BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

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: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:59 PM

Brain shuts off, then posts.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:12 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:26 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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)