Syphilis on the rise among gay men

Data from 2015, analyzed with a new methodology, show that the incidence of primary and secondary syphilis among Men who have sex with men (MSM) was 309.0 cases per 100,000 people, compared with 2.9 per 100,000 among men who reported sex with women only. (Medpage Today, April 7)

April is STD awareness month.  Syphilis is passed from person to person through direct contact with a syphilis sore. In men, sores can occur on or around the penis, around the anus, or in the rectum, or in or around the mouth. These sores can be painless, so it is possible to have them and not notice them. (CDC fact sheet, rev. Feb. 10, 2017) Of course, CDC recommends condoms, but any sensible person would recommend chastity and monogamy.

 https://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/stdfact-msm-syphilis.htm

Gay sex and syphilis

After being on the verge of elimination in 2000 in the United States, syphilis cases have rebounded. Rates of primary and secondary syphilis continued to increase overall during 2005–2013; although rates stabilized during 2009–2010, rates have increased since 2011. Increases have occurred primarily among men, and particularly among MSM [men who have sex with men], who contributed the vast majority of male primary and secondary syphilis cases during 2009–2012.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6318a4.htm?s_cid=mm6318a4_w

For the common good--a progressive health plan

Our current Democratic administration has had to apologize for another Democratic administration (FDR, Truman)--the infecting of a brown race, Guatamalan Indians, with syphilis for research in the 1940s. And why was the researcher combing the archives surprised? Have you seen what the Woodrow Wilson administration ("I will keep us out of war") did to women who wanted to vote? Or what FDR did to loyal Americans of certain ethnicities (Italians, Germans, Japanese)--putting them into camps or spying on them? How the Democrat administrations beginning in 1932 continued to experiment on black men with syphilis until 1972 even after penicillin could have cured them?

And don't you believe it when Francis Collins, NIH, says there are strict prohibitions in place today to prevent this. Oh really? There is a lot of HIV testing going on in the U.S.A. on poor women, mostly black. They don't give them the retroviral drugs--they refer them for that--they use the data they gather (funded by fat gov't grants) from them to study poverty, parenting, relationships, etc. Vaccinations for HIV is being tested on African women--probably can't do that in the U.S.A.

And what about withdrawing DDT from the market before there was a viable alternative because a novelist, not a scientist, (Rachel Carson) testified before Congress? Environmentalists and their fellow travelers in the various progressive administrations have killed more African children and adults with malaria than the 18th century slave trade.

So why do progressive politicians, both Democrat and Republican, do this? It's for the "common good," which means, what do individual lives or individual freedom of choice matter as long as you (the government, the academic) have a better plan for the larger group. So what if a few hundred or thousand poor African women die or infect their children during experimentation--it will help Africans in the long run. So what if penicillin could have cured those black men. It would have interrupted the data set and researchers' published articles in peer-review journals, which surely would help the larger population. And what does the life of an unborn child, or 50 million unborn children, mean if you can bring more women into the board room and the university?