of Ian, your credibility as a forum policeman is in tatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:34 PM

Guest T.....Please go away and learn to read all of what people post.

"It is more prevalent among infected straight rather than gay folk."

WHAT is more prevalent among INFECTED heterosexual rather than homosexual folk?
When you have discovered what THAT is(hint, it is not infection rates), come back and tell us how careless, or how twisted you have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:41 PM

"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington."".......and then the ones using that tactic, proceed to use the premise to call the poster with the figures and link a bunch of misapplied names, based on their typical, 'hot button', create a bias playbook.
I prefer the FACTS and the Truth..and if it contradicts the political posturing, I think 'adjusting' the political posturing to match the TRUTH, is what is order....not the other way around."

If you choose to present an "Argument from Authority" GfS, it is wise to seek some evidence of the authority's credibility.

Why don't you ask Mary Jo Kopeckne whether Teddy believes in the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:45 PM

"I am not interested in the personal views of Dave, and even less so of the other person, the thread is about HIV transmission rates and I think it has served a useful purpose."

Now who is trying to close down discussion when it fails to go his way?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:54 PM

But it IS going my way Guest T, I believe in truthful posting, not the twisted out of context line you hoped to slip through.

Regarding Dave, this thread has nothing to do with his personal opinion of my character, nor mine of his.
I am perfectly happy to debate the issue, but have no time for biased personal opinions of on another's motives or character.

Perhaps you would like to comment on the link about the percentage of open relationships amongst male homosexuals and the affect on HIV prevalence?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:01 PM

I'm very well aware that the twat was talking about being unaware of infection.

Which feeds directly into my later comment about MSMs representing the highest take up (proportionally) of testing, while heteros are vastly under reported.

What does that do to your biased figures?

You simply don't know whether hetero infections are rising or falling year on year. You only know that numbers tested are actually much lower (proportionally) and that leaves your prejudiced assessments swinging in the breeze.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:11 PM

It is also true, that you apply new HIV figures to talking about AIDS deaths.

Since those who are developing AIDS in 2014 became infected at some point between 2004 and 2011 (check the facts), a majority of them were too late for current treatments to prevent AIDS, since that level of treatment (manageable condition) has only very recently been available.

A logical man would expect deaths from AIDS to show no significant reduction until that treatment has been available for at least three years, but after that the reduction will be swift and radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:20 PM

The Health agencies do not agree with your assessment Guest T
(See Keith's post above)


The difference in numbers being tested, is because it is known that some demographics are very much more at risk than others, due to promiscuity, risk taking, types of sexual behaviour, etc.

IDU's are more at risk because the infection may be passed on through needle sharing, they are also tested more often than the general population, but infection rates are still relatively low in that demographic....and falling.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:28 PM

Sorry, didn't finish.

Black Africans, also had a high rate of infection, but much of that infection was acquired abroad (by migrants), where the sexual culture is very different from the US or UK.
Although the infection rate was high, it has been falling steadily for around 10 years in the UK and now stands at about 1000 new infections per annum.
MSM is the demographic with the highest infection rate in percentage terms AND in real numbers.....the rate is also rising annually and this points to a very serious problem for male homosexual health.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:31 PM

OFF to bed now, Up early for work tomorrow...hope it's fine.

Thanks for the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:07 PM

Troubadour: "If you choose to present an "Argument from Authority" GfS, it is wise to seek some evidence of the authority's credibility."

Yours??? Muskrat's????..whomever you approve, who is steeped in 'so-called liberal talking points'????????

""If you choose to present an "Argument from Authority" GfS, it is wise to seek some evidence of the authority's credibility."

"Argument from Authority" ...OK....answer this, which I gave to the muskrat:
"I AM FOR the traditional nuclear loving family...which happens to not be vulnerable to HIV/AIDS or any other STD's. Promiscuity of any sort, is not healthy for the health of the body, mind or emotions.
You can champion any other unhealthy thing you want.....and you do!"

What 'authority' are you seeking????.....Common sense doesn't work for you anymore, now that you think you're a 'liberal'????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:01 AM

"What 'authority' are you seeking????"

Within you, you already know that I'm right....why compromise??
Why not want the BEST for people?..not second, not third...not fix the illness...and deny there is a problem out there. Why not support safe and healthy behavior? Don't you think there are safe and loving traditional marriages with families, and that that is the best to grow up in?? Do you think discouraging people to TRY, as to fulfill a concept of yourself as a 'good and dutiful liberal'......and to be useful, 'liberals' need 'fuck ups'?...How about holding UP some HIGHER values??...After all, the traditional, loving family is the basic, nuclear thread of any society.....that works.

Instead of ennobling faults that you don't want to correct, get a backbone and stand up for that which is right, and that which works!!
Why not tell people to stop 'fucking around', by fucking around? Why not tell a homosexual, "Hey, why don't you get tested, just to be safe?...and while you're at it, stop fucking around, it could kill one of you?"
It sure beats trying to argue with me about it, and make a dork out of yourself!
take the high ground!!

GfS

P.S. As per aforementioned, You already know I'm right...knock off with the head games.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:13 AM

Musket, the number of infections due to needleshare was 120 and falling, compared to 3, 250 and rising for MSM in 2012.

We have both said "needlestick" instead of "needleshare."
This is you,
"It's a needlestick issue, a birth issue and a healthcare acquired issue too, but 78% of it is sexually transmitted."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:31 AM

Yes. That's what I said. Do you have a problem with me pointing out the low occurrence causes that we need to be vigilant about?

You have taken the trick of removing from context to an art form. Still, being fucking important and all that, I notice such tricks. Do you search your mate's posts before stating he never days anything remotely bigoted or hurtful towards a section of society?

A proportion of testing for HIV that doesn't make the statistics that you claim are definitive are the full number of post needlestick tests on healthcare professionals. Some occupational health bodies report them as patient tests, some don't. The reason being HPA used to get their figures from HES data, which don't include OH costs.

Just another reason why your dogmatic approach to public information is fine till used to push or support a point. They are accurate enough, not comprehensive by any means but accurate enough for historical prevalence when planning and funding tackling this awful situation.

But every time I point this out you attack me.

I am free to draw conclusions as to why. And from where I sit* they aren't fucking pretty ones.




* A fucking important office in a fucking important office block with my own fucking important shit house I can use without going into the corridor and bumping into plebs.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

You are being dishonest again.
You were listing all the most common means of transmission, so of course you meant needleshare.
Why would you have left it out.

Needlestick infection must be incredibly rare as a means of transmission, if it has ever happened at all.
PHE do not even refer to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:17 AM

"The last case of an HIV seroconversion in an occupationally exposed healthcare worker was reported in 1999."
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/needlestick-injury

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 06:36 AM

What are you wittering on about now?

Since 1997, surveillance of blood borne viruses has been national. By 1999, there had been eight UK HIV by needlestick for healthcare professionals. Since then, although reporting of testing has a voluntary aspect, it is estimated that 1 in 255 of HIV infected needlestick will result in contraction. Or one every forty years.

Hence my comments regarding testing to risk which you had got your facts about arse faced when referring to sexual transmission. My point, for which I apologise as I was addressing the majority intelligent Mudcat readers, was differentiating testing to occurrence.

The last needle stick test of a healthcare worker in The UK was possibly today. At any rate, there are enough per year to make that assumption.

You tried muddying that with needle share which is a high risk of occurrence factor when contact tracing, root cause analysis and profiling.

Why do you do that Keith? You have said Akenaton is wrong so why keep twisting the figures to support him?

I would much rather be wrong in my conclusion. I really would.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 06:50 AM

"The last case of an HIV seroconversion in an occupationally exposed healthcare worker was reported in 1999."
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/needlestick-injury

If you have evidence to the contrary, show us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 07:06 AM

I do not challenge your figure of one infection every forty years by this method.
That sounds about right.

Why are you wasting our time over such a ridiculously small figure?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:36 AM

Because there is a risk that someone will accidentally relate it, after reading your confusion of two index causes with the word needle, in the way I remain convinced you are supporting.

The rate of conversion from exposure to HIV + blood is of the order of 0.3% according to the occy health info I am looking at. PEP (prophylaxis) can reduce this by an even larger factor. A study quoted on our page reckons by 80% but that is just one study. Of the 255 needle sticks in the 1997 to 1999 study, one had seroconversion, which will be the one you refer to. We are both reporting both a success story and same figures. However, the accuracy of voluntary submission data has on average a tolerance factor of 15% which with such small figures makes complacency dangerous.

Needle stick testing is usually regardless of knowledge of contamination unless the blood is from a known to be negative source, although Hepatitis being a co factor, most wish the tests to be done. Even fucking important mandarins can end up tested. I was attacked with a syringe needle during a review of a sectioned patient when I was carrying out such duties for MHAC. Assurances that he was "clean" don't cut it at the time.

Working out how a sex worker worker who shoots up contracted it isn't quite so easy without contact tracing. A bit like wondering which baked bean caused that last fart. Another statistical caution to add to the list of your definitive data.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:45 AM

Last case in 1999.
Infection rate calculated from risk, one case per forty years.

In any discussion of HIV transmission, this should not even be mentioned.
PHE annual figures are rounded to the nearest 10!

For all your "importance" and your executive toilet, you really know nothing about this subject.
The "plebs" you avoid in the corridor must know more than you do.

No wonder the National Aids Trust despairs over the NHS incompetent treatment of HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:56 AM

You are arguing about a risk that barely produces two cases per CENTURY!

Meanwhile the ANNUAL infection rate for one group is the highest ever recorded at 3,250 in 2012.

Ignorance.
Complacency.
Denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 01:15 PM

Unless there were comments from an epidemiologist in this thread, don't bother to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 02:21 PM

Wow!!.....Great stuff Keith.....controlled fury.

Wish I could do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

My last post is missing. Odd that.

Either technical gremlins or otherwise.

In any event, in reply to Q's comment, I am giving the UK public health perspective, based on being fucking important or whatever it is. I chair strategic bodies where public health epidemiology is the subject, so whilst not a consultant in public health myself, I do articulate the epidemiology input to health planning in certain areas.

Keith reads websites at face value.

Controlled fury isn't difficult when decency is censored, worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:09 PM

Keith reads websites at face value.

Everything I have said is accurate and true.
Not one thing you can challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

No point in continuing really is there? Not when someone advocating radical changes in the way homosexual men conduct themselves does not believe that their views on homosexuality has any relevance to the discussion. And believes that anyone who does not think that way must be a loony liberal. I think we are entering the Twighlight Zone...

Doo doo doo doo. Doo doo doo doo.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:20 PM

The is a "Discussion of HIV transmission." not another belief thread.

It should be a technical discussion based on known facts.
There is no place in such a discussion for anyone's views on morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:24 PM

Bollocks. You cannot say 'I believe that homosexual men should do ...' and not expect your views on that group not to have a bearing. Besides, who died and made you boss of how threads should go anyway?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:27 PM

Jack B, There IS a difference, I do not curse at you or call you an idiot.

These issues are going to affect society in the future, HIV Infection, the secular society versus religious faith, "liberalism" versus social conservatism, they deserve serious discussion.

Knee jerk reactions are unacceptable, blanket "stoppers", like "equality", "discrimination", "homophobia", "racism", don't cut it on a discussion forum like this.

I have seen no homophobia, or racism here for years and out in the real world equality does not exist under our economic system.

Just keep calm and make your case, you are not God, your ideology is not worth more than mine or any other member of this forum, unless you can prove it to be better.

An example. A guest/ member called me a homophobic bigot on my statement that many male homosexual "marriages"/ unions are different from conventional marriage, in that they are often "open" relationships containing several sexual partners, I posted a link backing my statement and it was completely ignored. A couple of posts later the same person called me a homophobic bigot again....Its all meaningless bullshit, simply an intimidation tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:33 PM

Sorry about that, the post came up on two different threads.....I think???

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:54 PM

Hi, you're up....Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 06:32 PM

Bollocks. You cannot say 'I believe that homosexual men should do...

Did anyone say that?
If they did they would have immediately changed the subject away from "Discussion of HIV transmission."

No-one has the right to say how a thread goes, but did it go?
I have never stopped discussing HIV transmission, which is a technical discussion based on verifiable fact, and not belief or views of morality.

There have been enough threads on belief and morality.
This was intended to be different.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 12:00 AM

Keith of Hertford: "I have never stopped discussing HIV transmission, which is a technical discussion based on verifiable fact, and not belief or views of morality."

OK...So, is abstaining from promiscuous sex, and not sharing needles, which would stop the transmission of HIV/AIDS, is it a topic of morality, or the practical?

I've found that in most cases, morality and practicality are pretty closely related!....what is 'practical' over a period of time, gets to be 'moral'.....other than that, "Stupid is as stupid does"~~Forrest Gump

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 03:45 AM

It is a verifiable fact that sharing needles can lead to HIV transmission.
People's opinions on the morality of illegal drug use are, or should be, irrelevant.

If someone makes the link between drug use and transmission, claiming they are opposed to illegal drug use does not change the verifiable fact that IDU facilitates transmission.

I was asked to set out my views on homosexuality.
I am open about those views and have expressed them before, but I was disappointed that it was felt relevant in what should have been a purely dispassionate, scientific/technical discussion.

Claiming someone is a "bigot" has been used as a reason to ignore a verifiable fact that that has been put up for consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 04:05 AM

Keith thinks you can talk of the biological effects of human nature without bringing human nature into it. Fascinating and explains a lot.

Meanwhile, akenaton repeats his assertion that gay men are all too promiscuous to be in loving relationships. About the same sentence where he says he isn't a homophobe.

Tell you what, next time gay friends stop over, I'll ask which is predatory and give him a set of keys in case he wants to slip out in the night and find someone to poke his willy into.

A word to the wise. You can't keep repeating and stressing hateful bigoted comments and then say those who are repulsed by it represent a liberal plot. Blaming your lack of education isn't defence either.

To bring the two sides together. You will never eradicate or control lifestyle health problems by stigmatising the lifestyle. They just get driven underground. Gay men are in a risk demographic they share with people of African descent and prisoners. To a slightly less extent we can add substance misuse.The groups are not mutually exclusive but they all suffer from boorish politicians who see the need to demonise them.

Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 04:54 AM

they all suffer from boorish politicians who see the need to demonise them.

I am not aware of that.
Can you give an example Musket?

They do suffer from a health care service that does not adequately target their needs.
You yourself are evidence of a political cause behind that failing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 09:03 AM

"I'll see it when I believe it"
slip of the tongue by psychologist Thane Pittman.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true"
Francis Bacon (in discussing self-serving patterns, and bias from personal belief assessments, and attributions).

"My opinion, my conviction, gains infinitely in strength and success, the moment a second mind has adopted it"
Novalis

"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure (nature) hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you actually don't know"
R. Persig. - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 02:03 PM

Naked Guest makes some good points. Has this thread outlived its usefulness? The new information seemed to stop coming in about a hundred posts ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 02:32 PM

I thought you had gone, Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 03:36 PM

Well, this thread turned out OK.

All the nonsense seems to have subsided and the issue is being addressed at last. As Keith says, lets keep it that way, just stick to the issue.

So, we've heard most of the views, how about some conclusions?
What do you think is the best way forward? Are the agencies abdicating responsibility by not targeting those demographics most affected?
Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness?
Should we leave things as they are and rely on procedures which have failed abysmally in the past?
Does anybody give a toss?

Let's hear it!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:43 AM

No ideas?......I suppose that'll be a "don't give a toss" then?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:57 AM

Summarising the facts (UK),

.Successful treatment relies on early diagnosis, and therefor testing.

.Infection rates of MSM are very high and rising.

.Infection rates of black Africans is high but falling.

.Infection rates of all other groups are low and falling.

I would advocate opt-out testing for anyone thought to be from the first two groups, and rigorous contact tracing for all who test positive.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:11 AM

Keith: It should be a technical discussion based on known facts.
There is no place in such a discussion for anyone's views on morality.

Ake: As Keith says, lets keep it that way, just stick to the issue.

Ake, in the same post: Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness?

No wonder you are so fixated with anal sex, ake. You talk through your arse half the time. I will also point out that you said "Does anyone give a toss" at 03:36pm, followed by "don't give a toss then? " at 03:43pm. A whole 7 minutes later. I know you think that there is a conspiracy against you; do you also believe we all just sit there waiting for your deliberations as well?

Anyhow, to keep in 'the spirit' of the thread, according to you:

What do you think is the best way forward? Education and research.

Are the agencies abdicating responsibility by not targeting those demographics most affected? No.

Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness? No.

Should we leave things as they are and rely on procedures which have failed abysmally in the past? Things have not 'failed abysmally'. How can the vast reduction of the death rate be an abysmal failure?

Does anybody give a toss? Yes, lots of people. Those who matter.

I have seen all the arguments and those are my conclusions. If you want to continue arguing against them, fine by me. But as I said before, luckily, everyone now knows your views and no-one important (or even fucking important) takes any notice.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:41 AM

My apologies to ake for the mistake about times. The second post was 12 hours and 7 minutes later not 7 minutes as I said. My bad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:42 AM

...but most of the UK had been in bed for a lot of that 12 hours anyway!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:29 AM

Nice to see Keith suggesting what to do.

Drop in, anonymous testing which, if negative, doesn't appear on your health record help by your GP has been around a long time. Take up by gay men of this service is far better than in any other group. In fact, when you look at raw figures rather than take a Cochrane approach, it can look as if gay men figures are rising disproportionally. In fact, a combination of pure numbers (incidence and take up) helps give the figures we have. A complacent heterosexual issue isn't factored in enough, according to many public health bodies, and information from self help, charities and pressure groups, whilst helpful, focus on particular concerns. Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director at NHS England recently called for better communication of commissioning rationale as in many fields, not just sexual health, the services don't always reflect the information in the public domain. It isn't hiding or keeping facts secret, it's just that they are contained in boring agenda papers for board meetings of NHS bodies, which can be downloaded, but you lose the will to live, whereas NAT, Stonewall, BHF, Alzheimer's Association etc put the facts that justify their approach in easy to reach places.

What I see here demonstrates that perfectly. Although the innocence isn't always there eh?

Contact tracing is carried out all the time, both voluntarily where some one who tests positive engages with health services or by compulsion where someone has knowingly put others at risk of their pre-diagnosed position. (A criminal offence under UK law.)

Speaking of "we need to do something about gay men" is not something I or anyone involved in healthcare could participate in. Suggestions as to helping control and limit spread of HIV is however a subject where the more discussion the better. After all, awareness is the "upstream" key.

Which is why demonising and stigmatising is worse than awful, it can exacerbate the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:36 AM

Contact tracing is carried out all the time, both voluntarily where some one who tests positive engages with health services or by compulsion where someone has knowingly put others at risk of their pre-diagnosed position. (A criminal offence under UK law.)

National Aids Trust.
"Partner notification, the process of contacting the sexual partners of someone diagnosed with HIV, is a highly effective way of getting people tested and diagnosed. Audits show up to 37% of partners traced and tested through this process were diagnosed HIV positive as a result.7 Despite this, the role of partner notification in prevention and testing is neglected and under resourced; this should be addressed in a future strategy."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:44 AM

Speaking of "we need to do something about gay men" is not something I or anyone involved in healthcare could participate in.

National Aids Trust.
"The Government's continued funding of a national HIV prevention programme targeting the groups most at risk of HIV infection (gay and bisexual men and African communities) is welcome; more now needs to be done to evaluate the effectiveness of this programme. There needs to be an increase in the proportion of gay and bisexual men and African men and women choosing safer sex options such as consistent condom use and a reduction in multiple or concurrent partners with clear strategies to make this happen.
In addition, Caribbean communities have about three times the HIV prevalence of the wider population, as well as poorer outcomes for other aspects of sexual health.3 A strategic approach to addressing HIV in these communities is vital and must be developed as a priority in local authorities with significant Caribbean populations, linked to wider sexual health work."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:45 AM

Proves your point?
It says you are "neglecting" it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:02 AM

"neglected and under resourced"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Judy in disguise
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:38 AM

research 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 02:34 PM

Well, Well, what an anti- climax, nobody says anything worth considering except Keith.

Not one original idea on how to make a difference to MSM HIV infection rates, only the usual cursing and abuse.
I find that almost unbelievable, you now KNOW that MSM infection rates are MASSIVELY higher than ANY other demographic, yet you sit like the wise monkeys, with eyes and ears covered.....only foul mouths are open.

This is a thread in which to discuss HIV infection rates, why has GUEST Judy in disguise, linked to a webpage referring to prejudice against homosexuals?
I think the real prejudice lies within those who ignore the infection rates, allowing more and more mainly young males to become infected.
It is better that some of those infected will live for a reasonable lifespan, but their lives will be severely affected by the virus, and the antiretroviral treatment.
Those who are infected and refuse to be tested are a significant dangers to their sexual partners, and if diagnosis is late, death will still follow.

Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic.....this should be promoted by all health agencies AND homosexual agencies. In the meantime the "opt out" procedure is a small step in the right direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:14 PM

nobody says anything worth considering except Keith.

What a surprise. Only those who agree with him are worth considering.

Not one original idea on how to make a difference to MSM HIV infection rates

I would fully agree with that. Not one original idea from anyone at all. Not surprising really. No-one posting here is a real expert on HIV and AIDS. Musket comes closest but even he is only on the periphery.

This is a thread in which to discuss HIV infection rates

So the point " Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness?", made by you, should not be allowed?

I find that almost unbelievable, you now KNOW that MSM infection rates are MASSIVELY higher than ANY other demographic, yet you sit like the wise monkeys, with eyes and ears covered.....only foul mouths are open.

Tell you what, ake, when you begin to do something meaningful about the issue, people will believe you. You don't have to open a clinic or anything. Just help to fund research. Lobby your MP. Do something that really will make a difference, rather than post on a forum that very few people read.

Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic

So, this is the sum of your original idea is it? I guess no-one has ever thought of that before! Errrr, BYW, just a bit up the thread,you agreed that education and research had a part to play? Had you forgotten that bit?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:46 PM

Check it out 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:48 PM

"Are MSM being disadvantaged by political correctness"

You think that has nothing to do with infection rates Dave?

Keith was the only one who made any attempt to address the issue of how to lower the HIV infection rates problem....not so long ago, you and your ilk refused to admit that there was a problem.

You Dave, have absolutely no idea whether I contribute to AIDS charities or help to fund research into HIV/AIDS, why did you infer that I do not?

The present procedures have failed to contain the epidemic amongst MSM.

How does one qualify to be "someone who matters"? Do you think only "health professionals should be concerned about HIV infection rates?

"Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic"

This procedure has NOT been put into practice......Most people are aware of the dangers associated with promiscuity and risk taking, so further "education" will be of limited benefit. "Research" may find a cure for HIV/AIDS, but it will not put an end to the present epidemic....THAT requires serious and swift ACTION.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:53 PM

Akenaton: "This is a thread in which to discuss HIV infection rates, why has GUEST Judy in disguise, linked to a webpage referring to prejudice against homosexuals?"

Good call, Ake!

As I said before, promiscuity and needle sharing, is THE major cause for HIV/AID and STD's.....and for some obvious reason, the wannabe politicos who are holding homosexuality up as the 'new standard for higher equality' keep blasting away, pushing homosexuality, and equating those who are warning about HIV/AIDS, with the stats to back it up, as being 'bigots and homophobic'.....is there something they know, but don't want to admit???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 03:57 PM

I'm no expert Dave. I do try to give air cover to those who are though, and use assurance, governance and the inevitable politics of providing over £100 billion of healthcare. That's why organisations such as NAT are invaluable in advocating for their slice. Ditto everything from NHS dentistry to paediatric cancer.

The NHS has increased targeted testing. Contact tracing needs more thought as to efficiency but millions are spent on it to good effect. You can't eradicate it like you can a local epidemic. The pandemic status it has precludes successful parochial eradication. That's why the term epidemic is still used, although technically incorrect when used in such a context.

If MSM was, for instance, massively higher etc etc the approach would reflect that. The approach reflects the reality, not the wishful thinking of those who treat sections of society with contempt.

A final word about Keith's inconsistency. He berates the healthcare professions and calls me a liar when I say we take historical facts into consideration when forming conclusions and strategies. Then in a thread about the Irish famine, he is trying to tell Jim it is alright for historians to form a view that doesn't accord with facts.

Fucking priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:13 PM

Correction: I omited a phrase in the first post, that could have cause knickers to twist themselves into 'uncomfortable' wearing apparel!..(you can delete the former post)


Akenaton: "This is a thread in which to discuss HIV infection rates, why has GUEST Judy in disguise, linked to a webpage referring to prejudice against homosexuals?"

Good call, Ake!

As I said before, promiscuity and needle sharing, is THE major cause for the transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus and other STD's.....and for some obvious reason, the wannabe politicos who are holding homosexuality up as the 'new standard for higher equality' keep blasting away, pushing homosexuality, and equating those who are warning about HIV/AIDS virus and other STD's, with the stats to back it up, as being 'bigots and homophobic'.....is there something they know, but don't want to admit???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 04:55 PM

You Dave, have absolutely no idea whether I contribute to AIDS charities or help to fund research into HIV/AIDS, why did you infer that I do not?

Do you? All I can see on here is that you prattle on to an audience who are absolutely pissed off with your ravings.

How does one qualify to be "someone who matters"?

Someone who can make a real difference instead of prattling on to an audience who are absolutely pissed off with your ravings.


12 Mar 14 - 02:34 PM
Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic.....

12 Mar 14 - 03:48 PM
further "education" will be of limited benefit. "Research" may find a cure for HIV/AIDS

Make your mind up wont you! What happened in the intervening 14 minutes? (Think I got my sums right this time!) Is targeted testing etc. the only way or will education and research help?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:00 PM

Oh, and WTF have got about putting things in quotes? Is it not real education if it is about HIV? IS it not real research if it is on AIDS? Pretty much like it is not real marriage if it is two gays people?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:22 PM

Dave, If you are only going to post small parts of sentences, leaving out the parts you don't like, there is no point is me responding to you.
Disingenuous again?

For the last time, "education" has been used for years, everyone knows, or should know the dangers, yet infection rates in the MSM demographic keep rising by 8/10% per year.
MSM infection rates are higher than the rates in all other demographics......how is further "education" going to stop the epidemic?

"Research" takes many years, this epidemic requires swift treatment, before long MSM infection rates will reach 80/90% of all new infections.......what will you propose then?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:25 PM

"Oh, and WTF have got about putting things in quotes? Is it not real education if it is about HIV? IS it not real research if it is on AIDS? Pretty much like it is not real marriage if it is two gays people?"

Now you're just being silly Dave.
I hope you don't expect me to answer that nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 05:54 PM

I usually drive a stick shift, but I can drive an automatic transmission as well. Is the HIV transmission something new?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Auto von HIV
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:02 PM

Driving a stick shift isn't automatic 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 06:44 PM

Now you're just being silly Dave.
I hope you don't expect me to answer that nonsense.

It's not as silly as putting education and research in quotes. Why do you do it?

Dave, If you are only going to post small parts of sentences, leaving out the parts you don't like, there is no point is me responding to you.
Disingenuous again?

Not at all. You said "Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic....."
(BTW - The standard number of dots for an ellipsis is 3. Not that there was any point in putting one there anyway. Look it up - May help your "basic" education) Then you said there was a place for education and research. Therefore targeted testing etc. is not the only way. It is your opinion that it is the best way, but it is far from the only one. Do try to take notice when a reasoned argument is being made.

One thing you say that I really do hope you will keep to though - there is no point is me responding to you. Oh, please let it be so :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:36 PM

"The difference in numbers being tested, is because it is known that some demographics are very much more at risk than others, due to promiscuity, risk taking, types of sexual behaviour, etc."

So you say, but you are the only one saying it, with sycophantic support from K A of H, who will deny that it is his opinion and say that he has no reason to disbelieve YOU.

Which is NOT the same as saying that he has any reason to BELIEVE you, so he's not much cop!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 08:42 PM

"What 'authority' are you seeking????.....Common sense doesn't work for you anymore, now that you think you're a 'liberal'????!

Don't make me laugh you clown. If you knew anything at all about me you would find that I neither AM, nor pretend to be a "liberal".

Wrong once more dickhead.

Come back when you have some idea what you are talking about, say after three days of not smoking weed.

Then you might make sense, but I'm not counting on that!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:02 PM

"I have never stopped discussing HIV transmission, which is a technical discussion based on verifiable fact, and not belief or views of morality."

How do you expect that statement to have any credibility, when every part of your input is based on your scientifically UNSUPPORTED BELIEF that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, though you cannot say when YOU made a choice to be heterosexual.

That is a lot closer to religious belief than rational thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 09:33 PM

""Targeted and increased testing and contact tracing is the only way to fight the epidemic"

O.K. Let's assume that you have a point (in spite of the fact that this is not a new idea).

You accuse us of sitting with our ears and eyes covered, and ignoring what you call an epidemic.

Let's suppose that your less than original idea works really well and infection dies out, with the assistance of ever improving medication.

Would you, in the absence of the totally eradicated HIV/AIDS, withdraw your opposition to homosexual marriage?

NO! YOU WOULD NOT!!

You would claim that it is because there are other ST infections than HIV, but not once have you suggested that heterosexuals be subjected to what you suggest for MSMs, as treatment required in the case of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, which are rife in the HETEROSEXUAL community.

You don't care about the health, you simply abhor the existence of gay men.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:03 PM

'Troubadour': ""What 'authority' are you seeking????.....Common sense doesn't work for you anymore, now that you think you're a 'liberal'????!

Don't make me laugh you clown. If you knew anything at all about me you would find that I neither AM, nor pretend to be a "liberal"."

Oh oh...another bullshitter. Hey, address the issue, 'Discussion of HIV transmission.'
You sure act like the run of the mill 'so-called liberal'...,matter of fact, you should use your other name!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 10:06 PM

One reason we have such a prevalence of trollery here is that people can't NOT react to unreasonable opinions. It doesn't have to be someone deliberately provoking other people. In this case, it's ONE person obsessed with his own ridiculous opinions who controls every discussion we have on HIV/AIDS.

What Ake thinks should be done has already been discounted as unreasonable, unworkable, unhelpful and immoral long ago.

Finding contacts does not stop the spread of HIV. Preventing people from having sex would, but who would you trust to make sure YOU don't have sex?

The idea of putting people in jail because they're HIV positive is insane. The idea of killing them is insane. The idea of rounding people up and putting them in isolated communities surrounded by impenetrable fences and guards with guns is insane.

As for testing, I can see how someone who hates gay men would want to force them back in the closet, which is what would happen. If they don't self-identify, there would have to be authorities who go around rounding gay men up. Perhaps there would be little rainbow badges they'd be forced to sew on their clothes so the authorities could later find them and take them to facilities where they could be tested... or gassed.

Justifying this insane viewpoint by arguing is ludicrous.

End of my involvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:13 AM

What about sharing needles?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:14 AM

What about promiscuity, hetero or otherwise?...

gfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 03:41 AM

Jeri....That is the most unreasonable assessment of the issue that I have read on this forum.
ALL health agencies recommend more testing especially for MSM.

Have you actually read what I have written?
I am not in favour of "compulsion", as I can see it as unworkable.
I have never been in favour of "criminalisation"
I have never suggested "rounding people up", "killing them", "putting them in jail because they have HIV", or locking them in gas chambers.

I don't think that I am the one with the "insane" outlook!

My view corresponds to the view expressed by most health agencies, regarding increasing testing and contact tracing amongst the most seriously affected groups.
"Tracing contacts does not prevent the spread of HIV" .......Of course it does! It make those who have undiagnosed HIV infection, aware of their status and they are obliged by law to behave accordingly. It also gives them the chance of an early diagnosis.....and a chance of LIFE.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:11 AM

Well said, Jeri.

Of course you have not suggested some of the things Jeri posted, ake. They were hyperbolic but presented a very real picture of what would happen, probably sooner rather than later, if we were to go down the route of registration and testing. Have you learned nothing from history?

"Tracing contacts does not prevent the spread of HIV" .......Of course it does! It make those who have undiagnosed HIV infection, aware of their status and they are obliged by law to behave accordingly.

No it doesn't. It would only work if everyone complied. To make sure everyone complied there would have to be compulsion by law. The law will be broken. There will be witch hunts. It only takes a tiny fraction to break those laws and the whole community would be, once again, demonised.

You have had no original ideas and, just like the rest of us, you are drawing conclusions based on what you know. The rest of us believe your conclusions are, to a large extent, wrong.

You do seem to want to control every thread that mentions HIV/AIDS or gay men. On one forum that has no influence in that field. Just give it a rest eh?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:20 AM

Troubadour, you said of me " every part of your input is based on your scientifically UNSUPPORTED BELIEF that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice,"

I do not believe that.
I am sure that orientation is decided before birth.

You also said, "So you say, but you are the only one saying it, with sycophantic support from K A of H,"

Others are saying it and I quoted the National Aids Trust saying exactly that.

Musket, you have claimed again that it is "technically incorrect" to call it an epidemic.
No.
It is technically correct and that is why all the agencies call it that.

You also say, "He berates the healthcare professions and calls me a liar when I say we take historical facts into consideration when forming conclusions and strategies."
Untrue.

You also say," Then in a thread about the Irish famine, he is trying to tell Jim it is alright for historians to form a view that doesn't accord with facts. "
Untrue.
I said there is debate among historians and blame is disputed.
That is a simple, plain truth.
An easily verified fact.

Because of your "importance" you think you know more about History than historians.
"those historians should know better" you said.
You have shown here that you know very little about anything, even in you own professional sphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:27 AM

Watch out Goofus. Talk of needle share or promiscuity in general cuts no ice with Bill &Ben the bigoted men. They like to point out anything and everything to do with men who poke their willies up other men's bottoms, and other transmission methods don't show on their gaydar.

Of course, they see you as a supporter of their quest, due to some of your more unfortunate comments, but pointing out issues the rest of us see as relevant isn't singing from their hymn sheet.

Wait till they realise you have said something coherent and rational. They'll not thank you for it...



Jeri. Of course you are right. But allowing agenda driven hate have the last word gives it a veneer of respectability that decency alone cannot allow. Not sure how to address that, but if views borne of lies and manipulated statistics aren't challenged, how can objective onlookers form a view?

Akenaton comes out with a preposterous prediction he read somewhere. I dismiss it. Keith then finds it on a second source and says it must be true. Ergo I'm a liar who is killing thousands of people for political reasons.

Laughing at them is the default position, but a lingering odour makes the laughter seem somewhat hollow.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 04:35 AM

They like to point out anything and everything to do with men who poke their willies up other men's bottoms, and other transmission methods don't show on their gaydar.

Untrue Musket.
No-one has said that, and of course multiple and concurrent partners and needle sharing are the cause of the epidemic among all demographics, not just MSM.
MSM are just the worst effected by far.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:13 AM

Bulletin of the World Health Organization 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:39 AM

>>Jeri. Of course you are right. But allowing agenda driven hate have the last word gives it a veneer of respectability that decency alone cannot allow. <<

Sure you can allow it. No one cares about the last word but you and Keith. Go ahead! Try it. Shut the fuck up. See who cares. When you go skiing this crap slows down a lot. Go skiing. Pretend you are skiing! There you go, pretend you are skiing. Swish Swish!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:04 AM

Back so soon, Jack? Can you not just go away like you promised?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:35 AM

Ah, well Jack... If you have developed a sense of saying what you mean rather than what you think you want others to think you mean, we can all play at that game...

Stop reading the fucking thing then. It isn't hard, just hover your mouse away from the thread title before clicking. A bit like thinking before clicking the keyboard.

You really haven't worked out the jet set have you? Ski is soooo last winter! Golly gosh, Johnny Foreigner, no wonder you pass the port the wrong way and struggle with the fish knives! One is orf to Dublin at the weekend to observe the American ritual of Paddy's Day that they imported there a few years ago. Apparently it coincides with a church observance of theirs. Rather jolly fun all the same. They do this drinkypoo called an Irish cocktail. A pint of that black stuff they inflict on the working classes with a potato stuck in the top. Not very sophisticated but goes down well with the Paddy and the Power.

MSM aren't the most effected, but there is evidence to support they have been hitherto over represented in terms of being affected.

Two words there Keith, affected and hitherto. Your use of the word effected was somewhat Freudian but I'll not pick you up on that. You pick me up but reciprocating isn't cricket.

How many times do I have to repeat the information coming from commissioning support units and PHE to providers of sexual health services? The historical position is based on

a) anal sex being an efficient transmission therefore an explosion (dramatic use of the word epidemic for good reason) in the '80s which went through the well worn stages of immediate decline followed by complacent rise followed by steady rise followed by small numbers informing a steady rise trajectory.

b). Due to the success of public health promotion, rise in drop in clinics and awareness, more gay men seek screening than other groups. This, considering the small numbers involved, (a nationwide screening service that even when combined with routine screening as part of other tests in primary and secondary care picks up a few thousand nationwide, out of a population of sixty odd million,) leads to more MSM occurrence on the statistics. If you only counted anonymous drop in clinics, it would be skewed even more towards MSM.

c). They are still a very high risk group, but only in terms of the few who practice unprotected anal sex with new partners. There are far more women do that than men who receive.

d). The age demographic demonstrates older men contracting the condition in larger numbers than expected. Hence the need to remain vigilant with regard to unknown positive condition.

Those are my words, but lifted in context from a paper going to the specialised commissioning board for a region of England shortly. The paper was written by a consultant in public health as part of his attachment to PHE. Once it is in the public domain, May, if you really want, I can forward it to you.

In short, you continually accuse me of complacency and extend that to the sexual health services on the basis that you disagree with me therefore the work I am involved in. I Must be wrong because Keith knows more than a successful sexual health service nationally.

There is an issue for MSM based on prevalence, but an even larger issue for other groups, based on both statistics for other health issues such as colo rectal, and indeed seeing the rise in non gay contraction in other countries, especially Africa. Don't forget that it used to be seen as a gay issue around that continent too.....

Promiscuity in gay men has a higher chance of HIV than promiscuous lifestyle in heterosexual men. No denying that, and the reason is nothing more and nothing less than anus wall tissue being, just like under the tongue, a good transmitter of external chemicals to the rest of the body. This is why suppositories are popular in France, and many quick action tablets are under the tongue type here.

None of this fits with a programme of targeting gay men, whether for good or evil purposes. Stigmatising will make Akenaton's analysis a self fulfilling prophesy.

Now. Here are the rules. I was quoting PHE, and the report it was in cites many published papers, comprising of meta analysis. Cochrane studies, various reports of local directors of public health and background study for clinical trials of medicines allied to the condition. Published in BMJ, Lancet, NEJM and others.

Your task, should you wish to accept, is to put forward evidence that could counter the argument . It isn't hard, and I am already seeing some of it questioned by real people who I would be advised to listen to. If you want to influence debate here, your questioning would have to be as objective and informed as that I have in front of me, (ok, opened in a Word file I pulled) and not in the slightest driven by prejudice or agenda.

Thought not.


Out of interest, I have nothing to do with that proposal, but a proposal for mobile screening units for certain cancers is also on the agenda and that is my interest in the meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 11:39 AM

You want me to counter what argument in all that rambling?

A few points.
Don't forget that it used to be seen as a gay issue around that continent(Africa) too.....

No it never was.

MSM aren't the most effected

In Africa maybe, but they certainly are here.

PHE are quite clear that the current increase is real and not due to increased testing.

You ought to know these things.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:51 PM

From 'Guest's' link, 'Bulletin of the World Health Organization':


"This principle is implemented through appropriate targeting of STI control interventions. In Asia, for example, STI control programmes increasingly aim for "saturation coverage" of high-risk populations of sex workers, men who have sex with men, and persons injecting drugs. Other interventions target bridge populations – such as clients and partners of high-risk individuals – through STI clinics or workplace interventions."

AND....

"Who?

STI control efforts should focus on core and bridge populations, symptomatic patients and persons living with HIV. High coverage of such key populations as sex workers and men who have sex with men is the first priority.39,40 Efforts should also be made to reach actual or likely clients of sex workers and other bridge populations who disseminate STIs from core networks to the general population. Clinics providing STI treatment are a good entry point to screen and identify persons living with HIV, and additional effort is required to screen persons living with HIV under care to ensure that any STIs are detected and treated.16,41,42"

...Now are you going to blame the World Health Organization of being 'bigots' and 'homophobes', too??

GfS

P.S. Speaking of clowns.......

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 01:12 PM

No one is accusing anyone of being a bigot or homophobe for trying to help, GfS. The bigot and homophobe label is only applied to people who preach that homosexuality is unnatural, that homosexuals are perverts or that homosexuality is akin to pedophilia.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Looking for ? in all the wrong places
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 02:37 PM

The WHO and other international health reports, dispel many HIV related myths, over-simplifications, and distorted perspectives.Why be selective?

""Just believe in you!
And learn to love yourself
Before anyone else

Keep on looking now
You gotta keep on looking now
Keep on looking now

Where your walk it's always shadow
Conversation always shallow
When they talk they never look you in the eye
They look over your shoulder
To faces even colder
And you feel a little older
Every time......



You're looking for love
In all the wrong places

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 02:49 PM

This thread is about HIV transmission. In the UK and US, HIV/AIDS is almost exclusively a condition of male homosexuality, and if the present rates of infection continue MSM will account for 90% of new cases by 2020.

These are the facts, if you want confirmation read the health agency figures.
I am amazed that anyone thinks this is not a serious health problem, and should not be discussed.
I have not heard any suggestions from any others here except Keith, as to how this epidemic is to be halted, but it must be halted and very quickly indeed.
The only quick way is by increased targeted testing and contact tracing of the most "at risk" demographics.

The point I was making on increased testing and contact tracing, was to persuade the homosexual agencies to promote testing, to accept that this condition is primarily centred on the male homosexual community and to make it clear to members of that community that it is socially unacceptable NOT to be regularly tested.

I realise this procedure is at odds with the agenda of "liberalism" which exists on much of this forum but, if any here are really interested in the health of a sector society, there is no other option.

I also realise that quite a few of those posting on this thread have NO interest in homosexuals or homosexual health, but are simply trying to protect an agenda of idiocy. These people, especially those who should know better, are despicable.

Dave, I have said many times ...some on this thread, that I don't believe that homosexuals are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals. Why do you continue to repeat this lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 05:07 PM

Stop repeating what I say using different words and then say I should know these things

No.
I am "bemused."

You said HIV WAS a gay issue in Africa, I said it was not.

Not the same thing.
The complete opposite thing.

You said it technically is not an epidemic.
I said it technically is.

Not the same thing.
The complete opposite thing.

You ought to know better, you being so important, with your own toilet and all.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 06:05 PM

Pandemic versus Epidemic definition 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:50 PM

Dave the Gnome: "No one is accusing anyone of being a bigot or homophobe for trying to help, GfS. The bigot and homophobe label is only applied to people who preach that homosexuality is unnatural, that homosexuals are perverts or that homosexuality is akin to pedophilia."

Well, you are getting closer...I COULD correct and clarify what you stated, with more accuracy....but this thread is about the transmission of HIV/AIDS.....

...Still, the bottom line is promiscuity, hetero AND homo... and needle sharing....Do I NEED to say 'junk and speed'???....or would some idiot jump my case for including, (or excluding) their favorite 'substance'?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:50 PM

Dave, I have said many times ...some on this thread, that I don't believe that homosexuals are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals. Why do you continue to repeat this lie?

Ake. Show me where I said that you believe that homosexuals are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals. Are you just clutching at straws to try and show I am lying about you or have I hit a raw nerve?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:11 PM

GfS: Well, you are getting closer...I COULD correct and clarify what you stated, with more accuracy....

I am getting closer to what? Please feel free to correct and clarify, with more accuracy, as I have not got a clue what the fuck you are on about. If that is sanity I am glad I am raving mad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:35 PM

DtG: "I am getting closer to what? Please feel free to correct and clarify, with more accuracy, as I have not got a clue what the fuck you are on about. If that is sanity I am glad I am raving mad."

Well, first of all, you should re-read your post....it's somewhat contradictory to your own self.....

The other part was, "as I have not got a clue what the fuck you are on about."......
All I can say, at this point, without diverting the thread is, Don't confuse a political consensus with biological facts....it can mislead you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:28 AM

Two of my posts missing, I notice.

Is this how ludicrous claims such as "almost exclusively a condition of homosexual behaviour" goes unchallenged by those who decry bigotry and malicious lies?

If only there was someone on these threads who analyses what people say and calls them liars? Or does he wish to see that one go unchallenged too?

Well?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 03:29 AM

Please challenge it Musket.
Just avoid using wording that might get anyone deleted.

Are you incapable of making a reasoned case?
Do you have a case?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 03:54 AM

Musket: "If only there was someone on these threads who analyses what people say and calls them liars? Or does he wish to see that one go unchallenged too?"

Well, at least you could ask them to back up the claim with numbers from a reliable source.....fair enough?......but then if he puts them up, check it out, and if the link backs him up, accept it, or challenge him courteously..which so far, hasn't been your M.O.

That being said, I think it is reasonable to acknowledge that percentage-wise, homosexually active males are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS....HOWEVER, one group is being totally overlooked, and that are the 'bisexuals'....who may easily infect females as well....and if that is with a sexually promiscuous female, that would certainly affect the heteros, and give them a bump in their numbers, as well.
How come everyone leaves out the 'bisexuals'?? You don't hear much of a crusade for 'bisexual marriages'......
...but that's another story.....
I imagine a bisexual needle sharer is a risky place to be!!!

GfS

P.S. Shhhh, don't tell anyone, but bisexuality is actually homosexuality, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:22 AM

Both Keith and I have put up the statistics for The UK.

I have also, till it was thrown in my face, put forward the UK public health commentary on the future.

If I say around two thousand, Keith calls me a liar and say sit is 2,001 or whatever. Keith keeps saying he likes accuracy. Yet Akenaton is calling for persecution of a section of society based on figures that don't exist. Keith stays quiet.

That's all I need to know.

He asks if I have a case. Odd considering he keeps quoting the case I am making. Whether he likes it or not, UK healthcare is something I can have an opinion on same as him. I also deal with the facts day in day out.

And they don't support homophobic intention or incitement to hatred.

HIV is not a gay issue. It is a society issue. What's more, it is a small issue that is lifestyle changing and life limiting for small numbers of people.

It isn't an excuse for rounding up gay men. We have screening and contact tracing, spend a hell of a lot of money on it, and yes, we compare the situation to what it could potentially be if we didn't do anything about it.

What nobody does is follow some political, religious or plain ignorant excuse to spread lies and hate about a whole section of society.

Why is he allowed to carry on doing that? Why do people who ask to be taken seriously support it, despite knowing there is no evidence anywhere to support his wild slur?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:48 AM

meanwhile back at the ranch.

I am coming up to the end of my clincial attachment in sexual health. (I am a doctor, for anyone who hasnt followed this thread.)

The figures for February for one city centre drop in service have been verified. Whilst I cannot disclose the clinic, city or actual numbers at this time, although they will be available at some point I am sure, I can say the following;

Over 50 HIV voluntary screenings. (We screen for other conditions too as part of the service.) The majority were men who felt at risk through MSM. We picked up a small number of HIV positives. None were in the MSM category. Not a single one. That said, we expect to pick some up. Also, the ones we picked up were early stage which isnt nice for the patient but a relief that we can deal with it at this stage rather than in an advanced stage. Only one man in that group, and his female partner, from whom he conracted it.

I am saddened by the claim by Alex that HIV is an almost exclusive gay issue. Many people, including Musket and Mr Hertford have given the historical figure and Musket has tried outlining the projected future. Yet Alex still insists on his story.

It seems fear and distrust of others is as popular now as it has ever beeen. So sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 04:48 AM

Nope, still no wiser, Sanity.

Well, first of all, you should re-read your post....it's somewhat contradictory to your own self

I have not got any clue whatsoever what that might even mean. How can a post be contradictory to my 'own self'? Even if it could how do you know what my 'own self' is?

Sorry, probably me being thick, but you are going to have to spell it out.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

Goofus is going to explain what he is saying and spell it out?

Wow...

Hang on, give me a chance to put the kettle on and put the phone to divert.....

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 05:45 AM

What do you mean "historical figure"?
We have had the very latest figures from the latest national report.
Can anyone show us more recent national figures?
We have been told they are available but I have asked for them many times without result.

This has been the situation for infection in UK for the last ten years.
MSM very high and rising.
Black African high but falling.
All others low and falling.

Any evidence of a change in those trends?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 02:28 PM

DtG: "...have not got a clue what the fuck you are on about. If that is sanity I am glad I am raving mad."

About what?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 06:41 PM

The Office of National Statistics estimate the percentage of homosexuals(male and female), in the UK at 1.5%
This converts to 750,000 in real numbers.....of that figure around 400,000 are MSM, the remainder being female.

PHE(HPA) estimate the number of MSM living with HIV in the UK, as 41000.
This converts to 1 in 10 of the MSM demographic carrying the HIV virus.

This is an epidemic in any ones language, but no matter how you try to avoid the issue, there is a very serious problem of sexual health amongst male homosexuals.

Any one who suggests otherwise is either a fool, or even worse, wilfully lying.
HIV/AIDS, is not just a manageable illness like flu or the common cold, if not diagnosed very quickly, it is almost always terminal and even when diagnosed early it always means a lifetime of heavy medication and who knows what long term damage to internal organs, or brain function. It is an extremely serious condition affecting MSM at rates that, if they pertained to heterosexuals, would cause the National health service and the wider economy to collapse.

Increased testing and contact tracing for the MSM demographic is essential if we are serious about halting the epidemic....there is simply no alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 07:05 PM

IN the US, 75% of new syphilis infections were amongst MSM.

•In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) MSM and 12% among MSM overall.


Epidemic?....What epidemic?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 07:52 PM

Discrimination and homophobia fuel the HIV epidemic in gay and bisexual men 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 12:53 AM

'Guest'(one or the other').......
"This is from your article, fourth paragraph, second sentence:"In this article, consideration is given to the manner through which discrimination and homophobia, which may have been heightened because of the AIDS epidemic."

The key words(in caps):
"In this article, CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN to the manner through which discrimination and homophobia, which MAY have been heightened because of the AIDS epidemic"

Two things that set the flags up, when I've seen these types of 'theories', 'May' denotes a possibility, so it would be somewhat foolish to automatically take this as FACT, and it wants to set forth the notion, that the actual 'doer' of the deed is not responsible for their actions.

All be it, the article did bring out some actual fact based stats, which should be considered.
There IS a problem though with trying to blame it even partially, on someone else.
(BTW, the fact that there is a deflection of responsibility, happens to be consistent with what IS clinically known about the psyche of homosexuals.)
Nonetheless, the article DOES address the spread of HIV/AIDS.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 04:18 AM

What's the point?

I haven't seen an honest interpretation of data since I last referenced it.

I also note that it isn't only my posts that go missing.

A tip for posters. If you work in healthcare in any capacity don't declare it. Your objectivity and honesty gets deleted.

A tip for moderators. Are you sure someone doesn't have editing rights who shouldn't? It's funny how lies, homophobia and hate inspired posts remain whilst the actual situation gets deleted?

After all, I doubt for one second that one of our moderators thinks it ok to demonise innocent whole sections of society but not allow those providing the hate to read what respectable members of society think of their odious bile?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 07:56 AM

The trouble with facts is that there are so many of them.Samuel McChord Crothers

The Gentle ReaderFacts have a cruel way of substituting themselves for fancies. There is nothing more remorseless, just as there is nothing more helpful, than truth.William C. Redfield, Address at Case School, Cleveland, Ohio, May 27, 1915

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort them into what they are not. We cannot make facts. All our wishing cannot change them. We must use them.John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801 - 1890)

Count Hermann Keyserling once said truly that the greatest American superstition was belief in facts.John Gunther (1901 - 1970)

Generally the theories we believe we call facts, and the facts we disbelieve we call theories.Felix Cohen

Where facts are few, experts are many.Donald R. Gannon

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 08:15 AM

HIV and African Americans (traditionally marginalized in USA society) 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 08:49 AM

Greater Risk for HIV Infection of Black Men Who Have Sex With Men:  

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM

Interesting site, for the open minded 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:24 AM

All very interesting.

However, we have someone who takes the fact that more gay men in The UK turn up for voluntary screening than other high risk groups as a reason for hating them and forcing anyone who is gay to undergo invasive testing. Which cannot be carried out by a healthcare professional without consent by the way.

Meanwhile, a right wing idiot has just admitted his guilt in court for malicious communication. This is the criminal offence I asked my ISP to pass on regarding the behaviour of Akenaton. The offence occurs where you post, not where the site is hosted.

Obviously, the rambling hate of an insignificant nobody who nobody listens to, (Keith and Goofus being irrelevant nobodies) isn't of interest but you have to do something.

If anybody here actually believed Akenaton, or were persuaded that gay love is perverted and against human nature, or that gay sex is making HIV an increasing epidemic that is almost exclusively gay....

It's a pity that political inspired posters such as Keith refuse to question his statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:32 AM

Missing voices, for consideration only. 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 09:37 AM

""Antigay prejudice is a public health threat"" quote.

Could if be true?

If so, is an antidote needed?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 10:53 AM

Hmm.....the discussion of HIV transmission seems to be at an end?

Now its about justifying homosexuality.
Well excuse me if I don't take part in that little game, the thread is about TRANSMISSION.

That MSM are massively over represented in the infection rates for most sexual diseases is a well documented fact, your priority should be to get these transmission rates drastically cut into line with other sections of society, not attempt to cover the problem by inferring homophobia.

To do so is cowardly and against the interests of all homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 11:38 AM

Original post suggests the discussion focus on (potentially) effective prevention programs. As HIV is a "global pandemic", discussing potential causes of high infection rates in a HIV impacted group meets the OP test to target potentially effective prevention programs, (while it may be inconvenient for those with another agenda or "pet prevention approach" -that may or may not be effective - to meet the needs to reduce the" global pandemic" in of any group in targeted communities).

Repeating the "same old, same old" seems mostly of interest to those few interested in dispute, versus unearthing new information to fuel interesting and non-inflamatory discussion. Note the few people ckntributing now, versus near the top of the OP.

OP
BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor 
 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: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 12:40 PM

Nobody is justifying homosexuality. On the basis you don't need to justify existing. Who would anyone justify themselves to?

Someone is trying to justify homophobia though. Luckily, we do not need to engage with one group more than any other. If other at risk groups used screening facilities in the numbers that gay men do, spread would be less. PHE, the public health body advising government and NHS for England are lobbying for more health education amongst female sex workers and hard to reach ethnic groups.

Historical data is of interest to gay interest organisations and those who despise them equally. Trajectory by meta analysis of all factors is getting better, and once we have better primary care data to go with HES (secondary care data) national trajectories will reflect a combination of all local predictions, weighted accordingly.

(That's for all health matters, not just sexual health. For a country where 95% of acute care is centralised by funding, we are shocking at giving a whole picture. We ended up abolishing The Health Protection Agency and incorporating its role into a larger public health body, perhaps (my opinion, not necessarily everyone's) the one good move in the reorganisation of The NHS. Crude incidence data will not be used in isolation from 2014/15. That said, historical data is excellent when auditing effectiveness of interventions. Ben Goldacre wrote a good article on it, and how some have abused it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 14 - 06:52 PM

If other at risk groups used screening facilities in the numbers that gay men do, spread would be less.

In all other groups, infection is already falling.

MSM do use screening more, but infection continues to rise.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 04:06 AM

Musket: "Nobody is justifying homosexuality. On the basis you don't need to justify existing. Who would anyone justify themselves to?

Someone is trying to justify homophobia though."

Absolute nonsense! Concern over the spread of a DEADLY virus, through a certain group's sexual behavior, is NOT homophobia!...it IS, 'Concern over the spread of a DEADLY virus' because of their sexual behavior!!
...and it is NOT, "...you don't need to justify existing. "

Merely existing, is not the question, nor the controversy...BEHAVIOR is the issue....behavior that, because of self indulgent neglect, large amounts of people are DYING! What is it about that, that you don't understand????
Perhaps by denying that there is a problem, and/or denying that people who engage is such behavior, are at risk to themselves and others, perhaps you want them to contract a fatal disease, because underneath your 'so-called liberal' bantering, maybe YOU'RE homophobic!! Would you discourage people who share needles to be tested, on the basis that it would be 'politically incorrect' to hurt THEIR FEELINGS, as well??????

Hypocrisy on parade!
I don't see any of the posters that you demonize for being as 'bigoted homo-phobics', making value judgements, against anyone....and yet you call them 'haters'.
You need to separate yourself from what is 'politically correct' verses what is practical and safe.....if not for themselves, but for the victimization of the public, at large, due to UNSAFE sexual, (and addictive, for the needle sharers), practices!!!!
Get over yourself!
There is NO SANE reason, that political OPINIONS should override common sense, now is there???...and those who promote political opinions over common sense, might consider getting a new, and realistic political, or even an apolitical reality!
Politics are usually based on distortions.....to convince people to abandon COMMON SENSE, and replace it with often wishful thinking!!
How do YOU suggest that the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus should, or could be arrested?????????????........By denying it exists??..or how it spreads???.....or who is spreading it faster??.....because you're terrified of 'offending' the groups spreading it???...and being thought of being 'an imperfect liberal'???
Don't let your sense of 'political correctness' get in the way of recognizing the TRUTH, and doing what is right!

One more time, before I'm done,.."How do YOU suggest that the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus should, or could be arrested?????????????"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:02 AM

It is not necessarily wrong,

PHE will be so relieved that you said that.

although you can't prove absolutely, that finding more could be down to increased infections.

I would not even try.
Why would I when PHE do the calculation and publish their conclusion, that there is a real increase in infection as well as increased testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 09:19 AM

"I am amazed that anyone thinks this is not a serious health problem, and should not be discussed."

They should be, and are being, discussed by people who know much more than you and don't share your penchant for stereotyping all who don't fit your smug, narrow minded cosmic perception.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 09:32 AM

"The point I was making on increased testing and contact tracing, was to persuade the homosexual agencies to promote testing, to accept that this condition is primarily centred on the male homosexual community and to make it clear to members of that community that it is socially unacceptable NOT to be regularly tested."

Since MSMs are already the grouping which is embracing testing more than any other, apparently you haven't much to worry about.

But of course you don't accept the fact that hetero men and women don't have the same uptake of testing, which skews the figures proportionally.

This of course causes an apparent prevalence of infection in MSM, which will inevitably be exposed as hetero infection passes the asymptomatic phase and becomes obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 12:44 PM

My posts are missing again.

Pathetic.

Homophobia is not only obscene, but appears to be popular too.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

Musket: "Homophobia is not only obscene, but appears to be popular too."

Homophobia is a fear based 'hate', if you will..and being as 'hate' is much like a contagious disease, perhaps you should stop spreading 'hate', by labeling people who are actually voicing their views on trying to arrest the other physical diseases! If the 'conflict' is diverted away from the root causes, you can rest assured that LESS will be done, by NOT focusing on the REAL sources of the REAL problems, and trying to make political hay out of it! We can all shift the attention away...and by doing so MORE people will die...and 'blame' will be overlooked, in favor of some stupid, political OPINION!

The preceding message was NOT politically, nor 'hate' motivated.

Also, you seemed to have not addressed the question on what would you do, or be in favor of, to arrest the spread of the fatal diseases. You don't necessarily have to focus on just the homosexual aspects of it...HIV/AIDS is a physical killer, NOT a ping-pong ball to 'justify' the so called 'prejudice' in regards to the BEHAVIOR of those, who are spreading it, or why, and/or what should/could be done about it!!
If the question of consequences of people's BEHAVIOR is NOT addressed, you might as well condone people killing each other, over 'fun' and 'feeling good'!....ask any junkie!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 03:21 PM

Troubadour, your view is not supported by PHE.
They are clear that infection is falling in all groups except MSM, and that there is a real rise in MSM infection that can not be explained by more testing.

"The rise in diagnoses among MSM may be explained by both an increase in HIV testing and on-going high rates of transmission. The number of MSM that had an HIV test in sexual health services in England increased by 13% from 64,270 in 2011 to 72,710 in 2012, while in London the increase was 19% (from 28,640 in 2011 to 33,980, in 2012). However, estimations of HIV incidence using a back-calculation analysis [3] indicate that HIV transmission among MSM remained high with 2,300-2,500 new infections annually and 7,200 MSM undiagnosed in 2012, with little change over the last decade (Figure 3)."

"Over the last decade, the number of new diagnoses among heterosexuals declined in England, especially in London."

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317140300680

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

HIV infections in gay men 'increasing in homophobic countries'Email16th March 2010, 11:57 AMHIV rates were increasing in gay men, Michel Sidibe said.Get the latest LGBT headlines in your inbox with our free daily newsletter!JOIN5 reader comments

Rates of HIV infections in gay men are increasing in countries which have homophobic attitudes, the chief of the UN AIDS agency has said.

Michel Sidibe told journalists at a lunch yesterday that rates of infection among gay men were rising in areas such as Africa, where many countries have laws against homosexuality.

He said that in Africa and China, around 33 per cent of new HIV infections were being found in gay men, which he said was a significant increase.

AP reports that on new laws being introduced in countries such as Uganda, he said: "You have also a growing conservatism which is making me very scared.

"We must insist that the rights of the minorities are upheld. If we don't do that … I think the epidemic will grow again. We cannot accept the tyranny of the majority."

Mr Sidibe said that, in contrast, between six and nine per cent of new infections are found in gay men in the Caribbean, which has fewer laws against homosexuality.

He blamed the rising infection rates on infected people being too scared to seek help and fearing they will be punished.

He also cited rising infection rates in drug users and prostitutes in countries which have stringent laws against drug use and prostitution.

Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality law will impose the death penalty on those caught having gay sex while infected with HIV.

The bill's sponsor, David Bahati MP, claims it will reduce HIV infections in the country, although health experts say it will have the opposite effect.

Mr Sidibe also mentioned HIV infections in the US, saying it was "shocking" that more than 50 per cent of new infections in 2009 occurred in gay men.

He said: "It seems like we have come full circle. After almost no cases a few years ago we are seeing again this new peak among people who are not having access to all the information, the protection that is needed."






homophobia link by UN Aids agency 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia - NAT comment

Friday is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. To mark the day NAT is repeating its call to legalise gay marriage as an important step to challenging the homophobia which fuels the UK's HIV epidemic.

Many gay men and women still continue to suffer discrimination and prejudice in their lives. Banning same sex couples from marriage endorses this discrimination and sends out a clear message that same sex relationships aren't equal to opposite sex couples.

This discrimination leads to low self esteem and internalised stigma amongst many gay men.

Low self esteem is proven to have an impact on the way people look after themselves and make decisions about their health and wellbeing. If you don't believe you are worth anything, why would you value yourself?

This devaluing of yourself and your health can result in behaviour such as high risk sexual activity or injecting drugs [1] which are currently fueling the HIV epidemic amongst gay and bi-sexual men.

Around seven gay or bisexual men a day in the UK are getting HIV and it remains one of the most serious infectious diseases we face. About 100,000 people are living with HIV in the UK - including approximately one in twenty gay and bisexual men.

Recent research by Stonewall [2] and others, including the Department of Health [3] show that lesbian and gay men have higher levels of substance abuse and mental health concerns, due in considerable part to ongoing stigma and discrimination.

Recent evidence also suggests combating institutional discrimination through opening civil marriage to gay and lesbian people can significantly influence their patterns of health. [4]

NAT believes, same sex marriage is a key step towards ending stigma and discrimination towards gay people by encouraging current and future generations to treat everyone equally, no matter what their sexual orientation. The passing of this legislation by the House of Lords will be a milestone in celebrating gay people, gay communities and gay sexuality. It also crucially helps to promote social, physical and mental health for all people in the UK and would help reduce the rising number of new HIV diagnoses amongst gay men.

- See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/News-and-Media/Press-Releases/2013/May/International%20Day%20Against%20Homophobia%20and%20Transphobia%20.aspx#sthash.6NUrcbxn.dpuf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 04:15 PM

From Keith's link......"In the UK, free and accessible HIV treatment and care has resulted in large-scale treatment coverage: in 2012, 67% of the entire HIV population (diagnosed and undiagnosed) were treated compared to 85% among the diagnosed population. It was estimated that 48% (40,800/96,000) of the entire HIV population had an undetectable viral load in 2011. [30]
Despite this, "treatment as prevention" is unlikely to be sufficient to reduce HIV transmission in the UK. Using MSM as an example, while the proportion of all HIV-positive MSM who had viral loads >1,500 copies/mL decreased from 47% in 2006 to 35% in 2010 [31], HIV incidence remained steady during this period [4]. It is estimated that if diagnosed and untreated patients with CD4 counts <500 cells/mm3 were treated, the proportion of the HIV population with detectable viral loads could have decreased from 42% (40,800) to 38% (36,500). In contrast,

halving the undiagnosed population from 22,600 to 11,300 could have led to a decrease in the proportion of MSM living with HIV with detectable viral load from 42% to 28% (27,000). This demonstrates that "treatment as prevention" is unlikely to reduce HIV transmission, unless it is combined with very frequent HIV testing alongside primary prevention programmes."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:06 PM

From the last post: "He blamed the rising infection rates on infected people being too scared to seek help and fearing they will be punished."

Now just think about that for a moment...

Now we are supposed to sympathize with people who contract a FATAL disease, and are AFRAID to ask for help?????..because they will be 'punished'????

Absolutely astonishing!

I have a personal story about that kind of idiocy. I had a friend, and musical partner, Michael Llona, who was with a 'friend(?)', and smoked a joint, that had some coke in it. Mike was 27..however he started having chest pains, and laid down on a couch, while his 'friend' was there, too afraid to call an ambulance, for fear that the cops would show up, as well, asking a lot of questions. Mike lay on the couch for a bit over two hours, while all his 'friend' would do was give him a Popsicle. Mike died that evening, on the couch, because the asshole 'friend' would not call for help, for fear of 'being punished'. What a loss....for nothing, but fear!
If you're not willing to take responsibility for your 'pleasures', but will put other people in danger, then maybe one ought to reconsider their priorities!!!
Michael Llona, vocals, acoustic guitar

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:18 PM

Effectiveness versus sympathy 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 05:29 PM

http://m.her.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/5/834.long 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 07:53 PM

And the UK gov't reaction is? 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:13 PM

From an earlier post, to 'KB', dealing with the same subject(I've deleted some nonessential sentences, but note, in the area of being honest, and the results!) WE NEED MORE HONESTY!!

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Mar 13 - 03:07 PM

Well, KB...you're opinions are not always wrong...and you've been cool about it...I'm waiting to hear from our illustrious Professor..being as he LOVES to twist and distort history and facts, to suit his own agenda.
having an 'opinion' on homosexuality is one thing...lying about it.. ... is another.
Being deceived is not evil in itself..because people, in general, try to make the best possible decisions, based on the information that they have to work with..if one is deceived, he's just deceived.... and given more accurate information, they would more than likely adjust their decisions........the evil belongs to those, who being self willed, set out to deceive another. That is quite another thing.
Being as a great many people, have some compassion in them, may empathize with various homosexuals that they may have an acquaintance with..I too, have had associations both professionally and artistically with people who were homosexual....but because I was truthful with them, they were honest to me in return....in in that honesty, they have admitted things to me, about their homosexuality, that they would never admit to another, generic placatory 'so-called' activist!!
In the course of my associations with a certain homosexual, who was, in my opinion, a musical and sound engineering genius....I was able to convince him to return to his father, in Sacramento, reconcile with his dad....who ended up taking care of him.... He died of AIDS, in his father's care.
From his own admissions to me, and my studies, and sensitivities in dealing with him, though his fears and perceived sexual 'inabilities' toward the opposite sex, I have NO DOUBT whatsoever, that our resident Professor Wannabe Activist, has worked overtime in trying to delude others, as he hides from his emotional callousness, both in his past, and failure to ever come to terms with it!!.....

Respectfully KB,

GfS

P.S. As per aforementioned, "WE NEED MORE HONESTY!!" to overcome the fears. That does not mean anyone needs to accept the 'wonderfulness' of homosexuality or sharing needles..BUT, let's get off of the nonsensical 'homophobic' hate raps!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 14 - 11:16 PM

(The last post was mine, but I forgot to sign in...you can delete the prior post).
.............................................................................

From an earlier post, to 'KB', dealing with the same subject(I've deleted some nonessential sentences, but note, in the area of being honest, and the results!) WE NEED MORE HONESTY!!

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Mar 13 - 03:07 PM

Well, KB...you're opinions are not always wrong...and you've been cool about it...I'm waiting to hear from our illustrious Professor..being as he LOVES to twist and distort history and facts, to suit his own agenda.
having an 'opinion' on homosexuality is one thing...lying about it.. ... is another.
Being deceived is not evil in itself..because people, in general, try to make the best possible decisions, based on the information that they have to work with..if one is deceived, he's just deceived.... and given more accurate information, they would more than likely adjust their decisions........the evil belongs to those, who being self willed, set out to deceive another. That is quite another thing.
Being as a great many people, have some compassion in them, may empathize with various homosexuals that they may have an acquaintance with..I too, have had associations both professionally and artistically with people who were homosexual....but because I was truthful with them, they were honest to me in return....in in that honesty, they have admitted things to me, about their homosexuality, that they would never admit to another, generic placatory 'so-called' activist!!
In the course of my associations with a certain homosexual, who was, in my opinion, a musical and sound engineering genius....I was able to convince him to return to his father, in Sacramento, reconcile with his dad....who ended up taking care of him.... He died of AIDS, in his father's care.
From his own admissions to me, and my studies, and sensitivities in dealing with him, though his fears and perceived sexual 'inabilities' toward the opposite sex, I have NO DOUBT whatsoever, that our resident Professor Wannabe Activist, has worked overtime in trying to delude others, as he hides from his emotional callousness, both in his past, and failure to ever come to terms with it!!.....

Respectfully KB,

GfS

P.S. As per aforementioned, "WE NEED MORE HONESTY!!" to overcome the fears. That does not mean anyone needs to accept the 'wonderfulness' of homosexuality or sharing needles..BUT, let's get off of the nonsensical 'homophobic' hate raps!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 05:22 AM

Ake: Increased testing and contact tracing for the MSM demographic is essential if we are serious about halting the epidemic....there is simply no alternative.

Some quotes from Keith, who, according to you, is the only one who has any sense: MSM do use screening more, but infection continues to rise. and PHE do the calculation and publish their conclusion, that there is a real increase in infection as well as increased testing.

So, Ake, there you have it. Screening and testing have increased, but infection is still rising. Yet you still keep saying that is the only solution. Are you saying that more screening and testing is required? How do we achieve that?

Do we educate people so that there is a higher take up? Surely not. You have already stated quite categorically that education does not work! So, how do we convince people to get tested? Go on then. Give us the benefit of your wisdom.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 05:24 AM

I know that those of us working in healthcare have our posts deleted, in case people see challenge to the homophobic hysteria by those who the moderators admire, but you cant change the facts.

HIV testing in The UK follows recent NICE guidelines and is in line with guidance from The British HIV Association. Guidelines for local authorities, who are charged with provision of all STI testing except HIV clearly state a few truths that are sorely missing in this debate. Except that Musket sends me a copy of what he writes before it gets deleted. He tells me he has been asked for evidence from his ISP, as he is deeply shocked that this could happen, and sexual health is too important to let it drop.

This is awful, really awful. HIV is an issue worldwide, and still a larger issue here than it ought to be. About a quarter of people living with early stage arent even aware of it. They are a mixed bunch, the unmet need. SOme are gay, but we predict almost as many are black African origin, (both sexes) and to a slightly lesser extent female sex workers and younger promiscuous girls.

There is nothing, nothing whatseover to substantiate a campaign focussing on gay men. It is homophobic to do so. If people dont like being called bigot and homophobes, it would be a good start to stop expressing homophobic bigotry.

Why does Mudcat allow propogation of lies and demonisation of people? Why does it delete facts and reality, where gay bashing isnt the answer?

Stick to Morris dancing and burnt out Californian hippies, it seems to be the limit of credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 05:28 AM

Homophobia is a significant barrier to HIV diagnosis, treatment, and prevention  

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:03 AM

Seaham Cemetery

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

National Aids Trust.
"The Government's continued funding of a national HIV prevention programme targeting the groups most at risk of HIV infection (gay and bisexual men and African communities) is welcome; more now needs to be done to evaluate the effectiveness of this programme. There needs to be an increase in the proportion of gay and bisexual men and African men and women choosing safer sex options such as consistent condom use and a reduction in multiple or concurrent partners with clear strategies to make this happen."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:30 AM

Are all gays the same, of course not 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:44 AM

"You don't necessarily have to focus on just the homosexual aspects of it...HIV/AIDS is a physical killer,"

Tell that to Ake.

We've been trying for months, so good luck with that!

Incidentally, HIV doesn't kill anybody. People only die when it progresses to AIDS, which is becoming less frequent month on month.

If people like Ake focussed on the disease, rather than stigmatising one particular group of victims, a hell of a lot more WOULD get done.

The most significant factor preventing a near 100% take up of testing is the homophobic reaction of people like Ake.

Would you want to expose yourself to being ostracised, having reduced job prospects and being pointed at by miserable narrow minded people?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:53 AM

Hehe. Looks like someone doesn't understand what they are reading...

A campaign focussing on gay men is homophobic if not qualified as being proportionate nor in their interest. A health awareness campaign where gay men who use unprotected anal sex are part of the target group for awareness isn't homophobic. If there were a disease, disorder or condition that only affected gay men, then targetted awareness would be appropriate. Focussing on one group where everyone, including you and I could contract it, is stigmatising. Especially as gay men aren't at risk any more than men who read one newspaper more than another*. Only the few, like in any other lifestyle, prefer unprotected penetrative sex, especially promiscuously. I think that figure, which nobody knows, is not worth either the hate from bigots nor the sometimes unrealistic expectations of health pressure groups and charities. Your own cut &paste widens it to the at risk groups Seaham Cemetery refers to.

I know Keith. It is difficult at times eh?

Never mind. If everyone who attended my infrequent lectures defended me, I'd have to start telling the truth eh?




zzzzzzzzzz

*I did read once that more people who are HIV + read The Guardian, whilst those at most risk of CHD issues read The Sun. I stopped buying newspapers years ago.

Don't forget to read this quickly. Either my comments may disappear or Max's host may be asked to remove the whole thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 07:50 AM

Again Musket.
You must have misread it the first couple of times I posted it.

"The Government's continued funding of a national HIV prevention programme targeting the groups most at risk of HIV infection (gay and bisexual men and African communities)"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 08:17 AM

Troubadour,
Incidentally, HIV doesn't kill anybody. People only die when it progresses to AIDS,

I think we all already knew that, but thanks anyway.
Did you know that it ALWAYS progresses to AIDS unless treated.
That requires testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 09:23 AM

There seems to be some confusion, there are people here who apparently believe that HIV affects all demographics at approx. the same rates. It does not.
The demographic most affected is MSM....by many tens of times, the infection rate is also rising also rising, while the infection rates in all other demographics are falling.
I would be sheer folly and ineffective, to test and contact trace the whole population for a condition which is extremely rare amongst heteros, but an epidemic amongst practicing male homosexuals.

The agencies suggest VERY FREQUENT testing and contact tracing for the WORST affect demographics, but are prevented from doing so by a political ideology which places idiotic dogma before health or life.

Studies in some parts of the US, found that half of all homosexual "marriages" or civil unions, were "open relationships" containing several different sexual partners; the article(which I linked to earlier), suggested that this partner sharing, increased the danger of HIV transmission.

As I said earlier homosexual "marriage" will certainly not guarantee monogamy.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:05 AM

monogomy  

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:22 AM

Repeating earlier snippets from Keith in case you missed them, ake.

MSM do use screening more, but infection continues to rise.

and

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

So, there has been increased testing and screening but the rate of infection is still rising. How do you explain that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:25 AM

Interesting article this morning in the Daily Mail (I know, I know, but I like the puzzles pages) about a lady of middle age who had quite a long relationship with a British chap but didn't use any protection. He ended the relationship and she became ill. Luckily her savvy doctor tested her for HIV and the poor woman was shocked to find she had contracted it. She had felt that at her age STDs aren't an issue, especially not HIV, and as the man hadn't been in an 'at risk' category it hadn't crossed her mind. Just shows that no matter who is having sex with whom, protection is essential. It would be very difficult to insist on a new partner having an HIV test (or any STD test) before going ahead with a sexual relationship. But really, it would seem prudent. The lady is having retro-viral medication and will have a normal life and lifespan, but sadly, people have asked her not to come to their house or go near their children as they are afraid of the disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 10:33 AM

By the way, how would anyone here feel if someone who was HIV positive came to their house and say, cuddled one's children or used the loo? Or shared the chalice at church? I know full well the disease can't be caught this way, and I have every sympathy for any poor person who has the virus, but being honest, I'd be a little wary. (It's dreadful to admit this, but one can only be honest.) One of 'my' prisoners was HIV positive from needle-sharing (he was a heroin addict) and although I always gave him a hug when he arrived in the Visits Room, I wouldn't have been too happy if he'd given me a peck on the cheek. I'm ashamed of this, but it's how it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:08 PM

'Guest', your link, 'Monogamy' by Arthur Fox, was so full of holes, that I was originally going to address them, point by point, but it would have taken too much time to cover it all. This guy is a spin-meister of major proportions, leaving out several KEY factors, in regards to monogamy...then I checked him out....he is an attorney blogger...."Arthur Fox, a public interest litigator, has devoted his career to working within the union movement to assist democratic-minded union leaders, members, and dissident organizations to reform autocratic unions and to strengthen the collective bargaining process on behalf of workers. He was a founder, in the 1970s, of the Teamster reform movement." --Huffington Post

As I've posted before, let's leave the politics OUT of getting to the FACTS!..His is a political position, NOT a public health position!

One glaring omission in his opinion piece, was, while targeting the root 'causes' of monogamy, being Judea-Christian, was the FACT, that the instinct of pair-bonding for the rearing of offspring was completely ignored and omitted!!! He was coming from a political viewpoint, and sidestepped, (through is 'litigator tactics'), the very basic thread of the nature of humans in regards to this matter!!

Most of the links you have provided have 'some' good information in them, and usually some spin. I suggest you do some fuller homework, when posting a link. Instead of posting a DEFINITION of monogamy, you posted a political spin from a fast taking lawyer/blogger!!..attempting to sidestep, while demeaning the traditional nuclear family, from which most of us came from!...I strongly suggest that you curtail the links that have a political agenda as an underlying premise.....especially from a lawyer, who has financial interests in promoting his/her position.

Respectfully (for now),

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 02:57 PM

Eliza. That is the complacency that Public Health England (PHE) are very concerned about. Health education can be construed as Nanny state if you are not careful, but HIV is a blood borne virus and is very much into equality in terms of whom it affects.

It isn't HIV per se but HIV viraemia that is the issue. In other words, the virus getting into the bloodstream. The best comparison is MRSA. Many of us carry it, even the old and vulnerable. It becomes an issue when it gets into the bloodstream, or MRSA bactoreamia as it is known. Similar with HIV. So cuddling a HIV + child or shaking hands with a HIV + adult is not deemed an issue. Even far more intimate contact, you would be unlucky to contract it. That is why needlestick injuries to healthcare staff where a known HIV + blood is in question rarely leads to HIV. I have had plenty of contact with HIV + people, including the child cuddling aspect, and have had a needlestick for that matter. I am not HIV +

Anybody who engages in unprotected sex, especially anal sex is at a heightened risk. With the ease of access to hard core porn and the increase in degree of porn available, more younger women are having anal sex, as more younger men see this as the norm. As we don't have much in terms of historical data to go on, this is one of the hardest to reach groups. If we take historical prevalence into account, gay men who practice unprotected sex with other men are statistically at high risk here, as are people of African origin largely due to the much wider root cause in many African States, including blood product delivery in hospitals and mother to child, as well as the high forced sex numbers in some countries. Sadly, a huge factor in many African countries is homophobia, which as well as targeting hate on gay people, also allows complacency in heterosexual people.

This is why I really have a no surrender attitude to expressed hate and homophobia on these pages. It isn't just missing the point, it can create a self fulfilling prophesy. Some would like that, such as the far right American Christian groups funding Ugandan political attempts to introduce death penalty for loving the wrong person, all the way to calling marriage "marriage" here.

Sadly, they also have their apologists who support their outlook whilst claiming otherwise. It's a sad mad world. It feeds the awful "don't come round to our house" fear. Nobody tells you to keep granny away in case she has C.Diff and shits all over their sofa....

With regard to gay people, we are lucky in that they are, as a demographic, very responsible and are far more prone to screening than some other groups, hence more picked up by screening. This is a statistic used by political, religious and other hate inspired people to try to say it is a gay issue per se. If you can stomach it, scroll up and read some of it, it is fascinating and awful in equal measures..

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 03:24 PM

Musket: "With regard to gay people, we are lucky in that they are, as a demographic, very responsible and are far more prone to screening than some other groups, hence more picked up by screening."

You must not be reading the links indicating that the homosexual communities are intimidated and NOT volunteering to be screened, and blaming it on other people's homophobia...either you are right, or the 'other guy' posting those links is. You two should figure it out, because the two of you seem to have conflicting views on that.

..Now if only the needle shares and bisexuals would be more accommodating to their own best interests....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 03:32 PM

Even lawyers, and union supporters have the right to be heard, and considered, as do people here with other "spin" agendas (those often skewed to loosly link to, so-called facts).

Only the Mudcat mods control what viewpoint or information is posted or linked, though some attempt to limit information and discussion from various viewpoints (some of those cloaked behind negative homophobic stereotyping, intertwined with a brand of right-wing religious-based beliefs, while others spin are not so strongly evident).

At a minimum, most links posted are much more respectful than some of the inflamatory posts put forward by the very few current thread contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 04:21 PM

guest you must be looking at a different thread.
There has been no " right-wing religious-based beliefs" on this one.

Musket, is it your opinion that anal sex is more prevalent now, or have you research findings?
My own impression is that is has always been prevalent.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 04:56 PM

Regarding homophobia in some/all African countries, I think it's pretty widespread. In Ivory Coast, Ghana and Senegal, which I know well, gay people are daily attacked, beaten and even killed in the open street by men who seem enraged by their very presence. It isn't anything to do with HIV, but both Muslim and Christian cultures over there are viciously and unequivocally anti-gay. I've seen signs in airports in all three countries warning western tourist passengers to turn around and go straight home if they have any intention of conducting gay relationships or indulging in homosexual practices. The signs are menacing and threaten instant Police arrest. Some of this stems from sex-tourism, a scourge of under-developed countries. For very little money, one can 'hire' a sexual partner of any age or gender; due to the terrible poverty, people are driven to any acts in order to eat. But the authorities seem to target gay men particularly.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Mar 14 - 06:50 PM

'Guest': "Even lawyers, and union supporters have the right to be heard, and considered, as do people here with other "spin" agendas (those often skewed to loosly link to, so-called facts)."

Then I suggest that you post links that are consistent with your views, or state that the views in the links that you post are not what you think. Fair enough??

You might even check your posts, and sources to see if they are politically motivated, or factual.
Fair enough, again?

"Even lawyers, and union supporters, (both those are NOT known for being very truthful) have the right to be heard, and considered, (do we have to 'consider' more bullshit??..haven't we had enough of THAT!?!?)as do people here with other "spin" agendas...."

Let's see if we can get through the spin...wouldn't you rather discuss or debate honest info, than deceptive spins?......just for once??
Let's at least 'pretend' that musicians are not stupid and gullible people, easily lured into fallacious levels of spin....after all, what is better to serve people with, Lies to support a political angle, or the TRUTH????
Fair enough?

Still respectfully....but don't push it....,

GfS

P.S. You MIGHT even post YOUR views...They might even be 'enlightening'.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 04:08 AM

I don't think this thread is about moral judgements, it is about getting the facts on HIV transmission rates and some conclusions on the best way of curtailing them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 04:13 AM

Sorry Sanity, didn't see your post.   I was responding to Eliza.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 04:21 AM

But surely moral 'judgements' and attitudes have a bearing on whether people (gay or otherwise) feel comfortable about seeking help with testing or advice?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM

Exactly, Eliza. And if people were not so quick to judge those who are born different then those at risk may well be more likely to go for testing and advice. As it is, while people brand them as perverted, they are more likely to keep their sexuality hidden.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 07:53 AM

Stigma impacts testing-USA experience 


Good points Eliza, though some with other perspectives (and possibly agenda) regularily attempt to lead the discussion away from discussing other perspectives. Link to a related perspective,from direct USA(with source references).

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 08:08 AM

Msm stigma-research related to prevention/testing 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 08:40 AM

In the last 10 years, stigma and discrimination in the UK has fallen dramatically.
Civil Union and homosexual "marriage" have been legislated for, homosexuals have a huge disproportionate voice in the media, yet infection rates are rising at the same rate....or fasrer than they were 10 years ago amongst the MSM demographic.

If all the other demographics a able to regulate their behaviour to take account of HIV, why not MSM?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 08:45 AM

treatment research 

treatment research 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 09:21 AM

Please provide sources for last specific "stigma " statement, (related to Hiv/aids, geography, MSM specific grouping)so, they can be assessed as valid, not directly related, or merely opinion.

If it merelt based on opinion only, ok, but let it be clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 09:48 AM

stereotyping-long lasting impacts 

The impacts of discrimination, and stereotyping are long-lasting impacting attitudes and those targeted long after changes are made in legislation to turn if around. In addition, people hold on to related negative views in their subconcious, which defy conscious logic. This is what Eliza referred to in her personal experience.

An example in the link, related to lag times in changing attutudes in mental illness stereotypjng.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 10:27 AM

If all the other demographics a able to regulate their behaviour to take account of HIV, why not MSM?

How do you know they are not regulating it? A few/some/many/most? Self-evident, is it? All in the numbers, eh? What more do we need, eh? How do you know that the situation might not be a lot worse but for many gay people regulating their behaviour? You haven't a clue. This is a groundless, broad-brush stigmatisation of gay men. No surprises there then.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

Prostitutes and promiscuous heterosexual men don't seem to be targeted for abuse and even police attack in Africa in the same way that gay men are. The hetero men are almost seen to be merely 'doing what comes naturally', and the female prostitutes are accepted as trying to earn a few bob. Gay men are forced to disguise their way of life in order not to be beaten or literally killed. I'm rather unsure if this discussion is limited to the UK, includes the USA, the whole of Western civilisation or the entire global scene, including Africa, one of the world's most seriously affected areas for HIV. As the world is now so small, with universal travel and migration, perhaps we should widen our picture. All humans are 'in this together' so to speak. Any virus which affects any population on the Earth threatens us all, therefore all (gay or straight, promiscuous or monogamous) should be encouraged with kindness and understanding to seek advice, help and testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:06 PM

You still haven't responded to what I believe is a fair question in the spirit of this debate, ake. It has been pointed out, by Keith, that while testing of homosexual men has increased, so has the incidence of HIV infection. How do you explain this and how does this fit with your view that testing and tracing is the only option?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 12:36 PM

Can't answer for other counties but I have given an overview of The UK situation.

Let me repeat. We do not have "marriage" we have marriage.

We don't have objectivity we have homophobia trying to influence debate.

A discussion regarding the technical facts of HIV is fine. Not addressing the social issues is disgusting. You cannot discuss helping the situation without acknowledging the issues.

Putting marriage in parentheses is a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:25 PM

According to CDC, one of the main aggravating factors in the transmission of HIV, is the very high rates of syphilis amongst the MSM demographic.
Apparently syphilis causes lesions in the skin, which assists transmission of the virus.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:29 PM

HIV syphilis coinfection

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:37 PM

Homophobia is a social issue that has serious health impacts. So, it relates to HI V discussions, as it is a global factor, as is HIV and AIDs. Ignoring homophobia, in its various forms, and attempting to steer the discussion away from it is "disgusting". Doing so, belittles a serious health issue-an issue,which some falsely accuse others of ignoring.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 01:46 PM

It's a good job more American States are allowing everyone to marry then.

are we talking about HIV or just the issues relating to gay men? If so, why?

Is syphilis against natural law too worm?

Have you any idea how that relates to spread of HIV? Are you saying most men and women of African origin in The UK or the states for that matter have syphilis? How does that explain why more people living with HIV where you and I live aren't gay?

Keep digging, and explain to the decent boys and girls why you can't bring yourself to say marriage when applying to same sex. Remind us, why do you say "marriage"?

Why do your posts remain when law abiding citizens get theirs deleted for upsetting a criminal?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM

No comment needed 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 02:44 PM

No homophobia on this thread friends, the page on HIV syphilis co-infection comes straight from Centre for Disease Control.

Do the new infection rates for syphilis not alarm anyone?
75% of all new infections in the MSM demographic? You really are being awfully stupid in denying they exist.

My view that stigma and discrimination have fallen over the last decade are of course just my personal opinion, but I'm sure it is shared by every even minded member on this forum.
All are not driven by an idiotic, politically correct agenda, the important thing is to get transmission rates under control quickly, and this can only be achieved by "very frequent testing and contact tracing, amongst the worst affected groups"

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 02:48 PM

""Those who have diabetes worry about having diabetes. Those who have HIV worry their family will find out.""




blind spot   

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 03:27 PM

From GUEST'S link(Pink News).

"It is often said that the first step towards any recovery is admitting a problem exists. This is just as true for the HIV epidemic. If we want to stop the spread of HIV among gay men, then we as gay men need to accept we are still at a heightened risk of infection.

We need to protect ourselves by continuing to use condoms, we need to get ourselves along to our local sexual health clinic once every six months, and – if we have HIV – we need to make sure we're on treatment. This doesn't say anything about who we are as people; it's just the way the cards have fallen"

More or less just what I've been saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:06 PM

Note there the link provided refers to voluntary measures (promoted for some timec by the impacted community) This is a far reach from the "compulsary" approach promoted by some for awhile on this site. If these posters have now "come around" to workable solutions, that is indeed progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 05:06 PM

Note there the link provided refers to voluntary measures (promoted for some timec by the impacted community) This is a far reach from the "compulsary" approach promoted by some for awhile on this site. If these posters have now "come around" to workable solutions, that is indeed progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 06:03 PM

Most posters on this thread deny that there is an epidemic amongst MSM.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 06:24 PM

"Most posters on this thread deny that there is an epidemic amongst MSM"


From observing the discussion, outside of differences in definitions of terms and personalities (people fighting ego wars from other threads)it does not seem that way at all to me?

However, I also observed that many posters seem very cautious about anything that hints at homophobia and I suspect define it (and see it) quite differently than you do. I suspect you could have coloured (even inflamed) the discussion with a few bad choices in terms used (for example, perversion, and "marriage"). Additionally, your earlier rigid solution to the dilema likely limited the scope and tone of the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 14 - 06:38 PM

Additionally, while you seem to prefer a discussion on a local"epidemic" in the UK (and possibly the USA, (which seem to share some similar numbers, for an undetrmined reason), others see it as a "pandemic", with global implications, causes and patterns of infection and (of course)different solutions. This is quite reasonable, as Mudcat posters come from many nations, and view things quite differently than in the UK or USA, as the situation may be quite contrasting.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 03:25 AM

Pink News.
"Figures released in November last year by PHE showed HIV infections among gay and bisexual men at a record high.
In the same month the National AIDS Trust warned that too many doctors are failing to offer HIV tests to gay and bisexual men."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 03:44 AM

The heightened awareness and need for continued vigilance by those who speak up for gay people and the social and clinical issues they face is wonderful. If other at risk groups had the benefit of such a concerted and focused effort, we might get better at dealing with the issue, not the victims.

People who are shunned by society tend to cluster, often in cities. If The UK as a whole had the mental health / gay / ethnic minority health issues of London, the approach would be national. This is why you have a larger push on type II diabetes in Leicester than in Leicestershire. A bigger push on gay health in Manchester than in Lancashire etc.

Thanks as ever to Keith for supplying the quote by Noël Gill that he claimed I didn't have evidence of earlier. See? You get there in the end...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 04:28 AM

Someone had to claim 600
Why not a guest?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 04:53 AM

Keith for supplying the quote by Noël Gill that he claimed I didn't have evidence of earlier.
Explain please.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM

"Did you know that it ALWAYS progresses to AIDS unless treated."

Yes, I did! So what makes it different, in your estimation, than all the OTHER diseases which result, if untreated, in death?............The fact that it involves homosexuals?

I think you will find that applies to all the others too.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 07:33 AM

"The demographic most affected is MSM....by many tens of times,"

Only in a number of comparatively small areas in the Western Hemisphere(e.g. San Francisco or Brighton UK)

And that has more to do with the sexual orientation of the INDEX CASES in those areas

If the index case of an STD is a homosexual male, who would YOU expect to be more likely to become infected?......NUNS, or other MSMs?

You are constantly trying to extrapolate from the situation of areas with large MSM populations to the whole planet, and since I am aware that you aren't stupid, I can only conclude that you have an anti Homosexual agenda.

The rest of the UK and much of the USA gave up demonising them long ago, but here you are with your "concern for their health" advocating actions which would drive them underground and opposing a measure which would tend to reduce infection (by however small an amount).

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 07:47 AM

"advocating actions which would drive them underground and opposing a measure which would tend to reduce infection (by however small an amount)."

This point has been made many times , especially to one poster, and on a number of threads.However, it has not seemed to make any impact, nor stimulated any thoughtful ,nor logical , response to counter the liklihood.

So, I suspect some are left to fill in the "agenda" gaps, as you noted.Such a pity and missed discussion opportunity, especially for those who post that they "care about and have compassion" for the health of other humans, and all impacted by hiv/aids.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 07:47 AM

"advocating actions which would drive them underground and opposing a measure which would tend to reduce infection (by however small an amount)."

This point has been made many times , especially to one poster, and on a number of threads.However, it has not seemed to make any impact, nor stimulated any thoughtful ,nor logical , response to counter the liklihood.

So, I suspect some are left to fill in the "agenda" gaps, as you noted.Such a pity and missed discussion opportunity, especially for those who post that they "care about and have compassion" for the health of other humans, and all impacted by hiv/aids.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 08:47 AM

I dispute the statement that," homosexuals cluster together because of stigma and discrimination".

There are three openly homosexual couples in my area (approx. thirty square miles), that I know and work for periodically, all three couples have lived here for over ten years, and have never faced stigma or discrimination of any kind....according to them.
All three couples are over sixty.

There is one single homosexual, who spends every weekend in a major city...."because of the night life". Apparently a sexual free for all exists in the larger city areas, this could well be the cause of the "cluster syndrome".

This hedonism amongst MSM, is thought to be a big factor in HIV transmission and is mentioned by the agencies when referring to the "open marriage", Union, relationships, linked to earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 02:20 AM

So what makes it different, in your estimation, than all the OTHER diseases which result, if untreated, in death?............The fact that it involves homosexuals?

Of course not.
The fact that it requires testing to diagnose it in time.
Like cervical cancer.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 02:25 AM

Older women should get tested.
Does that make me ageist and sexist?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 04:01 AM

Cervical cancer has a younger demographic than most others Keith. One reason being that promiscuity is one, not the only one, but one of the index indicators. There are many definitions used for STD but no single one. In terms of health promotion, cervical cancer is advertised as one. And unlike HIV, has a high attrition rate if not caught early.

But as gay men can't get it, it can be used to stigmatise them. After all, some on here wish us to think there is a link between being gay and being promiscuous. Cervical cancer requires the same reaction and testing encouragement but other than a blip on the figures after Jade Goody died, it has gone back to being a worrying issue in some demographics.

Akenaton. You continue to amaze. Perhaps you would like to put them up against the same wall as the "silly women" in the breast feeding thread? Reading your posts is as uncomfortable as having to sit through a blue comic act in the Bernard Manning tradition. I'd stop reading them but we all slow down to look at accidents eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 04:13 AM

The homosexual mentioned by akenaton who 'spends every weekend in a major city' for the 'night-life' is surely joined by literally millions of heterosexual youngsters also (understandably, given their vigour and desire for excitement) out for the 'night-life'. Promiscuity (from what ones sees on those myriad Police in action programmes on TV) and drunken irresponsibility are not the sole preserve of the gay. From watching another programme about an STD clinic, many, many young people, gay and straight, simply never use a condom and contract all sorts of unpleasant diseases as a result.
We know quite a few gay men. Two couples have been together for years and years, and I'd say are completely faithful to eachother. Generalisations are always dodgy and unjust.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 04:15 AM

Well, at least all the links that 'Guest' posted admit that homosexuals are a growing, or more prone to contract it.....problem is, 'Guest's' posts seem to convey that the BIGGEST reason for the transmission of HIV/AIDS is from a re-definition of 'homophobia'....WHEW!!, What a relief!..I was still thinking it was from promiscuous sex and people sharing dirty needles to get high....I guess we can now live as recklessly as possible, pickin' up chicks in bars, pubs and coffee houses, and get off in the head(restroom), and I'll never contract a thing and.....it was all a damn plot of those homophobia-maniacs!... THEY'RE the ones making people sick!!..You know, I certainly wouldn't want to piss off the crowd, who's been warning me about second hand smoke!! ...Oh wait a minute...those are the same ones who think that warning homosexuals, to get tested, is being mean to them and hurting their feelings and scaring them away from being screened....They don't seemed too concerned about those dirty needle shares, as much...maybe they think those guys are just self destructive any way....not like our promiscuous, fun-loving sociopath!..(either sex, BTW)....

Is it hypocrisy, or just selective ignorance??
....or do you find it entertaining to encourage people to be suicidal and proud of it??!!??

Well, that's what politics will do to ya'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 04:25 AM

Remind me which country you are describing Goofus? I wouldn't wish to visit s place where political correctness precludes targeted campaigns to reach out to at risk groups.

Perhaps I could visit and stand on a soap box and preach about the enlightened approach in The UK and USA.

Despite those who would wish to hate or even worse, claim to be able to "cure"

See those rocks over there? You know what to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 04:56 AM

'Claim to cure'??..You must be quoting your 'Professor'...I never made that claim.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 04:57 AM

Thanks as ever to Keith for supplying the quote by Noël Gill that he claimed I didn't have evidence of earlier.
Explain please.
I can find nothing like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 05:48 AM

I think you will find that you did Goofus. Your back-pedalling was so frantic, the chain fell off as I recall. Possibly the gay marriage thread. You said it in reply to something from Don as ever.

Keith. Every time I said something similar to Noël, you come back with historical statistics to try to make it look otherwise. There is a reason we say similar things you know... We rely on the same analysts and he speaks for the advice people like yours truly take on board.

It helps to be fucking important of course. (Yawn)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 05:56 AM

So, " the quote by Noël Gill that he claimed I didn't have evidence of earlier." was just made up then, or did you really say anything remotely similar that I really challenged?

I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 09:42 AM

Eliza, the "night life" I mentioned consists of multiple same sex partners at a number of well known inner city venues, exactly what CDC are warning against in their fact sheet regarding "open" relationships.

I know of no young heteros who indulge in this sort of behaviour. For some obscure reason, women don't seem to be very partial to group sex with anonymous partners??   Wonder why, is there a difference in how me and women view sex, do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 09:45 AM

Perhaps "stigma" can sometimes be an advantage in the fight against STD's?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 04:06 PM

Musket: "I think you will find that you did Goofus."

Nope...that was a spinning from Don..look it up!....I'm sure you'll get help....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 05:45 PM

I just want to repeat what Akenaton just said.

But only in case anyone missed it. Especially certain moderators.

Sick puppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:31 PM

Who's 'back-peddling' now???

Nonetheless, people should be warned about dirty needle sharing, and promiscuous sex...THAT'S HOW HIV/AIDS, and other STD's get transmitted.
If you're AFRAID to tell someone whom you may meet, who SHOULD be told..TELL THEM!...Do we have to be responsible for THEIR innermost fears, too???

GfS

P.S. Maybe they should stop doing things they are afraid of the reputation it brings....

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:44 PM

...promiscuous sex...THAT'S HOW HIV/AIDS, and other STD's get transmitted.

No it isn't. It is transmitted through, amongst other things, the exchange of blood and other bodily fluids. Sex is one way. The only thing promiscuity has to do with it is that it could spread it further. Get your facts right before you start to post with the caps lock on.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:51 PM

"Eliza, the "night life" I mentioned consists of multiple same sex partners at a number of well known inner city venues, exactly what CDC are warning against in their fact sheet regarding "open" relationships."

Oh yeah! Now I know what he's talking about.

Gay DISCOS! All those different dance partners, must be bloody dangerous.

As for his not knowing of any heteros who act the same way, well.......Blind or stupid?

Don't they have TV in Scotland?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:58 PM

"Wonder why, is there a difference in how me and women view sex, do you think?"

Ake, you are the only genuine example of Starry Pete getting anything right.

The one unique example of a dinosaur living alongside of mankind.

The true exception which proves the rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 01:07 AM

DtG: "No it isn't. It is transmitted through, amongst other things, the exchange of blood and other bodily fluids. Sex is one way. The only thing promiscuity has to do with it is that it could spread it further. Get your facts right before you start to post with the caps lock on."

Well, they've done A LOT to clean up blood transfusions, if that's what you're talking about....I think the numbers speak for themselves..sex and needle sharing is by far the most prolific.....You're just arguing for the sake of arguing...UNLESS, you would be referring to the homosexuals and black Africans that were TARGETED, after the HIV virus was DEVELOPED!
...but you're not into that....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 01:13 AM

Dave the Gnome: ""No it isn't. It is transmitted through, amongst other things, the exchange of blood and other bodily fluids."

Well it's good thing that no bodily fluids get exchanged during sex!!..or needle sharing!

But then, maybe not...some people take 'matters into their own hands'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 03:47 AM

I take it you take matters into your own hand every time you post Goofus.

I have to say, wanker is rather appropriate as a term to describe your diatribe.

What's that boy? Woof! Yes, I agree. My fault for letting you play with him. I thought he was harmless but seems I could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 04:21 AM

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:31 PM

...people should be warned about dirty needle sharing, and promiscuous sex...THAT'S HOW HIV/AIDS, get transmitted.

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 01:07 AM

...sex and needle sharing is by far the most prolific

So, GfS, I am not arguing for arguments sake. My point seems to have sunk in so it worked. Within 24 hours you have gone from saying promiscuity is a major factor to stating, quite correctly, that sex is a major factor. You DO understand the difference between sex and promiscuity don't you?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 04:45 AM

Two's company, three's fun.

What I find fascinating is the assumption, both by Goofus and his mate, that promiscuity is somehow linked to being gay. Further, that sex is a factor in gay life but somehow optional in heterosexual lifestyle.

What is the point of debating this further unless they either notice a barbecued donkey on the road to Damascus or accept their bigotry has no place in a discussion such as this?

That said, Goofus does occasionally make sense, whether I agree or not, in the middle of his sentences, but then spoils them with absurd conclusions and his rather odd attacks on people. You can't spot the issues but then miss the point entirely. Or you can. You can be Goofus.

His mate however seems in my opinion to be beyond redemption. His awful post a few up is so outrageous as to be satire. Sadly, I think it is genuine....

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 05:19 AM

Everyone has sex, including anal.
Not everyone is in a high risk group.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 08:43 AM

Hang on, just putting the bunting up.

No irony, no sarcasm, no punch line coming up.

I 100% endorse what Keith just said.

Going further, gay men who practice safe sex are not necessarily in a risk group. The gay risk group is those who don't give a thought to safety, either all the time, which is irresponsible or very occasionally which is unlucky.

I used the word "necessarily" for a reason. One thing that has to be factored into any debate is that MSM did historically give us many index clusters. Ignorance of HIV before we started to tackle it affected that group more than heterosexual people as anal is a far more effective source of viriaemia than vaginal.

Hence the historical figures. Hence the worrying complacency in young women. Hence the need to ensure hate doesn't get away without scrutiny and dismissal.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 10:18 AM

The one unique example of a dinosaur living alongside of mankind.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 10:21 AM

Do we start a thread regarding birds indigenous to Scotland?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 10:52 AM

Musket: "What I find fascinating is the assumption, both by Goofus and his mate, that promiscuity is somehow linked to being gay."

You have made a silly ASS-umption, once again....scroll back and COUNT how many times I said, 'promiscuous sex' and either 'either sex' or hetero or homo'??
You are just hell bent on TRYING to create a twisted bias, to suit your position that I have been talking solely about homosexuals being the ONLY source of transmission....get serious!
What you WILL find, is me posting REPEATEDLY, is that a 'loving traditional nuclear family' has the least amount of transmission...which is true. Your insistence that I am referring to ONLY homosexuals is just another stupid attempt to steer the conversation away from the fact that irresponsible sex between homosexuals ARE a major contributor, along with needle sharing to the transmission....that is not saying hetero transmission isn't a cause.
Stop making shit up and Get a life!

GfS

P.S. Just in case you're too lazy to scroll back.....

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 04:15 AM

"Well, at least all the links that 'Guest' posted admit that homosexuals are a growing, or more prone to contract it.....problem is, 'Guest's' posts seem to convey that the BIGGEST reason for the transmission of HIV/AIDS is from a re-definition of 'homophobia'....WHEW!!, What a relief!..I was still thinking it was from promiscuous sex and people sharing dirty needles to get high....I guess we can now live as recklessly as possible, pickin' up chicks in bars, pubs and coffee houses, and get off in the head(restroom), and I'll never contract a thing and.....it was all a damn plot of those homophobia-maniacs!... THEY'RE the ones making people sick!!.."

How did you arrive at your asinine 'conclusion' after reading that?????

Here's another....

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:31 PM

"Who's 'back-peddling' now???

Nonetheless, people should be warned about dirty needle sharing, and promiscuous sex...THAT'S HOW HIV/AIDS, and other STD's get transmitted."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 11:07 AM

Dave the Gnome: "So, GfS, I am not arguing for arguments sake. My point seems to have sunk in so it worked. Within 24 hours you have gone from saying promiscuity is a major factor to stating, quite correctly, that sex is a major factor. You DO understand the difference between sex and promiscuity don't you?"

HIV/AIDS is considered a STD...as in SEXUALLY Transmitted Disease. Do you understand the difference between SEX and letter writing?????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 11:48 AM

Ok Dave, just for the sake of this discussion, let's say that promiscuity rates among homos, are no higher than those among heteros.

Could you please explain the huge difference in new infection rates for all STD's

Is there some other answer? Something intrinsic to male to male sex perhaps?
The latest figures say 70/78% of all new infections amongst men, are from the MSM demographic, which comprises only 0.75% of the adult population; if we are serious about stopping the sexual health epidemic amongst MSM, it is imperative that we determine the cause of the massive over representation.

To say that such a massive difference can be put down to increased
testing in that demographic is obvious nonsense, so what's you take on it?

By the way, I don't include YOU in the "gang of three", I don't think you are in their grade, your head being in the normal position(not up your arse) :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 12:55 PM

What a nasty, small minded, ignorant person you are Ake.

What do you not understand about the historical facts, which have repeatedly been pointed out to you.

1. In a number of areas in the Western hemisphere, HIV index cases happened to be homosexual males, which is not the case in most of the third world.

2. As should be obvious to the meanest intellect, transmission was almost solely to other homosexual males.

3. The medical profession, understandably, took some time to diagnose this new infection, which is asymptomatic for between three and ten years before developing into full blown AIDS.

4. In fact, the medical profession had to recognise AIDS as the cause of deaths by pneumonia and other diseases, exacerbated by loss of immune function. From this they then had to work backward to identify HIV as the precursor. Following that, awareness of the disease and initial treatments began to reduce the new infection rate.

5. By that time, although hetero male and female cases were presenting, large numbers of gay men were already infected.

It's a question of what you want the statistics to prove, but the number of gay males who were already infected before anybody knew what was wrong, is the explanation for the mistaken belief that it was a homosexual disease, which belief has, apparently, not changed for some people, even given the figures for Africa where the whole thing started.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 01:27 PM

Added to which, I don't recognise the claims Akenhateon has made concerning gay prevalence.

I have posted the latest figures we have for The UK, and Keith has too.

Who is lying, Akenhateon or Keith?

Interesting...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 01:51 PM

Neither of us is wrong.
Ake's 70-75% refers to the proportion of new male diagnoses only, a statistic I have never posted.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 02:50 PM

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:31 PM

...people should be warned about dirty needle sharing, and promiscuous sex...THAT'S HOW HIV/AIDS, get transmitted.

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 11:07 AM

Dave the Gnome: "So, GfS, I am not arguing for arguments sake. My point seems to have sunk in so it worked. Within 24 hours you have gone from saying promiscuity is a major factor to stating, quite correctly, that sex is a major factor. You DO understand the difference between sex and promiscuity don't you?"

HIV/AIDS is considered a STD...as in SEXUALLY Transmitted Disease. Do you understand the difference between SEX and letter writing?????????


GfS, meet spade and hole. Then stop digging.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 03:00 PM

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

Musket and 'Troubadour'(?), have a problem in using FACTS to base their OPINIONS on....they'd rather custom tailor reality to fit their 'political reality', rather than use FACTS, to correct their political trendiness!!
If you scroll back, and take a look, they employ outright lying and misquoting to try to further their arguments. They don't give a rat's ass about the truth...just their agenda, which is NOT founded or rooted in TRUTH. (Probably tactics learned from Professor Bullshitter!)

Fact: Promiscuous sex, of any group, spreads the HIV/AIDS virus.
Fact: Sharing dirty needles spreads the HIV/AIDS virus.
Fact: Proportionately, Homosexual promiscuous sex spreads the HIV/AIDS virus quicker than any spread in Traditional Nuclear Families.
FACT: To recognize the above FACTS qualifies one to be labeled a
'homophobic bigot', by pro homosexual liberal people.
FACT: Living a lie is NOT in the best interest of bettering society,
or finding a solution!
FACT: To promote lying, for the sake of a political agenda, or
agendas, is only temporal, and whatever 'usefulness' of lying, to advance that political agenda, will roll away on the 'wheels
of tomorrow'!
FACT: Denying that there IS a problem, and where it is, only will cost MORE lives to be lost, and you can lay THAT at the feet of the liars!
FACT: The more idiots support agendas, built on false premises, the more moronic they are!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 03:25 PM

GfS Fact: Promiscuous sex, of any group, spreads the HIV/AIDS virus.

Nononononononono to infinity and beyond. This is the point I am trying to make. It is sex that spreads the virus. Sex of any type that causes the bloodstream to become in contact with the carrier virus. It is not just promiscuous sex (whatever that may be) or gay sex or anal sex or hetero sex. It is sex. Got it? OK - I am more than happy to accept that unprotected sex is the main culprit and that promiscuity will cause the virus to spread faster but promiscuity is not the issue. It is lack of care.

ake Ok Dave, just for the sake of this discussion, let's say that promiscuity rates among homos, are no higher than those among heteros.

Could you please explain the huge difference in new infection rates for all STD's

Why should I? I have asked you umpteen times how you would explain the fact that the infection rates have increased although testing and screening of gay males has also increased. You have not yet answered.

Keith. Everyone has sex, including anal.

I haven't. I have had 5 children so I will let you figure out which bit I have not done.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 03:29 PM

Sorry Dave.
Delete "everyone."
Insert "all demographics."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 05:56 PM

Keith: "Everyone has sex, including anal."

Wow, this bloke must be all-knowing and all-seeing! Keith must be God! No wonder he hates us, fellow Messiah!

... pro homosexual liberal people

Hi! Meet Steve, liberally pro-homosexual since 1951! 37 years happily wed, two kids!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 05:58 PM

Oh dear. Missed that retraction. Took Dave to draw it, of course (what price reviewing own posts...), but let's give Keith the benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 08:56 PM

Don't think Keith needs to retract anything Steve, he was simply clarifying his message, for the children.

Most of us knew perfectly well what his meaning was.

On the subject of anal sex, I think it is disgusting no matter who does it.
I am sure few women get any pleasure from the experience, and in most cases it is simply male domination, either in heterosexual sex or by the proxy male in the homosexual world.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 09:01 PM

Dave the Gnome: "Nononononononono to infinity and beyond. This is the point I am trying to make. It is sex that spreads the virus. Sex of any type that causes the bloodstream to become in contact with the carrier virus. It is not just promiscuous sex (whatever that may be) or gay sex or anal sex or hetero sex. It is sex. Got it? OK - I am more than happy to accept that unprotected sex is the main culprit and that promiscuity will cause the virus to spread faster but promiscuity is not the issue. It is lack of care."

Sex, in itself, does not spread the virus...though, it is THROUGH sex, that the virus is most commonly spread. Promiscuity, and having sex with multiple 'partners', increases one's risk of contracting the virus, being as you can't be sure about everyone else, that has had sex with your 'partner'. Having sex with ONE person only, certainly DECREASES the odds, assuming that person is a lifelong partner, as in a COMMITTED, and loving spouse. ('loving', because love doesn't insist in it's own way, without considering others). Unfortunately, sex has been demeaned, to only mean the physical act, rather than the emotional involvement that goes into play with it!
To split hairs over all this is pretty silly. The BEST, is one mate, for life, not just for curtailing the spread of the virus, but BEST for all concerned, emotionally, and for the stability of the family!!..because sex, is not just limited for one person, getting their jollies off, with no regard for anyone else but them self....either hetero or homo.....
Instead of making allowances for the excuses for deviant behavior, either hetero or homo, why not promote that which is BEST, all the way around?? Why not promote a better reality to those who need needles to escape from the turmoil and conflicts they are already facing??...and would share a needle, after being assured that 'this one is clean'??
See why believing everything you HEAR might not be the best idea, just because it approves of the actions that puts one at risk??
...but then, if you avoided using shared needles, and the types of people that use them, some knucklehead will accuse you of being a 'needle-phobe', and try to form a CONSENSUS that because you have been accused of being a 'needle-phobe', you must belong to a group of 'needle-phobes', call you a 'bigot', and 'needle-phobia' is the reason, that needle sharers, are getting infected with 'the virus'......

Makes sense to you, I suppose....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 09:52 PM

The last two posts are unbelievable. Perhaps our resident moderator of late will take a firm stand in condemning their stupidity. Or perhaps give me a bollocking for calling them stupid. Ah Jaysus. Let's say preferably neither, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 09:55 PM

Steve Pshaw: "The last two posts are unbelievable."

Coming from you, I could believe that!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,schlimmerkerl
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 10:01 PM

HIV is a blood-borne infection, and the virus is actually quite fragile. For heterosexuals, absent intravenous drug use, physically compromised sexual organs, or anal sex, the chances of being infected via oral or vaginal intercourse are small.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Mar 14 - 10:29 PM

Correcto mundo.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 04:20 AM

Keith.

A thirty odd year old problem has thirty odd year ago index source.

I am not a healthcare professional but colleagues who are in public health, speak of clusters that form from index and give HIV and gay men as a classic example. The ins and outs of why epidemic trajectories differ locally form the tapestry of public health surveillance and I fully accept the detail has many caveats.

I'm not asking you to believe anything. I don't give a rats arse what you believe any more than I would expect you to care for anything I say I believe.

I am merely stating how virus epidemiology supports such a conclusion. As "believed" by PHE and HPA before them. (And indeed prior to HPA.)

I'm glad to see that Akenhateon knows the mind of most women. If his view is borne of his parochial existence, I can add to it by stating the only girlfriend I had who wanted "it up her chuff" was from Scotland. But there again, one person's experience doesn't give conclusions to the many, eh?

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

It isn't splitting hairs at all, GfS. It is an important distinction. Promiscuity does not spread the virus, as you stated. I have already agreed that promiscuity increases the spread but that is not what you said.

Fact: Promiscuous sex, of any group, spreads the HIV/AIDS virus.

Remember?

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

Seemples.

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

They are associated with sex.

Not gay sex, but sex.

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

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

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

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

Pink News.

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

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

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

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

Pink News.

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 12:32 PM

Dave the Gnome: "It isn't splitting hairs at all, GfS. It is an important distinction. Promiscuity does not spread the virus, as you stated. I have already agreed that promiscuity increases the spread but that is not what you said.
Fact: Promiscuous sex, of any group, spreads the HIV/AIDS virus.
Remember?"

Well being as the supporters of homosexuality and/or other forms of promiscuity seem to think that increased screening is an 'impolite imposition', and/or 'homophobic', it's a little hard to rely on the 'consideration' and 'good graces' of horny infected people who are also carriers of any number of STD's. So to be 'safe', let's just say promiscuity DOES spread the increased risk of being infected...but we don't want to 'split hairs', do we???

GfS

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

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

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

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

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

THEY DON'T CARE!

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

GfS

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

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

Careful Steve! You'll only confuse Pete.

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

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

Lastly Ake is absolutely certainly NOT a bird!

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

Troubadour, your shit gets more baffling with every post!

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

THEY DON'T CARE!

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

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

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

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

I don't know why you find that so difficult to understand, that one gay encounter might still carry ten or more times the risk of a similar single hetero event.

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

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

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

GUEST T, you are simply wrong.

"Gay and bisexual men
In addition to working to build on the successes in these
populations, it is also critical to accelerate progress in
combatting the current HIV crisis among gay and bisexual
men. Community and public health prevention
efforts led to dramatic success in this population in the
early years of the epidemic. After new HIV infections
among men who have sex with men (MSM) peaked in
the mid-1980s at more than 75,000 new infections a year,
the number of new infections plummeted to less than
18,000 per year by the early 1990s. Unfortunately, after
years of steady progress, new infections again began to
rise among MSM throughout the 1990s.7 While in recent
years, prevention efforts may have helped stabilize infections,
they are occurring at far too high a level (29,800 per
year.)8 Additionally, young MSM are the only risk group
in which new infections are increasing. This underscores
the need to sustain and re-invigorate prevention efforts
for gay and bisexual men of every race and to ensure that
each generation is effectively reached."

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Mar 14 - 07:47 PM

He doesn't care...he is only concerned with the falsely based propaganda, which happens to be part of the 'so-called' liberal' agenda. He will continue to try to shift the thread topic away from the transmission of HIV/AIDS...to his views on homosexuality.
This thread is NOT about homosexuality. They only came into it as a recognized major carrier of HIV/AIDS...that for some VERY lame reason, the 'politicos' want to make 'political hay' of them, and dismiss and sweep under the carpet the KNOWN FACT of them being major carriers, as the fear that common sense will undermine their political agendas.
Now that wasn't difficult, nor hard to understand, was it?
Notice: They won't even address addicts sharing needles...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 03:34 AM

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

No-one has had that absurd notion.
You just made it up.

The infection may have started among MSMs here all those decades ago, but it crossed into the hetero population very quickly.
It was expected to become widespread in the hetero community, but it never did.

In Britain we did have an influx of people infected in sub-Saharan Africa who were hetero.

Dave, the increase in testing was not enough to counter the increased rate of infection.
That does not mean that increased testing "does not work."
It does.

As an ex-teacher I would never deny the value and importance of education, but I do not believe that anyone leaves our schools system unaware that STIs including HIV are transmitted sexually and that condoms offer some protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 06:08 AM

Troubadour.
I don't know why you find that so difficult to understand, that one gay encounter might still carry ten or more times the risk of a similar single hetero event.

Because it is wrong Troubadour!

Anal sex is far more risky than vaginal, but as Musket says, heteros do it too.

Unprotected sex is far more risky.
That is an issue for all preferences.
Multiple, concurrent partners is far more risky.
That is an issue for all preferences.

Does anyone know a different issue, or are these the issues that determine infection rate in any preference group?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 06:24 AM

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

I understand and/or perfectly thanks. It is the whole phrase the supporters of homosexuality and/or other forms of promiscuity I am trying to get my head round. Firstly, what or who are the supporters of homosexuality? Secondly, why would homosexuals need supporters anyway? Finally, do you really believe that homosexuality is a form or promiscuity?

I do hope your name was chosen to be ironic.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:19 AM

There is a worrying trend of older people testing positive for HIV (and other conditions through STD cause) and whilst increasing testing availability will help, it helps more with younger people as the evidence demonstrates that through sex education in schools and other initiatives, younger people are quicker to come forward and less prone to taking risks. The high percentages of younger people have to be taken in with the statistically low numbers overall, plus primary care test figures don't, in England at any rate, enter into the figures till next month.

An interesting comparison being motorbike injuries. More older people who think they are too old and wise to ever crash.

So why Akenaton insists on saying young MSM is the only rising demographic when it isn't could baffle people. Unless you take into account the way in which evil people lie in order to spread their homophobic hatred.

It really is fascinating actually having such a beast on these threads. Sickening but fascinating.



Goofus. Stop saying that people don't care when they possibly do. And possibly spend a lot of their professional time caring. I spend time in GU clinics, looking for ways of improving how the staff are supported to make the services better and more responsive. Take it from me, they care. They care a lot.

Even the pox doctors' clerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 10:57 AM

From CDC factsheet on HIV infections(all demographics)

"After new HIV infections
among men who have sex with men (MSM) peaked in
the mid-1980s at more than 75,000 new infections a year,
the number of new infections plummeted to less than
18,000 per year by the early 1990s. Unfortunately, after
years of steady progress, new infections again began to
rise among MSM throughout the 1990s.7 While in recent
years, prevention efforts may have helped stabilize infections,
they are occurring at far too high a level (29,800 per
year.)8 Additionally, young MSM are the only risk group
in which new infections are increasing."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:13 AM

So why Akenaton insists on saying young MSM is the only rising demographic

Young MSM in US.
Older MSM here.
No non-MSM demographic is rising, unless you have new information to share with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:00 PM

Musket: "Goofus. Stop saying that people don't care when they possibly do. And possibly spend a lot of their professional time caring."

'Possibly'???
You must deal with a LOT of facts, huh?

Dave the Gnome: "I understand and/or perfectly thanks. It is the whole phrase the supporters of homosexuality and/or other forms of promiscuity I am trying to get my head round."

Ok...take out the word 'and', and what do you get? It certainly appears that you haven't 'got your head around it'....maybe I should have posted, "....OR needle sharing"...then you'd see that 'OR' meant something separate....'AND' was inclusive..'OR denotes another (possibility)

Maybe you should confer with Musket...he's seems to be into 'possibilities'.

Keith, 'Troubadour' is just too far gone....He's been making up stuff for years, and sadly, too many people believe the stuff he makes up...ask Musket!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 12:43 PM

OK - I take out the word 'and' and we get "...the supporters of homosexuality or other forms of promiscuity". It is still just as stupid. You are still suggesting that homosexuality has 'supporters' and it is a form of promiscuity. I guess the language I speak must be different to yours. I am quite pleased about that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:07 PM

Dave the Gnome,
Let's take another look at my post.....

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

Dave the Gnome: "It isn't splitting hairs at all, GfS. It is an important distinction. Promiscuity does not spread the virus, as you stated. I have already agreed that promiscuity increases the spread but that is not what you said.
Fact: Promiscuous sex, of any group, spreads the HIV/AIDS virus.
Remember?"

"Well being as the supporters of homosexuality and/or other forms of promiscuity seem to think that increased screening is an 'impolite imposition', and/or 'homophobic', it's a little hard to rely on the 'consideration' and 'good graces' of horny infected people who are also carriers of any number of STD's. So to be 'safe', let's just say promiscuity DOES spread the increased risk of being infected...but we don't want to 'split hairs', do we???"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:17 PM

HPA advise that the risk for heterosexual sex derived HIV is higher than ever. The two reasons being;

1. Complacency by this group combined with the recent high prevalence of anal issues requiring surgical intervention on younger women.

2. From April 2014, the statistics for all screening, tests and interventions will combine at source for the first time. So primary care testing will be added to the HES (secondary care) data and registration requirement of private healthcare to provide statistical data of screening activity. (Positive tests are already collected.)

Then, we can talk about figures for The UK. The system is not so harmonised in The USA and CDC are in about the same position as HPA were prior to The Health Act 2006 tightening up.

It may well be that MSM prevalence follows historical trajectory. If so, we shall have a better understanding of that concern and the scope. It may well be though that the non London figures, (as with many health statistics I may add) shape the general approach.

Pressure groups and high clusters of many issues, sexual health and mental health chiefly amongst them, lead to extrapolation of small clusters and inappropriate actions. The best example I can give as an ex miner is that in the old coalfields, COPD is a huge issue, but as it is less prevalent in London, it does not have a national service framework, yet diabetes does. Some of us are a bit fed up with London solutions to national problems, the consultant contract being chief amongst them.

So... Sorry, but I don't buy into media and popular views. I am briefed on reality and advise NHS England in my particular sphere of influence accordingly. I teach at a university accordingly. I lead on service redesign and improvement within a large teaching trust accordingly. I used to regulate services (including sexual health) accordingly. NHS care still has a long way to go, and so does private healthcare for that matter, but the setting up of NHS England and associated buy in for Scotland, Wales and NI means that at long last, we can start tackling issues based on the epidemiology rather than the political pressure.

Just that someone needs to tell the Secretary of State that his predecessor set this up for that purpose......

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 01:57 PM

You just don't get it do you, GfS. Homosexuality is NOT a form of promiscuity. It is NOT a lifestyle choice. People cannot choose to be homosexual any more than they can choose to be black or white. You also say ...seem to think that increased screening is an 'impolite imposition', and/or 'homophobic' No I don't. I think increased screening can only be a good thing. I do not think that forced registration or testing is. I do not think that demonising homosexuality can help. And I still have no idea who or what 'supporters of homosexuality' are.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 03:10 PM

"And I still have no idea who or what 'supporters of homosexuality' are."

People who promote it....AND...every time you've had sex with someone, even your wife, was it a choice?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 04:05 PM

So do you have any new figures or not Musket?
And why are you referring to HPA as if it still exists?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 08:58 PM

"Notice: They won't even address addicts sharing needles..."

Goofy, before you make an even bigger arse of yourselfe, ask Ake how the needle sharer infections compare.

He's been stating for some time that they are tiny compared to MSMs.

About time you two got up to date, don't you think?

And don't keep calling me a liberal! I'm further from that than you are. The difference is that I have a few more working brain cells than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 09:08 PM

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

Ake, you really need to get out more, if you think there is a difference between gay males and hetero males and females as regards sexual adventures.

Do yourself a favour and go look at the queue outside any nightclub.

Then come back and admit that the number of females with all the goodies on show, out on the pull, is far and away greater than the number of gay men in the whole city.

Do you think that they are looking for enlightenment,.........OR SEX?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Mar 14 - 11:01 PM

'Troubadour': "
"Notice: They won't even address addicts sharing needles..."
Goofy, before you make an even bigger arse of yourselfe, ask Ake how the needle sharer infections compare.
He's been stating for some time that they are tiny compared to MSMs."

Why are telling me to ask Akenaton...if he posted the numbers, and the sites, you'd all be ignoring them and calling him a 'homophobic bigot'....at least that's what you've been doing for about three years now......'About time you two got up to date, don't you think?'

"And don't keep calling me a liberal! I'm further from that than you are. The difference is that I have a few more working brain cells than you."

OKAY.....Besides, I called you a 'so-called liberal'..would you prefer , "YOUR MOST HIGH LIBERAL SUPREME"??....the incense is already lit...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 02:46 AM

Troubadour, 24 hours ago I posted this,

"Anal sex is far more risky than vaginal, but as Musket says, heteros do it too.
Unprotected sex is far more risky.
That is an issue for all preferences.
Multiple, concurrent partners is far more risky.
That is an issue for all preferences.
Does anyone know a different issue, or are these the issues that determine infection rate in any preference group?"

No-one came back with any other issue.
Those ARE the issues that determine infection rate in sexual transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 03:33 AM

National Aids Trust.
"Available evidence indicates
many MSM in the UK have high
numbers of sexual partners
and that there are significant
opportunities for sexual mixing.
Given the importance of partnership
patterns to HIV transmission, we should
look at what we know about such patterns
amongst MSM in the UK. The 2007
Gay Men's Sex Survey states:
'As every year, respondents were
very varied in their number of sexual
partners. Among the men who had a
male sex partner in the last year, 21.4%
indicated they had one male partner
only; 27.6% had two, three or four
male partners; 24.4% had between five
and twelve male partners; 13.4% had
between thirteen and 29 male partners;
and the remaining 13.4% had thirty or
more male partners in the last year'"

"In short, evidence suggests a strong
association between higher partner
numbers and infection with HIV as well
as other STIs"

http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/July-2010-Parternship-Patterns-and-HIV-Prevention.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:39 AM

"Why are you referring to HPA as if it still exists."

That was Keith by the way. Misinterpreting what I said on purpose.

You can't educate pork so I shan't. The last UK figures are, with refinement from the final quarter, basically what are published. The next figures relate to a period that has not ended yet. (April 13 to March 14.) I also said that risk is not just historical trends but Akenaton wouldn't wish to read that, and for reasons unknown, Keith chooses to ignore it too.

Goofus thinks being gay is a choice. A bad one at that. Possibly thinks you can cure choice? That was tried in parts of Europe in the '30s. Didn't work then either.

Akenaton picks up figures for clusters of a country a few thousand miles away and proposes draconian curbs of human rights on a section of society here based on such figures.

Hanging is too good for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:47 AM

Musket, opening sentence of your post,
"HPA advise that the risk for heterosexual sex derived HIV is higher than ever. The two reasons being;"

Have you forgotten that there is no HPA and has not been for a year?

From your last post, you do not have any new figures.
Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:51 AM

HPA advise that the risk for heterosexual sex derived HIV is higher than ever.

The last report by HPA, (published as a PHE report because HPA is finished) states that hetero infections have fallen year on year for a decade.

Where do you get this stuff?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 04:58 AM

People who promote it....AND...every time you've had sex with someone, even your wife, was it a choice?

You really have lost it, GfS. You think these 'promoters' are actively making people become homosexual? Is that it? What are you talking about choices when having sex for? Do you think that being homosexual is just about having sex? Neither you nor I had any choice whatsoever in who we loved. Homosexuals are no different.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 09:58 AM

Actually, you are right there Keith.

I wrote HPA where I should have written PHE. You of course knew and understood that, so had a pop for the same reasons I do. The difference being I poke you with a stick to get a reaction, you on the other hand look more absurd the more you claim to be serious.

I apologise. I apologise for inadvertently using the wrong acronym. Having been involved with HPA for so many years, it is an easy mistake to make. Or at least, it is for fucking important people such as Musket eh?

I get it by the way from meetings I attend, minutes and reports I read, commissioning strategies I write, lectures I attend (and occasionally give for that matter) etc. You see, that's one of the key responsibilities of PHE, to advise commissioning of NHS and local government provision in health and social care. So I get it from er... Being advised? Err.. Forming judgements from said advice and proposing them? Prat.

Where do you get your bits?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 10:04 AM

I get my information from reports in the public domain that can be seen in context and scrutinised by anyone interested.

We just have to take your word for your claims, and you so often get things wrong.

In my view, if you can not produce your evidence, it is not evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 12:47 PM

"Why are telling me to ask Akenaton......."

Because he is the one who stated that it is so, and givn how far up his arse you are, it's hard to believe that you would disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 01:05 PM

"No-one came back with any other issue.
Those ARE the issues that determine infection rate in sexual transmission."

OK, one last attempt to elicit understanding.

Take two groups with infections, in the period between first infection and the index diagnosis

In group 1, two percent acquire the infection.

In group 2, 33 percent acquire the infection.

The infection is one that doesn't go away, being manageable, but not curable.

A single sexual encounter with anybody in group 1 carries a one in fifty chance of infection.

A single encounter with a group 2 partner carries a one in three chance of infection.

Once the cause is discovered and research into treatment begins, the infection rate drops, but like drink/drive cases, after a time starts to rise again.

Since the infection is still there in the same proportions, which group is going to show the higher rate?

And that will happen with or without promiscuity being involved, because we are talking about proportional risk, and the MSM proportion is the same as it was because the virus doesn't go away.

In other parts of the world the proportions are very different and the infection rates reflect that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 03:17 PM

Infection rates in the MSM demographic fell swiftly between the mid 80s and the early 90s, the epidemic was under control, then infection rates began to rise and have been rising steadily ever since.

Why did infection rates amongst MSM fall to reasonable levels? Obviously the fear of death from a new disease caused them to self regulate their behaviour. As the condition was gradually thought to be manageable, MSM resumed their original behaviour patterns, with the consequences we now see, 70% of new infections among 0.75% of the population.

The same pattern seems to apply to new Syphilis infections.....where the disease did not originate amongst male homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 03:22 PM

Yes, I have been known to get things wrong. A while ago, I thought you were capable of understanding, assimilating and judging views, evidence and points.

I got that fucker wrong for starters...

Do keep on looking in the public domain as you call it. Most of what is important is up there, and given time, more still. NHS England and PHE are trying to take on board their bit of the duty of candour, but as ever, there is a lot of misleading information out there, some of it "official" and subject to scrutiny itself. If you thought scientifically rather than doggedly, you'd possibly realise that. If those providing sexual health services got it wrong all the time, they'd be doing their patients a disservice, so scrutiny and meta analysis reigns I'm afraid.

Sorry about that. Anyway, I co wrote an article recently about screening in general and how we still haven't joined it at the hip with PHE. It is in the innovation section of HSJ.

Don't worry, there's plenty out there, especially in gay pressure groups ironically, to pour petrol on Akenaton's fire. Bring kindling..... You are doing a good job to date.

After all. He hasn't said anything homophobic has he? Or at least, you don't seem to think so. I wonder why that is?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 14 - 05:05 PM

Don't worry, there's plenty out there, especially in gay pressure groups ironically, to pour petrol on Akenaton's fire

Do not be silly Musket.
What will you get from gay groups but the truth?
The truth should be what we all want.
Why are you afraid of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:27 AM

Do keep on looking in the public domain as you call it.

What do you call it?
All my figures and facts have come from PHE.
Where else should I have got them from?

If those providing sexual health services got it wrong all the time, they'd be doing their patients a disservice

Not all the time, but NAT is of the opinion that they ARE doing patients a disservice.

there is a lot of misleading information out there, some of it "official" and subject to scrutiny itself.

Anything I have posted?
If so, please identify it specifically.

Confident prediction, you won't.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:37 AM

Troubadour, your idiosyncratic theory of epidemiology has nothing to do with reality.

This is what National Aids Trust say,

"So people
with multiple sexual partners, such as
homosexually active men, commercial
sex workers, and people in (formal or
informal) polygamous relationships, are
more likely to have sero-discordant sex
than those with fewer partners'.2

This point was also made by a number
of participants at the NAT expert
seminar. It is certainly the case that the
probability of having sex with someone
of a different HIV status increases with
the number of sexual partners you
have. This has been a fundamental
insight into the spread of sexually
transmitted infections, linking numbers
of partners to risk of STI infection and
STI incidence. Of course incidence is
also affected by other factors such as
condom use, overall STI prevalence in
a population and in a sexual network,
and sexual mixing - factors we will
consider further.
Recent results from the Gay Men's
Sex Survey (GMSS) conducted
by Sigma Research suggests the
correlation between high numbers of
sexual partners and infection with STIs
including HIV"
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/July-2010-Parternship-Patterns-and-HIV-Prevention.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 04:00 AM

Of course gay groups tell the truth, both objectively and favourably. Who said otherwise?

So do children's charities , cancer organisations, diabetes, dementia, mental health and myriad others.

And guess what? They are all bidding to influence priority in healthcare provision and awareness.

I haven't quite decided whether I actually needed to explain that?

Did I really?

You see, I am trying to work out whether Keith is intelligent but with odious views or just not capable of reading something without wondering what that means?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 05:08 AM


Of course gay groups tell the truth, both objectively and favourably. Who said otherwise?
So do children's charities , cancer organisations, diabetes, dementia, mental health and myriad others.

So why say they pour petrol on the fire?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:01 AM

To you, the truth is inflammatory.
That tells us much about you and your ilk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:59 AM

"To you, the truth is inflammatory.
That tells us much about you and your ilk."

Yes Keith, bang on the button, very well said.
Anyone reading this thread and wondering about the anger and abuse being thrown around by two or three people, should think hard on what you have said.

Filling posts with Orwellian jargon to obfuscate and confuse is almost laughable.....the truth is there for all to see at present, but before long results by demographic will be banned, the epidemic will be obscured and the so called health professionals will be able to claim that HIV infection rates are falling and all is well in the world.

It will have become "discriminatory" to tell the truth about serious health matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:15 AM

The only discrimination is from the likes of Akenaton. If it feels that "truth" on health matters is discriminatory, perhaps it would do well to wear tin foil on its head to protect it from other sources of it's paranoia.

Pleased with yourself Keith?

65,000,000 of my ilk in The UK. There are a few hundred thousand homophobic criminal bigots though. If you want to give them a veneer of respectability rather than listen to reason, be my guest.

I hope you pray for them.

By the way worm, "so called" health professionals work in the interest of all without fear nor favour. Your fantasy has no parallel in the world of decent people. If reality doesn't support your wish to stigmatise and persecute sections of society, it isn't reality that needs to seek help.

Irrelevant, wrong, small minded, bitter and twisted. Although what Mudcat did wrong to make you think anybody agreed with your odious outlook, I don't know. Even Keith is hesitant to support you, and his right wing religious zeal is on record.

Just you and Goofus.

Have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:31 AM

Musket, it is you not listening to reason.
Reason says that scarce resources should be targeted to do the most good.
You say it is homophobic to target the most at risk group, but that actually is existing policy.
It is being done and you did not even know it and only you and your ilk would think it homophobic.
This is not about discrimination or persecution.

your wish to stigmatise and persecute sections of society

All I see is a wish to reduce suffering and save lives.

Akeneaton is not saying anything that NAT does not say.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 09:18 AM

See?

Where have I said it is homophobic to target the most at risk group?

Never.

Quite the opposite in fact.

You say targeting is being done. I know. You don't have to tell me. I help allocate the fucking resource! I am satisfied that gay men remain the most at risk single demographic, (if sexual preference is used as a demographic) and the second largest demographic (if urban socio economic is used.) I am also convinced of the argument that historical data alone will not inform future planning as other consequences of heterosexual promiscuity translate into long term issues. A&E, GP and colo rectal referrals indicate a worrying trend that requires vigilance in screening of those demographics, who hitherto have not come forward at the rate gay men do.

You will be pleased to know that to the best ability of those knowledgable in these things, the resources are being targetted fairly well. From next month, future incidence figures will help plan said resources even better. So long as councils don't use the money they will get for sexual health to fund more frequent dustbin collections.. (Don't laugh, don't shake your head. Pickles has made it clear that QIPP (moving healthcare resource into community and social care) is not ring fenced where councils get it.

NAT doesn't say that gay men need to be forced by law to be screened for STDs. NAT is nothing whatsoever to do with gay men, and has no mandate for them. It has a mandate of sorts for gay men who happen to be sexually active with anal penetrative sex without protection, which is a small percentage of gay men. It is also a small rising percentage of teenage girls for that matter.

If NAT said what Akenaton says, it's directors would be in court.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 10:42 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

Correct.

That's what I said.

Do you have a problem with that?

Or do you just like to play with context in support of homophobia? A health promotion campaign is about all people at risk, including gay men.

If anybody is still desperate enough to be reading this, Keith has purposely confused legitimate targeting (aiming health promotion) at a section of society with Akenston's campaign to stigmatise them. Out of interest,

I hope you are very pleased with yourself Keith. At least have the courage of your conviction to say what you really think about gay men.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:04 PM

Actually it was Dr. Cemetry who said it.

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

Campaigns ARE focussed on gay men.

What are you insinuating about me, and on what grounds?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:05 AM

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

Is that, a campaign for promoting HIV/AIDS awareness, or letting it run rampant, because to inform the carriers, would 'insult their sensitivities'???....and therefore be branded by the nutcases as being 'homophobic' for doing so???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:51 AM

Like I said. So what? You are purposely confusing campaign with campaign. I notice that two people working in healthcare, one a doctor for at matter, seem to have no issue with health promotion campaigns that include certain groups, and for that matter, you need to target your efforts for greatest good.

I think the origin of the word campaign in this debate was more to do with a certain homophobic campaign of persecution as a solution to a minority of a problem.

I'll tell you what I am insinuating about you. Nothing. I am stating as a fact though that you twist figures to support the overt homophobic evil intentions of the person behind Akenaton whilst claiming his diatribe isn't bigoted.

Nothing to insinuate. Plenty to ponder.

The only reason I am bothering at all is that somewhere, buried deep, there might have been a conscience. But if ill informed pedantry is all you can offer, you either have a condition I am not qualified to deal with (although Goofus reckons he is) or I am right all along.

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 03:49 PM

I have twisted nothing.
The only figures I have given were from the latest PHE report.
Untwistable.

Show one example of a twisted figure Musket/Seaham.

Confident prediction- you can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:05 PM

I only gave figures to correct things that you had said.
You either twisted them or you got them wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:21 PM

Perhaps you have forgotten.
You stated that new MSM infections were less than half the total.
It was true once, but they overtook all others combined in 2011.
You said my figures were out of date and you had better, but it was you who was hopelessly out of touch.

Then you said that hetero figures were rising when they actually are falling and have been year on year for a decade.

No twisting.
My figures were correct and showed that you were hopelessly out of touch and wrong.
Or were you trying to twist the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:15 PM

At last, the twisted trolls are exposed. Just as I supposed, the chief abuser and NHS "advisor" is exposed as a cheat who makes up fake personas to bolster his lies and obfuscation.

Well at least those who do read this thread will be able to separate truth from fiction.
It is truly amazing where being addicted to an idiotic agenda leads
God help the NHS.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:36 PM

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 01:32 PM

This thread was supposed to encourage a discussion of HIV transmission rates. I think all the valid points have been raised and anyone reading it will have the information to formulate an opinion on the best way to halt the epidemic within the MSM demographic.
The post above and the post from Dave , contain statements which I have never made; in fact, some of the statements are completely contrary to what I have actually stated.

Anyone who wishes to verify this, can easily do so by reading the complete thread and paying attention.

I am not interested in the personal views of Dave, and even less so of the other person, the thread is about HIV transmission rates and I think it has served a useful purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:15 PM

At last, the twisted trolls are exposed. Just as I supposed, the chief abuser and NHS "advisor" is exposed as a cheat who makes up fake personas to bolster his lies and obfuscation.

Well at least those who do read this thread will be able to separate truth from fiction.
It is truly amazing where being addicted to an idiotic agenda leads
God help the NHS.

And those who read this will also be able to see those who say one thing and do another. Ake, you really are the master of twisting what people say to suit yourself and then whinging on about others. Fortunately, apart from a couple of supporters, everyone can see just what you are and what you do. We don't need to make you look an idiot. You are quite capable of doing that with no help.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:58 PM

The person behind Akenaton has already shown us his criminal tendencies. He isn't fit to be displayed in public.

He now thinks I am someone else too. Considering I have met the person who signs as Seaham Cemetrey and that he is a doctor working in sexual health, the disgraceful slurs of Akenaton are amazing only by their bitter hatred.

I repeat. I am not the person who feels Akenaton sold unwanted racing puppies to a builder in Seaham who killed them to order before going to prison for it. I didn't make the link regarding Scottish greyhound trainers with a certain first name.

If Akenaton wishes to state I made those allegations, perhaps he would wish to substantiate it?

Keith. The reporting year 2012/13. I gave the figures. Slightly irrelevant as historical trajectory is just one factor. The 2013/14 figures will include the ones I gave for annual comparison which are in the public domain by the way, and I gave them. No spin. No lies. Just data as collected and analysed by PHE. You can't quote a body then say it lies. I am not a spokesman for them but in this, the person writing as Musket can and does speak on behalf of NHS strategy and rationale. Although not when prompting idiots on a silly website in order to expose their stupidity.

I guess it is 1.3 million liars working in The NHS or two twisted bigots. Take your choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:48 PM

Whilst no great lover of the twattery that Question Time usually embraces, I did appreciate the sublime twenty minutes or so of tonight's programme that were devoted to gay marriage. The debate was wonderful. The UKIP pillock on the panel, and the "committed Christian" lady in the audience, didn't need to be shot down as they both did an expert job in shooting themselves down. If you have iPlayer and didn't see it, do take a look. Akenhateon and Guffers ExtremoInsanitario should be forced to watch it ten times in a row, preferably shackled in front of the telly. Love, love, love. If you are sceptical, do watch it if you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:24 AM

If Akenaton or Keith has twisted the figures, give us 'your' figures' and the links to back up your claim...fair enough?
If you can't, and are only attacking the 'messenger', then what is the point of insisting he is wrong and you are right....just back it up, and point out the difference.
Please try to use reliable sources and reliable links.

If you can, fine...if you can't then give it a rest....and accept his/theirs.
Seems fair to me.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 02:21 AM

Keith. The reporting year 2012/13. I gave the figures.

No, you never have.
You have alluded to them and claimed them but never produced them and they are not published.
Will you produce them now?
Confident prediction- you can't.
The latest figures given have been the ones that I produced and you initially rubbished.

Correct. That's what I said.

Yes it is, but you said it under the name "Seaham Cemetry."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:10 AM

So there are no better or newer figures than those I produced.

The trends of ten years standing have not screeched to a halt and gone into reverse in just three months without anyone reporting it.

You made it all up, like the existence of Doctor Who.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:04 AM

"Well at least those who do read this thread will be able to separate truth from fiction."

Which is why you three are on your own.

Musket, I fear that there is little purpose in trying to communicate with neanderthals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:19 AM

Which fact produced by me do you dispute Troubadour?

Was Musket telling the truth when he stated that MSM infections were less than half the total?

No he was not.

Was he telling the truth when he stated that hetero rates are rising?

No he was not.

Have I stated one thing that is not clearly and demonstrably the truth?

No I have not, or can you produce one?

Confident prediction, NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 09:58 AM

Me argue with PHE?
That is where I got the figures to expose your ignorance, or deliberate falsification.

Musket hasn't said any of the above.

"Less than half new HIV+ diagnosis results are from make to male transmission,"

" Keith says heterosexual transmission is falling but it isn't."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:34 PM

Musket didn't say that.

Musket is aware of it and related it.

Did someone say you once was a teacher? The mind boggles.

Sports I assume...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:44 PM

Not true.
You were unable to give a source and still have not.
It came from you and nowhere else.
You said it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:45 PM

....and it was wrong anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 02:45 PM

How can anyone have a serious discussion, with a person who writes messages supporting his idiotic point of view under a false name.

Uses the fraudulent cover to libel and insult other members, stalks other members and uses the crudest of language.
Does he not realise that the used of the word "cunt" as a term of abuse is a serious insult to the women, who, on another thread, he pretends to support.......a fraud in every dimension.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

How can anyone have a serious discussion, with a person who writes messages supporting his idiotic point of view under a false name.


So, your real name is akenaton then?

What a wanker.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:15 PM

What I said is what is known and used for provision of sexual health services in The UK.

No.
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 have been asked many times already so you clearly can not show us anything.
I think and believe that your "upstream" figures are an invention, but would be happy to be proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 04:43 PM

Dave, I have only one posting name on this forum.
I have NEVER purposely posted under any other posting name than akenaton.

Others here use multiple personas to support their views.....are you just a bit dim, or are you being disingenuous again?

I don't see you using such tactics. Do you not think it is a pathetic way to engage in discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:33 PM

WHO- the 5 Cs in reducing HIV 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 06:58 PM

How can anyone have a serious discussion, with a person who writes messages supporting his idiotic point of view under a false name.

Once again I ask. So, your real name is akenaton then?

It doesn't matter whether there are multiple personas or not. You are still posting under a false name.

.....are you just a bit dim

No, I don't believe I am. Are you?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:45 AM

Come on Dave...your pal has admitted being the author of the statement quoted by Keith from "Dr Cemetery's" post.

His credibility is ZERO.

I on the other hand, NEVER post under any other handle than "akenaton".
I don't need any support, real or imaginary.
Keith does not agree with my views on homosexual "marriage" but he abhors lies and the distortion of facts.
Sanity is valuable contributor here with his own take on many issues, he does not write to "support" me but to give his views on the issues as he sees them. He is sensible and an original thinker...you should pay more attention

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 08:12 AM

Come on Dave...your pal has admitted being the author of the statement quoted by Keith from "Dr Cemetery's" post.

I don't know where to start on that. Firstly, I have never met 'my pal', by whom I presume you mean Musket. Why do you continue to say there is some sort of collusion between posters who disagree with you when I have repeatedly said there is no such plot? You are really not that important. There are some things on which we agree and there are some things we have disagreed about. It is what grown up people do. It is not like school where you are in one gang or another. Secondly, you still do not post under your real name. Why say posting under a false name is wrong when you do the same? Third, even if someone posts under a different name, provided everyone knows, there is no issue. I have no idea whether Musket ever posted under the name "Dr Cemetery". I cannot find any posts in that name. But even if he did, and then said it was him, it is no different to posting under one, two or many pseudonyms. However, as the moderators will highlight and prevent instances where people post under different names, I would rather leave it to them anyway.

Finally, seeing as you have already said you do not wish to discuss any issues with me, why do you continue doing so? Can you not do anything you say you will?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 11:52 AM

You must remember "Seaham Cemetry" Dave.
His first posts were to smear Akenaton about killing greyhounds.
His name derives from that smear story.

He then announced he was a doctor, and began supporting Musket on HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 01:30 PM

I could prove that I am not a liar quite easily, ut I have a strict rule about not posting PMs on open forum.

However, proving some other member to be a fraud, will not improve MSM HIV infection rates, which is the object of this thread.

Anybody got any ideas, other than research and education, which will not stop the epidemic soon enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 02:09 PM

"Anybody got any ideas, other than research and education, which will not stop the epidemc soon enough."

Where is the evidence (some links were posted here, for the open minded to review) that research and education has had a no impact on dealing with the global HIV-AIDs pandemic? International agencies indicate that progress is being made with that approach.

The idea of compulsary testing of all gay people (the one size fits all testing theory promoted by some), or similar initiatives that stigmatize the entire male gay community, or other impacted communities, will do little to stop the global pandemic. However, it surely would add fuel to homophobia, which is alive and well globally. It would also drive those needing testing farther away from getting tested, as noted by many. That is why this "right-wing" approach has been rejected as counter-productive by most respected agencies dealing directly with the issues and those impacted.

Why would anyone post links for those who have already made up their minds to ignore? Why would one participate in a thread where posters are mostly rude to those who see things differently than they do?

What is the real purpose of those posting here on this mudcat soapbox? It hardly is a place for enlightened thought, and the personal views of a few (regardless if who they team up with) are not a factor on preventing future infections.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 02:36 PM

Akenaton: "Keith does not agree with my views on homosexual "marriage" but he abhors lies and the distortion of facts.
Sanity is valuable contributor here with his own take on many issues, he does not write to "support" me but to give his views on the issues as he sees them. He is sensible and an original thinker...you should pay more attention."

Well, my 'own take'???.....actually a SANE take coupled with common sense...and common sense sees that those who have a political agenda, whose foundation is not rooted in truth, are going to blither and blather on, ignoring the FACTS, even when they are laid out right in front of them...and so plainly, at that. They NEED subscribers to their falsely based dogmas, because they are proudly deluded, and NEED the support of those who don't know much better...but at least it's SOMEBODY.....and when the going gets tough, and their backs are to the wall, they just get nastier, calling more names, and insulting others who they fear are going to pop their plastic bubble of bullshit and hypocrisy.
In the proper light, Akenaton's figures ARE supported by FACTS, and the links that he's provided.....I asked this in a prior post...

"From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Mar 14 - 01:24 AM

"If Akenaton or Keith has twisted the figures, give us 'your' figures' and the links to back up your claim...fair enough?
If you can't, and are only attacking the 'messenger', then what is the point of insisting he is wrong and you are right....just back it up, and point out the difference.
Please try to use reliable sources and reliable links.

If you can, fine...if you can't then give it a rest....and accept his/theirs.
Seems fair to me."

Nobody could do it...OR, nobody did.....instead we get crap like this:

Musket: "I'm not trying to be clever here, but when I first put the record straight on sexual health a few subjects ago, the more odious scum decided to have a pop. I don't like that. I was trying to be useful.

Then I realised that reality can get in the way of prejudice. The two (Goofus doesn't count, he is daft as a brush really) characters on this thread and others can easily become a focus point for who will be first up against the wall come the glorious day. (Second and third actually. That bitch on Question Time last night, saying gay marriage offends her Christianity, she can be first, evil slut.)

Hey worm! Have you noticed how many people defend you? Even Keith and Joe refuse to agree with you, just think that hate has a place in debate. Well yes, if only to realise the alternative to civilised respectability.

Get fucked."
......................................................................
So who cares if Musket 'gets it'????....matter of fact, he is an embarrassment to the very 'cause' he is trying to 'promote'!
I'd say let him blither and blather on....what is he trying to do, want people to be like HIM?????!!!???.....ALL fucked up????(your words), Musket, dear small thinker!...who thinks people have the absolute right to wander the streets looking for others to infect with a deadly fatal, slow-death disease, with complete abandon!....because his ideology 'wants equality'(?) for the carriers.....what are fucking moron!
...as for the would-be victims, if they are cautious or take precautions to avoid behavior that would give them exposure to dying a slow death, via sexual promiscuity, he calls them 'bigots and homophobes'...and based on what???...Oh, that little thing, that ALL living creatures have, instinctively in them....THE WILL TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE......(not found in his ideology)....

Regards to Those Who Enjoy Living With the Truth!

GfS

P.S. Oh Regards and condolences to whomever was stupid enough into buy this rap, "I am married, don't have children (two by my previous marriage though) and consider myself married."
Does she?....or do the kids call her 'Mummy'...just so long as you are happily deluded, everything is just fine!
Try to keep it together Ol' Chap, because your whole trip is just flappin'

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 02:58 PM

"" Oh, that little thing, that ALL living creatures have, instinctively in them....THE WILL TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE""

I submit that this statement is not factually accurate.
Some humans instinctively, and by intent, prefer not to reproduce.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 03:21 PM

Idiot: "Some humans instinctively, and by intent, prefer not to reproduce."

"I submit that this statement is not factually accurate"
Glad you 'submitted' it...it shows you have very little knowledge of the attributes of the basic instincts of living creatures!...even viruses!!

Musket: "I doubt my lads would call someone their own age mummy, but we have higher social standards this side of the pond perhaps."

Oh do you??....Do your children that you 'don't have', ever ask for your advice?????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 03:30 PM

homosexuality+biological diversity 

A greater knowledge of Science and the definition of the word "fact", if not the concept itself, could benefit some and improve this discussion:)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 04:05 PM

The Village Idiot: "A greater knowledge of Science and the definition of the word "fact", if not the concept itself, could benefit some and improve this discussion:)"

In other words, let's spin the FACTS, to make them fit into your ideology.....Good grief!

Back to basics.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 04:56 PM

Guest, Of course there will always be a small minority of humans who do not wish to have children, but there are usually reasons for them taking this course in life. Fear of childbirth, economic circumstances, medical reasons, issues about overpopulation etc, but the vast majority of young healthy people ARE driven by nature to reproduce.....and that is a positive for our species.

Heterosexual relationships are the only way of ensuring the survival of the species, and a monogamous heterosexual marriage is thought by most experts to be the best way of producing and raising children.

Studies like the link I posted previously suggest that many male homosexual relationships, unions and "marriages are "open" to many sexual partners, by common consent, do not produce offspring and are not a proper environment for adoption.
As such they are radically different from conventional heterosexual marriages, which are for the large part monogamous.

The studies also suggest that these "open" relationships which include multiple sexual partners, are an additional risk in HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:00 PM

" let's spin the FACTS, to make them fit into your ideology."

A good self confession. What is yourrpurpose of doing that?

Some folks have a very loose definition/understanding of what a fact would be-a factor that would meet a reasonable norm. Just calling it a fact, by wishing it were one, choosing something from a questionable source, taking something out of context, or matching it to a cause - hardly qualifies something as a fact.

Observe that some folks resort to the illogical error of reinforcing their case by calling those with a different viewpoint names, in most caes when their case is weak. That merely reflects on their lack of personal courtesy, in addtion to their weak position put forward. Why would one do that, given the result?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:03 PM

After reading Don's link to David Baresh, I also read this!

...and by the way, in case you didn't notice, or got caught up in your usual semi-literate diatribes going on in your head, this thread is about "Discussion of HIV transmission."
You always resort to try to give 'evidence' that homosexuality is a perfectly normal way to reproduce!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:13 PM

The statement I referred to that was not a fact, and was in error, regardless of the reason (that more likely go beyond the last posted reasons) I list below. It seems reasonable to note this, to avoid discourse and promote a reasonable discussion. However, raising the error has oddly seemed to prick a sensitivity of some type?

The poster used the word "All", to reinforce his/her case which is not a fact. Why would he/she do that in a discussion "some say" is merely to further knowledge, not to promote an agenda/opinion on a health issue, global or local? Just wondering.

"" Oh, that little thing, that ALL living creatures have, instinctively in them....THE WILL TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE""

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:20 PM

"You always resort to try to give 'evidence' that homosexuality is a perfectly normal way to reproduce!!"

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.

As to the purpose of the thread, please refer to the original detailed post from jts, not merely the title, which provides a different "spin".

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:43 AM

"Just open your eyes, and realize,
The way it's always been.
Just open your mind and you will find 
The way it's always been.
Just open your heart and that's a start"
Moody Blues

""The health agencies need to get involved with the homosexual organisations to make it clear ....that the prevalence of promiscuous and risky behaviour must be amended""

(Note that I took out redundant words to get the potential intended message).

Good luck with that...as if the so named"gay organizations", have any direct control over "amending" (whatever that means or could entail) individual behaviour.

On a positive front, government agencies are, and have been, increasingly reaching out to impacted groups to better design programs to better reach potentially impacted individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 04:57 AM

I didn't miss it at all, ake. Given your inclination to class homosexuality as being driven by nothing but sex I chose to ignore your views on targeting. I am also puzzled by how you will "make it clear that the present state of affairs is not acceptable" etc. You have already stated, in no uncertain terms, that education will not work. How are these organisations to bring about this change in attitude without education?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 06:17 AM

Everybody has called for more vigilance in at risk groups. Charities representing gay issues concentrate on gay issues, as is right and proper. But..

Nobody, I repeat, nobody is calling for any HIV testing on anybody on the basis of being gay.

Full stop.

That is what the worm said, and the is what the worm meant. He is vilifying gay people.

Everybody wishes more testing of people deemed at risk. These include people who use anal sex, and people who use any form of unprotected sex. Gay charities mention MSM as appropriate, and agencies such as PHE point out the high prevalence.

You can't call for testing of gay people any more than you can call for testing of heterosexual people. People in monogamous or no relationship exist, so nobody in any professional or indeed responsible position wants them to to come forward for testing. A waste of money, time and effort.

Contact tracing of HIV positive people has been offered since 1989 in England. Contact tracing of people deemed at risk of irresponsible behaviour has been possible through magistrate warrant for many years.

Testing of all Scottish people for heroin would be a good public health initiative on the same lines as Akenaton claims. If he wishes to undergo tests, there is a substance misuse drop in centre where you can have your name added to the list. You end up of course with a list of people in Scotland on heroin. We already know the central belt is a black spot, so why not turn up? You don't need to use heroin, just be Scottish! A bit like not carrying out unprotected anal sex with multiple partners, just be classed as gay!

Bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 06:47 AM

The Sound of Stigma  

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 06:54 AM

Some myths  

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 07:00 AM

cdc 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 14 - 07:06 AM

stigma 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 01:10 AM

Targeting MSM for testing would be more cost effective than for any other group.
That is why NHS does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 01:21 AM

Yes the "NHS" does target as per a population. So in certain London boroughs gay men are encouraged. In Hull needle sharers are encouraged.

Etc.

But all groups are encouraged in all areas. It is emphasis based on prevalence that counts. You write in agreement with me but in a way designed to contradict me. You really are a nasty little shit, aren't you Keith?

By the way, it's local authorities who have the budget for health promotion not NHS bodies. But I'll excuse your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 03:46 AM

The epidemic can only be halted by increased targeted testing of MSM.

HPE say that not nearly enough male homosexuals are coming forward for testing....apparently, there is a movement amongst MSM to stigmatise those who volunteer to be tested......it is important that this movement is censured.

This movement is exactly the reverse of what I have been advising for some considerable time, as a solution to the problem..... self regulation by the MSM demographic, assisted and encouraged by the homosexual agencies/pressure groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 04:12 AM

"The Government's continued funding of a national HIV prevention programme targeting the groups most at risk of HIV infection (gay and bisexual men and African communities) is welcome;"
(National Aids Trust)

I'll excuse your ignorance again.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 04:13 AM

Targeting of specific demographics has always been more cost effective. Which is why big advertising companies do it. Educating a particular demographic that product A (testing in this case) is better than product B (not being tested) is what it is all about. But of course ake has already informed us that education does not work and it is not worth spending any more money on it.So I wonder how these specific demographics will be given the information they need?

DtG

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

Nobody, I repeat, nobody is calling for any HIV testing on anybody on the basis of being gay.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:11 AM

Nobody, I repeat nobody is calling for any HIV testing on anybody on the basis of being gay.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:18 AM

National Aids Trust (NAT)
"NAT want to see a change in testing culture in the UK. 'At least annual' testing must become the norm both for gay and bisexual men"

- See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/our-thinking/prevention-and-testing/testing.aspx#sthash.uJK02ss4.dpuf

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:38 AM

PHE.
" Get tested regularly for HIV if you are one of those most-at-risk:
a. Men who have sex with men are advised to have an HIV and STI screen at least annually, and every three months if having unprotected sex with new or casual partners."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:40 AM

"why am I opposed to the normalization of homosexual behavior? Because I love black males. I want black males to live long, prosperous, healthy, disease-free lives"


Interesting view? 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:45 AM

Does denying marriage to gays make you a bigot? Interesting views on both sides of this issue on this debate site:




<1a href="http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-denying-marriage-to-gays-make-you-a-bigot">debate 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 09:38 AM

On your second post there Keith, you start to get there.

Of all gay men who would need to go for testing if gay was the test, that would include Stephen Fry. I mention him because a) he is gay and b) he would be sent home without being tested for wasting the clinic's time. Despite being possibly the most well known for promoting gay issues, he has the disadvantage of celebrity so we all know that he has never had penetrative sex with a man.

So, do all gay people need to go for testing on the basis of being gay yet heterosexual people who have sex with more than one partner and / or don't practice safe sex not? You should keep reading and not stop when you see something about your favourite category.

You are getting to sound like Akenaton, who can't think of gay people without a sordid fascination with anal sex. I wonder if he thinks of anal sex when he encounters heterosexual women? Do you?

See? Eventually, you begin to keep up with PHE. Just like those who work alongside them. zzzzzzz

ADIS. Don't die of dyslexia.



Just out of interest, I wrote to Duncan Selbie recently saying that targeting for screening in all areas can be too prescriptive and misunderstood. I didn't supply any answers, but sexual health campaigns were prominent in my concerns, (written by me, co signed by all nine regional heads of commissioning.)

Like I said, I am too close to this subject to suffer fools.












Let alone thick twats.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 10:01 AM

debate 

Let's try this link, as the one before did not work.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 04:49 PM

I agree that people who do not have sex are not at risk from sexual transmission.
I am just surprised you thought it needed saying.

Nobody, I repeat, nobody is calling for any HIV testing on anybody on the basis of being gay.

Yes they are.
PHE, NAT and all the other agencies.

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

Silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 05:05 PM

The call should not be for testing on the basis of being gay. It should be for testing on the basis of being at risk.

Can you not see the difference?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:14 PM

MSM is the massively most "at risk" demographic.

This is publicised by CDC, HPA, HPE, and all other health agencies.
It is even quoted by the Terence Higgins Trust, Stonewall and other homosexual agencies.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:21 PM

In the USA, African Americans are the fastest growing demographic, which is significant, given their lower representation in the population. This is not surprising, as they are low on the economic and education scale and have traditionally been marginilized in this society.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:28 PM

MSM is the massively most "at risk" demographic.

Are they "at risk" or at risk? Big difference. Like "marriage" and marriage. Get it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 03:15 AM

The "African American demographic" contains African American MSM.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 03:25 AM

Just to state the obvious. Both the worm and Keith A Hole of Hertford have conveniently and continuously made MSM and homosexual interchangeable terms. That way it is easier to vilify a lifestyle rather than a physical act. The agencies Keith quotes make the distinction, although not always as well as they might, and that sadly gives a toe in for far right hate groups and their supporters.

Fucking disgraceful.

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

Male homosexuals are the highest risk group, and are targeted for screening. MSM is a recognised abbreviation.
Bisexuals are also high risk and targeted.

Lesbians are not a risk group.

PHE.
" Get tested regularly for HIV if you are one of those most-at-risk:
a. Men who have sex with men are advised to have an HIV and STI screen at least annually, and every three months if having unprotected sex with new or casual partners."

National Aids Trust (NAT)
"NAT want to see a change in testing culture in the UK. 'At least annual' testing must become the norm both for gay and bisexual men"

These statements contradict your statements that "Nobody, I repeat, nobody is calling for any HIV testing on anybody on the basis of being gay."   and,

"There is nothing, nothing whatseover to substantiate a campaign focussing on gay men. It is homophobic to do so."
.
Let's be more careful with our wording to avoid this kind of disagreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:37 AM

MSM is another term for homosexual?

Glad you said that. Your mealy mouthed bigotry can sometimes read as trying to be reasonable.

Nice for you to get the homophobia out in the open.




Busted

Fucking

Flush

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:12 AM

"I don't hate you.. I just don't like that you exist" 
― Gena Showalter, Seduce the Darkness

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:22 AM

"I don't hate people. I just find their views disturbing"

Prof. Fucking important dude.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:11 AM

Men who have sex with men are advised to ...

That is the proper term, used by the agencies that know.

Male homosexuals are the highest risk group

That is the term used by some on here.

As you said, Keith, "Let's be more careful with our wording to avoid this kind of disagreement".

Not all homosexuals have sex. Not all homosexuals that have sex have sex with multiple partners. Not all homosexuals that have sex with multiple partners have unprotected sex. You see, they are just like heterosexuals in that. No different at all. Which is why vilifying homosexuality is wrong. Yes, target the at risk groups. The highest at risk group are men who have unprotected sex with multiple partners. Not all homosexuals.

Hope that helps.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:43 AM

I thought MSM is an abbreviation for male homosexuals and bisexual men, if sexually active.
Is that wrong?

Of course all members of a group are different.
It does not need saying.
Of course many are not sexually active.
It does not need saying.

The agencies refer to some groups as high risk and needing testing without feeling the need to specify "except those who do not engage in high risk behaviour" because it does not need saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:28 AM

"The "African American demographic" contains African American MSM."


Yes it does. But, a reasonable approach for those seeking to reduce it is not to stigmatise those impacted by alluding to it as being an "african american" health issue -caused by folks being african american. They look deeper into the root causes, to assist in prevention in the short term and over the long term. Approach is very important in seeking voluntary participation in reducing future infections.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:52 AM

The definition of MSM is quite clear and should be obvious to even an NHS pen pusher.

MSM.....Men who have sex with men. This demographic includes homosexual and bisexual men, apprx 12% of the total are bisexual(Simon Levy 2011)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:27 AM

But homosexual does not equal MSM. And MSM are only at risk if they have multiple partners and unprotected sex. Why use the terms as if they mean the same? Why keep saying homosexuals should be targeted? Why say all MSM should be targeted?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:37 AM

I think that all the agencies do say that Dave.

It is taken as understood that some members do not put themselves at risk, but the group, with all its exceptions, is considered a high risk group.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:43 PM

Well, I'm back from intense recording sessions, and see that the conversation has wandered around to hair splitting about homosexuals, again, and how much more or less they are even a factor. 'Guest' posted some links, (where I last left off), and must NOT have read them very well, especially the one from the CDC, which has the pie chart....then he goes on to banter how he made such a wonderful point, that being stigmatized keeps homosexuals from being tested.....well isn't that perfectly STUPID??!!..then goes onto provide links from homosexual sites 'backing up' that STUPID allegation!!! Oh Whaaa!
Now THIS applies to everyone, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
Before one engages in sex, male or female, homo or hetero, before you DECIDE whether to stick your dick in, whatever orifice who choose, aren't you at least curious, or doesn't the thought occur to you to question if that is a safe place to put your dick?...For instance, you meet someone, male or female and you 'entertain' the thought that you have a few things in common, and it seems like a personable exchange, so you 'entertain' thoughts of wanting to fuck....without thinking twice, if that person is going to get 'knocked up'...or if she might be the person who is open to such casual encounters...so you want to fuck her.....and IF you don't think twice, then you are, in every sense of the word, a 'Dumb Fuck Stupid Fucker'! If you want to stick your dick into someone, that may cause one of you to contract a fatal disease, and you do it, you are a 'Dumb Fuck Stupid Fucker'! If you allow someone to stick their dick into you, and you suspect that you have an STD of any sort, whether in be herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea or HIV, you are a Dumb Fuck Stupid Fucker'....if you are sexually active, with more than one fucker, and don't get yourself checked, at least once in a while, you are a 'Dumb Fuck Stupid Fucker'!! ...I think instead of continuing to type 'Dumb Fuck Stupid Fucker' repeatedly, I think I'll just abbreviate it to 'DF', Okay?
To make excuses for ANY reason, to put OTHER people at risk, just so you can get your rocks off, makes you a 'DF'. To pretend that a 'stigma; of being a DF, keeps you from warning those considering fucking you, makes you an even bigger DF....keeping yourself STUPID and IGNORANT of finding out if you are carrying a fatal disease, makes you a DF Stupid Fucker!!! Denying that Stupid Fuckers are anything less than Stupid Fuckers, is downright Stupid and evil, being as you are promoting death and illnesses to people who don't have to get ill and die, just to get their rocks off... OR impregnate a 'casual acquaintance' to get their rocks off, just for you to make a 'political point' is being a DF Stupid Fucker.....regardless of the 'stigma' you leave the woman and/or the child ....and really, who pays attention to Stupid Fuckers???...only a D.F.!...(Stupid Fucker!)
...and promiscuity is being a Stupid Dumb Fucker!!!...it burns out you own circuits..

So, in that perspective, the most sure remedy is obvious!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:46 PM

Keith - You posted this yourself -

PHE.
" Get tested regularly for HIV if you are one of those most-at-risk:
a. Men who have sex with men are advised to have an HIV and STI screen at least annually, and every three months if having unprotected sex with new or casual partners."

So not all agencies are making the mistake of equating the at risk groups with all homosexuals. And what makes you assume that "it is taken as understood etc." Nothing should be taken as understood. Particularly on the internet. Not everyone is capable of understanding.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 01:52 PM

If the mods were serious about creating an atmosphere for respectful dialogue, for all, not just a few, they would consider erasing gfs's last insulting post-that adds nothing to what seemed to be a discussion back on a respectful and productive course (a reason I joined back in again).

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:11 PM

The worm just said that an NHS pen pusher should know that MSM means homosexual.

Well, I know quite a few NHS pen pushers. In fact I help educate a few and give support to many others. I have never been one myself mind, I am a retired businessman, non paid director of a teaching hospitals trust and visiting Prof, as well as some national advisor bits as a hang over from chairing trusts and regulating them, but I think it is safe to assume I can speak for NHS pen pushers when I say

Nothing is taken as understood. Everything has to be tried to be understood in order to help the situation. Nobody is advised to come forward for testing by dint of being homosexual. People who are at risk of HIV are more prevalent in the gay and African demographic, hence the targeted health promotion campaign but the mental leap our resident homophobes delve into is borne of bigotry.

Goofus is his lucid self again. I reckon he has problems nobody here can address..




I wish I was an NHS pen pusher. The pension scheme for a start......

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:21 PM

Musket: "Goofus is his lucid self again. I reckon he has problems nobody here can address.."

Ed T: "not just a few, they would consider erasing gfs's last insulting post-that adds nothing to what seemed to be a discussion back on a respectful and productive course.."

Oh NO!...You're going to give me a 'stigma'...Maybe you should tell those who are reluctant of getting a 'stigma' to get themselves tested, before they kill someone else.....but then why hurt someone's feelings, when they can gleefully go off and kill someone???

Get over it!....and tell them to get over it, and think of others than themselves, rather than how they get their rocks off!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:25 PM

What a pleasent person you seem to be gfs.
Do you believe trash talk like that adds to your standing here, or the liklihood that your posted views would be taken more seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:33 PM

Whatever gets the point across, Ed....are you trying to insinuate that people who ignore getting tested, and/or are promiscuous, without being careful are that way because they are smart??????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:41 PM

I wish you peace and prosperity, gfs
I have no need to have a discussion directly with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:43 PM

Yeah, well I can see why.

GfS

P.S. So if someone from the U.K. says 'wanker', it's OK, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 03:06 PM

Dave, what is the difference please between sexually active male homosexuals and MSM?
Is the only difference that MSM also includes bisexual men?
I think that the accepted usage is to equate them, but I am no expert.

MSM are said by all agencies to need annual testing or more frequent.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 03:12 PM

Define, sexually active. It seems quite broad, in any group, except for my grand dad.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 03:25 PM

I assume the expression means having sex?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 03:43 PM

"Havng sex" would include most, if not all, the homosexual community (regardless of monogomous relatinshils, being responsible or not) thus the significant difference in opinion, and a big source of discourse, on the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 03:56 PM

No.
Some are celibate by choice, some too old, some too young.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:03 PM

Yes, indeed- thus the discourse in ths thread.

One, that for the most part, involves a very few, as it leads to nowhere.

Just my observation. Not that it matters that much.:)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:33 PM

Ed, If you read my post CAREFULLY, you would see that I focus in on 'PROMISCUITY', and the type of people who engage in it, ('Stupid')without regard for the consequences of BOTH parties involved. I made it VERY clear that I was inclusive of BOTH hetero and homo(those who 'fuck' are 'fuckers'). I thought 'Stupid Fuckers' was the shortest, most succinct, accurate description of those sorts of people...it was a lot shorter than typing out, 'Sexually active sociopaths who have disregard for the consequences to themselves, the other person(s) or society, as a result of their actions)....Naw, "Stupid Fuckers" is faster...I even shortened 'Dumb Fuck' to DF....(A 'Dumb Fuck' is usually the 'recipient' of a 'Stupid Fucker' or, is just self-initiated, as being the 'Fuck-ee').....and by the way, the slang term, which is oft used in a vulgar manner, has its origins, in the same context...so, it really ISN'T a vulgar and/or disgusting post, is it?...thought it DOES show concern for the 'victims' of promiscuity...though it may not be consistent with YOUR vision of 'political correctness'.

I hope I've cleared that up..

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:03 PM

Ok gfs, thanks for taking the time to clear that up.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:23 PM

I thought you'd get it!
Seems pretty simple to me....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Disgusted
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:28 PM

In the matter of sex ("fucking," in the minds of some), does love and affection never play a strong, a most important part? Not, apparently, in the mind of creatures like Guest from Sanity (!??) and a few others who seem to feel that shoving their penis into any orifice, possibly including a knot-hole, the business end of a Shop-Vac, or the genital or anal orifice of anyone of either gender available, and wobbling it about until they climax constitutes the be-all and end-all of the matter.

No love and affection. Just "fucking."

I find some people absolutely disgusting!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:05 PM

Well 'Disgusted', being as if you think as you write, you picked an appropriate name...it seems like the outlook of your life....I can't help that...Must be 'Genetic'......or is it that sometimes you find that you were a Stupid Fucker, and haven't stopped trying to justify it, and turn it into being 'liberated'???

Fascinated,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Disgusted
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:09 PM

I have a rich, full sex-life. I have been happily married to the same woman for decades and I have never "dumb fucked" in my life. I leave that to vermin like you.

Disgusted

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:13 PM

You're like not like me??? Well, I've been married to the same woman, and have had kids, from the same woman, that I delivered at home, and loved them while they were still in the womb...so it sounds like we have the same values....are you suggesting that I promote something that I wouldn't do, or believe in myself??...How about you?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 02:40 AM

Getting defensive Goofus?

Shouldn't be such a disgusting little shit then.



One aspect of gay lifestyle that organisations such as Stonewall mention is that a large number of gay men would not be turned on by anal sex any more than the same number of heterosexual men. This does not preclude making love and enjoying each other's bodies.

The fascination with anal sex usually says more about those for whom the fascination exists.

Yes

You.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:10 AM

Dave, what is the difference please between sexually active male homosexuals and MSM?

Very little, Keith. But you know full well that is not the point I was making. I specifically said that MSM does not equal homosexual. Note there is no mention of sexually active in the later term. Meaning that the targeted group should be those who have unprotected sex with multiple partners. Not all homosexuals are in the group so why target all homosexuals?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 06:12 AM

Possibly because the object of the exercise is to cherry pick historic statistics as a weapon to vilify sections of society.

On that subject. The change in law to allow home testing kits, once fully available, to be used to test for HIV is, in the opinion of The Terence Higgins Trust a huge milestone as many people still have issues coming forward due to the stigma that stems from bigotry. Concerns still exist regarding availability and supply and worryingly, people being in denial if they don't take up the support that GU clinic or routine hospital testing can offer.

Still around 25,000 people out there, in all classes, if meta analysis is accurate who may be carrying but not yet showing symptoms. Add the warnings around promiscuous lifestyle of young heterosexual people and older people who think STDs are a young person ailment, and we have a large issue building up.

One not helped by pointing at one possible source of spread and stigmatising them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 06:46 AM

What is actually happening, is that the true nature of the condition(STD transmission) is about to be concealed by Political Correctness, on the grounds that it is "discriminatory" to tell the truth.

If the true nature of the condition and those most massively affected by it is concealed, then MSM will be the real losers.

Their only hope to halt the epidemic, is to increase testing and contact tracing amongst their own demographic.

Time to face facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 07:04 AM

Like a spiral in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever spinning reel...

How do we increase testing and contact tracing ake?

What is 'their own demographic'?

It has never been discriminatory to tell the truth. It is discriminatory to stereotype a whole swathe of society as promiscuous perverts.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 08:05 AM

MSM(men who have sex with men) are a recognised demographic, according to the health agencies, from which comes 70% of all new cases of HIV and Syphilis, plus, much higher than normal rates of all male STDs.

Is that providing information, or "stigmatising a whole swathe of society as promiscuous perverts?"

If it is the latter, I suggest you take the matter up with CDC in the US and HPE in the UK.

But you had better be quick, for before long the publishing of results by demographic will be banned and HIV rates will miraculously fall......all will be well with the world....sleep.....sleep.....

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 08:17 AM

The term MSM was coined by the agencies themselves, to define by behaviour not identity.
No-one calls themselves MSM, so you target the group that encompasses MSM.

PHE only uses MSM.
NAT uses gay men and MSM interchangeably.
Remember bisexual men are included in MSM.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 08:31 AM

Amongst MSM, the new infection rate for HIV, has risen by 8 to 10% annually, for the last decade.
New infection rates in all other demographics are falling. That demonstrates that MSM are unwilling or unable to respond to the information and education provided by the agencies.

Time to face the facts, anyone who is interested in public health.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 08:57 AM

HIV 


New HIV diagnoses

2.3 million new HIV infections worldwideNew HIV infections have fallen by 33% since 2001New HIV infections among adults and adolescents decreased by 50% or more in 26 countries between 2001 and 2012The number of new infections amongst children worldwide was 34% lower than in 2009.

AIDS-related deaths

1.6 million AIDS-related deaths in 2012 (down from 2.3 million in 2005).1.1 million people who developed TB were living with HIV in 2012. TB remains the leading cause of death amongst people living with HIV globally.  Since 2004, TB related deaths amongst people living with HIV has declined by 36% worldwide.- See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/hiv-facts/statistics/international-statistics.aspx#sthash.3A6uja57.dpufa href="http://www.nat.org.uk/hiv-facts/statistics/international-statistics.aspx">HIV 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:02 AM

"No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:40 AM

Is that providing information, or "stigmatising a whole swathe of society as promiscuous perverts?"

It is providing information. You also know who did the stigmatising. Tell me, ake, did you ever answer that question? You know, the one that goes "Do you believe that homosexuals are perverts"?

The term MSM was coined by the agencies themselves, to define by behaviour not identity.

Absolutely spot on, Keith. It is behaviour that matters. Not preferences. Take note, ake.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:48 AM

Go looking. I just spent less than 30 secs to find trend reports for three areas of England. The national figures for the next period will be released publicly later this sumer, as all figures up to end of March are. Using provisional figures, the trends show exactly what I said they did. Possibly because I was looking at them. Thick twat.

The Dept of Health, The NHS nor PHE make things up. If you don't like reality, I suggest you keep to your delusional world. When you have quite finished putting words in my mouth, you might wish to put some truthful ones in your own. It may hurt slightly, but you should get used to it.

Akenaton. Why stop at one lie? Your stats do indeed appear in historical prevalence figures. Your reading of them do indeed appear in right wing hate and religious sites. Some of us are briefed daily in case we are asked by mainstream media or politicians.

Brilliant coincidence eh? By the way, you will find it is BNP who advise their members to say "marriage" rather than marriage.

To whom it may concern? Certainly concerning if it was stated by anyone important...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:57 AM

The post From:
GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 02:40 AM
is just silly projection and too silly to even respond to...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 10:36 AM

It is great that we have new, right up to date figures to see how the trends are going.
When will you show them to us?

If the trends have indeed reversed, that will make the news.
I am surprised it hasn't already.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 12:38 PM

Well, you know political ideologists, if they don't have the figures, they just make them up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 01:54 PM

Ten percent of all car thieves are left-handed, All polar bears are left-handed -If your car is stolen, there's a 10 percent chance it was nicked by a Polar bear

More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread

Numbers are like people; torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable. Mark Twain

Statistics are like a lamppost to a drunk--they're used more for support than illumination. 

Statistics are like whores, play with them long enough and they'll do anything for you



."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 01:59 PM

Keith - Even I, with my dull intellect, can remember Musket telling us that he cannot show us the figures until they are officially released. Can you not just accept even that as being true? Maybe it is a half full half empty thing but until proven otherwise I assume people tell the truth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:53 PM

He told us that over 4 months ago.
Perhaps he is being honest this time, but seeing is believing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:49 PM

"Denial,they say, stands for"Don't even notice I am lying." Human beings are the only animals who are happily lied to by our own minds about what is actually happening around us." 
― Cesar Millan

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:39 PM

...and 95% of all forest fires are caused by trees.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:41 PM

Half the people in the world are below average intelligence.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 12:19 PM

Musket, you suggested we, "Go looking. I just spent less than 30 secs to find trend reports for three areas of England."

Did you mean you found them on the net and we should do the same.
I have tried and failed.
Will you not help us with a link.
I am sure I am not the only one anxious to learn more.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 02:33 PM

When the figures are released, it will be irrelevant anyway. (Old figures and only refined to keep consistent with new reporting systems for the following 12 months that ended last week.) I said that adding the final three months put the gay prevalence from just over 50% to just under. A couple of percent difference but enough to stop the awful "most" demonisation that bigots cling to. Hence Keith getting on his bandwagon. He has known for a long time that I sent a link to an intranet page inadvertently. He loves to think people forget that and keeps bringing it up to make me look a cunt. Well, if the worm and Goofus think I'm a cunt, I'm happy, because if people with their problem liked me, I'd shave the dog's arse and send him out to work for me, because I wouldn't be worth bothering with.

The only reason Keith is hung up about this is that his take on life gets questioned from time to time. Bullies don't like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 04:20 PM

Musket, for a decade the MSM infections have been rising and overtook all others combined in 2011.

It is very hard to believe that the long established trend has completely reversed!
And all within 3 months!
Even less believable.

You suggested that we,
"Go looking. I just spent less than 30 secs to find trend reports for three areas of England."

Did you mean you found them on the net and we should do the same.
If not, where should we "go looking?"
You said I was a "thick twat" for not looking.
How am I supposed to do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 04:53 PM

I never said I thought you were a 'cunt'...jeez..at best, just stubbornly attached to bad propaganda.


...and another thing, how come when people DON'T bury their heads in the sand, post figures that show a certain segment of society, are both carriers and vulnerable of a life threatening disease, and call for measures to insure their safety and the health of ALL concerned, do the 'politically correct nut-jobs' instantly attach 'hate' as the motive to correct it??????

Now You got me wondering WHO are the people who want everyone to stand-by, while those same people infect and contract this fatal disease????...Somebody's got you hoodwinked!

Something to think about......

GfS

P.S. That's for those who know about thinking BEFORE re-acting!

P.P.S. 'Re-acting' and 'responding' are TWO different things!~

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 05:44 PM

Musket,
Go looking. I just spent less than 30 secs to find trend reports for three areas of England.
The national figures for the next period will be released publicly later this sumer, as all figures up to end of March are. Using provisional figures, the trends show exactly what I said they did. Possibly because I was looking at them. Thick twat.

Are these available on line or not.
If not why did you tell us to go looking for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Apr 14 - 10:32 PM

Keith, Musket doesn't care..he's more concerned with his politics, and 'political correctness' than reality...and who is crazy enough to believe politicians, and imitation activists??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 08:39 AM

Musket, you have ignored my posts so I guess you can give no links.

I said that adding the final three months put the gay prevalence from just over 50% to just under.

That would require a sudden and dramatic reversal of the rising trend for MSM, and/or of the falling trend for others.
(presuming you mean new infections and not prevalence. MSM are well below 50% prevalence)

Presumably you understand how rare and unlikely such events are, so you must see why there are issues of credibility, made worse because the only evidence is contained in figures that only you can see.

I have a suggestion.
I am sure you would trust someone like Dave to see the secret figures and not to pass them on.
He could then confirm your interpretation of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 11:43 AM

Keith, He doesn't care about people, only himself...if he wants 'input', he just puts his head back up his ass!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 12:35 PM

Just checking in.

They get weirder.   Never thought I'd say this, but I am beginning to agree with ONS.

zzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 01:40 PM

No good asking me lads. I am far from qualified to interpret any statistics on health issues. As I suspect are most people on this thread!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 01:43 PM

You could confirm that they exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Apr 14 - 05:03 PM

Well the point is surely not how MANY MSM as opposed to heterosexuals, are presenting new infections, but the rates at which they present those infections.
There is such a massive difference in the MSM population and the heterosexual population, that real numbers are meaningless.
NEW infections of HIV and Syphilis are very rare among heterosexuals, but run at epidemic proportions amongst MSM.

Hence it is important to supply infection rates by demographic, as not to do so would completely distort the real problems of transmission.

If the figures were presented as one number for all cases of new infections, we would be unaware which sections of society required targeting.....the figures would show a gradual fall and the epidemic amongst MSM could be concealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 08:18 AM

alcohol consumption and testing 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 08:18 AM

I am sorry if I misunderstood you.
If I did, others might have too.
Please explain what you really meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 08:23 AM

Here is the quote Musket.
" I said that adding the final three months put the gay prevalence from just over 50% to just under."

If we are discussing new infections, that would require a remarkable reversal of the trend which has been going the other way for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:31 PM

Akenaton: "There is such a massive difference in the MSM population and the heterosexual population, that real numbers are meaningless.
NEW infections of HIV and Syphilis are very rare among heterosexuals, but run at epidemic proportions amongst MSM."

If anyone, including 'Guest' who posted a link to the CDC, even read the link he posted, (while supporting Musket's position), the CDC backs up Akenaton's claims, and even uses the word 'epidemic'...AND shows the percentages of MSM as opposed to other groups....However 'Guest' (probably a 'DF'), only found a phrase or two that stuck out in his head, and failed to read any further, to see that his post VERY much backs up Akenaton's claims.
there is another link that he posted that backs up my claims about 'receptors'....but he probably didn't read that link all the way, either!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Apr 14 - 05:09 PM

Thanks Sanity, they have a "child lock" on their brains, which doesn't allow them to view any fact or statistic which may upset their agenda.

Fair enough if that's what rocks your boat, but when they want to go around installing them into the whole of humanity.......I cry foul!

Orwell would have frowned on the practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:42 AM

You're welcome!...Besides, though we may have taken a lot of flak for it, we told them the truth!..........and proved that it was!!....and guess what??....We actually DON'T 'hate' anyone!!!

Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:39 AM

So, the man who believes homosexuals are perverts and the one who believes homosexuality can be cured are in agreement. No surprise there really.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:58 AM

Keith really hasn't thought through his latest smear tactic has he?

In a year of figures of a few thousand cases, he questions how moving the figures by six months forward can produce a few percent difference.

He thinks he can be clever by confusing an annual figure with a rolling total.

Sorry Keith. As I said, you are dealing with the grown ups when you delve into health epidemiology and delivery. I am expected to swat local councillors like flies at overview and scrutiny committees and you aren't in the league of any of them. (Except perhaps the BNP councillor who asked why we shouldn't concentrate on decent English people first before immigrants and queers. Not easy to answer him either , so our delegation stood up and left.

I may stop feeding your habit on this thread too for that matter. You must be intelligent enough to know the flaw of your interpretation of statistics. The worm and Goofus lack the intelligence to know why they bark at other dogs. It's just instinct borne of low IQ. You however seem yo be able to form calculated attacks.

That's disappointing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 05:23 AM

MSM infections and other goups have been moving in opposite directions for years.
MSMs rising, others falling.

The last annual set of figures showed the trend not just continuing but increasing.

Do you mean that the balance changed just in those three months, or that the balance was changed for the whole year by those 3 months figures?

Are those figures from over a year ago still so secret?
Is there secrecy about these things?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:52 PM

Dave, I refer you to an article posted by Ed T, on:

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 12:55 PM

Anigher perspective. I cant seem tk link this, so will cut and paste it:

(DAVE, read Ed's post!!)
.................................................
To which I responded with THIS:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:46 PM

"Very interesting article, Ed....what I have posted before, and your article alludes to, is that mother and fetus are joined during pregnancy...AND, that affects the nervous system, hormones through the 'receptors'...and in turn sets up the 'receptors' to be 'conditioned' to receive input that it can 'recognize'...even be programmed to receive....much like some babies are born with addictions to various substances, IF the mother was taking them during her pregnancy.
See if this may shed some light on the subject.....Say the mother, during her pregnancy is very resentful toward the man who impregnated her, and can't get over it, is moody, resentful, and feels like the guy is a 'cruel unloving bastard'...and she carries those emotions and thoughts, instead of 'moving on', and 'getting over it'....she labors it,.....being as the fetus and mother are using the same body, while the child is being formed, don't you think that the receptors, from which the fetus, and later child, gets 'set up' and conditioned to process 'like-input' that its nervous system was formed with???
The answer is YES!...AND in years of counseling there are DEFINITE similarities consistent with homosexuals, emotional and psychological, to how they process information. That is not saying that those who were born with those similarities are 'at fault' by any choice of their own. That being said, there are the MAJORITY of homosexuals who are NOT born with that 'conditioning of incubation'.
The ones that ARE felt that it was 'genetic'....but that was only .2% of them(as of a few years ago)....Other homosexuals heard that, or read that, talked amongst themselves and formed a 'consensus' that homosexuality was therefore 'genetic'...and it applied to ALL of them, which is simply, not true. Political Airheads tried to make it a 'Civil Rights' issue, based on genetics, akin to being born black, which it clearly is not!
The other group, (which was NOT born that way) have bantered that it was, to divert attention the way from the 'stigma' they live with, which is coupled with 'guilt'....because they KNOW, that for them, in particular, it was a 'choice'....and therefore the confusion that leads to such a heated controversy, being held by those who DO NOT KNOW, and have NOT done their homework....and fanned by the political idiot-logues, who know NOTHING about what they spout off about...(quite a few on here).....
...Taking it further, when a child, who WAS born with that condition, has interaction with a 'Father Figure' whether it be his natural father or not, and in that interaction the child gets his feelings hurt, either by abuse, or PERCEIVED abuse, due to correction or anything else, he may develop resentment that extends to 'unforgiveness' toward the 'Father Figure', and BANG, you have the same emotional/hormonal conditions that he is familiar with, from inside the womb.
When the mother is stressed during pregnancy, her hormones are also at play....and have a direct effect on the gene (Xq28) that has the 'Markers' consistent with other homosexuals....and in that, he 'identifies' with the mother EMOTIONALLY....and often feels that he is 'the victim', much like his mother.
Generally speaking, men, DO NOT get their sense of masculinity from their mothers!!!..The get it from their fathers, or a father figure!!! ...AND, if that same child has a 'built in resentment' toward father figures, or even a concept of 'God', then they tend to rely on the instincts that nurtured them in the womb, and has been 'verified', by whatever caused them, being a young child, to 'resent' their father or 'Father Figure'....they will then gravitate toward like minded others, usually during the 'experimentation period' during puberty....and the rest takes its course.
To those who do NOT understand this, and label those who do, (such as myself, who studied 'Psych', and counseled as a marriage and family counselor), as being 'hateful' or 'bigoted toward homosexuals' or 'homophobic'...these are unlearned, politically conditioned idiots!
One more thing, before I finish...I have lost two friends, one a close one, a musical genius and sound engineering mentor, to AIDS.....so I'm not interested in some nitwit barking accusations of which he or she don't know shit about!

Now, does that sound like 'homophobia'???...or understanding??"

I thought that this post was more apropos to this thread...so I put it on this one, too!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:23 PM

I would also refer you to another article posted by Ed on the other thread that suggests even attempting to 'cure' homosexuality is wrong. Do you only read and quote articles that match your agenda or something? Not that the article you refer to does anything like back you up. I suggest you read it again.

BTW - I never accused you of being homophobic. I just think you are wrong in saying homosexuality is conditioning and that it can be 'cured'.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:33 PM

'Cured', I think, is the wrong word...that was something Firth 'interjected' when he re-phrased one of my posts, to get some traction.
That being said, SOME homosexuals do not want to stay homosexual. Some don't care if they have sex with either sex, or 'bisexual'....some just want to 'put it' where ever they can 'put it'...this goes for BOTH sexes, however, once one engages in sex with someone of the same sex, then it becomes overtly homosexual, by definition.
Here is one problem, that gets overlooked, though....should a homosexual seek counseling or have issues regarding his/her homosexuality, being as the political idiots claim it is 'just normal and natural', counseling or 'medical considerations' can be denied, or not funded....get this....for a 'problem' that doesn't exist!
In any event, those who are sexually active, outside the traditional family structure, with more than one partner, SHOULD BY ALL MEANS be tested....AND..they should do so, not because someone is forcing them, but for their own health, and the health of others......because IF it is solely about 'love', than wouldn't you be 'concerned' about the one(s) you SAY you 'love'...because if there is a reluctance, to do what is 'right', it usually is because it is for selfish motives, and NOT 'love'....maybe 'lust' and 'horniness'...but don't call it 'Love'....Knowing that, don't you think that explains the uncomfortableness with 'a stigma'???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 12:51 PM

Akenaton, Keith and any other person with a head on their shoulders, GO TO the, 'Shh.. Don't let them hear you..' thread!!
Ed T just posted a link validating most everything I've been saying for YEARS now......you mean WE 'might not' be 'homophobes!?!?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:46 PM

"Here is the quote Musket.
" I said that adding the final three months put the gay prevalence from just over 50% to just under.""

Since the figures YOU are using are 2012 data, I read that comment as stating that the last three months completed a two year turnaround, not that the whole thing happened in three months.

But then you specialise in slanting the meaning of every statement you wish were untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:04 PM

"But then you specialise in slanting the meaning of every statement you wish were untrue."

There seems to be a lot of that going around here with the politicos and 'so-called liberals'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:09 PM

".AND..they should do so, not because someone is forcing them, but for their own health, and the health of others......because IF it is solely about 'love', than wouldn't you be 'concerned' about the one(s) you SAY you 'love'."

A sensible comment from GfS! Wonders will never cease!

Indeed they should, and from the figures, of all those who should care about testing for STDs in general and HIV in particular, the group with the highest percntage uptake (and therefore the most caring) is the Homosexual demographic.

Pick the bones out of that.

I don't expect to hear complaints from our two gay bashers about young single heterosexual females, who have the lowest percentage uptake of testing for all types of STD. Obviously they have "GREAT" concern for their partners.........NOT!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:12 PM

Let me explain Troubadour.
The figures I use are indeed for 2012, the latest figures available.
They show not just a continuation of the trend, but an increase in it.

Musket claims to have secret, unpublished figures for the first quarter of 2013 which only he can see.
That is unfortunate because they apparently show the trend going into reverse so that MSM infections are fewer than the rest.

I have asked if the balance changed just in those 3 months, or if those 3 months figures change the balance for a whole year.
No clarification from him yet.

How do you read it now Troubadour?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:18 PM

I suspect that there will be a LOT of back-peddling going on!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:12 PM

"There seems to be a lot of that going around here with the politicos and 'so-called liberals'!"

This seems like an odd way to refer to people who see things differently. Espevially, with tgd orotest that name calling be reduced. Would this not be more of a value judgement, based on limited information, versus a "FACT, that you strongly suggest we all rely on gfs?

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:15 PM

Ed, I've posted many times before, on various subjects, that often get politicized beyond recognition,..."Seek out the FACTS, and then let the chips fall where they may!"
This is a far cry, from having a political agenda, then twisting and spinning the facts, to make them fit the agenda...
...besides, and I'll 'remind' some people AGAIN, this thread is about the TRANSMISSION of HIV...and those who have a political agenda, trying to fit the homosexuality issue into a 'Civil Rights' issue, akin to the racial Civil Rights struggle during the '50's, '60's and '70's, because it is based on 'genetics', which it is clearly NOT!...and IF you would have read my earlier posts, the transmission of HIV/AIDS, and other STD's has more to do with PROMISCUITY, hetero OR homo.
...It's just that the political airhead crowd seems to want to exclude homosexuals from the equation, because to include them is considered 'homophobic'....which, of course, is a joke!
Now, as it is, YOU have provided links to the latest studies, which backs up earlier assertions of mine, that homosexuality is NOT 'genetic', but BEHAVIORAL, for which I've been repeatedly accused, (along with others, as you can plainly see) of being 'bigots' and 'homo-phobics', INSTEAD of addressing the issues realistically.
Here, in Mudcat, the answers have been AHEAD of the curve, for quite sometime, only to be sniped at, by the wannabe 'Civil Rights' do-gooders, who have been promoting false information, coupled with bad science for far too long!...That being said, The Mudcat Forum should have been recognized for providing GOOD information, AHEAD OF ITS TIME...but instead, has been reduced to 'just another off-base, so-called liberal' yak site!...Thanks to our resident promoters of false propaganda.....which for the first time in God only knows, how long, is being broken through, and being replaced with factual data.
...but first, truth must be held up, and the and the old bullshit, thrown away!
This has been a four year struggle...
....but let the chips fall where they may.........(works for me...how 'bout you?)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 07:31 PM

Gts
I have only marginally followed this topic for a few weeks. Also, I am unaware as what transpired over "four years". Imo, there clearly seems to be "a failure to communcate" and understand each other.

In a resulting emotionally-charged climate, one can not expect much progress, let alone agreement on much. At times I am unsure if the main participants are having the same discussion?

You seemed to bunch up farctoo many issues together in your last post, I suspect you, as with others are, frustrated from the difficult "communications climate" . I have not seen the "civil rights issues" you raise in this thread? So, that 's why it seemed puzzling that you were making referance to terms like "liberals and political airheads"?

While we all try oud best to make sense of it all, I suspect if is more complex than any of us know, as we are not directly involved. While we may try and parch if together from our information sources, I suspect what we have access to is limited and incomplete.

I would not wish to be included into any group that does not reflect me. I understand that any unjustifiable suggestion that any member suffers from homophobia would bd a ckncern. And, I also suspect otgers are sensitive to see this unjustifiably being done with others, such as classifying all homosexuals as the same.That is why one has to be careful with what terms are used in this topic.

My observation is the topic is heated, progress is "spinning it's wheels". Maybe the topic is overdud for a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:25 AM

Yeah..OK with me....
I understand that you probably are not aware of the 'history' of the threads that I've referenced....I'd be glad to give you a list to look up, if you want to get familiar with why this gets so heated...however, the main 'wannabe activist' has not been posting much, as of recent, which is fine with me. He had a habit of restating positions of 'perceived motives'...and has created quite a bias, based on resentment, while dishing out hostilities, and purposefully 'spinning' things out context.
He has done Mudcat a great disservice with his wild assumptions and dishonest tactics.
I think the tone has changed, AND facts are now allowed to surface, where before they we kept at bay, and 'spun' to mean completely ridiculous, and even thread drifting diversions...However, at one time I acknowledged him for carrying on, in his antics, because the more he did, the more info was able to be covered.
That being said, his approach was political, whereas mine was not, but instead factual....as even some of your post have shed more light, on my position to him...which were void of 'religious' or 'political' agendas.
If you really are interested, I'll put up the threads....you might find them 'illuminating', not only for the info, but the crap some of us have had to deal with.....
.....and as I've said before, the whole homosexual issue, is not the MAIN issue here, other than a commentary(by others) as to the numbers they have shown, in categories, and comparisons to the spread of HIV.
My position has been 'promiscuity', whether it be hetero or homo. Others have figures that show the percentages lean toward the homosexual community.....and my position favors a 'loving, traditional, nuclear family'....and there is no way to fake that!

Regards,

GfS

P.S....unless someone brings up something and directs it toward me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:46 AM

"Musket claims to have secret figures"

Aye and Keith claims to have a stash of Nazi memorabilia and dresses up in a storm trooper uniform before getting in bed.

zzzzzzzz

There are no secret figures. The HPA /PHE raw numbers for +ve tests in The UK for the calendar year of 2012 have slightly more gay entries than the April to March 12/13 year that is used for healthcare commissioning. The reason I mentioned it was that it dips it from just over to just under 50%.

Hence not consistent with the "Most" of Keith and the "rising demographic" mentioned in BNP literature and Akenaton's cut and paste jobs.

This thread cannot discuss such matters whilst dominated by lies and distortions borne of homophobia and Goofus's made up science.

Tatty bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:04 AM

I only quote PHE and NAT.
No lies.
If your figures are in use for health care commissioning and are not secret, show us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:06 AM

"My position has been 'promiscuity', whether it be hetero or homo"

If all folks did not participate in sex, I guess that would be a sure-fire move to treatment. But, that's not going to happen, for any group or location. That leaves us with safer sex, increased testing, treatment with availabke drugs and research to halt the impacts.

Safer sex: People do what they do. We have little control over that. Note that it is a global issue, with local differences. While they are not fine tools, and success and approaches vary, increasing awareness and educating the young seem to hold good hope in many global situations. Increased condom use would, and UN facts show has made a difference in some locals. Preaching down to folks, or demononizing them, IMO, would be counter productive.Increased testing:This one is a puzzle. Common sense would lead you tk believe most folks woukd want to be tested.It would reduce tge possibility of you playing a role in transmission. It also gives those found positive access to treatment. It is likely that skme impacted do not know that advances in treatment reduces the diseases impact and risk of transmission. I suspect some have a fear of testing for a number of reasons. Some in high risk groups do not travel in the same social circles as we do, making their reasoning hard to understand and factor into progressive actions . More focus is needed here, to reach out those with better inside knowledge to design better outreach initiatices that work with the various demographics and groups in different areas.

Treatment: Let's not under value the progress that has been made in this area to date, in medecines to extend lives and reduce impacts and the virus spread. According tobthose working in the field, there is good indications that more progress will be made. But, the success is not a cure, has a cost, and people must participate for a benefit to result.

Note that I focus not on treatment and reducing transfer. I prefer to look at what works, and to build on that in a broader way, versus looking at what occurs in one local, like the USA and the UK. My observation is the discussion erodes when the discussion
changes to" finger pointing."

The likely reason that occurs is mudcat is a global community, who share some values and beliefs, but also represents a diversity of values, beliefs, and experiences. This should not be a surprise, nor anything to stress any mudcater. We can learn from it, and retain what we feel is of value, and calmly, ignore, or "shake off" the rest which we do not value.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:18 AM

SOME homosexuals do not want to stay homosexual

I do not believe that to be true. If someone is a homosexual they are a homosexual and want to be accepted for what they are. However, some may be made to feel so uncomfortable with it that they wish to be treated in the same was as heterosexuals are. And that is no surprise considering the attitude of some people.

DtG

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

Ed T: ""My position has been 'promiscuity', whether it be hetero or homo""
If all folks did not participate in sex, I guess that would be a sure-fire move to treatment."

Ed, 'promiscuity' and 'If all folks did not participate in sex' are two distinct different things...just think about it, I think you're bright enough to not play the 'overreaction' game..OK?

Musket: "Aye and Keith claims to have a stash of Nazi memorabilia and dresses up in a storm trooper uniform before getting in bed."

WOW!! What a 'convincing' rebuttal!!
I guess it's easier to post that, than cough up the numbers you claim you have that are not known by anyone!

DtG: "I do not believe that to be true. If someone is a homosexual they are a homosexual and want to be accepted for what they are."

How about bisexuals???...Oh yeah, I forgot, 'It's all about 'love'.
Whether you believe it or not, has no bearing on the fact, that some homosexuals DECIDED to change their mind....Hey, do you think that bisexuality is 'genetic' too?....or just schizophrenia??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 12:52 PM

I suspect .we are all "bright" gfs. I will trust that was not intended as an insult?

Regardless, my point, which did not seem apparent to you, was we (nod health agencies) have no direct control over anyones sexual behaviour permiscious of not. So, what does it matter, when it it comes to developing workable avenues to reduce transmission, on a global basis? Statistics indicate that a high percentage of the young, and even those we dont suspect of non

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 01:04 PM

Oops, sent before completing:


I suspect .we are all "bright" gfs. I will trust that was not intended as an insult?

Regardless, my point, which did not seem apparent to you, was we (and, health agencies) have no direct control over anyones sexual behaviour permiscious of not

So, what does it matter, when it it comes to developing workable avenues to reduce transmission, on a global basis?

Statistics indicate that a high percentage of the young, and even those we dont suspect of non, on a global basis? Statistics indicate that a high percentage of the young, and even those we dont suspect of non-monogomous activities stray, often on a frequent basis. Additionally, in todays global commhnity, what occurs in one nation, could easily impact another. Focousing only on local conditions in isolation (and, infection and transmission route statistics), IMO is not a wise course for health agencies to follow. As a guest noted, HIV is a global pandemic, not a local epidemic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:36 PM

Ed, No, it was not an insult...and I thought you'd see through that, and THINK it through.
That being said, and as YOUR link of the latest Stanford study noted, homosexuality is NOT 'genetic'...so perhaps people should stop relating to it as if it were, and be more rational and realistic.
To add to that, I'm one who believes, and is supported by history, that suppression does not work..never has...so, in light of that, I believe that people should take personal responsibility for their sexual acts..and that means NOT recklessly exposing other people to STD's and fatal diseases, hetero or homo, and calling it 'love', just to get their rocks off. Keep in mind, that the over emphasis and exploitation of the 'fun' of having sex does NOT take away from the fact, that reproduction is the main and primary function of the REPRODUCTION SYSTEM. 'Romance', variations, fantasies, 'perversions' or not, are all bi-products of the 'mating dance'. Promiscuity has split many family units, brought diseases, both physical, mental and emotional, and in fact, SHOULD be discouraged. Lifestyles that promote promiscuity, or for that fact, even tolerate it should NOT be embraced, glorified, exploited or pursued....as any child from a broken home due to it. But we, as adults(physically), find it so easy to disregard all of that for 7 seconds(average time of an orgasm) and put ourselves, our spouses, our children, and the health of others, at risk for that climax of 7 seconds! Does that sound responsible to you? Seems to me, that if that is the 'high point' of the human experience, then maybe those people are worshiping at the wrong altar!
It is a personal decision that comes from within....and is of higher values....and promiscuity IS the leading cause of the transmission of HIV/AIDS, and STD's! WHY in the world, do people who claim to have society's best interests and heart continue to look the other way??
HINT: Because they're full of shit!
Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:42 PM

Correction(typo):
"...as any child from a broken home due to it."

Should read: "asK any child from a broken home due to it."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:55 PM

Good, I had a feeling you had no bad intents, but had to ask, to be sure.

A good wish list, gfs. However, In reality, significant change in society like you indicate is unlikely to occur in our lifetime (locally or globaly), even if there were broad support for such (which I suspect there is not).

(On your other point, regardless if homosexuality is based on genetic make up, or not, it is a reality, and is refected in many species and is not the sole factor in global infection/transmission.I seem to recall, you indicated HIV is not a "homosexual" disease, as it impacts homo and hertro communities -though in different proportional rates in your locale, and that promiscuity in both communities is a major factor in transmission. Would that be accurate?).

So, based on all that, what would be an effective back up plan you might have in mind, to reduce infection/transmission, locally and globally in the shorter term?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:48 PM

Ed: ".I seem to recall, you indicated HIV is not a "homosexual" disease, as it impacts homo and hertro communities -though in different proportional rates in your locale, and that promiscuity in both communities is a major factor in transmission. Would that be accurate?)."

Close...however it should be noted, that 'bisexuality' is the MAJOR cause of HIV entering into the hetero world...and bisexuality is in fact, promiscuity as well...I believe that you'd concur..
As to your question, in our permissive society, through the media, whether it be written or movies, permissiveness and promiscuity have been glamorized(as well as murder and other 'misdeeds'), and through political promotion, our permissiveness has reached chaotic proportions. In 1960, 5% of births were to single parents out of wedlock...today, it is 40%. Gangs have replaced family units, where there are no fathers present..(sorta like an urban 'Lord of the Flies'). Politicians LOVE to talk about 'order'...but are permissive, and even subsidize, and pander to single mothers, making the broken home commonplace.
Hey, before we go on much further, would you agree to that?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 05:26 PM

Gfs, possibly so, but, there is little liklihood of changes in some of the areas you mention, that would halt or reduce infection rates.. Even if there were changes, I suspect the pandoras box has been opened and the resulting social/moral/sexual attitude changes are embedded in much of society. Rarely have attempts to "turn back the moral clock" been effective, except in very repressive states.

Yes, bisexual activities was and is a cross sexual transmission route. But, since HIV is present in both homo and hertero groups, this would not be the only route of transmission/infection (there would be various other routes). I have not seen factual information, only speculation, on where it would factor in transmission. There are different infection routes in various locations. Additionally, I have not seen any facual information on historic infection rates in the global community.

While moral attitudes toward sexual activity have changed since the 50s, I have not seen factual informatin on how the individual changes directly impacted HIV infections (by nation), if it exists.I suspect it would be problematic to arrive at any firm conclusion. For examle, though it may be the case in some situations, rising younger teen-aged pregnacy rates does not necessarily (directly) equate to risky sexual behaviour with potentially impacted individuals that increases tranmission rates. If it did, I would like to see the reports that say it is so.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 06:35 PM

How about bisexuals???...Oh yeah, I forgot, 'It's all about 'love'.
Whether you believe it or not, has no bearing on the fact, that some homosexuals DECIDED to change their mind....Hey, do you think that bisexuality is 'genetic' too?....or just schizophrenia??


GfS - I have never said it is all about love and I have never said homosexuality is genetic. Why suggest I did unless you are really struggling to come up with any compelling argument? I did say that homosexuals are just as capable of love as heterosexuals are. Do you not believe that to be so? I also said that homosexuality is not a choice. That has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics. I do not believe for one minute that some homosexuals decided (in upper case or not) to change their minds. I do believe that some have got that sick of the prejudice shown against them that they have wished they were heterosexual. But they never will be. No, I do not believe bisexuality is schizophrenia or any other sort of illness. Do you?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 10:43 PM

DtG: "I do not believe for one minute that some homosexuals decided to change their minds."

I'm not the one to offer that kind of 're-orientation'....that is NOT my expertise....So, click the link, read the article, and contact this guy, to learn more....IF you really are interested in finding out.
That's fair, huh?

Ed T: "For example, though it may be the case in some situations, rising younger teen-aged pregnancy rates does not necessarily (directly) equate to risky sexual behavior with potentially impacted individuals that increases transmission rates. If it did, I would like to see the reports that say it is so."

How can you NOT equate younger teenage pregnancy rates with risky sexual behavior???
Somebody got pregnant didn't they??...and chances of that couple raising the child together are pretty slim, don't you think? In these cases, perhaps instead of coddling the 'feelings' of the 'horny' how about considering the lasting consequences of their actions?
Just a thought....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:58 AM

Ed and GfS, the best section of the thread by a mile.

Civil discussion and some real ideas, with no political overtones....well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:06 AM

That was a nasty trick, GfS - Pointing us innocent folk to "Conservapeadia - The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia". I was nearly sick. Fortunately the complete cobblers in there is so transparent it is laughable but I will warn other readers that pressing that link will lead you to the sort of right wing tripe that really can affect your mental wellbeing. No wonder some of the posters on here are completely bonkers. However, I have put my safety on the line for you all and read it. I will summarise it with one quote from the article

The radical change and transformation in his life, Glatze recalls, began after he started to question his homosexual lifestyle following a health scare and with inner "promptings" that he now attributes to God.

Need I say more?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:35 AM

Gts,
As to teen age pregnancy, I suspect there may be a variety of scenarios in play, for example where there may be only two young people involved in the sex acts (not permiscuous).

This may be "risky" for the liklihood of pregnancy, (and, surely a social and moral matter) but, not necessarily risky for HIV infection. That would be another matter outside the discussion. However, if a high number involves "sleeping around" with many partners, well yes, it would be a factor. I just have not seen the factual figures to say it is so.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:01 AM

To be clearer gfs, young people engaging in unprotected sex is a clearly a major concern for HIV transmission and increased infections.

I would expect increased access to birth control at an early age is another factor, as it removes the fear of pregnancy - which may have provided some degree of caution. I have read that the lack of information on HIV among the young (such as ignorance about the various routes of transmission, and a mistaken belief there is a quick cure) is a significant concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:17 AM

fact sheet from Singapore 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:26 AM

My reason to provide the last link is to add visiters to countries having sex to the transmission route "soup" (bringg it there, or bringing it home).

Additionally, there is a false belief that oral sex is not a transmission route, especially among the young.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 11:55 AM

Dave, It sounds to me that someone whose whole life's outlook, radically changed, from a liberal, homosexual owner/editor of a pro homosexual advocacy publication. to being a conservative, EX-homosexual, and even alludes that 'God' had something to do with it, just rankles your 'so-called liberal' nerves....and the thought of a 'conservative' site carrying the story, just makes it boil your 'erroneous zones'....so, try this!....or even the New York Times

Imagine that!...you get to learn something new every day, on good Ol' Mudcat!

I imagine that the thought of 'one of ours' turning around short-circuits some programmed propaganda 'liberal' nonsense!

BTW, I can't vouch for his politics, or religion, however you said, ""I do not believe for one minute that some homosexuals decided to change their minds."".....well believe it, Buddy!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:07 PM

Is there such a thing as 'EX-homo homophobia'???..or just 'hetrophobia'??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:08 PM

.....or just culture shock, from emerging from bullshit propaganda??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:13 PM

"Is there such a thing as 'EX-homo homophobia'???..or just 'hetrophobia'??"

Possibly when one is cured if either, they just begin to seem normal, like most other folks.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:23 PM

I can go with that!

Ed T: "To be clearer GfS, young people engaging in unprotected sex is a clearly a major concern for HIV transmission and increased infections."

Here, Ed, for your enjoyment.....listen ALL the way....

and then....Remember this one?

Regards, Ed!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:27 PM

Akenaton: "Civil discussion and some real ideas, with no political overtones....well done."

Oh, what's in a name??????

Warmest Regards,

Guest from SANITY

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:55 PM

Good old songs, gfs. It s hard to not like good music, regardless of the period it came from.(I recall a song I liked quite a few years ago, then I learned it was from a movie and the song was about a rat).:)

Here is one if hope:
some peolle change 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:18 PM

Sorry, GfS. He didn't change his mind. He is just mentally unhinged. Rather like a lot of posters on here. As to your assumptions about my politics and outlook on life. Well, you cannot be further from the truth but that only goes to show how wrong you can be. Good luck in your career as a fantasy fiction writer but George Martin still has the edge.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:27 PM

Here's two for ya'...

Snap now, and avoid the rush........."Ain't No Great Day"

....and this one....

'Enjoy!'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:55 PM

Good luck in your career as a fantasy fiction writer....."

Hey, I'm not the one who 'is' a Gnome.

....seemed apropos for what you seem to defend......but then....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 05:54 PM

Very poor effort, GfS, I am not and never have been 'spaced out'. Is that your problem? It does seem that Steve and Musket have the right idea in that there are some who are just so far gone there is no point in even attempting to reason with them. You are getting there.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:19 PM

...perhaps...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:26 PM

Not very good singing, on thevlast one, gts

I wouldnt quit my day job, or expect retirement song royalities from that one
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:31 PM

Nice piano, though....Biff wasn't so much a singer as writer....he also was the guy writing George Carlin's skits...true story.
Met him in Venice, Calif, years ago....my brother went with his ex girlfriend...Jeez, talk about 'promiscuity'!!....but shhhh....that was before HIV/AIDS was developed!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:39 PM

Here he is introducing himself, looking back on the Smothers Brothers
You 'might' remember him....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:09 PM

Interesting that you knew him, gfs. I never watched much TV during that period, so I don't recognize him from the ssows. It seems like he was a prolific writer. But, not really my "cup of music tea" in music, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:55 PM

What kind of music do you like?..or who, do you really like a lot?
Oh, and Biff isn't my favorite kind of music, either, but for some reason, his stuff sticks....lasts through time...must be something there..

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 09:32 PM

Gfs,
I enjoy a wide spectrum of music, and for some time, have set time aside most days to visit You Tube and other music sites, to discover new international musicians, and interesting covers of songs from the past (some much better than the original). I can't zero in on a music type I like best, as my taste is quite broad. Thats why I may seem to be on mudcat often, as I visit when listening to music.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 10:40 PM

Oh....well, here's a couple, one with vocals and one without....

This one is VERY double meaning-ed...
Here's one, with pretty good vocals and nice guitar work.....

This one might take you away....
'Live' instrumental, use good sound system..half hour long.... (or headphones)....

Enjoy,...(I hope)

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 06:52 AM

Gfs, Here is one I recently found and liked (as I noted my music interest is broad). The car pictured adds to the music, as some of the background sounds remind me of a poorly working car.

try this 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 07:02 AM

I prefer this liberal plot :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM

...and then there is this one, at the other end of the spectrum...

....and this one, with a dear friend playing with them

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:50 AM

...and 'Big Cat'...

GfS

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

We all remember the good old days, when all the bad stuff was swept under the carpet, though bad things still happened. Weird Al captured in in this song:


The good old days

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 12:41 PM

Who is to blame?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 01:17 PM

A good message for anyone, religious or not

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 02:24 PM

Cash Savage

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 03:29 PM

Gosh Ed....are we 'bonding'????...and even transmitting HIV..'Highly Interesting Venues'..........a different version...which I really like!!...and Anna's a cutie, as well!

...and this guy was 14 when he played this!!!

enjoy!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 04:08 PM

..and let's not forget Carolyn Wonderland!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 05:25 PM

Cars and Bars

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,CJB
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 05:54 PM

Just a reminder about the Radio Ballad from 2006 about HIV / AIDS:

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/d8febuw89i6o82u/Radio_2_Ballads_-_The_Enemy_that_Lives_Within_(7_Mar_2006).mp3

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 02:36 AM

She is TEN years old, when she sang this!

and of course, and of course, Lisa Kelly....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 07:43 AM

Joan Jett 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 09:32 AM

kinda a love song:) 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 11:30 AM

...and then there is this...

Enjoy!

GfS