A series of papers on “HIV in Men Who Have Sex with Men” from the prestigious British medical journal, Lancet, were presented as a symposium at the recent international AIDS 2012 conference in Washington, DC. Not necessarily surprisingly, given current scientific dogma, one of the major causes of the continuing epidemic among active homosexual men was cited as homophobia and discrimination against gay men.
Oh yes, there are some behavioral risk factors, of course, but if only gay men felt secure enough to take advantage of best medical practices, HIV incidence would plummet. Toxic intolerance, especially religious bigotry, compels homosexual men, particularly black homosexual men, to forgo proper care and increases risk. Huh?
One might reasonably ask what behavioral risks? Within the papers, we find that active homosexual men are eighteen times more likely to contract the HIV virus and AIDS than the general population. A single homosexual act with a new partner puts the impassioned at a 1.4% risk of HIV infection. Why is that?
Several factors are named. In the interest of keeping this a family friendly, PG rated blog, some discretion will be necessary. Anal sex is more risky (if not more frisky) since HIV is a gut-tropic virus. (i.e. the little guys tend to prosper in the alimentary canal.) Secondly, since the male can be (not to put too fine a point on it) either the inserter or recipient in the transaction, the odds of something going awry increase and things can get dicey. An additional risk factor, despite protestations of forever love and marriage, irrefutable statistics show the gay lifestyle to be predominantly promiscuous. Multiple partners mean multiplication, if not exponential risk; it’s just math. As a further result of these behaviors, gay men also have far higher rates of infection by other STDs, depression and substance abuse. But, it’s homophobia that’s really at the root of the problem.
Whether the discussion is global warming/climate change, the creation of our universe, embryonic stem cell research (now largely moot due to scientific advancements using adult stem cells) and even “definitive” studies “proving” conservatives suffer from a kind of mental illness, increasing impenetrability is encountered when trying to ascertain the real facts. It seems almost impossible to determine what’s really behind the conclusions. Larry Summers, former head of the Economic Council for President Obama and Treasury Secretary for President Clinton, lost his job as President of Harvard University when he said women were underrepresented at the highest levels of science, and that may be caused because women, while possessing higher average intelligence than men, are underrepresented at the periphery of the intelligence bell curve – both ends: more male geniuses and more males with below normal IQs. Just citing a scientific study sealed his fate among the faculty, which condemned him with a vote of no confidence.
If someone presumes to question the causes or the proposed solutions for global warming, they are relegated to the ranks of anti science Neanderthals, but the scandalous emails exposing the ideological agenda of the purveyors of global warming are passed off as an anomaly. If a layperson suggests that cloning human beings to kill them and harvest their stem cells may pose moral difficulty, well that reactionary is clearly a desperately ignorant, knuckle dragging dupe. Physics by definition has no idea what occurred before the Big Bang, when time and space and light and matter came into being, yet if someone suggests that there may be a theological explanation, the derision dripping from some scientists is transcendent.
Dogma of any kind is similarly derided by the ideology of the left. Yet someone’s dogma prevails always; whether the dogma of science or ideology or religion, there is a body of thought and belief that forms conclusions and solutions. To believe that there is no dogma promulgated by worship at the altar of the god of “purely objective” science, is naïve and dangerous.
“Science is silent on what should be done with the fruits of science. Science can cure illnesses and cause them, destroy cities and build them, save lives and take them. It is the realm outside of science, the realm of morality and religion. i.e., the realm of dogma that tells us what is permissible and what is taboo. The scientist free of moral dogma is a cartoon villain who creates death rays for sport or ransom.
Dogma constrains how science should be done. The Hippocratic Oath… represents not a triumph of science but a triumph of moral absolutism.”
“The Tyranny of Clichés”, Jonah Goldberg.