Doug PollardBarebacking into disaster
November 30th 2008 22:58
No condom = No sex
World AIDS Day has come again, and with it, some of the most depressing news stories a gay man could hope to read.
"HIV incidence among gays increase fast in China" (Xinhua).
"Unsafe sex sparks HIV increase" (New Zealand).
"More than half the new infection occurs among men who have sex with men" (Kentucky).
"More than half of HIV infections . . . were among gay and bisexual men even though they make up less than 10 percent of the population" (Massachusetts).
Why? There are many reasons, but there's one no-one can fix but ourselves.
As Johann Hari, a journalist on The Indpendent newspaper in London, wrote, "The culture of safe sex that emerged in the wake of the first AIDS crisis - when the disease scythed through gay communities in near-apocalyptic numbers - has now melted away."
Look at any gay hookup site on the web and see alarming numbers of men prepared to risk a shortened life with an incurable illness just for the sake of an unprotected f---k. Sex with a condom is seen as girly and fussy, risky sex is cool and macho. And like most things labelled cool and macho, it's really, really dumb.
One young Melbourne bloke says in his profile, "Don't write and lecture me about safe sex. Safe sex is not real sex. It's only real if he comes inside you."
The saddest story came from Canada. A University of Toronto study found that "gay men who are not considered sexually desirable (over 40, not white, or poor) are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviour." They will give up safe sex in return for sex with someone they think is more attractive than themselves.
Yes, I know, there are many other reasons for the steady rise in infections, which I don't have space to go into here. But eradicating barebacking is unequivocally our responsibility.
Gay men don't like to be told how to conduct their sex lives: we get enough of that from outsiders. But we have to say, enough is enough. We have to say, loudly and unequivocally, unprotected sex is wrong, and we will not tolerate it in our community; not in our bars, sex clubs, parties, or our homes.
No ifs and no buts. It's always wrong to have unprotected sex even if you're both positive – that's a surefire way to pass around syphilis and gonorrhoea and breed new more virulent strains of HIV.
It's always wrong to have unprotected sex if you think you're both negative and even if you believe he's monogamous – you can never be sure.
It's always wrong to pressure someone into having unprotected sex, or to take advantage of their intoxication.
The alternative is to walk blindfold into another mass culling of gay men, as happened when AIDS began. Then we had the excuse "We didn't know." Now we have none.
| 85 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
Interesting piece. I'm not sure I agree with you (not entirely atleast).
I think you're article is somewhat derogatory towards gay men as you presume that it is only gay men engaging in 'risky' sexual activities... what about lesbians, or straight couples?
I'm sure they would find similar results if studying middle-aged women
The next problem I have is that you allude to gay men being more promiscuous than the rest of the populous...
You will find people engaging in unprotected sex from all walks of life and sexual orientations... otherwise I dare say teenage pregnancy wouldn't be an issue.
If you cannot trust your partner, or are unsure as to whether or not they are faithful to the relationship then what is the purpose of the union? A relationship must be built on trust, and if the trust isn't there then I'm sorry, but it's all just a lie.
Aids is a big issue though, and one that requires far more research... research into the actual effects of treatment vs. the actual effects of HIV and also into the way we classify people as having AIDS.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Freshly Doug
Nor am I being judgemental re promiscuity - there's nothing wrong with it per se if your taste runs that way, as it does for most young people, especially men.
The AIDS epidemic has been somewhat de-gayed in recent years, with too much money being wasted on addressing populations with low infections risks. Gay men are disproportionately impacted by the disease, as these figures show, yet less money (proportionally) is spent on education and prevention among them than previously.
Getting back to safe sex is something we as gay men can do for ourselves, so long as we stop romanticising unprotected sex.
And with regards to gay men 'playing away' - lots of straight men and women do it too, and they too should be careful. My piece wasn't addressed to them, but if it was I'd say the same thing.
In the midst of another surge in the AIDS epidemic I'm afraid trust is a deadly luxury none of us can afford.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Freshly Doug
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
I guess I just find it difficult to stomach the stereotypes in your article… especially given the fact that I am a 21yr old gay male (presumably, I fall into the ‘Young’ category you mention?).
What is the point in fighting for equality if we then go around applying sweeping generalisations about those in our ‘community’? And since when did AIDS become a gays online condition… does it really matter if funds are given the gay or straight researchers; after all, AIDS does not discriminate (why should we?).
Now, here’s something to ponder… if HIV causes AIDS, but ‘HIV’ has never been isolated, what is AIDS?
Can you find a scientific paper establishing actual isolation of HIV?
The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were thoroughly discussed at the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the logical minimum requirements for establishing the independent existence of HIV. They are:
1. Culture of putatively infected tissue.
2. Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.
3. Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morphological characteristics and dimensions (100-120 nm) of retroviral particles at the sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.
4. Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.
5. Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are unique.
6. Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and cannot be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that is, tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected with a retrovirus.
7. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles are introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle is obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5
Now, I certainly am not saying HIV/AIDS isn't a problem, but perhaps the problem is the treatment not the condition?
Do you know how someone is 'classified' as having AIDS? Firstly they must test positive for HIV antibodies (we don't actually test for the presence of the virus, just the antibodies - so you may not even have HIV any more). Then, if you are unlucky enough to have at least 2 of the 29 or so AIDS indicator diseases you're classified as having AIDS... even if you had these two or more conditions before ever testing positive to HIV antibodies... just seems odd to me!
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Freshly Doug
Re testing, "HIV testing can be difficult for people to understand. Unlike tests for many diseases that look directly for the organisms that cause the condition, many HIV tests try to find the body's response to the virus rather than the virus itself. In recent years, it has become possible to test for the virus directly, but these tests may be hard to find. (my italics)" Really Long Link
That site has a huge amount of info.
Equality means, among other things, accepting that we as gay men are resposnible for our own health.
Due to a variety of factors (which would take a whole series of articles to cover) proportionally more gay men get AIDS than most other groups (incidentally African Americans also get infected at about the same rate, so I doubt frequency of testing is skewing the stats). The rate is rising because people have become careless and stupid about barebacking and it needs to stop.
Having AIDS simply means that the virus has destroyed enough of your immune system for opportunistic infections, cancers etc. to start taking hold - the distinction between having HIV and having AIDS is a matter of degree.
Some people - a very few - have immune systems which can hold the virus in check better and for longer.
Some strains of the virus (and it's highly unstable, so it mutates constantly) are more virulent than others. That's some of the reasons why AIDS appears 'odd' compared to other diseases. HIV is like nothing else.
We made a mistake in saying for so many years that AIDS was not a gay disease. Strictly speaking that's true - it can infect anyone - but the figures clearly show that in developed countries it's gayer than it is straight.
And this is why. One puzzle with AIDS is why it seems to be mainly gay in the richer countries and heterosexual in poor ones. One reason may be that in poor countries anal intercourse has long been used as a 'free' method of contraception, and to be strictly accurate, it's anal intercourse rather than 'gay sex' that provides one of the most efficient transmission routes - injection being the other.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Freshly Doug
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
But there's the problem.. If somebody had two or more of the 'indicator diseases' before contracting HIV their death certificate would still show AIDS as the cause of death... a little simplistic- don't you think?
The other problem we face is that there have been no reall 'legitimate' studies looking specifically at the effects of HIV/AIDS treatments with regards to mortality.
A common misconception is that HIV drugs are getting stronger, and that this is why people are living longer, when in fact it is the opposite... HIV drugs are now weaker, and as they are less damaging to your DNA you DO stand a better chance at survival.
The testing methods employed in third world or undeveloped countries with regards to HIV/AIDS are different to what we use in the developed world. This lack of testing in the developing world may account for the explosion of people being (mis)diagnosed with the disease.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Freshly Doug
The trouble with that is that if we only use one drug at a time, the virus fairly quickly evolves resistance. That's why drugs are given in combinations, each disrupting replication in a different way. That way resistance takes longer to develop.
I thibk the number of misdiagnoses will be relatively tiny, wherever the tests are done. Given that the drugs are horribly expensive, you wouldn't want large numbers of false positives.
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Freshly Doug
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
Both sexes seem to be engaging in unsafe sexual practices but only one disease is the most likely to cause death and that is the HIV virus. Unfortunately in the western world a high proportion are young gay men. I have many gay friends whom I love dearly and I want them to be around for a long time. The only way to stay safe is to practice safe sex and that goes for everyone.
Barebacking is far more risky because of the lack of lubrication and the risk of tearing. This is just as true for anal sex in male/female partners.
Please everyone, protect yourself and protect others and live long safe happy lives.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
well, I agree that the area seems generalised, in a viral sense, and that there are many pre-(AIDS)-existing diseases that, if you are gay, indulged in unsafe sex and you contract one of them , like Kaposi's Sarcoma, you are considered to have HIV AIDS.
I lost interest in it all, I used to keep tabs on the research and whatever, a gay doctor friend is a London venerologist, he believes in the AIDS business, I just don't know anymore, but, I feel there may have been some meddling in it becoming an epidemic, of sorts.
After I lost the thirteenth friend from "AIDS", I lost interest in debating the issue.
What I do know is, they all had a rapid onset of illness, followed by collapse of their immune system, which made them vulnerable to any disease they came across.
They all used various party drugs and alcohol and indulged in anonymous unprotected sex.
One of my dearest and closest friends died of TB...and something else, that turned his genitals black, we never found out what that was.
Ok, basically, I agree with this post, in a more generalised way.
That is, the last I heard of some stats, about six or more years ago, there was a small trend building, (in some Western nations) that infections were back on the increase, which meant unprotected sex was being indulged in. Oz infection increase was very minimal at the time.
I would have thought the rise in infections was across the age spectrum, of those having anonymous and unprotected sex, I have not read anything more specific.
However, it is easy to imagine the younger you are, the more sex and possible risks you will take, but that does not mean older peole do not take risks, or in fact, indulge in unprotected sex knowing they are already infected, not telling the person they have sex with.
I know of two people who did just that. Of course, I can't prove they did, but, both people admitted to doing so.
However, my friends are dead, some are alive and infected still, the new drugs are keeping them from the grave, so, whatever AIDS is really about, I do not know, but there has been an awful lot of deaths attributed to "it."
fog
P.S. Last I read, the infection rate in Africa was highest among heterosexuals, but maybe cultural considerations are in play there? Physicality of the act, the ignorant belief that men may shed the disease by raping a young female virgin, and the fact that gays are not open about their sexuality, generally, as it is illegal inmost places still. Oh, and the Catholic Church dictates that using condoms is a sin! Idiots, monsters!
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
Anyway, it's worth a look and they are trying to get the message out there again. Please pop over and see what you think. Is the message more 'with the times' than the original scare tactic ads?
THE GLAM REAPER
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Freshly Doug
However, because the virus replicates by hijacking and corrupting the body's own immune system, any effective drug is going to interfere in the bodys own processes, with damaging effects.
On the most recent figures we have (there's awlays a lag because of the time taken to collect and process the information), the rise in infections in the UK and the USA is mainly among young men: in Oz it has been among middle-aged men but young men are catching up fast.
China, India, Russia and Africa all have high infection rates, for different reasons and among different populations - but in a lot of places we don't have accurate stats because the real extent of men who have sex with men (MSM) is unknown, either because of social stigma, or illegality, or both. The gay population is heavily closeted because of fear.
Plus many MSM are themselves in denial: they don't think of themselves as 'gay' and don't report themselves as such - much like the married and nominally 'straight' Australian men who make up the bulk of those who use 'beats' (public facilities) to find sexual partners.
China has realised the danger of this and is being more accepting of homosexuality these days (anyway they have to, the one-child policy having created a huge surplus of young males), India is stil arguing about it, many African and Middle Eastern ountries are in denial, claiming they have no gays, or it's a western import/plot/keep taking the beetroot and lemon juice.
This skews the stats and makes the epidemic look more heterosexual than it is.
You also have to consider lower hygiene stanjdards, availability and affordability of condoms, cultural resort to heterosexual anal intercourse as a 'poor mans contraceptive', and a host of other factors.
Meanwhile the Catholic church in the Phillipines, for example, runs around telling people the virus can get through condoms (a lie) so don't bother! The UN ought to put the Pope on trial for genocide.
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
Jason Nusbaum on the best kept secret from Barcelona
A presentation at the 14th International AIDS Conference in Barcelona by a University of Pittsburgh AIDS researcher reveals the "most common cause of death among HIV positive people is liver failure." Dr. Amy Justice bases her conclusions on a study following nearly 6,000 HIV-positive diagnosed patients at four sites in the United States. AIDS establishment scientists have never claimed that HIV damages the liver.
I contacted Dr. Justice by phone to learn more. During our conversation she told me that causes of death among people with AIDS have never been carefully recorded over the years. This is a concern we AIDS realists have been raising for more than a decade only to be dismissed by the AIDS establishment. Justice said that to the best of her knowledge, her study is the only one that reliably recorded actual cause of death in AIDS patients.
The implications of this admission are astounding. Liver failure is the leading cause of death among individuals being treated with AIDS meds in the only study that reliably records causes of death. Apparently, no establishment researchers make the important distinction between deaths from AIDS drugs and deaths from diseases called AIDS.
I wondered if this mainstream AIDS scientist might now agree with what AIDS realists have known all along, that AIDS meds can kill. I brought up the issue with Dr. Justice: "I hear your careful presentation of the science, and your careful statements about what your research shows. Can you give me your intuition though, are the AIDS drugs involved in the deaths of these people?"Dr. Justice laughed. "I think they are, yes. It s the dark side of these drugs."
According to the Justice abstract and the results of another study from the European EuroSIDA cohort also presented at the Barcelona AIDS conference, liver function tests and red blood cell counts are more accurate predictors of illness and death in HIV positives than viral load tests or T cell counts. Both liver toxicity and anemia (low red blood cell levels) are well known side effects of AIDS drug treatment. And like liver damage, anemia is not blamed on HIV.
AIDS establishment studies with similarly profound implications for HIV positive diagnosed persons are regularly published in medical journals, but if the mainstream media is aware of such information, they re not telling.
The one mainstream mention of the Justice et al and EuroSIDA findings put a positive spin on the dire news, portraying the studies as merely proving out "simpler and cheaper" methods of measuring risk of death and progression to disease, glossing over the issues of drug-induced liver failure deaths and life-threatening anemia. According to Medscape s report, the studies illuminate easier and less expensive lab tests, while liver damage and low red cell counts are "minor metabolic abnormalities."
Interestingly, the Medscape article makes a sudden denouncement of viral load testing, claiming it "has not proved the ultimate marker of the risk of HIV progression and death" that everyone believed.
From Medscape's coverage of the 14th International AIDS Conference:
"Barcelona, Spain; Monday, July 8, 2002 -- The role of surrogate markers to predict survival or other outcomes in HIV disease has been an area of interest for many groups, especially as the epidemic has advanced and the range of potential markers has increased. When quantitation of viral load became possible in the mid-1990s, it was widely believed that this would provide the ultimate marker of the risk of HIV progression and death. In fact, this has not proved to be the case, and there has therefore been renewed attention to other, perhaps simpler and cheaper measures of risk.
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Freshly Doug
When these drugs were first brought out, I watched them bring people back from the brink of death, turn around their decline, and give them years more life when they were looking at only months without them.
Of course the drugs are toxic - anti-cancer drugs are toxic too, because cancer, like HIV, hijacks a normal bodily process that we have to disrupt to fight the disease.
In fact, most drugs are poisons: the knack is to prescribe enough to kill or control the disease while not killing the patient.
But that doesn't mean we don't use them.
These drugs PROLONG life - HIV shortens it - but being on them is no picnic and the side effects are severe. That's another reason why barebacking is utterly dumb.
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
From where I sit -and this is merely my opinion on the situation- I think there has been insufficient testing of the effects of anti HIV drugs in relation to deaths. They could indeed be the main cause of death in patients who have tested positive for HIV antigens.
I have not however known any person that has died from HIV/AIDS and therefore I have not seen the severity with which their health may decline after diagnosis... yet I still remain sceptical that after diagnosis it is not unrealistic to imagine the treatments played there part in death.
The one common trend between people in the higher HIV risk categories remains illicit drug use, and perhaps we need to look at the effects of these drugs in more depth especially when coupled with HIV/AIDS treatments.
I dare say people who use illicit drugs are more likely to engage in un-safe sexual practices also, which again ties these higher risk groups together in terms of HIV infection.
My remain firm in my belief though, that at this point, anti HIV/AIDS drugs are more harmful than commonly reported, and that the drug manufacturers are utilising propaganda as a means of finical gain... just take a look at the number of conditions scientist funded by the major drug companies have 'found' since Valium first hit the market place- its a simple marketing strategy, first create a 'need' and then sell a product to 'fit'.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
I have watched a friend, after going on AZT and DDI, (this was in the late 80's I think), lose his mind. He went totally insane, due to the toxic effects of the drugs.
AZT was a cancer treatment drug, which was removed from the market many years before the advent of AIDS crisis, because AZT was known to be so toxic, it was killing the patients, or accelerating death, not curing, (by percentage).
DDI is known to have severe mental side effects.
The weird thing is, I also know this guy who was one of the first infected, and 20 years later, was hale and hearty, without any treatment drugs, last I heard.
Apparently, our bodies all react to the infection in diffeing ways. There have been some people whose bodies completely reversed the infection, without any drugs, (but not sure if infection was properly proved beforehand, maybe?).
A doctor in Melbourne, many years back, claimed to have cured an HIV positive person, by doing what they used to do when innoculation first started, using a horse as a way to treat the blood.
The viral load is put into the horse's blood stream, then a couple of weeks later (I think) they then take the blood product and make a serum/innoculant and inject that into the patient.
He builds up antibodies and VOILA! No more HIV.
The doctor tried to get American hospitals and labs interested, and they told him to piss off, as they were not going back to the days when they tied a horse up outside!
Maybe this is true? I am not sure as not have seen a validation of the claim, however, there is historical truth in the style of developing antibodies for innoculants I believe.
food for thought eh wot guvnahs?
fog
P.S. I wondr if the virus has a different 'wave length' to all other things in the blood and body? If so, then ,aybe Dr. Holt's wave machine therapy might be a cure for HIV infection?
It certainly has cured hundreds of people in Oz, all of whom had huge files, lots of previous operaitons, chenical therapy etc, and were told to go home and die.
Dr. Holt's machine and hsi treatment regime has ot saved everyone,a nd some cancers cannot be treated, but, you never know!
cheers
fog
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
Freshly Doug