You are here . on the pale blue dot


Please note that 'Anonymous' comments without a pseudonym are not published.

Comments for publication should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties please.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites the comments will be removed as spam.

Thursday, 3 August 2017

In the pink



Straight, monogamous heterosexual with cancer but drugs too expensive? Tough.

Gay and promiscuous? Drugs that can prevent HIV infections will be offered to gay men for free via an NHS trial starting next month. 

Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) drug Truvada can "drastically reduce people’s chances of being infected with HIV, and is available in a number of countries to high-risk groups including sex workers, men who have sex with men, and people in serodiscordant relationships."

And the LGBT+ lobby still complains that they are persecuted with the publicly funded BBC taking the lead!

Updates

[07.08.2017]

NHS cutting back on IVF fertility treatment to save money here.

[15.08.2017]

New pill to enable safer promiscuity

 "Over 95% of people living with HIV in the UK have acquired HIV through sex without a condom." - National AIDS Trust. Full Christian Concern report here.

22 comments:

  1. Another example of your anti-gay, inflammatory and obsessive coverage of anything relating to homosexuality; perfectly plain to see. It's your last paragraph that makes the post homophobic because it clearly comes from such a negative, unreasoned and phobic mindset. I won't be needing the drug as although gay I am married. The drug will be offered to high risk people. Presumably you are also against unmarried women on the pill paid for by the NHS? If not then why not - the same logic of yours should apply in that case and if it doesn't (which I doubt it does) then you are unquestionably homophobic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this blog is unfair, and deliberately provocative. Cancer is indiscriminate in the people it attacks. It has nothing to do with anyone's sexual preference. Gay, straight and bisexual people die of cancer on a daily basis. It is therefore unworthy of you to even suggest that it is only straight, monogamous heterosexuals who die of this terrible disease. This afternoon a very good friend of mine died of cancer; and I know that she had nothing but praise for the NHS who funded her medication at a cost of £20,000 a year. My friend was heterosexual through and through.
    Nor is it fair to suggest that only gay men are promiscuous. Only today it was reported that genito-urinary medical clinics have seen a dramatic increase in the attendance of people of both sexes, on account of their unprotected sexual practices.
    The majority of those attending these clinics are heterosexuals.

    Tiglath Pileser

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What pisses one off Tilgath is the sexual expressions and close encounters in public. The majority of homsexual people hate it and are embarrassed.

      Delete
  3. Tilgath - please keep posting. You speak such sense.

    Presumably AB is against the NHS funding the pull for unmarried women. If he isn't then he shows himself to be deliberately provactive and quite clearly homophobic.

    I doubt he'll allow me this comment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scapegoat: I praise you for getting married despite thinking you may be gay. Does you wife know, or do you manage to keep it from her?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am married to my husband, why would you think I have a wife when I stated I was gay. Foolish if you, really!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Having brought confusion and disarray to the church Scapegoat, you now seek to bring it to the practice of medicine with your offbeat views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watchman, how can you call Scapegoat's post above "offbeat"? Logic surely dictates that if it is wrong for the NHS to fund drugs for "promiscuous gay men", as AB suggests in his blog, then it is wrong for it to fund the pill or the morning after pill for promiscuous heterosexual women too? From a moral standpoint, these drugs funded by the NHS encourage promiscuity. There is nothing offbeat in that logic at all.
      Personally, I have no problem with the NHS safeguarding the health of anyone, and I think AB's blog was very misguided.

      Tiglath Pileser

      Delete
    2. You are incorrect Tiglath. I did not suggest that it is wrong for the NHS to fund drugs for "promiscuous gay men". In fact I am not necessarily against the funding of drugs that are likely to save money in the long run as a preventative measure.

      The reference to gay men was a quote from the Pink News headline: "Drugs that can prevent HIV infections will be offered to gay men for free via an NHS trial starting next month". What I was drawing attention to was the irony that a promiscuous life-style choice can be funded while the monogamous suffering through no fault of their own may not be funded.

      In Wales, patients suffering from all illnesses, including cancer, must use the Individual Patient Funding Requests (IPFR) route to apply for health board funding for drugs not available on the NHS in Wales even though they are available on the NHS in England. http://www.wales.nhs.uk/governance-emanual/individual-patient-funding-requests

      Some, it seems, are more equal than others.

      Delete
    3. Glad to see you back peddling from the hideous inferences you made in that post. Surprised you haven't taken it down for the offence it has caused. There's the example you asked for earlier !!!

      Delete
    4. If you have drawn hideous "inferences" from what you have interpreted as being implied, that is your problem Scapegoat.
      You cannot change the facts by making more false accusations.
      Before attempting another example please read what is written and do not draw inferences that were not implied.

      Delete
    5. Tiglath marked your card correctly - I was being kind when I used the term inference. That said I see Christ-incognito in you as you back peddle From quite clear anti-gay views. Work on that

      Delete
  7. Watchman, post positively and constructively else not at all. What on earth are you getting at? Ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scapegoat please do not presume to instruct commentators or it will be you who finds that his comments are not published.

      Delete
  8. In the U.S., when the AIDS epidemic struck and AZT first came available, the AIDS lobby got the government to pay for the treatment by creating a carve-out for that disease under Medicaid. I thought this was unfair to uninsured cancer patients who could not get any help from Uncle Sam. I concluded that the gay lobby squeaked loudest while the cancer patients were mostly old, tired, and not political.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As I did mention in the previous blog,there seems to be a confusion between sex and love.
    Anonymous says above that it is unfair to suggest only gay men are promiscuous. This is the nub of the problem : if the homosexual men engaged in monogamous relationships there were be no call for PrEP.
    It is not about love for the guy you casually find but the reward is sexual satisfaction.
    Furthermore, if the gay sexual activity did not involve abnormal anatomical sexual behaviour then the HIV virus would not be transmitted.
    It is certainly about 'health' but stupidity is not a matter for which the NHS should bear the cost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple Soul, why are so blinkered? HIV is not only transmitted through sex. There are children who have HIV which they have inherited from their mothers at birth. There are those who have been infected through blood transfusions. There are others who have been infected through using dirty needles.
      In every generation, there are those who need someone to blame for the ills of society. If the divine law requires of us the imperative to love our neighbour as we love ourselves, then we need to stop scapegoating people, and piling guilt and blame on them. There is no Christian love or charity in that.
      It is interesting that to the side of this box, AB has an icon of our Lord, with the words under it: I am the way, the truth and the life. Yet all too often, we prefer to live with urban myths, than face up to the truth. The truth is, as was revealed by the Department of Health this week, that the sexual health clinics of this country are overrun with heterosexuals. QED, heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as gay men. I am not trying to justify promiscuity in any section of society, but it is totally unfair to suggest that this problem lies with gay men, and that they are to blame for HIV transmission.

      Tiglath Pileser

      Delete
  10. Bugger the National Trust5 August 2017 at 08:55

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-40825660

    "National Trust volunteers refuse to wear LGBTQ badges"

    Now the National Trust feel it necessary to jump on the queer "pride" bandwagon over their outing of a very private man.
    Without exception, all my gay friends are horrified by the BBC gay promotion PR campaign being waged at license fee payers expense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Tiglath. PrEP is to be taken in an attempt to prevent sexually transmitted HIV infection.
    Sadly there are persons who have suffered HIV and AIDS via blood transfusion because the blood donor was without doubt a promiscuous homosexual. There is no clinical value in giving the PrEP drugs to those who have received contaminated blood.
    The issue that AB discussed is that the drug will be offered to gay men via the NHS,and my point is that these promiscuous men should financially pay for their risky leisure activity.

    Furthermore AB has also pointed out that there are patients who cannot get the appropriate cancer drugs and other drugs without making an individual request which may not be honoured.
    These patients knew no way to avoid developing cancer ,but as I have clearly indicated the gay men can avoid HIV by avoiding very abnormal sexual behaviour. This matter has nothing to do with 'loving thy neighbour' as is suggested by anonymous. It would be part of love and charity for the gay men to acknowledge their risks to themselves and to the rest of society ,and if they are unable to restrain themselves from such risky anatomically undesirable acts , then they should be charged money to cover the risks they have freely chosen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple Soul, go and work in a GUM clinic for a month, and come back and we will have this discussion. You are so blinkered, I am amazed that you can even see your computer to type in your posts. What you and AB are not prepared to accept is that heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as gay men. That comes from Government statistics.

      Tiglath Pileser

      Tiglath Pileser

      Delete
  12. This dreadful virus is not associated with promiscuity in the heterosexual population. It is spread by the rather unsavoury and abnormal sexual practices of gay or bisexual men.
    A guy may get on with loving another guy, but I assure you that HIV would not spread from one to another if the guys did not insist on misplacing and abusing their anatomy.
    If this is not understood please make enquiries at the appropriate clinic.
    (And thank you for your interest in my typing.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple soul, if this virus has got nothing to do with the heterosexual community, the how do explain women who are infected with HIV, and heterosexual men who have HIV? Don't tell me they shook hands with a gay man.

      Tiglath Pileser

      Delete