I could understand they don't want folks to steal them but why do this only in communitites of color? Nice way to be health concious. I found this article today..
Here is a teaser from POZ blog..
Change to Win, a coalition of labor unions, believes that CVS’s practice of locking up condoms at certain stores—commonly in communities of color—creates a barrier to access for young people who are less likely to ask a store associate for them, The Tennessean reports. The group asserts that CVS’s anti-theft policy puts those communities at risk for unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
IRMA
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Gay Marriage Ban related to HIV rate increase?
I saw this study and thought I would pass it along. I always wondered if there was a correlation between gay relationships not being legitimized and the increase of risky behavior. What do you think? Here is an excerpt from the study.
New Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV Rate
A new study by economists at Atlanta's Emory University indicates that same-sex marriage bans may be tied to a rise in HIV infections. The study used data from the General Social Survey (GSS), which has tracked the attitudes of Americans during the past four decades. The economists, Hugo Mialon and Andrew Francis, calculated that a rise in tolerance from the 1970s to the 1990s reduced HIV cases by one per 100,000 people, and that laws against same-sex marriage boosted cases by 4 per 100,000.
New Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV Rate
A new study by economists at Atlanta's Emory University indicates that same-sex marriage bans may be tied to a rise in HIV infections. The study used data from the General Social Survey (GSS), which has tracked the attitudes of Americans during the past four decades. The economists, Hugo Mialon and Andrew Francis, calculated that a rise in tolerance from the 1970s to the 1990s reduced HIV cases by one per 100,000 people, and that laws against same-sex marriage boosted cases by 4 per 100,000.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Are you telling the truth, of what you can't see from within your self?
When most people think about status, it's usually are you single, married,engaged etc. What if we were to answer that same question with either( I'm Negative or Positive). Truth is you are already one of them. The Key question do you know what you are? Getting a HIV Test Will only conform what you are on the inside. Because when we don't see things we don't know. The HIV test doesn't change or status, But the best thing is now you know! And its what you do with the result. Whether you are Negative or Positive, how to be more healthy with both. And know when someone ask ( hey whats your status?) Can you be true to your self and bear the accusation of betrayal,and not betray your own true states, even if that disappoint another to be true to your self?
Anthony
(Anthony is an awesome tester and counselor here at CAMP Rehoboth!!!!!)
Anthony
(Anthony is an awesome tester and counselor here at CAMP Rehoboth!!!!!)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
To Tell or Not To Tell
I found this article in a Canadian website. Here is an excerpt and then the link to read the rest of the story. IT makes an interesing case about disclosure of HIV status.
Knowingly exposing others to HIV ought to be a serious crime.
Or should it?
That is the furious argument unleashed by the trial of Johnson Aziga, a man who was found guilty last week of first-degree murder. The murder weapon was unsafe sex. The thoroughly repugnant Mr. Aziga was found to have infected seven women with HIV, even though he knew he was infected, and even though he knew he had a legal obligation to inform his sex partners. Two of his victims died of AIDS-related cancers.
Peter Troyer, a 37-year-old Toronto man who is himself HIV-positive, has no doubt about where he stands. “It is absolutely reasonable to have a law,” he says. “He exposed people to a potentially dangerous virus without their consent. I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't punish this behaviour at the highest level.”
Read the rest here.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Prevention for HIV serodiscordant couples..
I found this article the other day. I thought it gave an interesting insight into HIV prevention for HIV serodiscordant couples.
Promoting 100% condom use may not be the most appropriate HIV prevention strategy for serodiscordant couples, according to research presented to the Fifteenth Conference of the British HIV Association. However, researchers found that there was little awareness or use of other methods of HIV prevention, such as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) or the impact of viral load on infectiousness.
Investigators recruited 38 serodiscordant couples (where one partner is HIV-positive, the other HIV-negative) to a prospective study lasting three years. Most (30) of the couples were gay men. To be included in the study the couples had to have been in their relationship for at least two years and to have engaged in at least 20 separate episodes of unprotected anal or vaginal sex in the previous twelve months.
The couples were interviewed about their understanding of issues such as PEP, viral load and infectiousness, and the reasons why they engaged in unprotected sex. The investigators hypothesised that there were likely to be three factors underlying unprotected sex in relationships: failure to understand the mechanisms of HIV transmission; emotional reasons; and a low concern about the consequences of HIV transmission.
There was a very low awareness of the availability of PEP, a short course of antiretroviral treatment that is taken after exposure to HIV to prevent infection. Only 16% of HIV-negative partners and 32% of HIV-positive partners were aware of its availability. Only one couple reported ever having used PEP. One HIV-positive woman was circumspect about the value of PEP, telling the investigators that the frequency with which she and her partner engaged in unprotected sex would mean that “he’d need it every week.”
Nor was there an understanding of the impact of viral load on infectiousness.
Nevertheless, the couples did report the use of some strategies to try and reduce the risk of HIV transmission. In gay couples, this included the HIV-negative partner being insertive, and most HIV-positive men reported never ejaculating inside their partner when having unprotected sex.
But unproved risk reduction strategies were also being used; one man expressed the belief that masturbation a couple of days before unprotected intercourse cleared infectious HIV from semen; another individual told the investigators that he thought that transmission was not possible if he had a high CD4 cell count.
Generally, the HIV-positive partner was more concerned about the risk of transmission than the HIV-negative one. Emotional reasons were a key factor, with individuals reporting that intimacy and trust were important reasons for unprotected sex. However, one African woman said that in her relationship and culture it was not possible for a woman to refuse sex to her husband.
Dislike of condoms was another widely reported reason for unprotected sex. Others said that condoms caused erectile dysfunction or were a reminder that HIV was present in the relationship. However, some couples told the investigators that they had never discussed the reasons for not using condoms.
HIV-negative rather than HIV-positive partners were generally more sanguine about the consequences of HIV transmission occurring. One HIV-negative man said that, “Sooner or later there is going to be a cure”. Nor, according to the HIV-negative study participants, would there be blame if transmission occurred. One HIV-negative man told the researchers, “It would upset him more than me,” while his partner said, “If he becomes positive because of me, I don’t know how I’d deal with it”.
The investigators also found evidence that HIV-negative partners felt isolated and were unsure where they could discuss their experiences with individuals in a similar situation.
“A blanket healthcare message of safe sex seems inappropriate for all HIV serodiscordant couples,” comment the investigators, “provision of an open discussion of risk and identification of barriers to condom use may be more meaningful than promoting a 100% condom approach.” The investigators suggest that the statement by leading Swiss HIV doctors in early 2008 that, in certain circumstances, individuals taking antiretroviral therapy with an undetectable blood viral load were not infectious to their sexual partners offered one possible approach.
However, separate research presented to the conference by investigators from the sperm washing unit at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, showed that 10% of men with an undetectable blood viral load had “significant” viral load in their semen. When challenged to define significant, the presenting investigators said that this meant that HIV could be detected, but were unable to say if potentially infectious quantities of the virus were present.
Reference
Fox J et al. Understanding of HIV-risk behaviour in HIV-serodiscordant couples – a novel approach. Fifteenth Annual Conference of the British HIV Association, abstract P149, Liverpool, 2009.
Nicopoullous JDM et al. A decade of the sperm-washing progam: the effect of HIV on semen parameters and viral load? Fifteenth Annual Conference of the British HIV Association, abstract o8, Liverpool, 2009.
Promoting 100% condom use may not be the most appropriate HIV prevention strategy for serodiscordant couples, according to research presented to the Fifteenth Conference of the British HIV Association. However, researchers found that there was little awareness or use of other methods of HIV prevention, such as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) or the impact of viral load on infectiousness.
Investigators recruited 38 serodiscordant couples (where one partner is HIV-positive, the other HIV-negative) to a prospective study lasting three years. Most (30) of the couples were gay men. To be included in the study the couples had to have been in their relationship for at least two years and to have engaged in at least 20 separate episodes of unprotected anal or vaginal sex in the previous twelve months.
The couples were interviewed about their understanding of issues such as PEP, viral load and infectiousness, and the reasons why they engaged in unprotected sex. The investigators hypothesised that there were likely to be three factors underlying unprotected sex in relationships: failure to understand the mechanisms of HIV transmission; emotional reasons; and a low concern about the consequences of HIV transmission.
There was a very low awareness of the availability of PEP, a short course of antiretroviral treatment that is taken after exposure to HIV to prevent infection. Only 16% of HIV-negative partners and 32% of HIV-positive partners were aware of its availability. Only one couple reported ever having used PEP. One HIV-positive woman was circumspect about the value of PEP, telling the investigators that the frequency with which she and her partner engaged in unprotected sex would mean that “he’d need it every week.”
Nor was there an understanding of the impact of viral load on infectiousness.
Nevertheless, the couples did report the use of some strategies to try and reduce the risk of HIV transmission. In gay couples, this included the HIV-negative partner being insertive, and most HIV-positive men reported never ejaculating inside their partner when having unprotected sex.
But unproved risk reduction strategies were also being used; one man expressed the belief that masturbation a couple of days before unprotected intercourse cleared infectious HIV from semen; another individual told the investigators that he thought that transmission was not possible if he had a high CD4 cell count.
Generally, the HIV-positive partner was more concerned about the risk of transmission than the HIV-negative one. Emotional reasons were a key factor, with individuals reporting that intimacy and trust were important reasons for unprotected sex. However, one African woman said that in her relationship and culture it was not possible for a woman to refuse sex to her husband.
Dislike of condoms was another widely reported reason for unprotected sex. Others said that condoms caused erectile dysfunction or were a reminder that HIV was present in the relationship. However, some couples told the investigators that they had never discussed the reasons for not using condoms.
HIV-negative rather than HIV-positive partners were generally more sanguine about the consequences of HIV transmission occurring. One HIV-negative man said that, “Sooner or later there is going to be a cure”. Nor, according to the HIV-negative study participants, would there be blame if transmission occurred. One HIV-negative man told the researchers, “It would upset him more than me,” while his partner said, “If he becomes positive because of me, I don’t know how I’d deal with it”.
The investigators also found evidence that HIV-negative partners felt isolated and were unsure where they could discuss their experiences with individuals in a similar situation.
“A blanket healthcare message of safe sex seems inappropriate for all HIV serodiscordant couples,” comment the investigators, “provision of an open discussion of risk and identification of barriers to condom use may be more meaningful than promoting a 100% condom approach.” The investigators suggest that the statement by leading Swiss HIV doctors in early 2008 that, in certain circumstances, individuals taking antiretroviral therapy with an undetectable blood viral load were not infectious to their sexual partners offered one possible approach.
However, separate research presented to the conference by investigators from the sperm washing unit at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, showed that 10% of men with an undetectable blood viral load had “significant” viral load in their semen. When challenged to define significant, the presenting investigators said that this meant that HIV could be detected, but were unable to say if potentially infectious quantities of the virus were present.
Reference
Fox J et al. Understanding of HIV-risk behaviour in HIV-serodiscordant couples – a novel approach. Fifteenth Annual Conference of the British HIV Association, abstract P149, Liverpool, 2009.
Nicopoullous JDM et al. A decade of the sperm-washing progam: the effect of HIV on semen parameters and viral load? Fifteenth Annual Conference of the British HIV Association, abstract o8, Liverpool, 2009.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Staying Negative
Taking an HIV test and finding out that you don’t have HIV can make you feel invincible, but that feeling can spell trouble.
Guys who come into CAMP to be tested for HIV spend a lot of time worrying about a positive test result, so if you test negative it can be a big relief. This is natural and hopefully it will make you want to avoid risks in the future so you don’t have to worry again.
However some guys will think that since they didn't catch HIV the last time they won’t catch it the next time either and will put themselves at risk again and worry about it less. The truth is, if you’ve taken the risks in the past and then tested negative, you’ve been lucky. That luck can run out at any time.
Studies show that guys who get a few negative tests often go on to take more risks in the future. Taking these risks means they have a high chance of catching HIV. So, what’s going on? Some men use the negative result as a chance to stay safer. Others think that the negative result gives you the go ahead to carry on taking risks without the worry,
Testing for HIV isn’t enough to stay negative; avoiding risky sex is something you should avoid. Gay men expect that testing negative will resolve all their issues; this is not the case. HIV tests can tell you what your HIV status is now. It can’t predict what it will be in the future, especially if you are taking risks. Some men test HIV negative because they always stick to safer sex – but other guys test negative after taking risks that could have caused them to catch HIV. That's there the confusion begins.
There are a lot of incorrect beliefs out there. Some men who remain HIV negative after unsafe sex believe that there is something unique about them that make it unlikely they'll get HIV. Some men feel charmed when they get several negative results, believe it's a sign that they cannot become infected.
So, if you haven’t yet got HIV from the sex you’re having, should you assume it’s safe or that you won’t ever get HIV? The short answer is no. Some people get infected with HIV the first time they have unsafe sex and some guys get HIV after a few times. Not every unprotected boink automatically gives you HIV but it doesn't make you feel safe. If you have sex with a guy who has HIV without using condoms, you might not get infected that time. However, there is no guarantee that you won’t get infected if you did exactly the same thing again.
Leaving your HIV status to luck makes it likely you’ll catch HIV, but you can make decisions to stay uninfected by choosing safer sex. Using a condom every time is the most effective way to avoid HIV. Not catching HIV is down to you and decisions that you make every time you have sex.
Guys who come into CAMP to be tested for HIV spend a lot of time worrying about a positive test result, so if you test negative it can be a big relief. This is natural and hopefully it will make you want to avoid risks in the future so you don’t have to worry again.
However some guys will think that since they didn't catch HIV the last time they won’t catch it the next time either and will put themselves at risk again and worry about it less. The truth is, if you’ve taken the risks in the past and then tested negative, you’ve been lucky. That luck can run out at any time.
Studies show that guys who get a few negative tests often go on to take more risks in the future. Taking these risks means they have a high chance of catching HIV. So, what’s going on? Some men use the negative result as a chance to stay safer. Others think that the negative result gives you the go ahead to carry on taking risks without the worry,
Testing for HIV isn’t enough to stay negative; avoiding risky sex is something you should avoid. Gay men expect that testing negative will resolve all their issues; this is not the case. HIV tests can tell you what your HIV status is now. It can’t predict what it will be in the future, especially if you are taking risks. Some men test HIV negative because they always stick to safer sex – but other guys test negative after taking risks that could have caused them to catch HIV. That's there the confusion begins.
There are a lot of incorrect beliefs out there. Some men who remain HIV negative after unsafe sex believe that there is something unique about them that make it unlikely they'll get HIV. Some men feel charmed when they get several negative results, believe it's a sign that they cannot become infected.
So, if you haven’t yet got HIV from the sex you’re having, should you assume it’s safe or that you won’t ever get HIV? The short answer is no. Some people get infected with HIV the first time they have unsafe sex and some guys get HIV after a few times. Not every unprotected boink automatically gives you HIV but it doesn't make you feel safe. If you have sex with a guy who has HIV without using condoms, you might not get infected that time. However, there is no guarantee that you won’t get infected if you did exactly the same thing again.
Leaving your HIV status to luck makes it likely you’ll catch HIV, but you can make decisions to stay uninfected by choosing safer sex. Using a condom every time is the most effective way to avoid HIV. Not catching HIV is down to you and decisions that you make every time you have sex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
