CVS Locking Up condoms...

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.

IRMA

Take a look at this website and article by IRMA. If your interested in learning about microbicides in HIV prevention.

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.

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!!!!!)

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.

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.

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.

VAMPIRE AND AIDS

I saw this ad for HIV prevention..pretty clever and very hot!

Durex AD - YOu won't see this on TV In America!

I am always amazed how mature Europeans, well not only Europeans but lot of other countries are when it comes to sex! I got this ad from a really cool cat. Check out his blog here

REALLY? Online Dating May Not Increase STI rates!

Another article from AIDS MAP. Many of the guys in this area use the computer to find dates and hook up buds. Some of them have seen the articles that suggest if they use the internet to hook up, they are in danger of getting some nasty STI's (Sexually Transmitted Infections). Here is a study that contradicts the claim from nasty sex neg folks..



Finding sex through the internet does not increase the risk of catching the two most common sexually transmitted infections, a US survey published in Sexually Transmitted Infections has found. Indeed in the case of heterosexual men, meeting partners through the internet was associated with a lower risk of sexually transmitted infections compared with other ways of meeting.

Gay men who met someone through the internet in the last four months were slightly more likely, and women slightly less likely, to be diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection, bit in neither case were these figures statistically significant and could have been a chance finding. However heterosexual men who had had at least one internet date in the last four months were around 60% less likely to have a sexually transmitted infection than men who hadn’t, and this was statistically significant.

The study authors note that some other surveys have found that internet dating is strongly associated with the risk of sexually transmitted infections and HIV. However, they say, many surveys measured risk behaviour such as non-use of condoms rather than incidence of sexually transmitted infections. They also compared dissimilar populations: if people who make contact through the internet are generally more interested in sex and have more partners, then all surveys are doing is comparing rates of sexually transmitted infections between people who have a lot of sex and people who have less, rather than finding a specific risk associated with online contacts.

The study involved nearly 15,000 patients who had attended a sexually transmitted infections clinic in Denver, Colorado for checkups and who could therefore be assumed to be roughly similar in sexual behaviour and demographics. It then compared internet dating rates between the 2800 patients (nearly one in five) who were diagnosed with gonorrhoea or chlamydia, and the remainder who were not.

It asked patients whether they had had sex with someone met through the internet in the last four months, in the last year, more than a year ago, or never and also related sexually transmitted infections and internet-dating rates to patients’ gender, ethnicity, sexuality, age, HIV status, and number of partners.

Internet dating was more common in gay men than heterosexuals: nearly a quarter of gay men (23%) had had an internet meet in the last four months compared with 3% of heterosexual men and 2% of women. But since only one in ten of the clinic population was a gay man, nearly as many heterosexuals (290) as gay men (339) had had a recent internet meet.

Internet dating was, as predicted, associated with having more partners. A cross all sexual categories, internet daters were 21-23% more likely to have had more than one partner in the last four months than non-users.

Internet users were younger on average, and among heterosexuals, though not gay men, there was an interesting association with ethnicity: women internet daters were significantly more likely to be white and straight male daters significantly more likely to be black.

Straight men were slightly more likely to be diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection than women or gay men; men were more likely to have gonorrhoea and women more likely to have chlamydia.

Amongst gay men, internet users were 50% more likely to have HIV; the HIV rate among internet users was 12% compared to 8% for non-users. There were only four cases of HIV among heterosexuals diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infections (three women, one man); rates in people without a sexually transmitted infections aren’t know because many straight patients had not been tested for HIV.

As detailed above, gay men who had had an internet date in the last four months were 12% more likely to have a sexually transmitted infections, women 29% less likely, and straight men 42% less likely, with the figure reaching statistical significance in straight men.

When the figures were adjusted for partner numbers and ethnicity, straight men who had internet dates were still a third less likely to have a sexually transmitted infections than internet non-daters; in other words the fact that internet daters had more partners did not make a difference, and there appears to be a genuine association between internet dating and a somewhat lower risk of sexually transmitted infections.

The authors point out that they only asked a single question about internet dating. Their study therefore makes no distinction between gay ‘party boys’ and straight ‘swingers’ who may use the internet for multiple sex contacts, and people who are seeking longer term relationships that way.

Distinguishing these two populations might have found widely different sexually transmitted infections rates and risks associated with internet contact.
However the fact that sexually transmitted infection risk was somewhat lower in heterosexuals may show that the internet is allowing some safer sex negotiations, the add.

Reference

Al-Tayyib AA et al. Finding sex partners on the internet: what is the risk for sexually transmitted infections? Sex Transm Infec (online publication), 19 December 2008. doi:10.1136/sti.2008.032631

Does Having Oral Sex Lead To Immunity Against HIV?

I found this great article on aidsmap today. I have written before that we get lots of questions about HIV transmission and oral sex. Read it and let me know what you think.


Some HIV-negative men in long term relationships with HIV-positive men have an antibody response in saliva which may inhibit HIV infection, report Swedish researchers in an article published online ahead of print in AIDS. This is the first time that such a response has been described in saliva, and may help explain why infection through oral sex is somewhat infrequently reported even in serodiscordant couples.

While it is well established that while HIV infection during fellatio and other types of oral sex can and does happen, the number of infections that can be attributed to oral sex is relatively small in comparison with the number of times that unprotected oral sex is practiced. One reason is that saliva contains enzymes which partially inhibit HIV infection.

Moreover, a number of studies, most famously among commercial sex workers in Kenya, have identified individuals who have had unprotected vaginal sex on many occasions and are likely to have been repeatedly exposed to HIV, but who have not been infected. It is thought that, through repeated exposure, these individuals have acquired a stronger immune response which makes HIV infection less likely. Different researchers have investigated a number of different markers of this immune response, including the presence of specific antibodies (IgA1) which may neutralise HIV, and HIV-specific CD4 cell responses.

Klara Hasselrot and colleagues from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm wished to investigate whether in long term relationships where one partner has HIV, the HIV-negative partner develops IgA1 antibodies in saliva that would help inhibit HIV infection during oral sex.

They recruited 25 HIV-negative men who were in a relationship of at least six months duration with an HIV-positive man. In addition, 22 HIV-negative men who were not in a serodiscordant relationship were recruited at a blood donor clinic to act as controls.

Klara Hasselrot told aidsmap.com that the study participants’ questionnaires showed that 24 of the 25 men had performed unprotected receptive oral sex in the previous six months. For 21 men, this was with their HIV-positive partner, but for three men it was with casual partners of unknown HIV status. Just three men also reported unprotected receptive anal intercourse.

Moreover, analysis of the medical records of the HIV-positive partners showed that whilst most were on treatment at the time of the study, only two had been on antiretroviral treatment with undetectable viral loads for the entire length of their relationship. The researchers judge that this means that, with two exceptions, all HIV-negative partners have probably been exposed to HIV at some point.

STDS on the RISE

One of the things that I tell all the folks who come in for HIV Testing is to get tested for Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDS). You should incorporate STD testing as part of a sexual health check-up once a year. I know that when I get my annual physical, I also get an annual sexual health check-up. There are some STDS out there that may not show any outward symptoms.

I found this article today. This is just the first paragraph but the article goes on to say that syphilis is rearing its ugly head again. Take a moment and read the article. Then ask yourself when was the last time you had a sexual health check-up?


"(Atlanta, Georgia) Sexually spread diseases - for years on the decline - are on the rise, with reported chlamydia cases setting a record, government health officials said Tuesday".

More proof abstinence Only DOESNT work...

I found this article the other day. I like the discussion of abstinence only versus teaching folks healthy sexuality. What do you think?

Read this article..it shows the abstinence education does not work!

Another Reason Why I Won't Live in Africa!

Seriously, if you do HIV prevention work in African for the Gay/BI community - you could be sentenced for membership in a criminal organization.

Read Here

HIV Prevention for Pigs

Happy 2009!

I wish all of you a happy and luck filled year!





One of my favorite things to do is travel. When I am in a new country, I always try to find out what other HIV campaigns look like. I haven't visited Austraila but I have found this awesome campaign they have for guys who are into all things pigish. I am glad someone is addressing this group of guys! I have been to some clubs and parties where alot of "pig" play is happening and some guys are not being safe. Here is an article I read on online (via the Body).