BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 12:11 PM

"A group being targeted by a virus."

Assuming it has sentient thought process, it's aim isn't very accurate.

The trick with vital facts is not to garnish them with fiction or assumptions borne of prejudice.

I wonder if Keith's yes, yes, no style reply to Dave can be construed as distancing himself from the comments of his mate? Does he still maintain that Akenaton's stand and comments are not showing bigotry?

Let's try another yes yes no game.

Homosexuality is perverted

Homosexuality is against natural law

Gay marriage is gay "marriage"

Gay marriage is a liberal plot

Homosexuals prefer multiple partners even when in a relationship

They should be forced to be tested

HIV is only an epidemic when applied to homosexuality

Similarities between homosexuality and paedopholia


Yes for agreeing with Akenaton
No for not agreeing
Sorry for supporting him and stating he has never expressed bigotry

Easy

Over to you Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 01:32 PM

This thread was supposed to encourage a discussion of HIV transmission rates. I think all the valid points have been raised and anyone reading it will have the information to formulate an opinion on the best way to halt the epidemic within the MSM demographic.
The post above and the post from Dave , contain statements which I have never made; in fact, some of the statements are completely contrary to what I have actually stated.

Anyone who wishes to verify this, can easily do so by reading the complete thread and paying attention.

I am not interested in the personal views of Dave, and even less so of the other person, the thread is about HIV transmission rates and I think it has served a useful purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:00 PM

Do you think by re-asking those questions, repeatedly, is supposed to alter the truth??? They've been answered over and over, and if you don't think so, scroll back over this thread, and a few others, dealing with the topic!
It looks like you're trying to find some answer that leaves room for more truth-altering talking points that run parallel to a predetermined 'talking point' premise, which is NOT based on FACT!!!
Get over it!
That being said, I'll answer it this way, and I'm only speaking for myself, and common sense...
I AM FOR the traditional nuclear loving family...which happens to not be vulnerable to HIV/AIDS or any other STD's. Promiscuity of any sort, is not healthy for the health of the body, mind or emotions.
You can champion any other unhealthy thing you want.....and you do!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

It's alright Goofus. Your homophobia is on record and you never deny your standing in decent company. Probably ignorance is bliss but don't worry. Gay people possibly can't understand what you prefer either.

Your mate however said all the above, many times, often on this thread in fact. He comes out with claims that don't exist in the healthcare world. Living there myself, I tend to know the neighbourhood. Denying his own words now? Err perhaps a quick "I was wrong" might mitigate the situation.

Let's ask Keith to dig up Akenaton's words, complete with time and date etc.

After all, Keith likes matters to be correct and usually goes out of his way to put the record straight.

Even when he may not agree with what it shows.

Isn't that so Keith?

Keith?


Hello!

Are you there?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 02:35 PM

Musket: "Your homophobia is on record and you never deny your standing in decent company.....blah blah blah"

Explain to me just how being FOR a loving, traditional family is homophobia!!!
You've just jumped from what I've been saying to turn it around and misstating it, to fit your 'tactic' of....."(as posted by Ed T)"...one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington."".......and then the ones using that tactic, proceed to use the premise to call the poster with the figures and link a bunch of misapplied names, based on their typical, 'hot button', create a bias playbook."
It's not working!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

I disagree with Akeneaton on most things, including homosexuality.
When he has stated facts and figures, I believe he has done so truthfully and accurately.

Musket, can you identify any fact or figure he has stated that are false.

I have identified facts and figures of yours that are false Musket.

For all your claimed importance and professional knowledge, a couple of interested amateurs have shown you up as an ignorant, culpably complacent fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 05:44 PM

Well, one ignorant culpable fool to another, is epidemic only valid when applied to gay men?

When he states wild figures that contradict the "official" HPA figures you hold so dear when they suit you, why do you keep defending him?

You call me a liar. As I only state valid views amongst the healthcare sector, you are mischievous, bigoted lying rubbish. Don't call me a liar. The difference between us is that I couldn't if I wanted. Whatever makes you think for one minute that I could be remotely interested in compromising my credibility for the sake of an irrelevant right wing nutter?

You flatter yourself.

I'm glad you disagree with him. How, if he is telling the truth?

Prat.


Goofus. I have a friend who is white and married to a black wife. They attend a local church, where a fellow member said "I married a white woman."

Factual, succinct and nothing to be ashamed of.

Is there an American word that means the same as the English word "context?"

On second thoughts, just keep banging the rocks together.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 05:47 PM

Muskrat: "Goofus. I have a friend who is white and married to a black wife. They attend a local church, where a fellow member said "I married a white woman."

What does that have to do with the price of eggs???
Another focus shift????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:34 PM

The post above and the post from Dave , contain statements which I have never made; in fact, some of the statements are completely contrary to what I have actually stated.


Which statements have I made that are contrary to what you have stated?

Oh, sorry, you do not answer simple questions do you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 06:44 PM

Musket, I have totally different opinions to Akeneaton, including on homosexuality, but when he has stated facts and quoted figures on HIV, he has been truthful and accurate.
I asked you for any false claim he has made, and you failed to produce a single one.

You have shown complacency, ignorance and a denial of the truth because it offends your ridiculous politics, never mind that it leaves young men to die unnecessary deaths.

You did not even recognise that there is an epidemic that you should be dealing with.
You did not know that MSM infections are increasing to the extent that MSM infections now outnumber all others.
You even thought that hetero infections were rising when it is really MSM infections that are.

Ignorance, denial of the truth and deadly complacency.
You are a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:00 PM

ON homosexual open "marriages".
There are dozens of these links, it appears to be part of the culture.

Here

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:17 PM

"It is more prevalent among infected straight rather than gay folk."

Tell Ake, will you?

Because he doesn't give a cuss about straights, as long as he can rant about "perverts".

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:26 PM

"Troubadour, everyone on this discussion knows that infected people can now live a normal and full life with treatment, and become almost uninfectious, but thanks for your input anyway.

They also know that when the symptoms of AIDS appear, it is usually too late."


Says the supercilious, patronising twat who knows more than the medical profession, who have clearly found ways to prevent the progression to AIDS.

Worthy of the "Nobel Prize for Stating the Bleedin' Obvious".

Also the MSM community represent the highest take up of testing, while the STD infection of heteros, particularly young girls with Chlamydia and Gonorrhea is vastly under reported.

And don't bother JtS! After ignoring Keith's F-Word description of Ian, your credibility as a forum policeman is in tatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:34 PM

Guest T.....Please go away and learn to read all of what people post.

"It is more prevalent among infected straight rather than gay folk."

WHAT is more prevalent among INFECTED heterosexual rather than homosexual folk?
When you have discovered what THAT is(hint, it is not infection rates), come back and tell us how careless, or how twisted you have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:41 PM

"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington."".......and then the ones using that tactic, proceed to use the premise to call the poster with the figures and link a bunch of misapplied names, based on their typical, 'hot button', create a bias playbook.
I prefer the FACTS and the Truth..and if it contradicts the political posturing, I think 'adjusting' the political posturing to match the TRUTH, is what is order....not the other way around."

If you choose to present an "Argument from Authority" GfS, it is wise to seek some evidence of the authority's credibility.

Why don't you ask Mary Jo Kopeckne whether Teddy believes in the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:45 PM

"I am not interested in the personal views of Dave, and even less so of the other person, the thread is about HIV transmission rates and I think it has served a useful purpose."

Now who is trying to close down discussion when it fails to go his way?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 07:54 PM

But it IS going my way Guest T, I believe in truthful posting, not the twisted out of context line you hoped to slip through.

Regarding Dave, this thread has nothing to do with his personal opinion of my character, nor mine of his.
I am perfectly happy to debate the issue, but have no time for biased personal opinions of on another's motives or character.

Perhaps you would like to comment on the link about the percentage of open relationships amongst male homosexuals and the affect on HIV prevalence?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:01 PM

I'm very well aware that the twat was talking about being unaware of infection.

Which feeds directly into my later comment about MSMs representing the highest take up (proportionally) of testing, while heteros are vastly under reported.

What does that do to your biased figures?

You simply don't know whether hetero infections are rising or falling year on year. You only know that numbers tested are actually much lower (proportionally) and that leaves your prejudiced assessments swinging in the breeze.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:11 PM

It is also true, that you apply new HIV figures to talking about AIDS deaths.

Since those who are developing AIDS in 2014 became infected at some point between 2004 and 2011 (check the facts), a majority of them were too late for current treatments to prevent AIDS, since that level of treatment (manageable condition) has only very recently been available.

A logical man would expect deaths from AIDS to show no significant reduction until that treatment has been available for at least three years, but after that the reduction will be swift and radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:20 PM

The Health agencies do not agree with your assessment Guest T
(See Keith's post above)


The difference in numbers being tested, is because it is known that some demographics are very much more at risk than others, due to promiscuity, risk taking, types of sexual behaviour, etc.

IDU's are more at risk because the infection may be passed on through needle sharing, they are also tested more often than the general population, but infection rates are still relatively low in that demographic....and falling.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:28 PM

Sorry, didn't finish.

Black Africans, also had a high rate of infection, but much of that infection was acquired abroad (by migrants), where the sexual culture is very different from the US or UK.
Although the infection rate was high, it has been falling steadily for around 10 years in the UK and now stands at about 1000 new infections per annum.
MSM is the demographic with the highest infection rate in percentage terms AND in real numbers.....the rate is also rising annually and this points to a very serious problem for male homosexual health.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 08:31 PM

OFF to bed now, Up early for work tomorrow...hope it's fine.

Thanks for the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 14 - 09:07 PM

Troubadour: "If you choose to present an "Argument from Authority" GfS, it is wise to seek some evidence of the authority's credibility."

Yours??? Muskrat's????..whomever you approve, who is steeped in 'so-called liberal talking points'????????

""If you choose to present an "Argument from Authority" GfS, it is wise to seek some evidence of the authority's credibility."

"Argument from Authority" ...OK....answer this, which I gave to the muskrat:
"I AM FOR the traditional nuclear loving family...which happens to not be vulnerable to HIV/AIDS or any other STD's. Promiscuity of any sort, is not healthy for the health of the body, mind or emotions.
You can champion any other unhealthy thing you want.....and you do!"

What 'authority' are you seeking????.....Common sense doesn't work for you anymore, now that you think you're a 'liberal'????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:01 AM

"What 'authority' are you seeking????"

Within you, you already know that I'm right....why compromise??
Why not want the BEST for people?..not second, not third...not fix the illness...and deny there is a problem out there. Why not support safe and healthy behavior? Don't you think there are safe and loving traditional marriages with families, and that that is the best to grow up in?? Do you think discouraging people to TRY, as to fulfill a concept of yourself as a 'good and dutiful liberal'......and to be useful, 'liberals' need 'fuck ups'?...How about holding UP some HIGHER values??...After all, the traditional, loving family is the basic, nuclear thread of any society.....that works.

Instead of ennobling faults that you don't want to correct, get a backbone and stand up for that which is right, and that which works!!
Why not tell people to stop 'fucking around', by fucking around? Why not tell a homosexual, "Hey, why don't you get tested, just to be safe?...and while you're at it, stop fucking around, it could kill one of you?"
It sure beats trying to argue with me about it, and make a dork out of yourself!
take the high ground!!

GfS

P.S. As per aforementioned, You already know I'm right...knock off with the head games.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:13 AM

Musket, the number of infections due to needleshare was 120 and falling, compared to 3, 250 and rising for MSM in 2012.

We have both said "needlestick" instead of "needleshare."
This is you,
"It's a needlestick issue, a birth issue and a healthcare acquired issue too, but 78% of it is sexually transmitted."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:31 AM

Yes. That's what I said. Do you have a problem with me pointing out the low occurrence causes that we need to be vigilant about?

You have taken the trick of removing from context to an art form. Still, being fucking important and all that, I notice such tricks. Do you search your mate's posts before stating he never days anything remotely bigoted or hurtful towards a section of society?

A proportion of testing for HIV that doesn't make the statistics that you claim are definitive are the full number of post needlestick tests on healthcare professionals. Some occupational health bodies report them as patient tests, some don't. The reason being HPA used to get their figures from HES data, which don't include OH costs.

Just another reason why your dogmatic approach to public information is fine till used to push or support a point. They are accurate enough, not comprehensive by any means but accurate enough for historical prevalence when planning and funding tackling this awful situation.

But every time I point this out you attack me.

I am free to draw conclusions as to why. And from where I sit* they aren't fucking pretty ones.




* A fucking important office in a fucking important office block with my own fucking important shit house I can use without going into the corridor and bumping into plebs.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

You are being dishonest again.
You were listing all the most common means of transmission, so of course you meant needleshare.
Why would you have left it out.

Needlestick infection must be incredibly rare as a means of transmission, if it has ever happened at all.
PHE do not even refer to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:17 AM

"The last case of an HIV seroconversion in an occupationally exposed healthcare worker was reported in 1999."
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/needlestick-injury

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 06:36 AM

What are you wittering on about now?

Since 1997, surveillance of blood borne viruses has been national. By 1999, there had been eight UK HIV by needlestick for healthcare professionals. Since then, although reporting of testing has a voluntary aspect, it is estimated that 1 in 255 of HIV infected needlestick will result in contraction. Or one every forty years.

Hence my comments regarding testing to risk which you had got your facts about arse faced when referring to sexual transmission. My point, for which I apologise as I was addressing the majority intelligent Mudcat readers, was differentiating testing to occurrence.

The last needle stick test of a healthcare worker in The UK was possibly today. At any rate, there are enough per year to make that assumption.

You tried muddying that with needle share which is a high risk of occurrence factor when contact tracing, root cause analysis and profiling.

Why do you do that Keith? You have said Akenaton is wrong so why keep twisting the figures to support him?

I would much rather be wrong in my conclusion. I really would.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 06:50 AM

"The last case of an HIV seroconversion in an occupationally exposed healthcare worker was reported in 1999."
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/needlestick-injury

If you have evidence to the contrary, show us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 07:06 AM

I do not challenge your figure of one infection every forty years by this method.
That sounds about right.

Why are you wasting our time over such a ridiculously small figure?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:36 AM

Because there is a risk that someone will accidentally relate it, after reading your confusion of two index causes with the word needle, in the way I remain convinced you are supporting.

The rate of conversion from exposure to HIV + blood is of the order of 0.3% according to the occy health info I am looking at. PEP (prophylaxis) can reduce this by an even larger factor. A study quoted on our page reckons by 80% but that is just one study. Of the 255 needle sticks in the 1997 to 1999 study, one had seroconversion, which will be the one you refer to. We are both reporting both a success story and same figures. However, the accuracy of voluntary submission data has on average a tolerance factor of 15% which with such small figures makes complacency dangerous.

Needle stick testing is usually regardless of knowledge of contamination unless the blood is from a known to be negative source, although Hepatitis being a co factor, most wish the tests to be done. Even fucking important mandarins can end up tested. I was attacked with a syringe needle during a review of a sectioned patient when I was carrying out such duties for MHAC. Assurances that he was "clean" don't cut it at the time.

Working out how a sex worker worker who shoots up contracted it isn't quite so easy without contact tracing. A bit like wondering which baked bean caused that last fart. Another statistical caution to add to the list of your definitive data.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:45 AM

Last case in 1999.
Infection rate calculated from risk, one case per forty years.

In any discussion of HIV transmission, this should not even be mentioned.
PHE annual figures are rounded to the nearest 10!

For all your "importance" and your executive toilet, you really know nothing about this subject.
The "plebs" you avoid in the corridor must know more than you do.

No wonder the National Aids Trust despairs over the NHS incompetent treatment of HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 08:56 AM

You are arguing about a risk that barely produces two cases per CENTURY!

Meanwhile the ANNUAL infection rate for one group is the highest ever recorded at 3,250 in 2012.

Ignorance.
Complacency.
Denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 01:15 PM

Unless there were comments from an epidemiologist in this thread, don't bother to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 02:21 PM

Wow!!.....Great stuff Keith.....controlled fury.

Wish I could do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

My last post is missing. Odd that.

Either technical gremlins or otherwise.

In any event, in reply to Q's comment, I am giving the UK public health perspective, based on being fucking important or whatever it is. I chair strategic bodies where public health epidemiology is the subject, so whilst not a consultant in public health myself, I do articulate the epidemiology input to health planning in certain areas.

Keith reads websites at face value.

Controlled fury isn't difficult when decency is censored, worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:09 PM

Keith reads websites at face value.

Everything I have said is accurate and true.
Not one thing you can challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

No point in continuing really is there? Not when someone advocating radical changes in the way homosexual men conduct themselves does not believe that their views on homosexuality has any relevance to the discussion. And believes that anyone who does not think that way must be a loony liberal. I think we are entering the Twighlight Zone...

Doo doo doo doo. Doo doo doo doo.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:20 PM

The is a "Discussion of HIV transmission." not another belief thread.

It should be a technical discussion based on known facts.
There is no place in such a discussion for anyone's views on morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:24 PM

Bollocks. You cannot say 'I believe that homosexual men should do ...' and not expect your views on that group not to have a bearing. Besides, who died and made you boss of how threads should go anyway?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:27 PM

Jack B, There IS a difference, I do not curse at you or call you an idiot.

These issues are going to affect society in the future, HIV Infection, the secular society versus religious faith, "liberalism" versus social conservatism, they deserve serious discussion.

Knee jerk reactions are unacceptable, blanket "stoppers", like "equality", "discrimination", "homophobia", "racism", don't cut it on a discussion forum like this.

I have seen no homophobia, or racism here for years and out in the real world equality does not exist under our economic system.

Just keep calm and make your case, you are not God, your ideology is not worth more than mine or any other member of this forum, unless you can prove it to be better.

An example. A guest/ member called me a homophobic bigot on my statement that many male homosexual "marriages"/ unions are different from conventional marriage, in that they are often "open" relationships containing several sexual partners, I posted a link backing my statement and it was completely ignored. A couple of posts later the same person called me a homophobic bigot again....Its all meaningless bullshit, simply an intimidation tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:33 PM

Sorry about that, the post came up on two different threads.....I think???

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 05:54 PM

Hi, you're up....Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 06:32 PM

Bollocks. You cannot say 'I believe that homosexual men should do...

Did anyone say that?
If they did they would have immediately changed the subject away from "Discussion of HIV transmission."

No-one has the right to say how a thread goes, but did it go?
I have never stopped discussing HIV transmission, which is a technical discussion based on verifiable fact, and not belief or views of morality.

There have been enough threads on belief and morality.
This was intended to be different.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 12:00 AM

Keith of Hertford: "I have never stopped discussing HIV transmission, which is a technical discussion based on verifiable fact, and not belief or views of morality."

OK...So, is abstaining from promiscuous sex, and not sharing needles, which would stop the transmission of HIV/AIDS, is it a topic of morality, or the practical?

I've found that in most cases, morality and practicality are pretty closely related!....what is 'practical' over a period of time, gets to be 'moral'.....other than that, "Stupid is as stupid does"~~Forrest Gump

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 03:45 AM

It is a verifiable fact that sharing needles can lead to HIV transmission.
People's opinions on the morality of illegal drug use are, or should be, irrelevant.

If someone makes the link between drug use and transmission, claiming they are opposed to illegal drug use does not change the verifiable fact that IDU facilitates transmission.

I was asked to set out my views on homosexuality.
I am open about those views and have expressed them before, but I was disappointed that it was felt relevant in what should have been a purely dispassionate, scientific/technical discussion.

Claiming someone is a "bigot" has been used as a reason to ignore a verifiable fact that that has been put up for consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 04:05 AM

Keith thinks you can talk of the biological effects of human nature without bringing human nature into it. Fascinating and explains a lot.

Meanwhile, akenaton repeats his assertion that gay men are all too promiscuous to be in loving relationships. About the same sentence where he says he isn't a homophobe.

Tell you what, next time gay friends stop over, I'll ask which is predatory and give him a set of keys in case he wants to slip out in the night and find someone to poke his willy into.

A word to the wise. You can't keep repeating and stressing hateful bigoted comments and then say those who are repulsed by it represent a liberal plot. Blaming your lack of education isn't defence either.

To bring the two sides together. You will never eradicate or control lifestyle health problems by stigmatising the lifestyle. They just get driven underground. Gay men are in a risk demographic they share with people of African descent and prisoners. To a slightly less extent we can add substance misuse.The groups are not mutually exclusive but they all suffer from boorish politicians who see the need to demonise them.

Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 04:54 AM

they all suffer from boorish politicians who see the need to demonise them.

I am not aware of that.
Can you give an example Musket?

They do suffer from a health care service that does not adequately target their needs.
You yourself are evidence of a political cause behind that failing.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 09:03 AM

"I'll see it when I believe it"
slip of the tongue by psychologist Thane Pittman.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true"
Francis Bacon (in discussing self-serving patterns, and bias from personal belief assessments, and attributions).

"My opinion, my conviction, gains infinitely in strength and success, the moment a second mind has adopted it"
Novalis

"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure (nature) hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you actually don't know"
R. Persig. - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance