Soldier banned from sex.....

[armyvern]

I was not aware that herpes was reportable.  According to Public health ontario only neonatal herpes was reportable.  see link for reportable diseases:
http://www.toronto.ca/health/cdc/communicable_disease_surveillance/monitoring/pdf/list%20of%20reportable%20diseases.pdf

and its not on the national list at all. http://dsol-smed.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dsol-smed/ndis/list_e.html

It changes how we do business.  I know I have yet to send anyone for contact tracing for herpes.

But in no ways does this minimize the fact that he should have disclosed his condition to his partners.  Having said that his partners were very risky in not ensuring that condoms were used especially if they were in a short term relationship with him.  They took big risks in not contacting something else like AIDS.

Perhaps one of the women was pregnant, or became such, thus starting the ball rolling.

 

[armyvern]

First of all, only the listener can "infer" while the speaker implies (It really annoys me when people screw that up).  Secondly, I did not imply anything of the sort that these women were promiscuous - just that they probably were not all virgins.  And even if they had one other partner in the last 5 years, who is to say that it wasn't someone other than the accused?  Anyway, I am sure they have a basis for the charges but this is a very very slippery slope.

Imply/infer/whatever ... who really gives a fuck on the nuances except for you?

Wow...how quick most of you are to condemn this guy.  Guess the rule of innocent before proven guilty is RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW IN HERE!  Anyway, I find it very interesting how all these women got together and figured it was definitely him.  I am also looking forward to seeing the prosecutor prove it was indeed him that infected all these women and ruling out all the other guys these women were with in the course of their lives.  I believe it can be years before you can show symptoms sometimes.

Is the yellow inferrance enough for you now - used incorrectly (as per your last post) again only because I know it bugs the shit out of you.

Désolé

:

I say again "knowingly".

Yep, huge conspiracy theory happening on the part of these girls ...  :

 

[pensiveone]

It just seems a little too convenient.  I am not sure how these 6 women were rounded up is all.  Apparently having herpes is not reportable so I'm wondering how this all came about.  Did they all go visit their respective police stations and report him?  I'm wondering how it was tracked to him and how certain they are that he is responsible for all their infection within the last 5 years.  Can they track the strain of herpes and link it to him?  I'm honestly curious and asking.  Isn't anyone else curious how all the dots were connected to this guy?  Anyway, let me be clear....if he did not disclose or he lied about his condition then that is definitely wrong! I'm just one of the few who are not so quick to condemn a man who has not been "officially" condemned yet.

 

[Journeyman]

Isn't anyone else curious how all the dots were connected to this guy? 

Nope, just you.

Sorry, but I suspect anyone else seeking a conspiracy has other tinfoil-hat issues to concentrate on.



Edit: typo (nothing was changed to support another conspiracy)

 

[PMedMoe]

It just seems a little too convenient.  I am not sure how these 6 women were rounded up is all.  Apparently having herpes is not reportable so I'm wondering how this all came about.  Did they all go visit their respective police stations and report him?  I'm wondering how it was tracked to him and how certain they are that he is responsible for all their infection within the last 5 years.  Can they track the strain of herpes and link it to him?  I'm honestly curious and asking.  Isn't anyone else curious how all the dots were connected to this guy?  Anyway, let me be clear....if he did not disclose or he lied about his condition then that is definitely wrong! I'm just one of the few who are not so quick to condemn a man who has not been "officially" condemned yet.

Okay, for kicks and giggles, lets say that these women were "promiscuous".  Maybe they tested all their other partners and found that none of them had herpes except for this one guy.  Does that answer your question??

As far as the system being "flooded" with reports for herpes, that's just kind of dumb (sorry Wes).  We report chlamydia at a very alarming rate and that is treatable with antibiotics.  Why not do contact tracing for herpes as well?

 

[40below]

Without any other info, I would suggest that at least one or more of these women was anything but promiscuous. She didn't have herpes, she had sex with this one guy, and now she has herpes. And so does this other woman, and there's this one thing they have in common. I'm not a qualified public health epidemiologist, at least not in this province, but I think I can narrow down the vectors here.

 

[pensiveone]

Well I'm sure we can speculate as to how it all came about but without more facts its useless.  And I honestly don't think there is a "conspiracy" among the women, I was just surprised they could link all 6 to his infection.  Unless they checked any and all partners they might of had (other than him) in the past years, I still think its a big leap.  And I am not accusing the victims of being promiscuous - not in the least, I just assumed most of them had more than one partner in a 5 year span.  Now, on a personal note - I knew this soldier.  Not well, but was friendly towards him and saw him at work frequently.  I would never think he was capable of this but you never know.  I started commenting because its amazing how quickly everyone can turn against you simply based on an accusation.  Now granted, this is one hell of an accusation and I'm sure it has some weight but lets not start persecuting him quite yet.

 

[1feral1]

As far as the system being "flooded" with reports for herpes, that's just kind of dumb (sorry Wes).  We report chlamydia at a very alarming rate and that is treatable with antibiotics.  Why not do contact tracing for herpes as well?

I don't think is dumb. Like I said 1.25 mil cases based on 10 mil adults, in reality it would be higher, more like twice as much. Thats a hell of a lot of man hours to punch into a data base even if it was based on one minute per case for data entry, and if you can't agree on that there would be a cost on this, I don't know what else to say.

I would rather see my tax dollar put to education/prevention, than a simple knee jerk reaction on statistic gathering.

OWDU

 

[Jarnhamar]

Well I'm sure we can speculate as to how it all came about but without more facts its useless.  And I honestly don't think there is a "conspiracy" among the women, I was just surprised they could link all 6 to his infection.  Unless they checked any and all partners they might of had (other than him) in the past years, I still think its a big leap.  And I am not accusing the victims of being promiscuous - not in the least, I just assumed most of them had more than one partner in a 5 year span.  Now, on a personal note - I knew this soldier.  Not well, but was friendly towards him and saw him at work frequently.  I would never think he was capable of this but you never know.  I started commenting because its amazing how quickly everyone can turn against you simply based on an accusation.  Now granted, this is one hell of an accusation and I'm sure it has some weight but lets not start persecuting him quite yet.

You're RTFO

I read your posts and the first thing I thought of was that you WERE in fact suggesting he women were promiscuous, I'm pretty sure other readers got the same thing.  Now you're back tracking.
Your firsts posts here are of you defending some douchebag running around giving women herpes. Good job.

 

[PMedMoe]

I don't think is dumb. Like I said 1.25 mil cases based on 10 mil adults, in reality it would be higher, more like twice as much. Thats a hell of a lot of man hours to punch into a data base even if it was based on one minute per case for data entry, and if you can't agree on that there would be a cost on this, I don't know what else to say.

I would rather see my tax dollar put to education/prevention, than a simple knee jerk reaction on statistic gathering.

Each case would only be reported once (as per other STIs) and there's already someone punching in the info on the reportable ones.  At least here in Canada there is.

 

[1feral1]

Each case would only be reported once (as per other STIs) and there's already someone punching in the info on the reportable ones. 

Are you saying the current work load would not increase, even at 1.25 mil extra cases to load? Someone has to pay and its going to be the tax payer. Think of the time and effort from the GPs office to the reporting centre, and then this info must be tabulated, and managed. Its just more red tape and unnecessary spending.

As for tracking, do you think people are going to give names? That is an invasion of privacy (different story for other things such as HIV - I am simply talking herpes here). When for example their own personal living situations could be at risk (married/attached, etc - yes infidelity exists on both sides). I would not give one name if I had become infected (although I would personally notify the one I was with - and I would not be happy), as I would consider what transpires in the GPs office my personal business between my GP and I.

Regards,

Wes

 

[PMedMoe]

Wes, as part of my job, I do contact tracing interviews with positive STI cases.  In all cases, we keep names confidential.  When we notify a contact, they are only told they were a contact of a positive case of {insert STI here} and to go and get tested.  If it helps prevent the spread of the STI, I think it's worth it.  Just MHO.

 

[pensiveone]

You're RTFO

I read your posts and the first thing I thought of was that you WERE in fact suggesting he women were promiscuous, I'm pretty sure other readers got the same thing.  Now you're back tracking.
Your firsts posts here are of you defending some douchebag running around giving women herpes. Good job.

Thank you - you just made my entire point.  Sigh....My very first post might have suggested that since I used a poor choice of words such as "all the other guys these women have been with in the course of their lives".  To me promiscuous means sleeping with many indiscriminantly.  All I was suggesting was that they weren't virgins and they had at least 1 - 2 partners before, possibly more but not making them promisuous by any means.  This is the last time I'm going to say it because apparently some people are learning impaired.  I simply found it disturbing how alot of you are way too quick to judge and condemn by sheer accusation.  I am defending the ideal of supporting or backing one of your own or at least waiting to hear more facts before you crucify him.  He may very well be guilty and he'll pay for what he's done if it is the case.  But it pays to ask questions or at least be curious about how his incarceration came to be in the first place.  I would have thought most of us would be professionals and keep an open mind.

 

[armyvern]

Thank you - you just made my entire point.  Sigh....My very first post might have suggested that since I used a poor choice of words such as "all the other guys these women have been with in the course of their lives".  To me promiscuous means sleeping with many indiscriminantly.  All I was suggesting was that they weren't virgins and they had at least 1 - 2 partners before, possibly more but not making them promisuous by any means.  This is the last time I'm going to say it because apparently some people are learning impaired.  I simply found it disturbing how alot of you are way too quick to judge and condemn by sheer accusation.  I am defending the ideal of supporting or backing one of your own or at least waiting to hear more facts before you crucify him.  He may very well be guilty and he'll pay for what he's done if it is the case.  But it pays to ask questions or at least be curious about how his incarceration came to be in the first place.  I would have thought most of us would be professionals and keep an open mind.

What a load of bullshit; go back and read your first post again.

The news article to which your are referring mentions sweet fuck all (how's that for spelling it out for you??) about any one of these six women having ever had more than one partner ...

But, it does show that the accused has had at least 6 sexual partners ... and 6 in common to boot. It also mentions the bit that he was charged "with KNOWINGLY"  infecting these 6 women.

It's about HIM; not them; yet, you were all over it with a "I can't wait to see them prove it wasn't any of the other men ALL these women slept with ..." yadda, yadda, yadda.

No one here has pronounced him guilty, but I've gone so far as to say that there was obviously "some basis for the charges". YOU, on the other hand, have from your very first post ... insinuated that the women are the guilty ones and individually responsible by:

Conspiring together to come up with his name and their story; and
by sleeping around.

Quite the f'n assumptions you've made there yourself Mr Bright one. How's that for "alot of you are way too quick to judge and condemn by sheer accusation."

I don't give two fucks if this guy is your friend; if he is found guilty ... I hope he rots - and all the other scum like him too who think it's all fine and dandy to KNOWINGLY infect others with an incureable STD.

By the way, I also don't give two shits if the women slept with 20 guys --- they are not the ones charged with anything; he is. Even IF they have slept with multiple partners, that doesn't excuse someone else KNOWINGLY having unsafe sex and passing on a disease without informing them "I have an STD, you may become infected if we do this".

Apparently, he didn't give them a choice in the matter - thus the charges.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thank you - you just made my entire point.  Sigh....My very first post might have suggested that since I used a poor choice of words such as "all the other guys these women have been with in the course of their lives".  To me promiscuous means sleeping with many indiscriminantly.  All I was suggesting was that they weren't virgins and they had at least 1 - 2 partners before, possibly more but not making them promisuous by any means.  This is the last time I'm going to say it because apparently some people are learning impaired.  I simply found it disturbing how alot of you are way too quick to judge and condemn by sheer accusation.  I am defending the ideal of supporting or backing one of your own or at least waiting to hear more facts before you crucify him.  He may very well be guilty and he'll pay for what he's done if it is the case.  But it pays to ask questions or at least be curious about how his incarceration came to be in the first place.  I would have thought most of us would be professionals and keep an open mind.

I'm probably one of the learning impaired dudes you're talking about.

Did he know he contracted an STD Yes or no.
Did he have (unprotected?) sex with other women knowing he has an STD Yes or No.
Did he tell those women he was having sex with that he had an STD Yes or No.
Was he singled out and charged by the authorities with knowingly infecting these women with an STD,  yes or no.


Defending "one of our own"? He wears a uniform so we should put logic and common sense a side and 'back a brother up?'.
Sorry I have two daughters.  You were insinuating the women could have caught it anywhere which is a very weak argument here.

 

[pensiveone]

Logic and common sense is exactly what I'm looking for and it looks like I won't find any here.  In all honesty there is an excellent chance that he did exactly what the article depicts (however even they say "allegedly").  But I'll tell you this, I hope to hell none of you have to serve on a jury anytime soon because you'll probably convict the poor SOB just for being accused.  And I never suggested protecting him or hiding the truth but I thought because he did wear a uniform we might give him the benefit of the doubt.  Because I gotta tell  ya, alot of you act like sheep - following the majority and developing almost a mob mentality.  Why don't we just lynch him and get it over with because the media or the authorities have never made a mistake before.  WAKE UP!!

 

[George Wallace]

..........I thought because he did wear a uniform we might give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Perhaps it is you who should wake up.  And leave the "wearing of a uniform" out of it.  It is indeed "alledged" and he has not had his day in court, but "the uniform" has nothing to do with this.

 

[armyvern]

Logic and common sense is exactly what I'm looking for and it looks like I won't find any here.  In all honesty there is an excellent chance that he did exactly what the article depicts (however even they say "allegedly").  But I'll tell you this, I hope to hell none of you have to serve on a jury anytime soon because you'll probably convict the poor SOB just for being accused.  And I never suggested protecting him or hiding the truth but I thought because he did wear a uniform we might give him the benefit of the doubt.  Because I gotta tell  ya, alot of you act like sheep - following the majority and developing almost a mob mentality.  Why don't we just lynch him and get it over with because the media or the authorities have never made a mistake before.  WAKE UP!!

Wake yourself up.

Look up the definition of "IF" - everyone of us has used it here ... and spelled it right out for you too. "If he is convicted." "If he is found guilty."

Talking about mentalities - most of us have far moved on from the old days when a victim of rape was 'blamed' for what happened to her by having defense attorney's rip her apart in court or bring up sexual partners from eons before who had SFA to do with the events or the accused sitting in the courtroom. None of that has anything to do with this ... except that your attitude is similar:

Your friend is charged; you came on here and saw people saying "IF" he did this, I hope he rots.  YOU then jumped all over them with a post that blamed the women, showed your glee at eventually being able to "I can't wait to see them prove it wasn't all those other men they slept with ..." and their "conspiring together." Essentially, you screamed in here to protect your friend by attempting to pronounce the girls guilty, your buddy not so guilty, by using the old "blame the victim" routine.

Now that you've been called on that yourself, you start backpeddaling and speaking about uniforms. Good job on defending him at the expense of the victims.

This has nothing to do with what clothing he wears nor whatever clothing the women wear (get the analogy?).

There's obviously basis for the charges or your friend wouldn't be charged. He'll get his day in court. And, he won't be in uniform while he's there either.

 

[PMedMoe]

All I was suggesting was that they weren't virgins and they had at least 1 - 2 partners before, possibly more but not making them promisuous by any means.

So?  Your comment reminds me of a news story several years ago about the UNB professor, Matin Yaqzan, who stated that non-virgin women who were date raped, should not press charges but ask for monetary compensation instead.

UBC Ubyssey Article

In his article, Yaqzan claims women who were sexually active prior to a sexual assault would not suffer as much as those who were not sexually active prior to the assault.  He also states that when a woman was sexually active prior to an assault she “demand monetary compensation for her inconvenience or discomfort rather than express moral outrage.”

What bloody difference does it make if these women were virgins or had other partners, regardlass of how many?  They are not the alleged criminal in this case.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

  But I'll tell you this, I hope to hell none of you have to serve on a jury anytime soon

I thought because he did wear a uniform we might give him the benefit of the doubt.

Hmm.....


And I'm trying to stay out of this thread in case it needs some 'admin' work but Mr. Pensive I must ask one question, ........ So would your thoughts be different if some of the accusers 'wore a uniform?"