Scientist scramble to clarify MRSA report.

[Sleeper]

"I think we were looking at this from a scientific point of view and not projecting any political impact. We were focusing on the data."

They go on to say it has been misinterpreted, including things like "general population" included gay men, which it does.

They clearly were not thinking when they published that report. I don't think I can say I believe that science should have to tailor its statements to political concerns.

[Cyphon88]

sorry what report?

[Captain Blackadder]

The one mentioned in this article

http://outandaboutnewspaper.com/article.php?id=2314

It basically said that the infection MSRA is more prevalent in gay men then anywhere else which lead some newspapers to say that it is a gay man disease. The scientists have come out and said they all misinterpreted the report.

[Sleeper]

To be clear. The scientists have said that others misinterpreted the report. What they (the scientists) said was the truth. Almost all MRSA is contracted in hospitals in the US. Right now though, outside of hospitals, it is overwhelming prevalent only in the sexually active male homosexual population, at least according to the San Francisco study which covered many major US cities.

The real point here is should science have to think about politics when publishing data. Right wing idiots have taken this real data and turned it to their ignorant agenda, but it is more distressing for me that the scientists and doctors are forced to backtrack on many of their statements because left wing idiots are hurt by the truth.

[Ummagumma]

it is overwhelming prevalent only in the sexually active male homosexual population

Is that not what they say, as you say yourself? Any extra inference is just nonsense, but if there is a demographically identifiable issue, then surely it should be known and be investigated - if only to try to find out why. Would that be 'persecution of a minority'? Or is it best left ignored?

*cue conspiracy theory on attempted mass murder by [insert agency/group here], and gay rights activists shouting about various cover-ups*

[Syron]

The real point here is should science have to think about politics when publishing data. Right wing idiots have taken this real data and turned it to their ignorant agenda, but it is more distressing for me that the scientists and doctors are forced to backtrack on many of their statements because left wing idiots are hurt by the truth.

In theory of course not, but you have to look at the practicalities.

HIV in it's early days was considered a "gay disease", a stance particularly supported in the media and in the end this was probably one of the most damaging things to the fight to stop the spread of the virus.

For this reason Health officials are wary of giving the media the chance to spread such crap again so in the end it's probably a good thing they set the media straight on the issues involved.

[Sleeper]

HIV in it's early days was considered a "gay disease", a stance particularly supported in the media and in the end this was probably one of the most damaging things to the fight to stop the spread of the virus.

HIV was a gay disease in the US in the early days. That was the problem, not the media classifying it as such. This was before the gay rights movement took off and no one cared because it was a gay disease. If we had cared it likely would not have taken off so quickly. Lets remember that the bath house culture was the primary vehicle for the explosion of HIV in the US, and the homosexual rights activists of the time fought closing the bathhouses up until the moment they didn't. Why the bathhouses existed is its own issue, with blame falling on both society and the minority involved.

[Syron]

HIV was a gay disease in the US in the early days. That was the problem, not the media classifying it as such. This was before the gay rights movement took off and no one cared because it was a gay disease.

a) There's no such thing as a "gay-disease". Infact over here, in some areas the highest rate of HIV/AIDS diagnosis (via related infections) is in older straight women who have likely had HIV for some time but not been tested because of the idea that HIV is a gay-disease. All the figures on HIV infection are highly skewed by societal perception.

b) The gay rights movement had taken off by the early 80's, the media response was likely a backlash.

Why the bathhouses existed is its own issue, with blame falling on both society and the minority involved.

Eh? There are the same things for heterosexuals called brothels that are just as efficient at spreading sti's. Gays aren't allowed bathhouses but brothels are totally fine?

[Sleeper]

a) There's no such thing as a "gay-disease".

I was using the term you used.

Infact over here, in some areas the highest rate of HIV/AIDS diagnosis (via related infections) is in older straight women who have likely had HIV for some time but not been tested because of the idea that HIV is a gay-disease. All the figures on HIV infection are highly skewed by societal perception.

The CDC was on to HIV by the very early 1980s and it was almost exclusive to hemos and homos.

b) The gay rights movement had taken off by the early 80's, the media response was likely a backlash.

HIV is why the gays went public. They had no choice because no one was doing anything. Ronald Reagan didn't even acknowledge HIV existed until Rock Hudson died.

Eh? There are the same things for heterosexuals called brothels that are just as efficient at spreading sti's. Gays aren't allowed bathhouses but brothels are totally fine?

They are not even close to the same things. HIV was not aware that there is some sort of heterosexual vs homosexual war going on. The bath houses were a direct factor in the spread of HIV. That is why Gay Activists were the ones who finally insisted they be closed.

[Sleeper]

They have tried to spin around that statement after many groups protested that they were not thinking about homosexuals feelings. That is what bothers me. Science should be above politics for all of our best interests. Who should have access to information is its own tale.

[Ummagumma]

many groups protested that they were not thinking about homosexuals feelings.

Aaawwww. Didums.
Positive discrimination is still discrimination, however you dress it up - yet politics is always politics, I suppose. Facts are facts and they should be what counts in such situations.

[Sleeper]

Brothels and bathhouses are both dangerous and different things. You said gay disease, I used your term, which means I used it in the same way. Bathhouses are why the disease spread through the gay population, which is its epicenter in the US.

The Gay Rights movement in the US began as it is today because of AIDS. At least, that is what gay rights activists believe.

We were talking about HIV in the US. If you want to change the discussion, you have a small point.

To reitirate. You cannot use the term gay disease and then make your counter argument a lecture about how there are no gay diseases. Well, you can, but it is inane reasoning. I used your term when responding to your argument.

[Syron]

Brothels and bathhouses are both dangerous and different things. You said gay disease, I used your term, which means I used it in the same way. Bathhouses are why the disease spread through the gay population, which is its epicenter in the US.

Ah, i see. dodging the question. I doubt you even know how a bathhouse works. Besides, bathhouses are not the only method, how the **** do you think straight people get infected too?

The Gay Rights movement in the US began as it is today because of AIDS. At least, that is what gay rights activists believe.

No, they don't and i doubt you've asked one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

The gay liberation movement began because of intimidation by the authorities.

We were talking about HIV in the US. If you want to change the discussion, you have a small point.

Firstly no, I brought up HIV in general not just in the US. The only thing pertaining to the US here is the article about MRSA infections. Secondly if it was something intrinsic to gay people it wouldn't matter where in the world you were.

To reitirate. You cannot use the term gay disease and then make your counter argument a lecture about how there are no gay diseases. Well, you can, but it is inane reasoning. I used your term when responding to your argument.

I said HIV was perceived as a "gay disease" (as in something heterosexual people didn't need to worry about) when in fact there is no such thing. It was you who said that this thing "a gay disease" existed. So ****ing what you were using that terminology? It makes no difference to the concept.

[Sleeper]

Ah, i see. dodging the question. I doubt you even know how a bathhouse works. Besides, bathhouses are not the only method, how the **** do you think straight people get infected too?

Bathhouses are not brothels. I don't know why you insist on thinking gay men only have sex for money.

No, they don't and i doubt you've asked one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
The gay liberation movement began because of intimidation by the authorities.

Not from the US, are you?

I said HIV was perceived as a "gay disease" (as in something heterosexual people didn't need to worry about) when in fact there is no such thing. It was you who said that this thing "a gay disease" existed. So ****ing what you were using that terminology? It makes no difference to the concept.

Last time. I used your term in the same way you did. I simply pointed out that it was perceived that way because there was an incredibly high ratio of early cases in that specific minority. You said gay disease. I responded to your argument. If this much does not sink in I will not respond to you again, and I will put you on ignore. If you are not capable of understanding how argument and counter argument works, we have little more to say to one another.


In 1984...fear of AIDS caused the San Francisco Health Department, with the support of some gay activists, and against the opposition of other gay activists, to ask the courts to close gay bathhouses in the city.

[Syron]

Bathhouses are not brothels. I don't know why you insist on thinking gay men only have sex for money.

HIV doesn't discriminate over whether people are paid or not. Method of payment has nothing to do with the similarity with how both function in respect to sexual intercourse.

Not from the US, are you?

Is that meant to be a response? As you can see, gay liberation was around for a long time before HIV which directly contradicts what you just said.

I simply pointed out that it was perceived that way because there was an incredibly high ratio of early cases in that specific minority.

Well from my reading that's not quite what you said but i'm not going to argue over the matter so i'll put it down to misinterpretation.

[Sleeper]

HIV doesn't discriminate over whether people are paid or not. Method of payment has nothing to do with the similarity with how both function in respect to sexual intercourse.

I was misinterpreting because of frustration. Bathhouses function very differently from brothels.

Is that meant to be a response? As you can see, gay liberation was around for a long time before HIV which directly contradicts what you just said.

Gay liberation has been around since Plato minimum in the West. The current incarnation of the gay movement: public, public, unrepentant, hiding nothing is a result of HIV forcing the movement into the public eye.

Think of the civil rights movement in the US. It started with pre abolitionists but did not take on the force of public approval until the 1950's and especially 1960's.

Well from my reading that's not quite what you said but i'm not going to argue over the matter so i'll put it down to misinterpretation.

Thank you.

[Da Skinna]

And don't black people have a higher chance of heart disease or something?
Fat people a higher chance of cholesterol problems et al?

So this report is saying that because gay people how again? They get a higher chance of skin infection? Are they just dirtier or something, is that what it's saying?

I might (or should) just read it again but if someone could clarify or at least post the part I skipped I can make sense of this.

[Sleeper]

No. They are saying that the bug, outside of hospitals, is found in a specific population. It happens to be gay men from or who have visited urban areas.

[Da Skinna]

Male nurses perhaps?

[Sleeper]

No.