Healthy gay men urged by the WHO to take HIV drugs

[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/2010/09/2...-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/2010/09/2...-half-know-it/

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

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 - - -

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

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.