BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

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?