neuro_image2

Consider switching to a whole foods, plant based diet.

In addition to being highly nutritious and satiety inducing (therefore leading to relatively low effort weight loss) there are immense health benefits (markedly reduced chance of cardiovascular disease and cancer), ethical benefits (you will reduce the demand for ethically bankrupt, cruel factory farming practices that permeate more than 90% of the food industry) and environmental benefits.

Suggested reading: - 'Whole' by T Colin Campbell. - 'Eating Animals' by Jonathan Foer

'numbers don't prove anything'...

Sir, this isn't 'The Huffington Post' discussion forum.

Is this seriously your argument?

The point is that men who have sex with men (commonly abbreviated to MSM in sexual health literature) have higher incidence of HIV and STDs.

I think your point is ridiculous (from both personal experience and published surveys), homosexual and bisexual men make up a small minority. Regardless though, it's easy enough to say whether or not you've had sex with a man.

And in answer to your question, seeing as I've never had sex with a man (nor intend to), I'm 100% sure that for all intents and purposes, I'm heterosexual.

Just to be clear, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexual/bisexual activity, but there are provable additional risks for MSM.

It's primarily that it's wrong.

Men who have sex with men are a tiny proportion of the population so the effective rate of infection is still (as we've known for four decades) far higher in these people.

They also don't account for other key risk factors: IV drug abuse, increased immigration from high incidence populations such as Africa and heterosexual woman who have sex with bisexual men.

Apparently understanding numbers and statistics is too hard for people trying hard to fit facts to woke narratives.

I wish there was anything close to this in healthcare.

Most medical group meetings are:

a)A small number of people that understand the issue (generally specialists) being drowned out by:

b)A large number of people with a vague understanding of the issue (related specialists and generalists)

c)A number of people with no understanding of the issue with the most political clout (administrators)

And then a final decision made by the least knowledgeable, most political administrator with the most vested interests.

I'm curious, you seam to have a particular animosity towards physicians. (Or at least animosity towards the idea that physicians should be well reimbursed.)

Is there a particular reason for this?

In a world where people are making billions for photo-sharing apps and financial rent seeking, is it really that egregious for people that treat disease to do well financially?

Says the guy commenting with no explanation or reference.

Stick to watching fox news.

Not sure the opportunity to work for the federal government is a great way to incentivize the best and the brightest.

Doctors already come from a variety of different backgrounds.