3 ms·

>Hepatitis This isn't limited to homosexual activity and is far more prevalent in exclusively heterosexual "populations." In fact, there isn't a correlation be

>Hepatitis This isn't limited to homosexual activity and is far more prevalent in exclusively heterosexual "populations." In fact, there isn't a correlation between any kind of sexual spectrum (though there are sexual activities that increase risk of infection, male or female partners). It just is. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1195276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1195276/ Where are you getting your information from? >HIV fear being reduced due to PReP, and decreased use of condoms. As a Western homosexual (there are more heterosexuals in the world with HIV than homosexuals), this is a concern. But it's largely about HIV resurgence. Condoms can help prevent a whole host of STI's/STD's so it's always just good practice, and one that's been waning lately due to lack of education, community reinforcement because of the former, and people thinking everyone is on PReP. And of course, HIV isn't the death sentence it once was. As far as other STD's go, you'll need to provide some data in regards to those diseases specifically impacting the homosexual community.

rdl 8y ago
There of course isn't one global homosexual community, but SF public health and other targeted information is what I see the most of. It may be biased just because it's pretty well funded and relatively well executed, but as someone without particular interest in STDs, it's what I see the most information about. e.g. https://josephsciambra.com/increasing-rates-of-all-stds-among-gay-men-in-san-francisco/ https://josephsciambra.com/increasing-rates-of-all-stds-amon... https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/StudiesData/STD/SFSTDAnnlSum2014.pdf https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/StudiesData/STD/SFST... http://www.sfcityclinic.org/providers/PromotingSexualHealth_Clinicians_112717.pdf http://www.sfcityclinic.org/providers/PromotingSexualHealth_... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034619/ Re: Hepatitis: https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm In general total number of infected persons is probably not as meaningful a metric in terms of transmission risk for a member of the population as rate per 100k or rate of new infections per year per 100k in a group. There are a lot more heterosexuals, non-IV-drug-users, and non-professional-sex-workers in the world. It's also possibly worth normalizing rates based on age cohort or number of sexual partners, relationship status, etc.; a monogamous gay couple of 20 years is essentially certainly of lower STD risk than a heterosexual with multiple new partners per year. But as a population, certain populations do tend to engage in a constellation of riskier behaviors, and have higher incidence of disease and of new infection.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  Of course a decrease in condom use would most likely yield an increase in STD rates in any community. I'm having trouble discerning which source supports this: >are prevalent in certain communities at higher rates. You then seem to switch your perspective in the comment I'm replying to: > total number of infected persons is probably not as meaningful a metric in terms of transmission risk Which I would agree with, but you're not even addressing it. And of course the obvious needs to be said, the total number of people effected is needed to to ascertain which STD's "are prevalent in certain communities at higher rates." I'm still trying to figure out which STD's (besides HIV in the Western hemisphere), you're talking about. Also if you're going to source stuff could you be bothered to not link to opinion pieces that are just a collection of cherry-picked quotes? There was no data or real scientific hypothesis involved. It was an opinion piece from an author who has quite the record on fighting LGBT+ rights. In fact there are two authors who clearly have a religious context to their arguments, a context that is detrimental to any rational conversation about this subject. It's well understood that such attitudes affect care and treatment, and the willingness to seek out care and treatment for young LGBT+ people. At best it's just non-sense, at worst such authors are actively helping the problem stay around.
  - rdl 8y ago
    1) "About 10% of new Hepatitis A and 20% of all new Hepatitis B infections in the United States are among gay and bisexual men" (CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm) -- that's a much higher number than the incidence of gay and bisexual men in the overall population of the US (2-5%?). 2) "Gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men have the highest prevalences of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and early syphilis." (SFDPH, https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/StudiesData/STD/SFSTDAnnlSum2014.pdf https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/StudiesData/STD/SFST...) 3) "Men who have anal sex with men (MSM) are more likely to get anal HPV than men who only have sex with women. Researchers estimate that the prevalence of anal HPV among men who only have sex with women is around 15% while anal HPV prevalence for MSM is around 60%." (https://betablog.org/anal-cancer-hpv-gay-men-need-know/ https://betablog.org/anal-cancer-hpv-gay-men-need-know/ which references http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/203/1/66.full.pdf+html http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/203/1/66.full.pdf+html)

rdl 8y ago

There of course isn't one global homosexual community, but SF public health and other targeted information is what I see the most of. It may be biased just because it's pretty well funded and relatively well executed, but as someone without particular interest in STDs, it's what I see the most information about. e.g. https://josephsciambra.com/increasing-rates-of-all-stds-among-gay-men-in-san-francisco/ https://josephsciambra.com/increasing-rates-of-all-stds-amon... https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/StudiesData/STD/SFSTDAnnlSum2014.pdf https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/StudiesData/STD/SFST... http://www.sfcityclinic.org/providers/PromotingSexualHealth_Clinicians_112717.pdf http://www.sfcityclinic.org/providers/PromotingSexualHealth_... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034619/ Re: Hepatitis: https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm In general total number of infected persons is probably not as meaningful a metric in terms of transmission risk for a member of the population as rate per 100k or rate of new infections per year per 100k in a group. There are a lot more heterosexuals, non-IV-drug-users, and non-professional-sex-workers in the world. It's also possibly worth normalizing rates based on age cohort or number of sexual partners, relationship status, etc.; a monogamous gay couple of 20 years is essentially certainly of lower STD risk than a heterosexual with multiple new partners per year. But as a population, certain populations do tend to engage in a constellation of riskier behaviors, and have higher incidence of disease and of new infection.

kadendogthing 8y ago
Of course a decrease in condom use would most likely yield an increase in STD rates in any community. I'm having trouble discerning which source supports this: >are prevalent in certain communities at higher rates. You then seem to switch your perspective in the comment I'm replying to: > total number of infected persons is probably not as meaningful a metric in terms of transmission risk Which I would agree with, but you're not even addressing it. And of course the obvious needs to be said, the total number of people effected is needed to to ascertain which STD's "are prevalent in certain communities at higher rates." I'm still trying to figure out which STD's (besides HIV in the Western hemisphere), you're talking about. Also if you're going to source stuff could you be bothered to not link to opinion pieces that are just a collection of cherry-picked quotes? There was no data or real scientific hypothesis involved. It was an opinion piece from an author who has quite the record on fighting LGBT+ rights. In fact there are two authors who clearly have a religious context to their arguments, a context that is detrimental to any rational conversation about this subject. It's well understood that such attitudes affect care and treatment, and the willingness to seek out care and treatment for young LGBT+ people. At best it's just non-sense, at worst such authors are actively helping the problem stay around.
- rdl 8y ago
  1) "About 10% of new Hepatitis A and 20% of all new Hepatitis B infections in the United States are among gay and bisexual men" (CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm) -- that's a much higher number than the incidence of gay and bisexual men in the overall population of the US (2-5%?). 2) "Gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men have the highest prevalences of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and early syphilis." (SFDPH, https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/StudiesData/STD/SFSTDAnnlSum2014.pdf https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/StudiesData/STD/SFST...) 3) "Men who have anal sex with men (MSM) are more likely to get anal HPV than men who only have sex with women. Researchers estimate that the prevalence of anal HPV among men who only have sex with women is around 15% while anal HPV prevalence for MSM is around 60%." (https://betablog.org/anal-cancer-hpv-gay-men-need-know/ https://betablog.org/anal-cancer-hpv-gay-men-need-know/ which references http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/203/1/66.full.pdf+html http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/203/1/66.full.pdf+html)