Healthy gay men urged by the WHO to take HIV drugs

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28264436

Healthy gay men urged to take HIV drugs - WHO


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76205000/jpg/_76205482_c0201377-hiv,_artwork-spl.jpg
Antiretroviral drugs are more widely used to treat people who are already infected with HIV


The World Health Organization (WHO) is urging all sexually active gay men to take antiretroviral drugs to reduce the spread of HIV.

The organisation says the move may help prevent a million new HIV infections over 10 years.

Officials warn rates of HIV in this group remain high across the globe.

But activists suggest this could discourage the use of condoms - one of the best methods to stop the virus spreading.

According to the WHO report, men who have sex with men are 19 times more likely to have HIV than the general population.

'Exciting approach'

Health experts say offering antiretroviral drugs to all at-risk men - known as pre-exposure prophylaxis - will provide an additional way to prevent infection, together with condom use.

When taken consistently by people at high risk, studies show the medication can reduce the chances of getting HIV by up to 92%.

And scientists say encouraging this group of men to take these pills could lead to a 25% reduction in new cases across the globe.

Dr Rosemary Gillespie, of the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "We already know if someone has HIV, using treatment drastically reduces the likelihood of them passing it on, as does using condoms.

"The idea of treatment as prevention is not new, but the idea of extending treatment to HIV-negative people from high-risk groups is.

"Pre-exposure prophylaxis is an exciting approach, and likely to be one of a number of ways in which we can reduce the spread of HIV in the future.

"However, we need to evaluate how effective it will be in preventing HIV among gay men."
'Progress threatened'

She says until the results of UK trials are known, condoms and regular testing remain the best weapons against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

And while the number of people dying of Aids is falling sharply, the WHO says key populations need more attention.

According to the report, transgender women are almost 50 times more likely to have HIV than other adults, a level similar to that seen among people who inject drugs.

And sex workers are 14 times more likely to have HIV than the general population.

"Dr Gottfried Hirnschall of the World Health Organization said: "Failure to provide services to the people who are at greatest risk of HIV jeopardises further progress against the global epidemic and threatens the health and well-being of individuals, their families and the broader community."

Just one of the many reasons i'm celibate/abstinent, the gay health stats are never mentioned: but they're horrifying.

But anyway, i'm interested as to why the BAN IT brigade of doctors, 'experts', politicians and other lobby groups aren't climbing all over this to have gay sex outlawed on public health grounds... or at least have it made more difficult. I mean they've done it with smoking (all in the name of saving people) so logic would dictate that they do it when it comes to homosexual activity... oh wait I forgot about political correctness. Ah.

How much this will cost us though just because people can't practice self-restraint is depressing.

Thoughts?

[Kardan]

You're totally right - I'm glad the government did it with smoking and they should totally do it for gay sex. I mean, for smoking all that second hand smoke is going near me and giving me cancer - and when two other people have gay sex, I can just feel the aids rushing towards me through the air. It's outrageous.

[David]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/451041962011807744/yJg4Nq8V.jpeg


Edited by mdport. (Trialist Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly, Thanks!

[Hannah]

I completely forgot that sexually active heterosexual people can't get HIV and are definitely not more likely to hide the fact if they did have.

[wixard]

wouldn't it be funny if undertaker was a troll this entire time

just adding to this, thought the thread was gonna be sexually active gay men allowed to give blood soon, in Ireland they're removing the rule which states they can't

[The Don]

wouldn't it be funny if undertaker was a troll this entire time

Is anyone genuinely stupid enough to compare gay sex to smoking?

[FlyingJesus]

I also hope the experts lobby for a gay sex ban of the same magnitude as the smoking ban - I'm totally sick of all the thousands of people having sex in pubs while I'm trying to have a nice quiet drink next to them

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're totally right - I'm glad the government did it with smoking and they should totally do it for gay sex. I mean, for smoking all that second hand smoke is going near me and giving me cancer - and when two other people have gay sex, I can just feel the aids rushing towards me through the air. It's outrageous.

It was only recently we had the 'experts' recommend a blanket ban in cigarettes to those who were born after the year 2000, so this has long gone past the concept of second hand smoking. But indeed, given the promiscuity among homosexuals..... why shouldn't the state step in to help save lives? I mean, if it can do it with smoking/unhealthy foods and alcohol, then why is action morally unacceptable in this instance?

Is it because you *approve* of homosexual relations where as you don't approve of smoking/unhealthy eating? Therefore it would confirm what I keep saying all along with state action in social issues like these, it isn't about health or well being at all: it's simply what you like and dislike.


I also hope the experts lobby for a gay sex ban of the same magnitude as the smoking ban - I'm totally sick of all the thousands of people having sex in pubs while I'm trying to have a nice quiet drink next to them

What if this were changed to "I'm totally sick of a small number of people unproportionately costing the health service billions in HIV drugs"?

- - - Updated - - -


Is anyone genuinely stupid enough to compare gay sex to smoking?

If we're discussing public health and state action, then why not?

It was one of the reasons given before the 1967 Act after all as to why homosexual practices were banned in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -


wouldn't it be funny if undertaker was a troll this entire time

just adding to this, thought the thread was gonna be sexually active gay men allowed to give blood soon, in Ireland they're removing the rule which states they can't

I don't believe in the state stepping in over this of course, I would find it absurd. But I find it absurd that people on here can come close to supporting total ban on the mere act of smoking a cigarette for anyone born after 2000 and that's why I am playing devil's advocate.

If the ban-it-brigade stood here and considered state action over the HIV epidemic among homosexuals, then at least they'd show some principle and prove to me that public health was actually their concern (even if I still disagree with them). But they won't do it.

[The Don]

It was only recently we had the 'experts' recommend a blanket ban in cigarettes to those who were born after the year 2000, so this has long gone past the concept of second hand smoking. But indeed, given the promiscuity among homosexuals..... why shouldn't the state step in to help save lives? I mean, if it can do it with smoking/unhealthy foods and alcohol, then why is action morally unacceptable in this instance?

Is it because you *approve* of homosexual relations where as you don't approve of smoking/unhealthy eating? Therefore it would confirm what I keep saying all along with state action in social issues like these, it isn't about health or well being at all: it's simply what you like and dislike.



What if this were changed to "I'm totally sick of a small number of people unproportionately costing the health service billions in HIV drugs"?

- - - Updated - - -



If we're discussing public health and state action, then why not?

It was one of the reasons given before the 1967 Act after all as to why homosexual practices were banned in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't believe in the state stepping in over this of course, I would find it absurd. But I find it absurd that people on here can come close to supporting total ban on the mere act of smoking a cigarette for anyone born after 2000 and that's why I am playing devil's advocate.

If the ban-it-brigade stood here and considered state action over the HIV epidemic among homosexuals, then at least they'd show some principle and prove to me that public health was actually their concern (even if I still disagree with them). But they won't do it.

Please, explain how involuntarily inhaling second hand smoke is comparable to two voluntary adults consenting to have sex. The Smoking Ban is to protect non smokers from the effects (whether you believe there to be any or not is entirely irrelevant) of second hand smoking. Your comparison doesn't serve to protect anyone except the two consenting adults. It's a non comparison, you're essentially comparing apples and oranges.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Please, explain how involuntarily inhaling second hand smoke is comparable to two voluntary adults consenting to have sex. The Smoking Ban is to protect non smokers from the effects (whether you believe there to be any or not is entirely irrelevant) of second hand smoking. Your comparison doesn't serve to protect anyone except the two consenting adults. It's a non comparison, you're essentially comparing apples and oranges.

So HIV carriers don't harm others? Absolutely rubbish.

In any case, you're the one who looked like you would like to endorse a total ban on cigarettes to those born after the year 2000 in the name of public health and safety, so why does this concern for public health not cross over into a demographic group who are at extreme high risk of contracting a deadly disease which they will then pass on to others? Surely, like smokers, they should be forced to do what is better for them and for society?

You're all the same: all for state meddling in smoking, but internet/food/alcohol/the bedroom? WAHHH that's 2far and facizt.

[GommeInc]

Well for starters sex is natural and between two consenting adults it's perfectly fine. Smoking isn't natural and has no benefits whatsoever. So there are huge differences between the two. Also, there won't be a law. It's no different to doctors urging we eat 5 a day. Gay men who are sexually active may be for this as it's another level of protection. Celibate gay men with a bone to pick with non-issues on the other hand can be free to simply not take the drugs. It's urged, not forced or regulated.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well for starters sex is natural and between two consenting adults it's perfectly fine. Smoking isn't natural and has no benefits whatsoever. So there are huge differences between the two. Also, there won't be a law. It's no different to doctors urging we eat 5 a day. Gay men who are sexually active may be for this as it's another level of protection. Celibate gay men with a bone to pick with non-issues on the other hand can be free to simply not take the drugs. It's urged, not forced or regulated.

Oh I'd certainly question whether it is natural sex given the rate of STDs, HIV and Aids + other medical problems. But that's another debate. :P

[GommeInc]

Oh I'd certainly question whether it is natural sex given the rate of STDs, HIV and Aids + other medical problems. But that's another debate. :P
HIV doesn't have a prejudice between heterosexuals or homosexuals.

[-:Undertaker:-]

HIV doesn't have a prejudice between heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Yes it does, look at the rates. Over 50% of all new cases come from MSM.

It's often been said that if we had the same rates among straight people, there would be an epidemic and population crisis.

[The Don]

So HIV carriers don't harm others? Absolutely rubbish.

In any case, you're the one who looked like you would like to endorse a total ban on cigarettes to those born after the year 2000 in the name of public health and safety, so why does this concern for public health not cross over into a demographic group who are at extreme high risk of contracting a deadly disease which they will then pass on to others? Surely, like smokers, they should be forced to do what is better for them and for society?

You're all the same: all for state meddling in smoking, but internet/food/alcohol/the bedroom? WAHHH that's 2far and facizt.

- Smoking Ban is to protect those that don't smoke.
- Smoking effects more people than just the smoker

- Gay sex ban would be attempting to protect those that WANT to have sex.
- Gay sex only effects those consenting to it

Not hard to see the difference.

[-:Undertaker:-]

- Smoking Ban is to protect those that don't smoke.
- Smoking effects more people than just the smoker

- Gay sex ban would be attempting to protect those that WANT to have sex.
- Gay sex only effects those consenting to it

Not hard to see the difference.

You also consent when you walk into a pro-smoking pub, just as somebody consents to sex.

But that still didn't stop you lot.


- Gay sex only effects those consenting to it

Along with the taxpayer which has to foot the bill for very expensive lifetime drug courses.

[The Don]

Oh I'd certainly question whether it is natural sex given the rate of STDs, HIV and Aids + other medical problems. But that's another debate. :P

You do realise that STDs, HIV and Aids are all naturally occurring diseases, therefore natural by definition.

- - - Updated - - -


You also consent when you walk into a pro-smoking pub, just as somebody consents to sex.

But that still didn't stop you lot.

So you admit that they are completely incomparable, cool.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You do realise that STDs, HIV and Aids are all naturally occurring diseases, therefore natural by definition.

I'm not talking about whether the diseases are natural, I am talking about the method in which they are being transferred among high-risk group/s.

Over 50% of all new HIV transmissions are amongst MSM when they only account for 1% to 5% of the population.


So you admit that they are completely incomparable, cool.

Nope, the opposite. If you want to argue on consent, why does consent not matte when it comes to smoking then?

[The Don]

I'm not talking about whether the diseases are natural, I am talking about the method in which they are being transferred among high-risk group/s.



Nope, the opposite. If you want to argue on consent, why does consent not matte when it comes to smoking then?

How can you consent to second hand smoke? It's more sensible to have designated smoking zones. Anyone would think that you're not allowed to smoke, when all you have to do is walk outside to the nice gazebo in the pub garden to spark up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How can you consent to second hand smoke? It's more sensible to have designated smoking zones. Anyone would think that you're not allowed to smoke, when all you have to do is walk outside to the nice gazebo in the pub garden to spark up.

You consent when you walk into private property which allows smoking.

It's a pretty simple concept called property rights that has been around for hundreds of years.

[The Don]

I'm not talking about whether the diseases are natural, I am talking about the method in which they are being transferred among high-risk group/s.

Over 50% of all new HIV transmissions are amongst MSM when they only account for 1% to 5% of the population.


And it's still transferred between men and women so your point is invalid.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And it's still transferred between men and women so your point is invalid.

I love it when people respond with that to gay HIV transmission rates. Talk about heads in the sand.

That's like when people say "well non-smokers also get lung cancer" YES BUT it's much HIGHER amongst smokers, for an obvious reason.

[The Don]

You consent when you walk into private property which allows smoking.

It's a pretty simple concept called property rights that has been around for hundreds of years.

When you open your property to the public that completely changes.

[GommeInc]

Yes it does, look at the rates. Over 50% of all new cases come from MSM.

It's often been said that if we had the same rates among straight people, there would be an epidemic and population crisis.
No it doesn't. Biologically anyone can get HIV/AIDs. A man can pass it to a woman, a woman can pass it to another woman and that woman could pass it to a man who could pass it on to another man. Sexuality doesn't alter your biological structure. Straight men and women have had HIV passed on from heterosexual sex. Hence, it doesn't prejudice.

Furthermore, not all gay men and women have HIV or another other STD, so no it wouldn't cause a epidemic or a population crisis. Although the rates have reported risen, predominantly in the gay community, it's really not that high but as a precaution doctors are urging gay men to take antiviral drugs as a precautionary measure (which aren't exclusively HIV drugs as your article suggests). Surely someone who is pro-choice like yourself would welcome gay men to have the extra protection of taking anti-viral drugs to lower their risks? This is completely different to banning gay sex as this is not the case, so there is no comparison to the smoking ban.

[-:Undertaker:-]

When you open your property to the public that completely changes.

No it doesn't. If you want to nationalise the pubs, then go ahead and campaign for it. Otherwise, stay out of it.

In any case, law or not law, it still doesn't detract from the fact that you consent to walk into a pub that allows smoking.

[The Don]

I love it when people respond with that to gay HIV transmission rates. Talk about heads in the sand.

That's like when people say "well non-smokers also get lung cancer" YES BUT it's much HIGHER amongst smokers, for an obvious reason.

But your entire argument is gay sex isn't natural because you're more likely to transmit HIV through it, but at the same time HIV is transferable between separate sexes so either both are unnatural, or neither are because either method can spread it, just one is less prone to it than the other.

- - - Updated - - -


No it doesn't. If you want to nationalise the pubs, then go ahead and campaign for it. Otherwise, stay out of it.

In any case, law or not law, it still doesn't detract from the fact that you consent to walk into a pub that allows smoking.

Well it does, look at the law. When you open property to the public you have to follow the laws set, whether you like it or not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it doesn't. Biologically anyone can get HIV/AIDs. A man can pass it to a woman, a woman can pass it to another woman and that woman could pass it to a man who could pass it on to another man. Sexuality doesn't alter your biological structure. Straight men and women have had HIV passed on from heterosexual sex. Hence, it doesn't prejudice.

Who argues otherwise? Not me.

My point is that gay sex itself (not the sexuality) is the problem. Clearly it is, just look at the transmission rates.


Furthermore, not all gay men and women have HIV or another other STD, so no it wouldn't cause a epidemic or a population crisis. Although the rates have reported risen, predominantly in the gay community, it's really not that high but as a precaution doctors are urging gay men to take antiviral drugs as a precautionary measure (which aren't exclusively HIV drugs as your article suggests). Surely someone who is pro-choice like yourself would welcome gay men to have the extra protection of taking anti-viral drugs to lower their risks? This is completely different to banning gay sex as this is not the case, so there is no comparison to the smoking ban.

But I am not arguing to ban gay sex, i'm simply using it as an example of how some things which are incredibly dangerous aren't being banned by the do-gooders whilst other things such as a simple cigarette are being banned as though they're the worst thing in the world.

Personally I think you should be allowed to do pretty much anything, even if I find it incredibly stupid and dangerous as I do gay sex AND smoking hence why I have never and will never take part in either. I've looked at both, and found the two to be a risk I wouldn't take.

- - - Updated - - -


But your entire argument is gay sex isn't natural because you're more likely to transmit HIV through it, but at the same time HIV is transferable between separate sexes so either both are unnatural, or neither are because either method can spread it, just one is less prone to it than the other.

When you have rates at the speed of MSM HIV rates, something has got to give.

It could be that sex wasn't intended by nature to be that way, hence why it is open to such medical problems.


Well it does, look at the law. When you open property to the public you have to follow the laws set, whether you like it or not.

The law doesn't equal right and wrong.

[GommeInc]

But I am not arguing to ban gay sex, i'm simply using it as an example of how some things which are incredibly dangerous aren't being banned by the do-gooders whilst other things such as a simple cigarette are being banned as though they're the worst thing in the world.

Personally I think you should be allowed to do pretty much anything, even if I find it incredibly stupid and dangerous as I do gay sex AND smoking hence why I have never and will never take part in either. I've looked at both, and found the two to be a risk I wouldn't take.
Gay sex isn't stupid and dangerous. Also, wasting peoples time using the smoking ban as an example in this case is ridiculous. If you don't want gay sex banned, simply don't mention the smoking ban which is completely different - especially when the source you are referencing mentions nothing about a ban but urging gay men (and any actual journal will say highly-active gay men) to take antivirals to further limit the risks, which is nothing but a good thing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gay sex isn't stupid and dangerous.

Are you saying that because you *want* it to be that way or because you've looked at the medical problems that result in high rates?

[GommeInc]

Are you saying that because you *want* it to be that way or because you've looked at the medical problems that result in high rates?
No because it's pretty obvious. The rates aren't high, they're higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals - huge difference. It's like saying obesity in the UK is high in Scottish people than English people, so therefore Scottish people should not be eating. Obesity is just higher in Scotland. I guarantee the majority of gay men do not have HIV, because not all gay men are at it left right and centre.

[The Don]

When you have rates at the speed of MSM HIV rates, something has got to give.

It could be that sex wasn't intended by nature to be that way, hence why it is open to such medical problems.

'Normal Sex' is open to the same medical problems, just to a lesser extent. Either both are natural or both unnatural since you can transfer it either way. Stop ignoring this point, simply because it happens more frequently with gay sex doesn't ignore the fact that it's transferable between men and women too.


The law doesn't equal right and wrong.

When you open your property to the public it should be suitable for the vast majority of people. If not it would lead to all sorts of segregated problems.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No because it's pretty obvious. The rates aren't high, they're higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals - huge difference. It's like saying obesity in the UK is high in Scottish people than English people, so therefore Scottish people should not be eating. Obesity is just higher in Scotland. I guarantee the majority of gay men do not have HIV, because not all gay men are at it left right and centre.

The rates are not high? Are you joking?

http://www.nat.org.uk/gb.aspx


Some facts about HIV you might not know:

- 1 in 20 gay men in the UK have HIV. This rises to 1 in 10 in London and 1 in 8 in Brighton.

- Over a quarter of gay men with HIV don't know that they're infected.

- In 2009, nearly 40% of gay men diagnosed with HIV were diagnosed late (after the point at which they should have started treatment). This not only has a serious impact on their health but also means it is more likely they will have infected others.

And the CDC in America apparently found 1 in 5 (20%) of gay men are HIV positive: http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/study-20-of-homosexual-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/

That's a huge epidemic among that part of the population, and it cannot be denied.

[The Don]

The rates are not high? Are you joking?

http://www.nat.org.uk/gb.aspx



And the CDC in America apparently found 1 in 5 (20%) of gay men are HIV positive: http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/study-20-of-homosexual-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/

That's a huge epidemic among that part of the population, and it cannot be denied.

http://www.avert.org/media/content/graphs/HIV-diagnoses-by-transmission-route-UK-1981-2012.png

Not a huge difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex.

[-:Undertaker:-]

'Normal Sex' is open to the same medical problems, just to a lesser extent. Either both are natural or both unnatural since you can transfer it either way. Stop ignoring this point, simply because it happens more frequently with gay sex doesn't ignore the fact that it's transferable between men and women too.

I haven't denied that, don't make up what I have or haven't said.

All I have said is that the HIV rate is massively high among MSM which the factor to my mind would be the unnatural method of sex much in the same way that if you do other unnatural things to your body you'll put it at risk of other diseases/conditions, ie smoking/piercings/injections.


When you open your property to the public it should be suitable for the vast majority of people. If not it would lead to all sorts of segregated problems.

There's a role for the state in the basics, but not when it comes to something like smoking.

There's a fine line between a state going overboard into private property and not, and with smoking it has crossed the line.

- - - Updated - - -


http://www.avert.org/media/content/graphs/HIV-diagnoses-by-transmission-route-UK-1981-2012.png

Not a huge difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex.

OH MY GOD. Really!? Do you not understand ratios? MSM, who account for 1% to 5% of the population, rivalling the other 98% in HIV cases ISN'T something to celebrate.

[sex]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28264436

Healthy gay men urged to take HIV drugs - WHO


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76205000/jpg/_76205482_c0201377-hiv,_artwork-spl.jpg
Antiretroviral drugs are more widely used to treat people who are already infected with HIV



Just one of the many reasons i'm celibate/abstinent, the gay health stats are never mentioned: but they're horrifying.



Thank god you are! We don't need you reproducing spreading your ignorance to your kids

[The Don]

OH MY GOD. Really!? Do you not understand ratios? MSM, who account for 1% to 5% of the population, rivalling the other 98% in HIV cases ISN'T something to celebrate.


There's less gay people in the population so of course a higher percentage of them are going to have it? It's simply because there's way more heterosexual people that it weighs down the percentage rates. The actual statistic you need to look at is total amount infected, not the percentage. As you can see from the graph i've posted they are pretty close.

[GommeInc]

A 1 in 20 risk seems a bit far-fetched. In the UK you have a 6.36% chance of dying in a car crash. A 0.03% of dying on board a passenger air craft. These are both out of your control. But having wilful sex is within your control, and to eradicate that 1 in 20 risk you should probably consider not sleeping with just about anyone. Take precautions rather than simply cut out having sex which is perfectly natural. The only ones arguing it isn't are reading a manufactured book (unnatural) and/or have taken a vow of abstinence which is both unnatural and about as logical as having a child preach to you about fiscal policy changes in the last 50 years.

Being urged to take drugs are an added precaution to further lower the risk. It is after all being urged, not forced. If you think gay sex is dangerous, just don't be an idiot and have unprotected sex and have you and your partner checked for diseases before hand.


There's less gay people in the population so of course a higher percentage of them are going to have it? It's simply because there's way more heterosexual people that it weighs down the percentage rates. The actual statistic you need to look at is total amount infected, not the percentage. As you can see from the graph i've posted they are pretty close.
Not forgetting many gay men are purposefully getting themselves checked out for diseases and going to clinics. It's like taking statistics for people going to church - of course a high number are going to be Christian.

[FlyingJesus]

Psssst gay sex isn't inherently dangerous, unprotected sex with anyone whose sexual medical history you don't know is. The problem isn't that there are thousands of queens running around sticking it everywhere they can, it is in fact hugely through unlicensed and forced prostitution where old "straight" men have a Dan-esque mindset about homosexuality and can only get their kicks through underground illicit activity. That's also the reason that it spreads so far through straight couples; people contract it extra-maritally and then pass it on to their unsuspecting partners. Fun fun fun.

[karter]

Singling out homosexual men at this point where LGBT activists are fighting for their rights was not a nice step

This could further complicate situation in India where same sex activity is about to be criminalized by the court (High HIV prevalence being the top reason why it could be banned) Similarly Singapore, Mauritius, Ghana, Kenya

Whatever WHO is trying to do is useless

[MKR&*42]

Stupid decision, the entire approach to gay men via the healthcare system in a lot of countries and now WHO is ridiculous. You need only look at the fact gay men can only donate blood in a tiny proportion of countries and in the UK you have to be sex free for a year in order to be able to do it because of said HIV risk, but if you've had unprotected sex multiple times and you're heterosexual - who cares! It all gets screened so there is no reason to restrict homosexual men from doing it and the attitudes of these health organisations are still stuck in the mid 1950s it seems.

[GommeInc]

The reason it's focused on gay men is that there has been a sudden increase in HIV in the gay community. The focus on the gay community instead of sexually active men in general is because if you focus on men in general the people who are most at risk, e.g. gay men, may not take the advice seriously. That said, the better advice would be "sexually active men should consider taking anti-viral drugs to combat HIV, particularly gay men who most at risk at the moment."

Also, this is the WHO. The same organisation that predicted most of the world would be killed off by swine flu, claiming hundreds died within the first few weeks when it was something like two - and one of them had it but died of something else if I recall correctly.

[sex]

Stupid decision, the entire approach to gay men via the healthcare system in a lot of countries and now WHO is ridiculous. You need only look at the fact gay men can only donate blood in a tiny proportion of countries and in the UK you have to be sex free for a year in order to be able to do it because of said HIV risk, but if you've had unprotected sex multiple times and you're heterosexual - who cares! It all gets screened so there is no reason to restrict homosexual men from doing it and the attitudes of these health organisations are still stuck in the mid 1950s it seems.

To be fair, you can be HIV+ on antivirals and give blood and NOT have it show up in tests / screening if your level is low enough, there are people have basically no trace of the virus in their blood but still HIV+. So there kinda is a reason!

----

And TBH dan's argument was stupid, gay sex shouldn't be outlawed that isn't what WHO are suggesting all they are suggesting is your take a pill a day to reduce your risk. Some Women don't seem to have a problem taking a pill to reduce the risk of pregnancy :S. they are giving you the option to take it. If you are having a lot of sex with a lot of people while using protection this is just an extra added measure lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

Thank god you are! We don't need you reproducing spreading your ignorance to your kids

And where is my ignorance other than pointing out the statistics that MSM are a major factor in HIV stats?

Throwing words around like ignorant, bigot and whatever else doesn't win the argument just because it's a taboo topic.

PS - it's impossible to reproduce via gay sex, so me abstaining has what effect than it would if I were active? Zero.


There's less gay people in the population so of course a higher percentage of them are going to have it? It's simply because there's way more heterosexual people that it weighs down the percentage rates. The actual statistic you need to look at is total amount infected, not the percentage. As you can see from the graph i've posted they are pretty close.

If the population was 50/50 gay/straight, then you'd be correct and I would be wrong - indeed, I wouldn't even be making an argument then as there would be nothing to debate. But that isn't the case: the case is that only 1.5% to 5% of the population are homosexual, yet around half of HIV cases are coming from homosexuals. This equality stuff isn't all what you're being led to believe. Reality > Equality.

But again, it's about looking at ratios.


Psssst gay sex isn't inherently dangerous, unprotected sex with anyone whose sexual medical history you don't know is. The problem isn't that there are thousands of queens running around sticking it everywhere they can, it is in fact hugely through unlicensed and forced prostitution where old "straight" men have a Dan-esque mindset about homosexuality and can only get their kicks through underground illicit activity. That's also the reason that it spreads so far through straight couples; people contract it extra-maritally and then pass it on to their unsuspecting partners. Fun fun fun.

I actually haven't mentioned anything about promiscuity, I believe the major cause is the sex act itself.


Singling out homosexual men at this point where LGBT activists are fighting for their rights was not a nice step

This could further complicate situation in India where same sex activity is about to be criminalized by the court (High HIV prevalence being the top reason why it could be banned) Similarly Singapore, Mauritius, Ghana, Kenya

Whatever WHO is trying to do is useless

Surely the WHO are merely doing their jobs and not being political (LGBTXYZ rights aren't anything to do with what is a medical organisation, that is for national government to decide) and are merely protecting a high risk group.

After all, endless 'education' with the LGBTXYZ community has utterly failed, so what else is there?


And TBH dan's argument was stupid, gay sex shouldn't be outlawed that isn't what WHO are suggesting all they are suggesting is your take a pill a day to reduce your risk. Some Women don't seem to have a problem taking a pill to reduce the risk of pregnancy :S. they are giving you the option to take it. If you are having a lot of sex with a lot of people while using protection this is just an extra added measure lol

I don't recall saying gay sex should be outlawed, I certainly used that as a hypothetical argument.. but I didn't advocate such a thing.

[GommeInc]

If the population was 50/50 gay/straight, then you'd be correct and I would be wrong - indeed, I wouldn't even be making an argument then as there would be nothing to debate. But that isn't the case: the case is that only 1.5% to 5% of the population are homosexual, yet around half of HIV cases are coming from homosexuals. This equality stuff isn't all what you're being led to believe. Reality > Equality.

But again, it's about looking at ratios.
It's more about looking at the reality than the ratios. Not all homosexuals will go to GUM or other sexual health clinics. If anything, the only ones actively going to be checked are those who are sexually active to begin with. It's like going for a pregnancy test - you only go when you know you've had sex and/or are likely to be pregnant, rather than go even though you're abstinent and think you're the next Virgin Mary.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's more about looking at the reality than the ratios. Not all homosexuals will go to GUM or other sexual health clinics. If anything, the only ones actively going to be checked are those who are sexually active to begin with. It's like going for a pregnancy test - you only go when you know you've had sex and/or are likely to be pregnant, rather than go even though you're abstinent and think you're the next Virgin Mary.

But you keep saying it's not all homosexuals which wasn't the claim to begin with. The point is, that a much larger percentage of HIV cases come from homosexual activity which shows that homosexual activity is much more dangerous from a health point of view than hetrosexual sex. That's just the way it is, and it hasn't done the LGBTXYZ community any favours by pretending that the problem of HIV is one equally shared by homosexuals and hetrosexuals because that simply isn't the case. Homosexuals are more at risk because of the nature of how they have sex.

And I take no pleasure in my moral principles, I tried very hard to change them. But I cannot ignore the facts which are so blindingly obvious.

[FlyingJesus]

I actually haven't mentioned anything about promiscuity, I believe the major cause is the sex act itself.

The unprotected act


Homosexuals are more at risk because of the nature of how they have sex.

So you think that anal sex magically produces HIV


But I cannot ignore the facts which are so blindingly obvious.

Facts such as the complete lack of danger inherent to safely performed homosexual activities

[-:Undertaker:-]

The unprotected act

Still a risk I wouldn't take, and that's not mentioning the other potential medical problems.


So you think that anal sex magically produces HIV

Anal sex puts you at a much higher risk of HIV, yep.


Facts such as the complete lack of danger inherent to safely performed homosexual activities

I never said my personal objection was all medical, there's religious/moral and other reasons. But this isn't about my circumstances anyway.

[FlyingJesus]

Did you never have a sex education class or something