By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay Reporter

November 8, 2004 11:42 AM


(HealthDayNews) -- Providing more evidence of the challenges facing health
officials trying to stem the AIDS epidemic, a new survey reports that almost
one-fourth of HIV-positive patients had unprotected sex over a three-month
period.

To the consternation of AIDS activists, other studies have also shown that
many men infected with the AIDS virus are not heeding calls to avoid unsafe
sex. The numbers appear to have risen over the past several years as
powerful drugs helped HIV patients live longer and healthier lives.

"You kind of see a creep taking place," said Lee Klosinski, director of
programs at AIDS Project Los Angeles. Making things more challenging, the
continued spread of HIV by infected people "is a really difficult thing for
the gay community in general and the HIV community to talk about," he said.

In the new study, researchers from Yale University and colleagues surveyed
333 HIV-positive patients from 2000 to 2002 as part of an effort to examine
the sexual habits of people infected with the most drug-resistant forms of
the virus. All the participants were from Connecticut.

The study results appear in the Nov. 5 issue of the journal AIDS.

Twenty-three percent of the patients -- 75 people -- reported having
unprotected sex over the previous three months. They had unprotected sex an
estimated 1,126 times with 191 people, most of whose HIV status was negative
or unknown. (Only 36 of the sexual partners apparently were HIV-positive.
Medical officials and AIDS activists differ over how much of a risk it is
for two HIV-positive people to have unprotected sex with each other; some
say it could strengthen existing infections.)

Nearly a quarter of those who engaged in unprotected sex had forms of HIV
that are resistant to some drug treatment, but they actually exposed fewer
people on average to the disease.

Klosinski said it's important to note that about three-quarters of the those
surveyed didn't expose anyone to HIV through unprotected sex. However, he
added, other studies have suggested that the rate of unprotected anal sex
among HIV-positive gay men over the previous six months -- not three months,
as in this study -- has been as high as 40 percent.

"When you look at profiles of people with HIV, many -- but not all -- are
more likely to be involved in a variety of potentially risky behaviors," he
said. "They're more likely to smoke, more likely to not use a seat belt,
more likely to not use a condom."

What are experts to do?

Researchers are looking at counseling approaches, Klosinski said. And AIDS
organizations continue to develop advertising aimed at changing the behavior
of HIV-positive people.

Years ago, the message was that "responsibility is evenly distributed --
everybody is responsible for themselves," including those who are
uninfected, he added.

But now, he said, "we need to find a way of talking about the
responsibilities that people living with HIV have to protect the community.
In my mind, there's an unambiguous responsibility ... even if you don't want
it, to not transmit it if you have HIV."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

This information is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical
advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat a health
problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider.
Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions or concerns you
may have regarding your condition.

Rare Disease Diagnosed Among Gay Men in UK
Contributed by Miguel Sanchez | 31 March, 2005


In January 2005, the first 24 cases were reported in the UK, mostly from
sexual health clinics in London. All were in gay men, 17 of whom were HIV
positive.
The first UK cases of a previously rare disease -- lymphogranuloma venereum
(LGV), a genital/anogenital bacterial infection caused by a particularly
invasive strain of Chlamydia trachomatis -- have been reported in gay men,
reveals an editorial in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections.
The Chlamydia strain was considered relatively rare until 2003, when around
100 cases were reported in gay men in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Most of
those individuals also were HIV positive or had other sexually transmitted
infections, including hepatitis C.

Since then, outbreaks have been reported in Antwerp, Belgium; Hamburg,
Germany; and Paris, France. Cases also have been reported in Sweden, and,
most recently, in several US cities -- including New York, San Francisco and
Atlanta.

Pre-existing Diseases Are a Factor

Last year, one of the UK's leading HIV charities, The Terrence Higgins
Trust, and the Health Protection Agency, which monitors cases of the
disease, took steps to alert clinicians and those most at risk to the spread
of the infection.

In January 2005, the first 24 cases were reported in the UK, mostly from
sexual health clinics in London. All were in gay men, 17 of whom were HIV
positive. Four also had hepatitis C infection.

Five thought they had caught the infection in mainland Europe, while the
others said they had become infected in the UK. By mid February, a total of
34 cases had been reported.

Untreated Condition Eventually Requires Surgery

The infection usually manifests as an ulcer or papule, and symptoms usually
include rectal inflammation (proctitis), rectal pain and bleeding,
straining, constipation and abdominal pain. The infection also may be
accompanied by fever and malaise. These can be treated with a three-week
course of antibiotics.

But sometimes the primary ulcer goes unnoticed, and if left untreated, this
can progress to chronic infection with the formation of skin pouches
(fistulas), abscesses, and narrowing of the anus as well as problems with
the lymphatic system. In these cases, surgery is often necessary.

The authors suspect that the problem has been present for some time in the
UK, with many cases going undiagnosed.

Death wrote:

(snip)

I know this fellow who hates himself as much as you hate yourself. He's
got terrible stomach problems; acid reflux, ulcers, colitis, and the
like. Poor fella produces so much acid he's dissolving himself slowly
and painfully.

B/

"Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote in message

Why does every faggot hitchhiking down the Hershey Highway
use the same ole tired bullshit line?

Does nambla have that in one of their handbooks of rote ?

Dipshit wrote:




If we may return to this for a moment.

I am appalled at the recklessness of this behaviour and saddened that
attempts to reign in this irresponsibility are presented as attempt to
stigmatize HIV+ people.

The stats above indicate that 36% of HIV+ gay people in San Francisco
during the period of the study failed to disclose their status to sex
partners.

If one follows the link and navigates from there to the HIV disclosure
survey one finds one of the questions:

9. In your opinion, a person who discloses that he/she has HIV gets
turned down by potential sex partners:


All the time 14.0%
Most of the time 47.0%
Sometimes 26.8%
Not very often 2.4%
Rarely 1.8%
Never 0.6%
I'm not sure 7.3%
(164 respondents)

Despite the small sample it becomes clear that the reason why these
people do not disclose their status is because they are likely to be
turned down for sex.

Non disclosure therefore relates to the need to have sex regardless of
the consequences to the partner. This is a criminal act I maintain and
should be treated as such.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:09:41 GMT, "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net>
wrote:

He embraces hateful bullshit because he is suffering from a horrific
mental disease that is characterized by small mindedness, racism, and
homophobia, with clinical sequelae including uncontrolled rage,
gastrointestinal trouble and often heart disease. Probably
characterized by a swollen amygdala.

It's a condition without many identified treatments. Sadly, most of
the victims don't realize how ill they really are.

George M. Carter

"Danny" <dan@jordan.org> wrote in message
news:19GdnQ4TKp0xlGXfRVn-iQ@is.co.za...
Sexual drive is highly complex and is a very difficult impulse to bring
under rational mental control. How else does one explain the abortion rate
in this country. There are multiple highly effective ways for either partner
to prevent pregnancy yet tens of thousands of women experience unwanted
pregnancies every year. Why do you suppose that happens? Should there be
laws criminalizing it? If there were such laws would they significantly
reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?

The same question can be asked about STD's other then HIV. Again how do you
explain the fact that most STD's are easily avoided yet the number of cases
are in the millions each year in the US. There are laws regarding many STD's
such as syphilis yet the rate seems to have remained remarkably stable over
the last 30 years or so.

The only way to have any impact on all of these problems is to educate the
general public in effective ways about the need for the use of condom every
time period. By effective I am not talking about the simple safe sex message
that has been used since the 1980's. The issue needs to be treated as the
mental health issue that it is and addressed on an individually based level.
Sex ed should be much more then the simple biology and be taught from 4th
grade every year until college graduation.

With more nuanced and intensive curriculums with each passing year. People
need to understand all of their personal sexual triggers and know both what
sets them off and how to understand and thus control them. Issues of drug
abuse, sexual stigmatization, body image, self esteem, societal bigotry and
many more all play a role in peoples sexual behavior and without a through
understanding of these issues most people are simply not equipped to behave
completely rationally when it comes to there sexual decisions.

You might feel better if you could point to that evil HIV positive person
who didn't disclose there status as the law breaker who infected you and
thus try to believe that it was not your fault you didn't insist on the use
of a condom but who's kidding who hear?

Don't get me wrong I feel it is morally indefensible for anyone who is HIV
positive not to disclose there status prior to engaging in sex. I am HIV
positive and I have never not disclosed my status. I found that practice to
be beneficial in many ways to the point that I have always disclosed my
status very early in the process of meeting new people. In that way I find
out immediately, and before having invested any significant time or emotions
into the relationship, if the person has a problem with HIV positive people.
I would much rather get rejected during the first conversation then after
weeks of dating and say just before engaging in sex for the first time.

That said do you disclose your sexual history to all your partners? If not
why not, how else can they make a reasonable data based decision as to the
STD risk you your self may present. If your saying anyone who knows they are
HIV positive should by law have to disclose why not take it to the next and
actually more rational and effective step. Pass a law requiring all people
to keep a sexual activities log in the form of a online WIKI based format
that is verified by and linked to the logs of there sexual partners and
available to be viewed by any one contemplating a sexual relationship with
them. That way even someone who has not yet tested positive but who has
engaged in risky behavior would also disclose and frankly that is when the
majority of HIV transmission takes place. People in the process of acute HIV
infection which occurs shortly after they are them selves infected present a
much higher risk of transmission then does someone who is under ARV
treatment. I am not seriously proposing such a travesty but it would be the
only way for a discloser law to have any real impact on the rate of HIV
infection in this country.

Gary Stein

"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message

I see your point, you think sexual orientation is equivalent to being poor. LOL

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
I post an article that reports on the behavior of faggots and the
filthy diseases they carry, and I am the boogie man. LOL

Not a word from you about the acts that spread the disease.

Boi you sure have your priorities mixed up.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:07:17 -0500, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote:

Of course you'd call it silly, dear.

It describes you to a tee and that makes you uncomfortable. Perhaps a
first step on the way to healing, but I doubt it.

I pity you.

George M. Carter

Gary Stein wrote:


Rape is a good example of this problem area.



Abortion is a response to unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.



Because unwanted pregnancies are easily "treated" by abortion?



Why? She knows exactly what the risks are then she willingly has
unprotected sex with a partner.



Wrong analogy.



No, your logic is poor. It is obvious where you are leading.


Remarkably stable? Not the case with HIV you may conceed?



So lets put this in the context of HIV. You are saying that 99% of
Americans need extensive education to protect them from the 1% HIV+
people in the wild? I think your logic is off somewhat.



It makes no sense to go after the 99% when the target should be the 1%
and those in their respective risk groups. More bang for the buck I
would suggest.



I don't feel better about anything. I'm HIV- and believe it to be
criminal for HIV+ people not to disclose their status.



I agree but would further state that I believe it to be a criminal act.



IMO that makes you both moral and legal.



And there I was thinking that it was a matter of principle for you as
opposed th mere strategy.



HIV- bubba, I am not risk to anyone but myself.



Thats a silly idea.


I don't think so.

That said have you any idea what kind of stream of legislation will
follow if and when the US HIV infection rate gets into double figures?

Danny wrote:
I think it's criminal for HIV- (possibly, you never know) people not to ask.

B/

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hepjf1hdcn8l6u13bte6kudd2fijo2aifn@4ax.com...
passing their filthy diseases again.

Attacking me, LOL, attack the people who murder with
their vile diseases.

But then, that isn't what you are about is it?

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:23:24 -0500, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

LOL...play your idiotic game of hate? I think not. Humans pass
diseases. Generally unintentionally. Sexual orientation has nothing to
do with it. Sexually transmitted diseases are spread among people of
all sexual orientations.

I'm not attacking you--but rather pointing out the obvious that you
suffer from an incredibly dangerous disease. That disease of hate
cause violence and death to be spread ALWAYS intentionally.

You thus represent a threat. Whether it is lynchings or gay bashings,
emotional or psychological torture and cruelty--your disease is one of
choice, one of INTENTIONAL consequences.

By contrast, it is much rarer that people INTENTIONALLY try to infect
others. To the extent they do or are simply irresponsible, this is
indeed reprehensible. And to some small degree maybe should be
actionable.

Meantime--people who are not HIV-infected have means to prevent
becoming infected, notably the condom.

But by FAR, your disease of racism and homophobia, continually spewed
on this newsgroup is not only harmful to your psyche and results in
your suffering needlessly--it can easily transmute into violence upon
others and/or incite others to such violence.

Yes, that's what I'm about.

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:23:32 -0500, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

Well, now ain't that a statement that makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever. But what does one expect from a bigot?

I hope you find healing--but expect you will die with bullshit on your
lips, in your mind, poisoning your heart.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message

That is why I said not one line in all of your posting
support that idea.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:02:55 -0500, "Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

Well, at least you realize you're a bigot! And that what you write
doesn't make much sense!

Perhaps there is healing for you after all?