BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

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