Have a read of this story carried on the BBC US news page today. It’s another one of those numerous shock horror tales the BBC loves to carry warning us of the danger that we all face from HIV/Aids. Turns out that the the number of Americans infected with the HIV virus each year is actually some 56,000 rather than the earlier annual estimate of 40,000. More proof of the “epidemic” being worse than we figured. But how about the BBC asking why it is that the increase in HIV is actually predominantly amongst young gay men, and in particular black men?30% of HIV diagnosis occur amongst the US black population, but yet it is only 12% of the total US population, so surely THAT is a news story? HIV has decreased in the heterosexual population. No one is suggesting that HIV/Aids is not an issue but unless one is a homosexual/drug user/visitor to brothels it really is not a general health concern. Makes you wonder why the BBC seems so concerned about it……
AIDS/HIV HYSTERIA
Bookmark the permalink.
David: You answered the question yourself. If you’re got a practicing homosexual or druggie. I just wonder what % of the BBC would fall into either or both?
Martin, that is an interesting question. Does anyone have any idea? It is known that they tend to recruit like-minded people so Hampstead Heath, gents’ bogs, or cocaine table could actually be the BBC’s source of recruitment – and job interviews!
Allan@Oslo: Well the comment on the right of the blog from Andrew Marr probably gives us a clue.
Certainly we’ve seen alot of beeboids involved with drugs over the years and I think it’s fair to say that the performing arts and the media is a career that attracts the gay community.
The BBC used to report rises in UK HIV rates without reference to African immigration. This formed the bulk of new HIV cases in the UK for a number of years, and probably still does.
Nowadays I’ve noticed that the Beeb put in a sentence where it says that most recent cases “were acquired overseas” or words to that effect.
It is somewhat misleading as you could assume that it’s wayward youngsters returning from Ibiza.
Richy:
… and that’s exactly why they put it like that!
No one is suggesting that HIV/Aids is not an issue but unless one is a homosexual/drug user/visitor to brothels it really is not a general health concern.
Oh I dunno. I think anything that kills 56,000 people a year is a general concern.
Context: about 40,000 die in road accidents per year in the US. Around 30,000 from firearms. And 550 kids drown in unsupervised swimming in domestic pools.
Road safety, due care when using guns and swimming pools are all regarded as proper matters for general consideration and debate.
Why not AIDS – or are you saying a heterosexual’s life is worth more than a homosexual’s?
Anonymous wrote:
“I think anything that kills 56,000 people a year is a general concern.”
The BBC’s report stated:
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said 56,000 people had become infected with the virus that causes Aids in 2006.”
I conclude that Anonymous did not read the report or the thread but just likes to put in smug comments in order to get that nice, self-satisfied glow usually associated with leftists frozen in adolescence.
Anonymous: The point is that the 56,000 infections, whilst worrying, is not the subject of any law or regulation to limit its increase, as are the others risks identified.
Road accidents are usually unavoidable, or a fortuity. Where they are caused by dangerous driving, the guilty party is sought out.
Firearms is the same. 550 kids drowning in unsupervised swimming pools would also be subject to Health and Safety law. (Or, if private pools, a gross negligence action).
Acquiring AIDS is altogether a different matter. There is not (and should not be) any kind of regulation for individual preferences (although the Left appear to prefer otherwise) therefore there is a moral and personal decision to made by the individuals.
So you cannot lump all three together in the same risk profile.
Apologies, above ‘Anonymous’ was from myself.
Cheeta | Homepage | 04.08.08 – 1:44 pm
Allan@Oslo | 04.08.08 – 12:23 pm
I take both your points – particularly Allan’s about my failure to read the story!
But I don’t have any ‘agenda’ or call for regulation/government action/legislation.
I just thought that it was wrong of David Vance to say that the matter of people catching HIV/AIDS was of no concern to the general population.
I think any public health issue of this size is of concern.
Nearly all homosexuals and drug users will have parents, siblings and friends who are heterosexual and not addicted.
And probably every family of any size will include at least one member who is in one of the ‘at risk’ groups. So most of us will have a gay nephew, a cousin who’s had drug problems and many of us will have seen something of this sort closer to home.
Sneeringly saying that it’s all of interest only to gays, druggies and the beeboids is just a cheap shot in my view.
There is a difference with homosexuals and HIV/Aids and say car accidents.
Homosexuals partake in an act (anal intercourse) that makes being infected far more likely. In particular the favourite act of ‘barebacking’ (as discussed on the BBC a while back) which puts these people at particular risk.
The same applies to drug addicts. They have a lifestyle choice. Don’t take drugs and you won’t get infected. Don’t do anal and you won’t get infected. Don’t have unprotected sex with prostitutes (or better still not at all) and you won’t get infected.
With car accidents, often it is caused by an incident outside of the control of the person who has the accident (say being run over or hit by a drunk driver)
Martin | 04.08.08 – 4:17 pm
Yeah well smoking is a choice thing to. But no one pretends that the health risks associated with smoking are not a matter of public concern/interest.
Anonymous 4:25 pm:
The issue there is whether or not you are causing other people to have health problems by your smoking (a matter for some debate I believe).
My personal point of view on the subject is tainted by the fact I am allergic to tobacco smoke…
Yes smoking is a choice thing. I’d like to choose NOT to breathe in the smoke from people who choose to take part.
You could also add in Mountain climbing, motor racing and so on.
It’s a worn old story that the gay left druggie mafia types wheel out.
Why would any homosexual indulge in barebacking knowing that there is a very good change of getting infected?
Oh hang on….
_________________________________________
Nigel Wrench, one of the most famous news presenters on Radio 4, became HIV-positive in 1993 as a result of having sex on Hampstead Heath with a man who didn’t want to use a condom. You would think that 1993 was a bit late to behave so foolishly and that it might have been a chastening experience. Quite the contrary. Wrench now regularly has unprotected sex – “barebacking”, it’s called – and, in an article in the Pink Paper and an interview in the Guardian, he wants to start a “rational debate” on the subject.
“Barebacking can be warm, exciting and involving,” he states. “We need to debate it. But don’t let’s start by writing it off as irresponsible and stupid. That, frankly, is both absurd and dangerous.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/200003270022
_______________________________________
Drug taking is illegal. By all means make smoking illegal if you want.
Anonymous | 04.08.08 – 4:25 pm |
Yeah well smoking is a choice thing to. But no one pretends that the health risks associated with smoking are not a matter of public concern/interest.
Then what would you say to the imposition of a tax on cover charges to bath houses and certain gay clubs?
If we are to take seriously your suggestion that the dangers to the general public of the spread of HIV/AIDS are analogous to tobacco, then it’s time to talk about legislation aimed at behavior change. That’s what all sin taxes are about, which these days seems to include fuel and energy use.
Further, if legislation preventing the sale or advertising of tobacco and alcohol to minors is in the interests of public health, then other life-style choices are next.
Hypothetically: The life-style of choice of multiple sex partners without the use of condoms is a danger to public health. There is no discrimination here of sexual orientation. This life-style behavior can be clinically defined without gender terms. However, if there are public venues (bars, clubs, cruises, holiday camps) where it is known that people engage in these dangerous acts, then a tax can and should be levied. If the majority of these venues happen to cater exclusively to a promiscuous, unsafe homosexual lifestyle, that should not suddenly mean that this isn’t a danger to the general public, should it? There should also be restrictions on promoting a promiscuous gay lifestyle to minors.
If we’re to take you seriously, that is.
the topic is massively politicised.
I heard a BBC article about the difficulty AIDS charities are having coping with the opinions of Africans who have a ‘traditional’ view of homosexuality and the resentment of some gays of Africans who are claiming their share of the £500 million we spend on HIV/AIDS treatment.
Finally there was a heterosexual girl who was infected by her first serious boyfriend. there was no mention of the route of his infection, drug user, bi-sexual, unfortunate hemophiliac or foreign?
My main problem with the BBC and its blatant bias on this and virtually all other issues is it’s persistent bias by omission. This item was the first time I have ever heard the BBC tell the nation that the growth of AIDS in Britain is largely the result of people arriving, infected, from Africa. Similarly we hear lots of public health angst about TB prevalence increasing – again this is down to non-indigenous population influx, but this fact is never mentioned. The fact is tthat people are ill when they arrive and are massively distorting the UK public health position.
BBC ‘sensitivity’ dictates that this fact is not acceptable, doesn’t fit the narrative and therefore is not published. My real worry is how much public resource has been wasted addressing the wrong issue (mass screening for TB is debated) just as the police insist on searching everyone including little old ladies as potential hooligans / blade carriers just so that the known target groups are not stigmatised.
the BBC live in their own liberal la-la land where PC orthodoxy triumphs over rationality every time
It’s all too much | 04.08.08 – 8:02 pm |
This item was the first time I have ever heard the BBC tell the nation that the growth of AIDS in Britain is largely the result of people arriving, infected, from Africa…. BBC ‘sensitivity’ dictates that this fact is not acceptable, doesn’t fit the narrative and therefore is not published.
? ? ? ?
Two thirds of all new cases diagnosed last year were in people who contracted HIV in other countries where the virus is more prevalent, such as sub-Saharan Africa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6172230.stm
Of the 21,115 adults diagnosed with HIV between 1985 and 2003, 9% were likely to have been infected within the UK.
The rest includes people who are UK born who were infected when they travelled abroad, or people from countries with high HIV rates, mainly in Africa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4335757.stm
Most new cases of HIV and AIDS among heterosexuals originated in Africa, new figures show.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/788137.stm
And what is the one word not found in any of those reports?
“Immigration”.
Is that not a bit odd?
Hugh | 05.08.08 – 1:12 pm
Immigrants may face HIV tests
The government is considering plans to test all immigrants for HIV……..
Ministers are believed to be looking at procedures in Australia, Canada and other countries where everyone seeking permanent residence is screened for HIV…..
A spokesman for the Home Office said a decision on whether to introduce compulsory HIV testing for immigrants had not yet been taken.
“We are looking at this issue but no decision has been,” he said. “We are reviewing the situation.”
The review is part of a cross-departmental study, which is examining the impact of immigration on public health.
Official figures show HIV, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases increased sharply last year.
In the case of HIV, three out of four heterosexuals diagnosed with the disease last year had come from Africa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2756849.stm
Sorry, I didn’t suggest the Beeb had never used the word. Clearly they’re going to struggle to avoid it sometimes. What I was suggesting was that, where possible, they deliberately obfuscate. I think the three examples above show that.
HIV/AIDS in Arab World Up 300 Percent
http://www.thebody.com/content/world/art40433.html