BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:23 AM

I cannot work out whether you are being ironic Mr Hertford.

Judging by your posts, I put you firmly in the camp of those whose attitudes sadden me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:34 AM

A word to the wise SC, you should have started that last post by shouting 300!

It impresses the locals.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:37 AM

Dave, what did Ake do but state that multiple partners was a factor?
He has certainly not stated it was the only factor.

Musket, remember about 22000 people have undiagnosed HIV.
That is what I was referring to.

Instead of me looking up a definition of "epidemic," how about you asking all those public health bodies why they call it an epidemic?
Are you saying that all those health professionals "should know better" like what you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:42 AM

I think one of us has lost track, Keith. The question was

Who has said that promiscuity is not a factor?

Your answer was

Dave, what did Ake do but state that multiple partners was a factor?

Which makes no sense to me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:49 AM

Perhaps I have lost track Dave.
Sorry.
What exactly are you accusing Ake of saying about promiscuity?
He has said it was a factor, and it is.
He has not said it was the only factor.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:02 AM

I am accusing ake of is attempting to stereotype gay men as promiscuous perverts and of pushing an agenda that would demonise them further. That is what I have always said.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:10 AM

""Policymakers need to adopt Treatment as Prevention as a national strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, urges researchers at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE) in an article published this month in HIV Medicine.

New HIV diagnoses in British Columbia are continuing to decline at a rate faster than in other Canadian regions, report researchers after analyzing Health Canada data from 1995 to 2011.

"British Columbia, of all Canadian jurisdictions, has had the largest decline in the rate of new HIV diagnoses and in lifetime costs averted over the study period," write the authors, who include Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the BC-CfE, and Dr. Robert Hogg, director of the Epidemiology and Population Health Program at the BC-CfE. "Further efforts are needed to optimize the potential impact of Treatment as Prevention in the whole of Canada."

B.C., where the Treatment as Prevention strategy was pioneered and implemented, is the only province to promote widespread and fully government-supported access to HIV testing and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). As a result, B.C. has seen HIV-related morbidity and mortality decline by approximately 90 per cent since the early 1990s, and the number of new HIV diagnoses has fallen from approximately 800 per year prior in 1996 to 238 in 2012.

"The consistent and sustained decrease in new HIV diagnoses in B.C. reinforces Treatment as Prevention as a highly effective approach in the fight against HIV/AIDS," said Dr. Montaner. "The evidence should be absolutely clear: Treatment as Prevention is the best way to achieve an HIV- and AIDS-free generation. It's time for Canada's leaders to emulate the government of B.C. and adopt this as the national strategy to stop HIV/AIDS."

In Canada, there are an estimated 71,300 individuals living with HIV. While annual rates of new HIV diagnoses declined slightly in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, B.C. demonstrated the most significant decline between 1995 and 2011, from 18.05 to 6.49 per 100,000 population. In comparison, rates in Saskatchewan increased from 2.76 to 16.17 per 100,000 population, and in Manitoba they increased from 4.52 to 6.53 per 100,000 population. Rates of new HIV diagnoses in Alberta and in the Territories remained constant over the study period, demonstrating neither an increase nor a decrease.

It is estimated that B.C. has averted $3.06 million per 100,000 population in lifetime costs for averted cases of HIV infection since 1996, compared to $1.38 million and $432,000, respectively, for Ontario and Quebec. In contrast, it is estimated Saskatchewan and Manitoba have incurred an additional cost of $2.06 million and $956,000, respectively, per 100,000 population for the increase in new cases since 1996.

"The evidence we reviewed really demonstrates further efforts are needed to optimize the potential impact of Treatment as Prevention in the whole of Canada," said Dr. Hogg. "We should look at what has been accomplished in British Columbia and apply those lessons to other jurisdictions without further delay." The World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have adopted the Treatment as Prevention strategy, as have other jurisdictions throughout the world, including China and, most recently, France. In addition, the U.S. has identified Treatment as Prevention as a key strategy to achieve an AIDS-free generation.""







BC at leading edge

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:17 AM

Don't worry Dave, he has just tried a similar trick above. I'm not biting though. I have already said that it is a pandemic and that it has been an epidemic here, although the epidemiological definition in terms of infectious viral conditions makes it a chronic rather than notifiable epidemic.

Some groups, mainly religious and far right groups tend to scaremonger because epidemic is an emotive word. Breast cancer is far more prevalent and rising faster, but we don't use the word.

Semantics.

But with a purpose.

And not always a nice one.



The World Health Organisation has a bit to say about pandemic / epidemic of course, and I was at one of their conferences the other day as it happens, talking about something different but I sat in on a HIV session. It calls The UK situation "relatively small" and also notes the increase in prevalence in line with the increase in screening and recognition of the condition. (Sadly, many substance misuse sufferers died of other conditions and still do without knowing that another time bomb was waiting.)

The scaremongering on this website fails to point out the increase through effective screening or the evidence for such a claim. Basically, in 1995, 1,723 people died of AIDS in The UK, whilst in 2012, it has fallen to 490. This has no bearing on the prevalence of HIV but is evidence for the success of screening, and increased screening picks up more cases earlier. Still, if you are picked up and go onto antiretrovirals soon enough, your life expectancy will be statistically 13 years less than if you hadn't contracted it.

Gay men and black heterosexual men are the statistically most at risk, and heterosexual younger women are the unmet need risk for future consideration. Prior to 1995, there were six times as many men diagnosed than women. Today, it has gone to twice as many. The number of women living with HIV is increasing in The UK, only 2.1 male sufferers to every female suffer, compared to 6 to 1 a few years ago. But let's not forget, there are far greater risks to public health. The reason this is still in the news years after western health services got a handle on it, is that it is an excuse to hate gay people for something they aren't even a majority with, but they were years ago before we realised the issue. The excellent responsible attitude of most gay men who are sexually active has helped get us to this situation.

The "dramatic" increase in people living with HIV in The UK since the '90s is good news, not bad. The operative word is "living."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:23 AM

Dave, you can accuse him of attempting to stereotype gay men as promiscuous, but he has never said anything to justify that.
It is one factor in transmission is all he has ever said.
It is a factor in hetero transmission too.

He still refers to homosexuality as a perversion.
I agree that is not helpful.
It is not quite the same as calling gay people perverts.
He states that he has warm relationships with gay people, which you would not have with someone you regard as a pervert.

Why can we not just address what people actually say, not what we infer them to mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:29 AM

Musket, breast cancer is not infectious.

From the latest published PHE report on HIV,
"In the UK, the epidemic is largely concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM) and black-African heterosexual men and women. "

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:32 AM

One main reason for Canada's significant progress in HIV is this program in BC (below), where they have had VG success without regressive "round up and brand all those homos, pard" right-wing approaches.

The very "right-wing" federal conservative government (in power in Canada since 2006), not the left-leaning liberal party, nor the socialist NDP party, has not embraced this "successful program" nationally, as the approach has been recently adopted in other countries.


""Made-in-Canada HIV strategy embraced internationally — but not here
A made-in-Canada strategy for fighting HIV/AIDS is being embraced internationally, but Ottawa refuses to adopt it.

The Treatment as Prevention strategy, pioneered in B.C., calls for the immediate provision of highly effective antiretroviral therapy to those living with HIV.
By: Julio Montaner Published on Sun Dec 01 2013

As Canadians, we should be proud on World AIDS Day that our country is the birthplace of a pioneering strategy that significantly reduces HIV transmission rates, improves and saves the lives of those infected, and saves public health dollars. At the same time, it's shameful that this scientifically proven program — supported by the government of British Columbia — is being adopted internationally but not in Canada.

The Treatment as Prevention strategy, pioneered in B.C., calls for widespread HIV testing and immediate provision of highly effective antiretroviral therapy to those living with HIV. Such treatment can eliminate progression of HIV infection to AIDS and premature death, and significantly decrease the amount of virus in the blood and sexual fluids, thereby stopping transmission of HIV.

This past week, the government of B.C. and the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS signed a memorandum of understanding with China to extend the use of the Canadian strategy in that country. The agreement marks the formalization of a strong three-year relationship with China, the first country to adopt Treatment as Prevention as its national HIV/AIDS policy. Earlier this year, China announced that it had surpassed its HIV detection and treatment goals since adopting Treatment as Prevention.

Meanwhile, B.C. remains the only jurisdiction in Canada to use this strategy and promote widespread and fully government-supported access to HIV testing and life-saving drug therapy. And, importantly, B.C. remains the only province to demonstrate a significant and consistent decline in new cases of HIV.

In contrast to a growing list of countries and international organizations, Ottawa has chosen not to adopt Treatment as Prevention as the national strategy to fight HIV and AIDS. This short-sighted approach has led Canadian provinces to unnecessarily carry the burden of new infections and costs. According to new research, there is no material decrease in HIV rates in Canada outside of B.C. Annual rates of new HIV diagnoses in Saskatchewan and Manitoba increased; rates remained unchanged in Alberta and in the Territories; and rates declined only slightly in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

China is no longer the only country embracing our made-in-B.C. Treatment as Prevention model. In October, France and Brazil both announced adoption of the strategy as their national policies. And the World Health Organization fully incorporated Treatment as Prevention in their new Global HIV Treatment Guidelines.

The U.S. has also identified ours as a key strategy to achieve an AIDS-free generation. This month, U.S. senators and members of Congress from both parties signed a letter asking Barack Obama to strengthen his support for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, chiefly around the issue of Treatment as Prevention. Even at a time when the economy and partisan politics are consuming the domestic agenda, the U.S. has placed a priority on increasing the number of people on treatment from six million to 12 million worldwide by 2016.

Avoiding a national strategy costs all Canadians, financially, physically and emotionally. Research by the Canadian AIDS Society suggests the lifetime cost of each HIV infection is more than $425,000, including health care costs and lost productivity.

The case for support is very simple.

Every year, 3,300 men and women in Canada are diagnosed with HIV. An estimated 71,300 Canadians are now living with HIV, a number that could double within the next 15 years if the current rate of new infections continues and treatment is not expanded across Canada.

The federal government has a unique opportunity to turn around the HIV epidemic at all levels of Canadian society, if it implements Treatment as Prevention as a national strategy. We estimate Canada can realize a decrease in new HIV infections by at least 90 per cent in just five years if we fully implement this strategy.

It can be done; we're doing it in B.C. If we can mobilize nationally and successfully to address issues like SARS, H1N1 and other pandemic diseases, we can do the same with HIV and AIDS.

The choice is ours. It's time for Canada's leaders to emulate the government of B.C. and adopt this as the national strategy to stop HIV/AIDS.

Dr. Julio Montaner is director of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the Chair in AIDS Research and Head of Division of AIDS in the Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, and past president of the International AIDS Society.""

Source

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:48 AM

Semantics, Keith. I have never said I am short, fat, bald and bearded but the name Gnome implies it. I interpret what ake has said one way. You interpret it another. Don't expect me, or many others, to agree with your interpretation.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:58 AM

Well fuck me professor!

Sorry you can't understand irony. Are you sure it isn't Hartford rather than Hertford? In any case, infection is not a prerequisite. Obesity isn't an infection unless you catch pork pies by tongue kissing a big lass. But it is reaching epidemic proportions, (HPA, touché). Burning your arse on the lightbulb isn't either but you can catch it from obesity in the same way.

Yes, you can read the word epidemic, but because we have a pedantic mischief making fool on this thread, I insist that the word is taken in context rather than in the emotive sense. HIV is certainly not a widespread occurrence in a single community at a particular time when relating to The UK at this time.

In public health terms, the word is used in the noun sense. In the media, it is an an adjective.

The adjective is more emotive hence the worm found it a scare word to use.

I note you find his words unhelpful. The legislation on inciting hatred and the Equalities Act both have words similar to unhelpful, (or Jack's unfortunate "old fashioned") but they tend to have other ways to describe those who spread malicious distorted and plain untrue information to justify taking action against sections of the community for reasons of bigotry.

I'd tell you what they are, but I like to see my posts posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:07 AM

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

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

You're kidding right?

By Ake's figures, 1 in 79 of the demographic is being infected per year. But he doesn't bother with that math. He calls that "alarming" that the PERCENTAGE of all those infected is majority MSM, but he ignores the fact that the entire group is only a few thousand people per year.

He says people living with AIDS is part of the "epidemic" those number in the 10s of thousands. But 10s of millions are living with chicken pox. Where is the alarm?

Keith I don't think EPIDEMIC is well defined at all. Would you care to look at the numbers and tell us how an infection rate of 1 in 79 indicates an epidemic on such a scale the the entire population needs to be sanctioned, tested and denied equal rights under the law?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:16 AM

Dave, the rapid spread of HIV requires promiscuity

No it doesn't. At least not my definition of promiscuity. If one person infects two others then each of those two infect two others and so on it will be a binary multiplication, which it is not. The first person has had 2 partners. The second and subsequent ones have only 3. 3 partners, promiscuous? How does that fit with the above statement?

IT IS NOT SPREADING ALL THAT FAST!!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:48 AM

Interesting health site

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:35 AM

Jack, epidemic is exactly defined and is used correctly by health professionals and here by Ake.
Musket is wrong to claim it means different things in different places!

Dave I agree about interpretations, but I think we should only respond to what people actually say, and not by our own subjective interpretations of what they might have meant.
What Ake has actually said is that he does not regard gay people as perverts, and that not all are promiscuous, some being celibate and some monogamous.
No interpretation required.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:43 AM

Jack, if health professionals and "HIV experts" state that multiple partners is a factor in the over-representation of MSM, you can not vilify Ake merely for repeating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

Jack, epidemic is exactly defined and is used correctly by health professionals and here by Ake.

Please answer my question.

>>>Jack, if health professionals and "HIV experts" state that multiple partners is a factor in the over-representation of MSM, you can not vilify Ake merely for repeating it. <<<

Ake is arguing that that over representation means that there is and EPIDEMIC and that all MSM are to be tested whether they have multiple partners or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 12:50 PM

Err. Keith. You said health professionals use the term properly then you said I didn't. Make your mind up. I am not a healthcare professional but I am a professional in healthcare so either quote me or deny me. You can't have it both ways. Less than half public health specialists are healthcare professionals, but all are professionals working in healthcare. Stop purposely confusing matters to make me look an idiot. I'm not.

HIV spread was an epidemic that turned into a pandemic in the '80s. It is still an issue and we still refer to the epidemic that has left us with this present situation.

I don't know who this Musket is who you tells you it means different things in different places but this Musket said it has chronic epidemic status. I also differentiated between the noun and adjective use, causing you to embarrass yourself by not understanding and thinking I called a cancer an epidemic in the public health sense. I used it purely because the HPA used it in that different sense, prat. Don't quote what you don't understand!

Epidemic is only exactly defined as "of interest to epidemiology." I gave a healthcare definition of widespread occurrence within a single community at a given time. HIV is not an epidemic in that sense. It retains the term due to it having that status in the past and not eradicated yet. Hence chronic epidemic.

It is also exactly defined by Akenaton and yourself. The less said about that the better. Society deserves better than your shocking slurs. Akenaton merely repeating is about as innocent as Orange Lodge members "walking on The Queen's pavement" and designed to be just as nasty towards a whole section of society.

Bigots are bigots. Reason doesn't stand a chance, so I feel bad for giving them opportunity to repeat their awful wishes to round people up for being perverted and, as Akenaton so eloquently put it, against natural law.   What did he mean by that Keith?

Eh?

You say listen to what he says?

He said gay marriage is a liberal plot.

He said gay people are perverts.

He suggested they are forced to be tested for HIV.

He suggested other gay people could ensure they present for registration.

He said they are against natural law.

He said they are against Christian teaching.

Your move.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:51 PM

jack, if the whole MSM demographic was affected by HIV, it would only account for 1 in 100 of the whole population.
Would that mean that no swift and serious action should be taken to stop the "epidemic" amongst MSM?

To suggest that is ridiculous. I said already that in percentage terms, HIV is almost exclusively a disease of male homosexuality, in the UK and US.
Although new infections are only slightly higher for MSM, in real numbers, the percentage rates are massively different....and the percentage rates are what matter to male homosexuals.

If infection rates continue to rise in the MSM demographic at present rates, some real action will become imperative.
This demographic cannot wait for "education education", they have been immersed in "education" for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 01:55 PM

IT IS NOT SPREADING ALL THAT FAST!!

I know it isn't, Jack. Which is why I said "and so on it will be a binary multiplication, which it is not". Probably a little unclear but I meant the spread is not as rapid as people are making out.

I think we should only respond to what people actually say

Sorry, Keith. Absolutely not. Do you believe everything that people say? How about stories that start 'I'm no racist but...' How about the email that says you have inherited £20 million? I am sure a certain chancellor Hitler did not say he was going to exterminate 6 million people. You cannot take what people say, or do not say, at face value and cannot, therefore, objectively respond to it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM

sket: "Eh?

You say listen to what he says?

He said gay marriage is a liberal plot.

He said gay people are perverts.

He suggested they are forced to be tested for HIV.

He suggested other gay people could ensure they present for registration.

He said they are against natural law.

He said they are against Christian teaching.

Your move."

Eh?

You say don't listen to what he says?

He said gay marriage isn't a liberal plot.

He said gay people aren't perverts.

He suggested they aren't forced to be tested for HIV.

He suggested no gay people could ensure they present for registration.

He said they are natural law.

He said they aren't against Christian teaching.

Your move.

Is there a point somewhere in all this???...or just more blathering back and forth?

GUEST,Ed T: "...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington

Great post!!!!
That same tactic is used all the time in here....and to those who employ it, it is patently dishonest!
I know one person in particular, who has been called REPEATEDLY by myself and several other posters on this very thing....note: it is a dishonest ploy and used by deceptive promoters of bullshit agendas, who, if they were being straight up and honest, nobody would buy into their nonsense...they have to rely on dodging the FACTS of the issue, and resort to trickery, to play on the emotions of the consensus!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

Jack, I am not clear what question you want me to answer.

Musket, you said HIV was not an epidemic but it is.
You were wrong.

Dave if someone starts "I am not a racist but" and says something racist, I would judge him a racist by what he actually said.

If he said "I am not a racist but" and then said nothing racist, I have no way of seeing into his soul and reading his thoughts to judge him a racist and would not.

What has Ake actually said by which you judge him?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:47 PM

GfS I haven't misrepresented Ake's argument. I have said that he has not shown that HIV is a current epidemic in that demographic and that he has not shown a relationship between same-sex marriage and high infection rates in 1 to 2 percent (far less than 1% if i don't use his figures) of the Gay male population.

It is getting harder and harder to say that he is not a bigot even though I think it is still not polite to berate him.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:18 PM

What has Ake actually said by which you judge him?

Something specific? Homosexuality is against nature, is perverted and is a sin in the eyes of God. Plenty of evidence if you look. Most else is implied but pretty obvious.

If he said "I am not a racist but" and then said nothing racist

That is complete twaddle and you know it. No-one would ever say "I'm not a racist but" if they did not believe the comment following could not be construed as racist. If it can be construed as racist, it will be offensive to someone.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:43 PM

Ake is an atheist so I am sure he did not say all those things.
Has he ever said anything derogatory about gay people?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:52 PM

Jack, I DONT think there is a relationship between homosexual "marriage" and infection rates.

What makes you say that?....There must be some confusion.

ED et al... IF there is an epidemic amongst MSM, and I believe there is.... along with every authority who's conclusions I have studied, there are bound to be a large number of that demographic who are infected, but undiagnosed.
The only way to find these infectious and undiagnosed people is to increase testing and contact tracing.
This is the case, whether I happen to be a bigot, a homophobe, a racist, a witch, or any other term of abuse you wish to employ, to cover the paucity of your argument.

Abusing me personally does not improve your case in reference to HIV infection rates among MSM.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:52 PM

You must have come across real homophobes.

A real homophobe would say, "They don't get tested, so let them die"
A real homophobe would not advocate effort and expense to save their lives.

When I said I would do all in my power to enforce testing on my sons if they were high risk, no-one suggested that was evidence I hated my sons.

It is a long time since Ake has mentioned compulsory testing.
Since then he has advocated opt-out testing and contact tracing.
What is your latest thinking Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:58 PM

>>Jack, I DONT think there is a relationship between homosexual "marriage" and infection rates.

What makes you say that?....There must be some confusion.<<

Fantastic! So that is NOT the reason that you oppose Same-sex marriage. So you will not bring up HIV in relation to Same-sex marriage from now on? FANTASTIC!!!

So what about this idea that you have that 1 in 79 getting infected per year is an "alarming epidemic" that must be addressed by treating all MSM people the same and requiring uniform testing and registration?

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

1 in 79 would be over 700 000 a year for the general population UK.
That would be considered quite worrying.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:34 PM

Even more worrying for male homosexuals, if 56% came from the MSM demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:54 PM

I don't think for a moment, that homosexual "marriage" will have any effect, for good or ill on HIV infection rates.
The MSM rates are rising in countries which have had Civil Union or homosexual "marriage" for years, uptake rates are low, and being "married" does not mean being monogamous.
Apparently homosexual "marriages" are often "open marriages" where partner exchange is encouraged. I believe that generally, this is a symptom of the fact that homosexuals are unable to produce their own children or an extended family structure.....which IMO is the reason that most heterosexual couples generally remain monogamous.

I see "GAY MARRIAGE" as a political construct, to bolster a bankrupt "liberalist" agenda, the whole idea being promoted by the news and entertainment media, to a confused and dumbed down audience of children.....of all ages.

The unfortunate advent of "gay marriage" bears no relation to the ever worsening infection rates in the MSM demographic, which seem to continue to rise regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:02 PM

Ake is an atheist so I am sure he did not say all those things.

Tell you what. Let's ask. Ake - Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?

DtG

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

You are quite correct Keith, I said further up the thread, that I thought compulsion was "probably unworkable", and I have also said that the homosexual agencies like Stonewall,Terence Higgins, etc should be promoting the idea of three monthly testing for all sexually active male homosexuals and contact testing is tests prove positive. I believe that in time, this course of action will encourage an attitude, that to be sexual active in that demographic and NOT be regularly tested for HIV, would be socially unacceptable.

Increased testing and contact tracing in this demographic, is the only way forward in the fight against HIV.

Politics should not be brought into the sphere of Public Health!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:15 PM

Increased testing and contact tracing in this demographic, is the only way forward in the fight against HIV.

Did you not read the article that Keith posted stating otherwise? And once again: Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?

I am glad you have accepted that compulsory testing is 'probably unworkable'. A step in the right direction anyway.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:31 PM

Dave....Why are you here?   Have you no positive contribution to make to this thread, other than try to prove what a bigot, homophobe, racist, witch etc, I am?

Even if you could prove that I was a "bad" person, what difference would that make to the issue under discussion?

Address the facts of the issue as presented, try to form a counter argument and put it forward in a way that may change the outlook of your opponents......negativity and personal attacks make you look weak and stupid.....I know you are neither of these things, but there are more people reading these threads, than actually post here.

I have probably had a much more basic education than you, but I still make an effort to provide a reasoned response to point brought up, even by those who see this discussion in personal terms.

I have stopped responding to only two people here, not because of their views, which oppose my own, but because they are stalkers and vicious trolls.

I'm sure you can make an excellent contribution if you just relax and give it a go. You appear at least, to have an interest in the subject.

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

Increased testing and contact tracing in this demographic, is the only way forward in the fight against HIV.
Did you not read the article that Keith posted stating otherwise?

If you mean NAT, they were advocating testing and contact tracing.
I think Stonewall and Terence Higgins are saying the same, certainly about testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:29 PM

DtG: "Tell you what. Let's ask. Ake - Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?"

"Tell you what. Let's ask. Ake - Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural?"

Unnatural in which regards?? For procreation, yeah....for a way to get your rocks off, to an 'understanding partner', no. For people who do not regard their inner being worth passing down, no...it's 'normal'...it's normal for people who are 'reproductively impaired' because of emotional issues.....and for so-called liberals, who need yet another tool at making the natural nuclear family, something to be scorned, and disrespected... and to create a bias against a traditional nuclear family...but then those who have a bias against a traditional nuclear family, who cares what they think??!! For those who'd like to discourage a traditional nuclear family, they must have either an unhappy childhood, or a retarded political agenda...in which case, homosexuality would be something to defend...which they do.
People recognizing this, the value of a traditional nuclear family, does it make them a 'bigot' or 'homophobic'?..fuck no...It may just mean that they have a focus on the family, as a naturally produced, and cared for family...it doesn't mean they hate anybody....Do those who accuse people, who normally don't think a lot about homosexuals, of being some flavor of 'hater'...THEY are the haters!..They are hoping for validation, and HATE the thought of other people thinking that they are full of shit..unless they are validated!

DtG: "Do you believe it is a perversion?"

Depends on what they are trying to legitimize!

DtG: "Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males?"

Why wouldn't they want to? There's homosexual dating websites..they register onto that.....but not for health reasons????
You'd think anyone in their right mind, who had different sexual partners would WANT to, either be screened, or their next potential sex partner screened. Why would anyone oppose that???? You'd think that they'd be insisting on it...and volunteering to have it done....
but I started that premise with, "You'd think anyone in their right mind,...."

Which pretty much sums up the logic employed by the political blinders, that is killing them!!!

Ake, Does that pretty much sum it up?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:41 PM

Let me ask a couple of simple questions here:   suppose a gay man feels, correctly, that he is disease free and does not want or need to be tested.

What are you going to do with him? Send out a couple of bully-boys to grab him, hog-tie him, and drag him into a testing facility?

And how are you going to know that this particular man is gay?

Are you going to require him to register as "homosexual?"

(Why do I hear the echoing sound of jackboots?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:16 AM

Don, no-one is now advocating compulsory testing.
Ake has read and thought on all that has been posted by yourself and others, and revised his view on it.

That does not happen very often on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:28 AM

1. Keith said there is an epidemic and claimed I said otherwise. Sadly he said it only a couple if posts after I explained why the term epidemic is still used, despite the situation in The UK not hitting the infection spread test of the word.

2. Akenaton just said that apparently gay marriages (or "marriages" in his awful wording) are open marriages with multiple partners.

Instead of finding new ways to define epidemic Keith, you might help us with your sanitised definition of sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:05 AM

"2. Akenaton just said that apparently gay marriages (or "marriages" in his awful wording) are open marriages with multiple partners."

I belong to a fairly large organization (several hundred members) where there happen to be, coincidentally, several same-sex couples. These couples, I know, have been together--monogamously--for several years, and when same-sex marriage became legal in Washington State, they immediately went out and got married. None of them are "open marriages with multiple partners."

And a member of the writers' group to which my wife and I belong has been living with the same partner for several years. They just got married.

What Ake said is simply not the case.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 02:40 AM

Musket, you have said,
" When Akenhateon says the epidemic (there isn't one by any definition)"

" they do not make the public health definition of epidemic."

I have quoted Public Health England describing it as an epidemic, and I can quote NHS Choices, National Aids Trust and any agency you like saying it is without any qualifier like "chronic."

No-one has ever said it is a "notifiable" epidemic, just an epidemic.

Someone in your position might be expected to know the meaning and usage of "epidemic" but you have shown us that you do not.
Akeneaton used the word correctly, and did not deserve to be attacked over it.
An apology is owed.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:18 AM

Thanks Keith.... and Sanity(very good post)
Busy right now will post later.    Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:41 AM

Oh yeah? You want me to apologise to Akenaton?

That's an amazing slur on my character. How, why, should or even could anybody apologise to someone who states the most despicable outrageous homophobic lies and hatred? That's assuming there is something to apologise for. I apologise to anybody who is hurt by reading his posts. I did try to get them taken down, but freedom to upset people is in the rules Jack kindly keeps repeating apparently. Must be in the small print.

Perhaps you should be the one apologising for defending the indefensible? Keith A Hole of Hertford would like to say something. Over to you Keith?

You should be more like Keith A of Hertford who keeps saying he likes to correct things that are stated wrongly. He might want to start with the dark disturbing comments of Akenaton that he glosses over without challenge, whilst decent people get their comments analysed to the extent of twisting every word they says in order to cast doubt. Is the real you like the Mudcat character you portray? Can he sleep at night?

And whilst you are at it, if you tried to analyse his words instead of the words of decent well adjusted people, your moral authority might not be so low as to be swept up with the other rubbish.

By the way, "epidemic" is, in relation to UK HIV prevalence exactly what I said it is. The website you read the authority of that statement is Mudcat.org. The person behind Musket is as good a source of public health information as any in that regard. You read enough to pass a few tests as to your knowledge, (such as cancer and notifiable, used correctly but worded to need clarification,) so I can only conclude your participation on this debate is purely to defend hatred. As you read "official" websites and draw wrong conclusions, I can't help you. I can ensure other people reading this website aren't drawn in by your attempts to justify homophobia and bigotry though.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 03:59 AM

Public Health England
"In the UK, the epidemic is largely concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM) and black-African heterosexual men and women."
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317140300680

National Aids Trust
"in tackling the HIV epidemic both globally and in the UK."
"as a national epidemic HIV needs to be addressed nationally. "
http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Publications/Oct-2012-HIV-a-strategy-for-success.pdf

NHS Choices
"a promising new strategy to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic."

http://www.health-friends.org/Article/459

"The person behind Musket is as good a source of public health information as any in that regard."

It is easier to believe that all those renowned agencies are right and you are talking bollocks again.
You were the source of information that told us hetero infections were rising, and MSM infections were still less than half the total.

You are an ignorant, ill-informed person who boasts about how "fucking important" he is, and demands to be believed over the recognised experts in the field.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:01 AM

So, Keith. I think this summarises what just happened. I asked ake the following questions Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural? Do you believe it is a perversion? Do you believe it is right to have gay males on a register simply because they are, well, gay males? I got no answers but I did get a reply including Dave....Why are you here? and I have probably had a much more basic education than you. Now, why bring up my right to be on the thread and why use education as an excuse? It is in every politicians toolbox; when you don't want to answer a question, change the subject. Can you see why I do not take ake's words at face value?

As to If you mean NAT, they were advocating testing and contact tracing. No. I didn't mean NAT. I meant the link you provided that summarised the Lancet's papers in a Time Magazine article that said Public health messages about safe sex practices and testing targeted to gay men have waned in the intervening years, and now, some experts say, a new generation of at-risk men have to be educated about the disease. and you felt 'vindicated my stance on education.

Ake. What do you mean by 'a more basic education'. What makes you think mine was any different to yours? Why bring it up anyway?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:33 AM

Hang on, just popped back to see how Keith's apology worked out..

Err... Not much of an apology is it Keith? I didn't ask for my words to be twisted again. I am getting somewhat bored with that.

I'll check again later. You get WiFi on the train, (off up to Och Aye the Noo land later) and his deep apology will be nice to read.

I'm sure he is working on it.

A pity he thinks I am important. I'm not really. I support important people though and give them the space to work, including many behind the websites he keeps repeating. It would be funny if there wasn't such a sinister agenda behind his rants. Funny how when I say something I am lying but when he reads exactly what I say on a website it is true? But I'm still a liar... On anything else I'd laugh and shake my head as I do with his silly Israeli or WW1 nonsense, but healthcare, even though I am not speaking in my day job persona, I still cannot put up with such dangerous talk that vilifies sections of society. We should speak up and put it down, looking the other way just encourages them. Healthcare is a very wide subject and there are no black and white definitive because it is delivered by methods other than dogma. Protocols are about as far as it gets, because there are two sides to every story with a valid third tugging away. The dichotomy of providing health statistics in a spirit of candour and openness and the risk of people drawing inferences or insisting on unhelpful words as official or authoritative to defend a viewpoint.. It is a well worn dichotomy and helps fill a few newspapers. It shouldn't fill adult debate though.

You can get help Keith. Just don't expect me to have any sympathy. You don't have the defence of ignorance like you mate does. Pig ignorance maybe, but not ignorance. You know exactly what you are saying and why. That's why you should be ashamed of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 05:01 AM

" I am fucking important. Important enough to know what I am talking about."

Not on this subject obviously.