In Praise of HIV Negative Gay Men (video)

I came across this video recently and I wanted to share it, but somehow didn't get around to it. I'm not sure how I found it, but Mark S. King, creator of the blog, "My Fabulous Desease" and the man who made the video, sent me a message on FaceBook this morning telling me how much he enjoyed this blog and asked if we could link to each other. It turns out we had "friended" each other on FB recently. You know how it goes on FB. The software recommends people you might like to know based on the connectedness of people on your friends list to other users.

So I checked out his site and I was really impressed by what Mark has put together. I was also pleasantly surprised to find out that he was the one who made this really funny video. I love it any time someone uses humor to make a serious point and Mark does just that in talking about his HIV positive status while acknowledging something that we all know but are afraid to talk about: most gay men are HIV negative.

It may seem unfeeling and insensitive to our Poz friends to talk about it, but despite the increase in unsafe sex practices in young people and the lack sufficient funding for education and outreach programs, most people in our community are hearing the message and acting responsibly. So it is with the utmost respect to those of my friends living with HIV/AIDS that I say that being Neg is a good thing.

Thanks, Mark, for your feedback and for putting a new face on an old problem. Check out Mark's site for some really terrific writing. 

Related articles

• The Positives of being Negative (bilerico.com)
• Australia's Gays Are Not To Blame For Highest Spike Of HIV Infections In Two Decades (queerty.com)

HHS Votes to Keep Reagan's 1983 Gay Blood Ban

Via the Los Angeles Times:
A high-level federal public health committee Friday declined to recommend a change in restrictions on blood donations by gay men, but it proposed research that could eventually allow some currently barred men to give blood.

In voting 9 to 6 against making any immediate changes, committee members cited what they said was a tiny but still unacceptable increased risk of contamination of the blood supply if current standards were changed.

The restriction on gay men, imposed in 1983 in response to the HIV- AIDS crisis, bans any man who has had sex with another man even once since 1977 from giving blood.

A key point of contention at the two-day hearing in suburban Washington was the disparate treatment of gays, who incur a lifetime ban for a single sex act even years in the past, and heterosexual men or women, who are required to defer giving blood for only one year if they have sex with someone with HIV.

Acknowledging that uneven treatment, the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability said the current donor system is "suboptimal" because it permits "some potentially high-risk donations while preventing some potentially low-risk donations."

It unanimously recommended a series of steps to guide health authorities in moving to a more nuanced policy that would take into account individual behavior, rather than assessing the characteristics of a broad group — such as men who have sex with men.

Related articles by Zemanta

• HHS committee votes to retain ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men (pinkbananaworld.com)
• HHS committee votes against lifting gay blood ban (bilerico.com)
• Lawmakers Urge U.S. to End Ban on Blood Donations by Gays (businessweek.com)
• Ban on gay blood donors upheld by panel (msnbc.msn.com)
• U.S. Weighs Lifting Ban on Gay Men as Blood Donors (health.usnews.com)
• Gay Blood Donation Ban to Continue (lezgetreal.com)

HIV Travel Ban to US Ends Today

Image via Wikipedia

In 1988 in a misguided effort to stem the spread of AIDS, the US government, under the senile leadership of Ronald Reagan, imposed a ban on travel into the US for people with HIV/AIDS. Although the move had virtually no effect on the spread of the epidemic, the ban has been kept in place for 22 years.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control, by the end of 2006,  1.1 million Americans were living with diagnosed or undiagnosed HIV/AIDS. Someone is infected with HIV in the US every 9 1/2 minutes. 53% of all HIV transmission occurs in male-to-male sexual contact.

In October, President Obama signed an order lifting the travel ban, which takes effect today. On Top reports:

Gay group Immigration Equality will welcome two men from the Netherlands on Monday as the U.S. officially ends its travel restrictions on HIV-positive people.

Clemens Ruland and Hugo Bausch will arrive in New York City just hours after the United States ends its 22-year-old policy that banned HIV-positive people from entering the country. The couple will visit old friends, shop and enjoy the city during a one week stay.

Steve Ralls, communications director for Immigration Equality, a group that advocates on behalf of GLBT immigrants, told On Top Magazine that the men are believed to be the first to visit under the new policy.

Ruland, 45, works with young people in the criminal system. He was infected in New York by an ex-lover and diagnosed HIV-positive in 1997. Anti Retroviral Therapy has kept his virus load undetectable. He returned to visit the U.S. once in 2005, but said he feared being detained. Bausch, 50, an illustrator, is HIV-negative.

The Dutch AIDS service organization SOAAIDS is behind the visit. Ruland entered a poem into the group's essay contest to win the couple's passage to New York City.

The Bush administration approved the end of the travel ban in June 2008, but failed to implement the regulatory changes to end the restrictions. President Obama called the travel ban a “decision rooted in fear rather than fact” in announcing the policy's January 4, 2010 end.

Ruland's winning poem:

Positive

No more lies

No more pretending

No more hiding

In the crevices of exclusion

Honesty

to the land

where once lay my destiny

in one viral load

Free I am

Free to travel

To hug, share, love

And once more be united

Alive and proud

I turn to you, America

America, here I come

Come as I am

HIV+

Circumcision as HIV Prevention? A reader tells the ugly truth.

On Friday I wrote about the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) half-baked recommendation of circumcision as a method of HIV/AIDS prevention. I received a comment from a reader named Willie from South Africa, which I believe tells the real story of the insanity of the CDC's proposed plan. I am posting Willie's comments because they give a first person account or how our leaders can lull citizens into a false sense of security in matters of public health by proposing what can only be called insanity.

First, I want to clarify a couple of things. In 1989 The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a service of the U.S. Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, released the results of a study conducted in 37 African nations to determine if circumcision had an impact on HIV infection. Researchers chose the test sites based on what they believed was a low incidence of circumcision among Africans in those countries. The study was not able to prove cause and effect when it came to HIV infection in circumcised vs. uncircumcised men.

What the study did show was a gap of 0.5% to 4% in HIV infection between the two groups, with circumcised men being slightly less likely to test positive. I chose to use a figure of 1%, as that was the figure I had heard historically and it fell within the margin in the report. (My bad.) However, the the results still back my position that the proceedure is not an effective means of HIV prevention.

Here is what Willie had to say:

The truth is: Circumcision is common under the Black people of South Africa but not under the [Caucasians]. It is not a “Gay thing” under the Black South Africans, but a true heterosexual disease. Circumcised or not will not make any difference in South Africa. The fact is that most Africans are circumcised and the HIV rate among African men is the highest.
It is estimated that one of the Townships (Xhosas) in the City where I live 95% of the people are HIV positive and circumcision is compulsory in the culture of the Xhosa people (as well as in most of the other tribes in South Africa). What worries me the most is an article in a Johannesburg News Paper, about a boy of 18 who went for a circumcision. “I’ve heard we must come and circumcise so that we cannot get sick,” he said. “My parents think it’s a good thing.” Maiko is one of about 100 men aged 15 and up who come to the center every day and briefly occupy one of seven curtained-off beds in a one-room surgery” (see article) The whole aspect about circumcision is scary. If the message is understood that HIV cannot be contracted if you are circumcised, the HIV rate in South Africa will increase considerably in the next few years. I think the best way to stop a lot of new cases is to educate students not to have sex until they are married. Otherwise to have protective sex if they cannot do without sex. My question is: Is this not only a moneymaking business? I was circumcised as a baby due to medical reasons but I would have preferred to not circumcise.

It's no secret that the people of Africa are suffering the devastation brought on by AIDS, with whole generations being wiped out and millions of children growing up HIV-infected and alone.

Why haven't we learned? U.S. infections are on the rise as new medications make HIV "manageable" for those who can afford them. More and more gay men are engaging in bare-backing because it feels better than with a condom or because they think AIDS is a thing of the past.

In the straight community, teenage pregnancy and STD's are increasing every year. I have news for you, Bristol Palin. If you can get knocked up, you can get HIV.

When it comes to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, don't believe the hype. Protect yourself and your partner. Use common sense and use a condom, every time.

Thank you Willie.