HIV/AIDS Updates

Nothing truly ground breaking this morning, but a couple of neat little snippets you might be interested in:

• Chimps are getting sick from a disease that looks suspiciously like AIDS. The theory has long stood that HIV is a mutated version of the far more pacific chimp disease, SIV, though there has been no actual connection ever made. Our closest evolutionary cousins are starting to get sick and dying off, offering both a threat and a hope. On the one hand, chimpanzees are endangered and a radically virulent new illness further threatens their precarious existence; on the other hand, scientists can study why the monkeys do or don't get sick and may be able to apply it to humans. It's being called 'the missing link.'
• Circumcision in men has been finally proven to not be an effective prevention measure for female partners. But it may be protective for men who have sex with men. Meanwhile, people with HIV/AIDS are being encouraged to take their meds to reduce transmission. Call me old school, how about this: wear a condom, get tested, get your partner tested. :-) (As a side note: I will comment that I am of the belief that without extraordinary intervention, especially in the developed world, we may have reached the lowest possible infection rate. And by "extraordinary intervention," I'm talking cure or vaccine or microbicide.)
• Women progress to AIDS faster than men, even with the same level of virus in their body. Did you know that? Actually, I didn't either. Rather than quote the article from Science Daily based on a paper coming out this week (which uses sentences like: "Earlier studies indicated that pDCs recognize HIV-1 using a receptor called Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7), leading to production of interferon-alpha and other important immune system molecules." which I barely understood), I'll sum it up this way: it appears that, again, a woman's hormones fuck them yet again. That was kind of insensitive of me.
• In perhaps the most interesting ethical HIV questions to come out in a long time, the porn actress who was diagnosed with the disease is suing over the privacy of her medical records. Apparently, the state of California has subpoenaed her health care provider for information regarding her health status, and, most specifically, her identity. Can we call that "career ending?" Fuck Cal/OSHA.

Remember, make sure you are getting tested. For most people, every 6 months to a year is completely reasonable, but consult your HIV tester or health care provider for a more thorough assessment for your sexual risk and reduction methods. Contact STOP AIDS at 513-421-2437 to schedule a free, 20-minute oral HIV test. And pick up some condoms while you're there.

The Pull-and-Pray

Dan Savage has an interesting take on it, but it bears repeating. I have something to say about it, too, but I don't have the time to write it down, so this post is more about "Barry reminding himself to write later." Per the NYTimes article, set off by a June article in Contraception magazine (warning: PDF):

“If the male partner withdraws before ejaculation every time a couple has vaginal intercourse, about 4 percent of couples will become pregnant over the course of a year,” the authors write.

For condoms, used optimally, the rate is about 2 percent. But more significant, the authors say, are the rates for “typical use,” because people can’t be expected to use any contraception method perfectly every time. Typical use of withdrawal leads to pregnancy 18 percent of the time, they write; for typical use of condoms 17 percent of the time.

(There are other, more effective methods. Failure rates for the pill and the patch are about 8 percent; for Depo-Provera injections, about 3 percent; and for diaphragms, about 16 percent. Intrauterine devices fail less than 1 percent of the time.)

Did you know some gay men use the withdrawal method as a means of protecting themselves against HIV? Truth. "On me, around me, just not in me."

Additionally, I wonder if there isn't an interesting study to be done on the effectiveness of withdrawal as a function of age. How well does a teenage virgin practice withdrawal as compared to a, say, established man in his early 40s?

But I've been reading David Halperin, and I've been wondering about risk taking these days, so... yea, I'm trying to cross reference in my head.

Picture thanks to Birth-Control-Comparison.info.

Indian Gay Sex!

I'm going for crazy headlines these days.

Just a few hours ago, the Delhi High Court of India ruled that consensual sex between people of the same gender is a violation of the rights expressed in the subcontinent's Constitution. Section 377 says that homosexual sex is against the "order of nature" and is punishable with up to 10 years in prison. Activists blame the exploding HIV rates in the country on the law, saying that people have been afraid to discuss their behavior, afraid that it would land them prison time.

However, the decision is tempered with some of the details of the ruling, from the Associated Press story:

The law itself can only be amended by India's Parliament, but the court's verdict should protect New Delhi's gay community from criminal charges and police harassment.

While the Delhi High Court's ruling is not binding on courts in India's other states, Tripti Tandon, a lawyer for the Naz Foundation, said she hoped the ruling would have a "persuasive" affect.

In short: the law has not changed, it's just unlikely to be enforced, and then the ruling only stands in the one state of India. It is a start -- a start that took 8 years to complete, btw, which, apparently is not unusual in the clogged civil litigation system of the world's second largest country. Let's hope it goes further, yes? That's a billion people who can't enjoy the wonderment of man-on-man (or woman-on-woman) action. Human rights issue ... seriously.

Other than the HIV issue, India's gay scene gained international attention after a prince of the country came out and then was subsequently disinherited by his family.

MapHIV.org

A new atlas has popped up on the interweb, an interactive map bring the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the US into easy-to-see and simple graphics for easy comparison. Granted, it takes a little digging to get the detailed information, but it's an excellent exercise in comparisons, especially regionally.

Overall, Ohio tends to fair green, meaning that we tend to have lower overall HIV infection rates (per 100,000 of the population) than some parts of the country. Hamilton County, as well, tends to fair better than either Cleveland or Columbus. The picture above represents one of the higher rates you can find in HamCo -- eclipsed only by our AIDS rates amongst African Americans.

As a whole, the South is drowning in HIV/AIDS, outside of those traditional epicenters of urban America, a fact that shouldn't surprise anyone, but always seems to. A CNN story links the disparity to stigma, lack of testing sites, a decentralized population, lack of HIV-knowledgeable healthcare professionals, and difficulties in education. Georgia tends to do the worst.

Check it out -- MapHIV.org. Worth a few minutes of your time today. It's produced by the National Minority Quality Forum, an organization dedicated to making sure minority populations receive the highest level of service in the US healthcare system.

National HIV Testing Day -- Repost

I got tested again about a month ago by my doctor, but today is National HIV Testing Day, and I thought I'd repost my story from 2008 that originally appeared on RainbowCincinnati here.

---

The last year has been rough, and I would be lying if I said I hadn't fucked up a time or two.

But, for the most part (I continue to tell myself), I did ok. However, when someone is naked behind and in front of you, the lines begin to blur on exactly how safe you are being.

I have been truly concerned about the results of an HIV test exactly twice in my life.

The first time was my first test. Fresh into the world of gay.com, this chubby 19 year old found a boy that liked him. He was 38 (ish), I was 19. It made perfect sense when I wanted him to fuck me that we should do so without a condom. HIV happens to other people (A) and (B) he likes me and would look after my interests. All I remember is desperately trying to clean myself out and seeing blood.

Three months later, he called to tell me that he was HIV+. That was the first time I was worried and it opened up a whole new world of learning, growing, and a career path that was unexpected.

Today was the second time I was worried, and I arrived via bus to the STOP AIDS offices promptly at... 8:40am. I got to sit out front, reading a book my father had recommended to me, and greet all of my former coworkers, having to make light of the situation with each new smiling face.

"I'm here to celebrate the day!" It being National HIV Testing Day, the ruse was plausible.

I didn't tell them that I was scared shitless, or that I was there only because a series of signs from the heavens were directing me there. No, no, I was just there doing my good, gay duty.

Having not been tested since March (ish) 2007.

You read that right. I am an HIV Counselor and Advocate and had not been tested in over a year. Let's ignore the lapse in judgment and move on with the story...

I had decided that my desire to be tested would also be mitigated by who was testing me. First, Libby. She and I had talked about it before, she's one my dearest friends in the world, and, if I had to have bad news, I wanted to hear it from her. I wanted a friend in that room. Second, Cheryl. It seems counterintuitive. She is an older, religious, dignified African-American lady. When you consider the game of identities, it's not that unusual because she is exactly the opposite of who I am.

And I always said that she would be the best person to hear that you were positive from because she's so much like a mother. I would guess that she would just swoop me into her arms and make me feel better.

Third, Todd. Todd is amazing at what he does, but none of this was necessarily his business. However, if it were positive, he would have to be called in to guarantee my anonymity. I figured the result would be safest in his hands, and he would treat it with the kind of respect that I would want.

Adam and Brent and the rest of the staff... I love them all, but I didn't want them to test me. Sorry, guys. I don't know any of you as testers, and I was really worried.

Todd drove up first. I called out: "I'm in need of your services!"

He looked flustered and said: "TODAY?"

"It's National HIV Testing Day! I wanted to be your first test of the day!" I know I have a bad habit of popping with random projects. I think it's funny he would not have thought that I would be there for an HIV test. When he realized, he looked visibly relieved that it wasn't another "Crazy Barry Scheme" (which he would buy into because he knows they work).

Libby pulled up immediately after, we worked out the details and Libby was going to test me.

I have been in that room many times, but this was the first time in the cushy chair which is now a big loveseat like monstrosity. I reclined and Libby and I gossiped.

If you've never been tested, I'll clue you in: you get asked a lot of questions. And since places like STOP AIDS have a 20-minute test, you are definitely going to have time to chat. Libby whipped out the list and answered the questions for me. We giggled about some of the answers, made light jokes, but that was because I was worried and I get the impression she was a little worried for me.

But she was being a professional, and I love her for it.

I learned one thing, though: don't look at the test. I was watching her eyes the whole time. I freaked out every time her gaze lingered. Kathryn once suggested you just turn the test around so neither of you can see it. Now that I've sat in the big cushy loveseat at the STOP AIDS office, I understand better why. When my job switches to the 20-minute test, I'll remember that then.

When I called her on her eyes, she said, "Honey, it's working. And I'm not seeing anything." She flipped the test towards me.

For most other people in the world, this would be a terribly unprofessional move. I have seen these tests turn positive. Ten minutes into it, I saw what she was seeing: there was no indication of an HIV infection.

Ten minutes in -- and it's a big secret that the tester can usually tell that soon, if not sooner -- and we knew it would be fine.

I texted my sister immediately after: TWICE I'VE DODGED THE BULLET ON THIS FUCKING TEST.

Her response: AND HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU PLANNING TO HOLD THE GUN UP TO SEE IF YOU CAN.

OK, OK. I get it. Learned my lesson.

Carry on.

But I'm HIV-negative... today.

---

And today, and today, and today.

My old boss used to liken the penis to a deadly weapon, "except its not the bullets we're worried about -- but it's a shot all the same," she used to say. I thought it was worth a thought this morning.

National HIV Testing Day

Don't forget -- it's that time of the year. I'll repost my story tomorrow. Jo Anne over at TheSkeptikOne (ha! I got it right!) has a great run down of where and how to get tested or learn more this weekend. If you are confused, call this number:

513-421-AIDS

(513-421-2437)

It's STOP AIDS' phone number. They'll direct you on how/where/when to get tested.

HIV is still out there; a great way you can be protected, and a great way to protect your partner, is to get tested today. (And don't forget the rubbers, boys and girls -- if you call that number or stop by their office at 220 Findlay, you can get a shitton for free. We used to give out grocery bags full, sometimes.)

Today's HIV Test

National HIV Testing Day is coming up next month (June 27), so I'll reserve a full column on HIV testing for that day.

...but I accidentally got an HIV test this week.

I was overdue, I'll admit it. My last HIV test was last June at the last National HIV Testing Day; I used to test myself (or get tested) at least once every 3-6 months. I figured, I'm a sexually active gay men, mostly safe, especially with unknowns, that it's only responsible I know my status. When I worked at Planned Parenthood, I was tested for the other major STD's (chlamydia, gonorrhea, etc.) as well as a full genital exam for the untestables (herpes, warts, etc.) at about the same rate; once I left PP, those tests and exams dropped down to about once a year. Once I lost the ability to test myself at AVOC/STOP AIDS, my HIV testing has dropped down to about the same rate.

Arguably, I suppose, you could make the argument that I attempt to get a full genital exam every weekend. But that's another story.

So I went to my doctor to this week on a completely unrelated note and mentioned that it was about time for my test. "Well," he said, "we need to make sure we get that done." My doctor is wonderful and uses the royal "we" to indicate that we are of one mind on my healthcare. We're not, usually, but it's cute and I humor him.

I didn't think he was meaning "we" as in his office staff. They drew my blood and I thought: whoa, I haven't had to wait to get results in years.

It's freaky, I know. I definitely recommend finding a site that performs the 20-minute testing. I know, I know, there are some reports of false positives on the OraQuick rapid HIV-test, but those are rare and they do confirmation testing. For the sake of your own personal sanity, get a 20-minute test done. I work in the field of HIV, and I was nerve wracked to wait.

Today, I went back to get a vaccine booster for whooping cough -- yea, I know, I thought it was wiped out too, surprise! My mother was with me, and I casually asked the nurse, "Did my HIV results come back yet?" I expected a big ol' NO, but she gestured me back the hallway and I followed. My mother followed, unaware of where we were going.

The nurse pulls up my results on the screen -- NEGATIVE, for the curious -- and tells me as such. While I'm in the hallway. With my mother five feet behind me. With other patients around. And all I could think: what if I had been positive? What would she have done then, all those people around? And my mother... oh gesu...

Anyways, I got myself tested and I'm still negative. You should, too. Pride is coming. Call STOP AIDS -- 421-AIDS (2437) -- to schedule a free, 20-minute HIV test. I promise they handle the results a little better than my doctor's office did.

How does HIV spread in Europe?

The image to your right is a map of how HIV is transmitted in Europe. Seriously.

Researchers from major European research centers, led by the University of Athens, did testing to determine how international travel and migration patterns affect the spread of HIV in the EU. I have absolutely no idea if the information is surprising at all, as I'm not familiar with HIV across the pond. The findings seem to indicate that the southern European countries tend to "export" the virus more due to tourism. (Though Italy seems to defy that trend.)

In other words: people going south for vacation find a booty call, probably have a little bit of alcohol, and condom use is likely lower. Findings included:

• Major exporters: Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Serbia (the last due to people fleeing)
• Importers and exporters: Israel, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK
• Importers: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg

I mean, it's neat information, and kind of a good warning to make sure that you are protecting yourself every time you have sex (unlike consuming calories, things done greater than 10 miles from your house do count), but practically it's not much. I'm sure an interesting prevention effort could be mounted based on the data, and it shows a need to target vacationing populations... but I think I'm getting a little tired of micromanaging a disease that we already know knows no bounds and tends to defy the conventional rules of transmission. You can't set rules on something that likes to break the rules.

In other HIV news:

• Hope has been found in a vaginal ring that, in lab studies, acts as both as a contraceptive (preventing pregnancy) and a prophylactic (preventing infections). Unfortunately, it's a vaginal ring and use for men who have sex with men -- the predominate group (numerically) getting HIV in the Western world -- is probably unlikely. It will be good for Africa and will leave AIDS as one of those things that just sick, perverted homo's get.
• A chemical in green tea -- ECGC -- looks like it may decrease the likelihood of transmission when applied internally due to its action on an enzyme in sperm. Likely, they'll test it on women and leave the rest of us out in the cold until it's been proven to work in the "general population."

Whoa. I guess I'm a little bitter this morning. Sorry.

Quick News Round-Up

Just wanted to cover a couple of quick bullet points this morning:

• Washington State's "everything but marriage" law was signed by Gov. Gregoire, giving same-sex couples all the rights of marriage except for the word. It is considered the most sweeping DP law in the country. Per the Governor: “Despite the sameness, the absolute sameness of straight couples and gay and lesbian couples, nonetheless here in the state of Washington we saw discrimination. We saw inequality that had to be addressed.” The law will go into effect in July, though a referendum may occur in November.
• Rochelle Hamilton should win the awesomest teenager of the year. She took on Vallejo City School District over harassment after she came out... and won in a settlement. In the suit, Hamilton states that she was forced to attend a group therapy session that taught kids how not to be LGBT. The settlement includes a requirement for the district to make a more stringent anti-harassment rule, come up with a way to deal with complaints, and provide training for staff and administration. Well done.
• The Assembly of that state Nevada passed a DP law 26-14, will likely pass the Senate, but Gov. Gibbons states he will veto it (unfortunately, we do not have the votes to override). I think I also heard Nevada will be passing a sexual orientation protection bill (no gender), but I can't find the newssource.
• Obama's pick for the head of the CDC, New York's Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Friedan is drawing some heat from AIDS activist. Per Housing Works: "Frieden has simultaneously employed an authoritarian, my-way-or-the-highway approach and an unabashed secretiveness undignified of a public servant. He has excluded AIDS groups wherever possible from having input into life-and-death AIDS funding, testing, and care policymaking decisions."
• More ongoing weirdness in the Florida gay adoption ban: you still can't adopt if you're gay in Florida, but the state must recognize out of state adoptions to same-sex couples.
• And in pop culture, Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon plans to marry long-time girlfriend Christine Marinoni; and Fergie comes out as bisexual.

I know, I know, not a lot and it's real quick. Bad, bad homosexual blogger.

Shocking New HIV Transmission News

According to two recent studies, one out of the US and one in the Amsterdam, it seems that a majority (or a close plurality) of men who have sex with men (MSM) are contracting HIV from... their main sexual partner. Unlike the stereotype where MSM's (read: "gay" and "bisexual," but we're talking behavior here not identity politics) contract HIV from random partners met in bars, clubs, parties, or on the internet, it seems that monogamy is one of the driving forces behind HIV infection.

From the US paper:

Results: Sixty-eight percent [95% confidence interval (CI) 58–78) of HIV transmissions were from main sex partners because of a higher number of sex acts with main partners, more frequent receptive roles in anal sex with main partners, and lower condom use during anal sex with main partners. By sex type, 69% (95% CI 59–79) of infections were from receptive anal intercourse, 28% (95% CI 19–38) were from insertive anal intercourse, and 2% (95% CI 0–5) were from oral sex. The model-based estimated HIV incidence rate was 2.2% (95% CI 1.7–2.7) per year. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated estimates of transmission from main sex partners as low as 52% (95% CI 41–62) and as high as 74% (95% CI 68–80).

Conclusion: According to our model, most HIV transmissions among MSM in five US cities are from main sex partners. HIV prevention efforts should take into account the risks of HIV transmissions in male partnerships, and couples-based HIV prevention interventions for MSM should be given high priority in the US HIV prevention research portfolio.

Though this will probably shock a lot of people, I think a lot of people who work in the field will not be surprised for the data.

Looking back at the people I have tested positive in my 5 years of HIV-testing, I have to say that the vast majority (probably 70% or more) had fewer than five sex partners in a year, with a mean around 2 or 3. I think there is a certain comfort level when you state that you are "monogamously oriented." Let's run down the thinking:

Person A meets Person B. Both have a series of long-term (defined as 6 months or longer) relationships in their history, possibly a handful of shorter relationships, and very few very short term (one night to one week) relationships. In total, we have two people whose lifetime number of sexual partners is less than 10, maybe 20 at the very outset. Compared to the stereotype of gay men, that is extremely low. If you add in the fact that perhaps one or both do not actively access the gay community and may not identify as "gay," you're talking about a smaller number and a decreased perception of risk.

So Person A and Person B enter into a relationship. Perhaps one (or both) have been recently tested, within the last 3 months, say. A few months in, they both feel comfortable with each other and they decide that because they perceive each other (and themselves) to be low risk that it would be OK to stop using a condom... or, perhaps, they were drunk or especially hot one night and just stopped.

But, let's say Person B became infected 3 months before the relationship began, or even as far as 9 months before the relationship began (HIV takes 3-6 months to show up on standard HIV-screening tests), perhaps with the last long-term relationship, or perhaps in a mistake one night with one of the other partners. But, because he was tested, he does not believe that he is still seroconverting and still an "invisible" positive. Person B becomes the insertive partner in intercourse, thus infecting Person A.

In no part of that scenario was a truly awful decision made; rather, I think it is an easy series of decisions to make in the context of a monogamous relationship. And, now, we have two HIV+ individuals who are unaware of their status. Then, they don't get tested because they are together. They break up a few months later, Person B, perhaps a year or more later, thinks about getting tested... and finds he is HIV+. He contacts Person A who got tested immediately after the relationship ended and found that he was as yet undetectable, and now Person A is in another relationship with Person C where a condom is not being used. Person A, maybe, is still within that 6 month window, tests again, receives a non-reactive/negative result (though he is actually infected) and the cycle goes on.

What's the proper course of action? Monogamy with a condom for six months or more, get tested together, and then have the condom discussion. Contact STOP AIDS (513-421-2437) to get your test done. It's only 20 minutes, and there's no blood.

It's worth your time.

Demands for Obama to Act Grow

Three things on the web this weekend have caught my eye that feed into the "Obama needs to say something" line growing around the blogosphere.

First, a Washington Post editorial by Eugene Robinson asks about the semantics of marriage. He takes politicians (and Obama) to task for the language games they are playing:

Obama took the "civil unions" route during last year's campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation -- that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates -- I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what are they?

It seems to me that equality means equality, and either you're for it or you're not. I believe gay marriage should be legal, and it's hard for me to imagine how any "fierce advocate of equality" could think otherwise...

Does Obama's stance in favor of repeal [of DOMA] mean that he believes the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages? Does he also believe that, say, the state of Alabama should recognize a gay marriage performed in Iowa? If so, what is the practical difference between this position and just saying in plain language that gay marriages ought to be legal and recognized in all 50 states?

Second, a POZ online poll shows that 60% of the readers of that site don't feel that the Obama administration has made HIV/AIDS a high enough priority. As of right now, I cannot think of a major thing the Obama administration has done except to get his act together, put a couple of people into positions, and offered to expand PEPFAR (which there's some controversy over an unfunded mandate there).

Third, there's the Lt. Dan Choi situation. Choi came out on the Rachel Maddow show and was then sent a letter from his employer stating that he would be terminated. "Obama to fire gay soldier" is the headline developing. But Obama has to go through Congress to change the law, you might say. Or, he could put a stop on discharges pending review of the law.

Look, I still support the man. I still believe that he has our best interests at heart, and I honestly believe that, 100 days in, we can't be so quick to judge his actions. And he has even assured Joe Solmonese of the HRC enough to say, "They have a vision. They have a plan." As little as I like the HRC, I'm going to take his word for it. Let's see how the next 100 days go, let's see what happens with the Matthew Shepard Act, let's see what happened in NH...

...I just hope I'm not saying "well, let's see" all the way to 2012. 

New Hope in the Fight Against HIV

I once tweeted "God does not make junk," in an attempt to give myself a little self-confidence boost. Someone tweeted back that "Yes, he does... just look at junk DNA."

Apparently, "junk DNA" may help create a vaccine against HIV:

About 95% of the human genome has once been designated as "junk" DNA. While much of this sequence may be an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose, some junk DNA may function in ways that are not currently understood. The conservation of some junk DNA over many millions of years of evolution may imply an essential function that has been "turned off." Now scientists say there's a junk gene that fights HIV. And they've discovered how to turn it back on.

What these scientists have done could give us the first bulletproof HIV vaccine. They have re-awakened the human genome's latent potential to make us all into HIV-resistant creatures, and hey've published their ground-breaking research in PLoS Biology.

A group of scientists led by Nitya Venkataraman and Alexander Colewhether wanted to try a new approach to fighting HIV - one that worked with the body's own immune system. They knew Old World monkeys had a built-in immunity to HIV: a protein called retrocyclin, which can prevent HIV from entering cell walls and starting an infection. So they began poring over the human genome, looking to see if humans had a latent gene that could manufacture retrocyclin too. It turned out that we did, but a "nonsense mutation" in the gene had turned it off at some point in our evolutionary history.

A lot of science appears in the article, but the quick rundown is this: scientists have found the protein that protects monkeys from HIV was once produced by humans, but a mutation turned that gene off. A compound -- known as an aminoglycoside (such as streptamycin) -- can help turn it back on (though there may be some as-yet undetermined consequences). Aminoglycosides, in some studies, have shown to improve cystic fibrosis in some patients through a similar genetic process.

In short: apparently, even junk DNA is useful. But it is too early to tell, so we'll see.

Your Morning LGBT News Roundup

Warning! Lots of marriage ahead... with some other stuff sprinkled in.

• The ACLU is threatening to sue Tennessee school districts if they do not restore access to LGBT educational websites. Tennssee has a statewide blanket blocking software that individual districts can click in or out for certain topics. A recent check indicates that upwards of 80% of school districts have blocked non-sexual, gay-themed websites.
• Rudy Giuliani is against gay marriage -- although we're not quite sure if he's making waves for a 2010 run for NY Governor, or a 2012 run for President. Regardless: Giuliani is a loser who could only win an election for NY Mayor. Seriously, folks. His best gay friends, with whom he lived with for six months, thinks that the opinion is ok -- it comes from political and religious views, not personal ones. *raises hand* I have questions!
• The Maine legislators is set to hear arguments from both sides on equal marriage. A poll released yesterday indicates 43.3-49.5-3.3 pro-con-maybe split in the state. Actually, that's not bad.
• Headline-grabbing Republicans endorse gay marriage to the (what we thought was) defunct Log Cabin Republicans (LCR)! Steve Schmidt, former NJ Governor Whitman, and Meghan McCain all said gay is OK this week.
• The NY Assembly has passed the Gender Equality Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA -- clever, folks) that would extend protections to cover gender identity and expression, and expand the current hate crimes statutes the same. Considering the recent announcement by the LCR that the state Republicans would allow representatives to "vote their conscience," people are wondering whether this once defeated bill will cause problems for marriage in the Empire State. (Take them both, I say!)
• Louisiana begins the fight: couples in New Orleans are suing for the right to marry after being denied licenses at their local county clerk's office.
• And Tango Makes Three, a children's book about gay penguins that adopted a pup, remains at the top of the "Challenged" book list by the American Library Association. Really? Really?
• Nevada's Senate passed a partnership bill giving most of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples, and it is expected to pass the Assembly. However, Gov. Jim Gibbons may veto it and the 12-9 vote is not enough to overturn the veto.
• The Church of Scotland has published an opinion asking parishioners to come to terms with gay relationships, noting conservatives' "selective" use of Biblical verses.
• Miss California says that her opinion on equal marriage cost her her crown. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Apparently, God was testing her faith. God does that for people a lot when it comes to two people loving each other, doesn't he?
• In the murder trial of Angie Zapata, which is the first under Colorado's gender-inclusive hate crimes statute, alleged killed Allen Andrade heard his own voice on a voicemail saying, "It's gay. Gay things need to die." It's in reference to a cellphone, btw. Also fun is that they found a vibrator... with Andrade's DNA on it, and not Zapata's. Strange, yes?
• John A. Farrell at US News and World Reports thinks that Reagan would not have spent as much time on social issues as the Republicans who are championing his name, these days, are. Yea, too bad he spent so little time on it that he completely ignored this thing we call "AIDS."
• Another pre-teen -- 11 year old Jaheem Harrera -- has killed himself over school bullying, some of which was focused on his supposed sexual orientation. But, you're right, Day of Silence was completely unnecessary. *rolls eyes* Nobody needs to hear more about bullying in school.
• The Florida Supreme Court hears arguments for and against same-sex partner adoption today. You can hear the arguments online here.
• Despite the US government promising to change the law, HIV+ individuals are still being denied access into this country. No word yet from the Obama administration -- which is something that I'm writing a lot these days.

And now you're all caught up! Don't you feel better?

HIV/AIDS Updates

A few little tidbits for you this morning:

• In an effort to make HIV drugs more profitable (strange, I know, but keep reading), GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer are creating a new company solely to handle their HIV sales. Because of the expense, the field is actually not that profitable because people who need the drugs are, on average, poorer and would not be able to pay the exorbitant prices required for the R&D of each drug. Combining their resources will, they believe, reduce the overhead cost and increase their profits without having to charge more.
• In related news, the Clinton Foundation and an international HIV drug purchasing consortium -- Unitaid -- have struck a deal with drug manufacturers to cut prices for improverished nations. The average annual cost of the first line treatment falls to $210; second line treatments fall from $700 to $590 per annum.
• Two releases out of ScienceDaily have breakthrough news about the virus itself -- in one, HIV actually deactivates the cell's proteins that help protect itself from viral infection; in the other, HIV actually harms itself to dodge the current immune system from detection.
• Based on changes in the level of CD4 count -- a test for the body's immune function against HIV -- of newly diagnosed HIV+ individuals, there is reason to believe that HIV is becoming more virulent over time. The research is based both on newly diagnosed patient CD4 counts, as well as the CD4 count of newly diagnosed patients six months after diagnosis.
• Early estimates of New Jersey's needle exchange program indicate that more than 130,000 used and dirty needles could be taken off the streets this year. New Jersey's HIV rate amongst intravenous drug users is one of the highest in the nation -- at nearly 40% of all infections.
• Prisons in the US are not the only breeding grounds for HIV -- the UN reports prisons around the world are serving to spread the disease, as well. Officials are concerned predominately with the possible release of the world's 30million detained individuals that could create an HIV "time bomb." Statistics are focused primarily on drug use within prisons, rather than sexual activity.
• New clinical guidelines have been produced by the NIH and the CDC for the treatment and prevention of opportunistic infections in HIV+ individuals (opportunistic infections are diseases that generally attack immunosuppressed individuals, taking advantage of a reduced immune system to cause potentially fatal results). Previous guidelines were separated into two documents: one for prevention and one for treatment. Officials also changed the diagnostic testing procedures, as well as including new diseases like malaria as an OI.
• And finally, Michigan may be one of the few states to remove the consent requirement for an HIV test. I'll let you talk about it, but... honestly, I support the move.

And that's all folks!

Nine and a Half minutes

Meet the US's first national AIDS campaign since 1995. Well done, Obama.

Love this new blog...

Love this new blogger I found due to the wonderment that was #samesexsunday on Twitter (Thanks Bilerico!) this week. Meet Stoned Age Man! (soon to be blogrolled), who tells us two interesting things:

1. Despite President Bush signing a law that overturned the HIV+ travel ban, the lift has yet to go into effect. Why, we wonder, why?
2. And, in a news story that should be causing criminal convictions, Bayer apparently distributed (knowingly) HIV-positive infect Factor VIII for use in other countries... and yet no one is going to court over it. Why, we wonder, why? And here's the MSNBC story: 

Yea. He's totally getting followed.

HIV/AIDS Caught on Tape!

I think this is nerdy-cool. Scientists have taken a video of HIV transmitting itself from one T-cell to another at the rate of 0.2 microns a second -- if you do the math, that's equivalent of a 6-foot man running at 33 mph!!! The picture above shows the HIV -- lit up in green -- moving from one cell to the next.

From insciences organisation (from an article in Science with the same information, but reported widely in sources like Yahoo! news and US News & World Report):

"Our findings may explain why attempts to develop an HIV vaccine have so far been unsuccessful," said Thomas Huser, one of the study's authors and chief scientist at the UC Davis Center for Biophotonics Science and Technology (CBST), where the video images were produced using advanced, live-cell video imaging microscopy.

While previous efforts to create an HIV vaccine have focused on priming the immune system to recognize and attack surface proteins of free-circulating virus, the current results indicate that HIV avoids recognition by being directly transferred between cells.

"We should be developing vaccines that help the immune system recognize proteins involved in virological synapse formation and antiviral drugs that target the factors required for synapse formation," explained Huser, who is also an associate professor in the UC Davis Department of Internal Medicine.

For decades, scientists believed that HIV mainly spreads in the body through free-circulating particles that attach to a cell, take over its replication machinery and make multiple copies of themselves. Once in the bloodstream, the new particles attach to target cells and continue the process.

In 2004, scientists discovered that cell-to-cell transfer of HIV also occurred via virological synapses. This was considered to be an effective method of transferring the infection, but the reasons were unclear. The current study, however, reveals that the synapse is providing the essential structure by which viral proteins are gathered and relocated to uninfected cells.

"Direct T-cell-to-T-cell transfer through a virological synapse is a highly efficient avenue of HIV infection, and it could be the predominant mode of dissemination," said study senior author Benjamin Chen, assistant professor of medicine and infectious diseases at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

I want to see this video! It looks like WhyFiles.org may have it, but I don't want to download QuickTime.

Thanks to @Dr_Jared and his blog for the video!!!



So neat!!!!! (The green bud is HIV itself -- kinda creepy, ain't it?)

HIV/AIDS Updates!

Haven't done one of these in a long while, so I thought I might take the opportunity to do one real quick. There are some big duh's in here:

• The World Health Organization is shouting to the heavens on the connection between TB and HIV. The link is especially notable in the developed world, btw, as TB is very rare, though we have the occasional outbreak. In short: if you develop TB, it is recommended you be tested for HIV ASAP. 
• We're back on the "circumcision helps prevent HIV" kick again. Except now we're saying it also helps protect against other STDs like herpes and HPV. Question: how about we press for condoms?
• Oh, because the Pope isn't sure it's a great idea. There's a lot of interesting fallout from the statement that condoms promote AIDS (there are two links there, btw). Though I wouldn't call condom use, really, a "cult" -- more of a push. 
• What?! Early treatment can lower the effects of a disease on your body -- SHUT UP!

Anyways, have a great day!

El Papa, "Condoms not good for AIDS."

I mean, he's not completely unreasonable, he's saying that abstinence is better and condoms promote sex. That's true, right? In much the same way eyeglasses promote poor eyesight.

From IndyStar.com:

In his four years as pope, Benedict had never directly addressed condom use, although his position is not new. His predecessor, Pope John Paul II, often said that sexual abstinence - not condoms - was the best way to prevent the spread of the disease.

Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

The pope said a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease, as he answered questions submitted in advance by reporters traveling on the plane. His response was presumably also prepared in advance.

FOXNews is quick to bring up the issue that most sources are emphasizing the "no on condoms approach." Because, you know, FOXNews is the moral paragon of the country.

Meanwhile, people continue to have sex and people continue to get AIDS. You know, because years of abstinence-abstinence-abstinence worked for this country and everyone else...

...after all, just look at the Palin's.

Look: let's be honest. Abstinence is the best way to protect yourself from getting STD's and against unwanted pregnancies. It's the truth. No one is denying that. But the problem is not whether or not we go out and teach abstinence, it's whether or not we add the rejoinder "but if you choose to have sex, you should use..."

It's called comprehensive sex education, not "happy-fun-fuck-orgy-time" sex education. Responsible, complete, intelligent.

HIV Update!

For years and years, working in and out of AIDS agencies, there were two fights that we always thought were left to really be fought. On the one hand, we have the disproportionate amount of money being spent on money for AIDS when other long-term, chronic diseases get left to fend for themselves. The fact that AIDS has a higher mortality rate, more complications, higher cost of treatment over a longer time, etc. etc. never entered into the debate.

The other was the drastic disparity of AIDS money, which was distributed back in the classic days of AIDS when the disease was focused on the urban centers and classically gay meccas. Now it's moving and President Obama is being asked to retool the money to reflect that:

Following a battle on the Senate floor last night, San Francisco may once again receive a disproportionate amount of HIV/AIDS funding if the omnibus appropriations bill passes. U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., introduced an amendment to stop that funding shift and ensure rural and southern states with increasing HIV/AIDS populations are properly funded. The Senate voted against the amendment by a vote of 42-53.

“This body just gutted a carefully worked formula where all individuals with HIV/AIDS truly got the funding and resources needed. Now we’re back to square one with rural and southern states taking a back seat to the districts of Democratic leadership,” said Enzi.

The omnibus package includes a provision to overturn funding formulas that the Senate and House carefully negotiated in the reauthorization of Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act in 2006. Enzi worked on those funding formulas to ensure all states were treated fairly, especially rural areas and the South, where the disease is spreading most rapidly. Enzi’s 2007 amendment, identical to this year’s omnibus amendment, passed the Senate by a vote of 65-28. House Democratic Leadership inserted a provision in the omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 1105, that would put funding for Ryan White at levels prior to the 2006 changes. Those formulas favor cities like San Francisco that have a longer history of AIDS infections over states where the disease is now spreading.

“This exact amendment passed the Senate two years ago and now it was voted down by strict party lines. If this is bipartisanship and change in action then we’re in trouble. It is unfortunate that HIV/AIDS patients are turning into pawns for leadership to score political points,” said Enzi.

Enzi said this change in the omnibus bill does not allow money to follow the patient; it allows money to follow those who are in power.

It's actually a really good point to be made, but we were always in a semi-lucky place here in Ohio in that we didn't stand to lose much, nor did we stand to gain much either. So, yea...

On another front of the HIV/AIDS issue, the newest step towards an HIV vaccine is starting to show promise:

With the support of the National Institutes of Health, the Arnolds and their team have been able to take a piece of HIV that is involved with helping the virus enter cells, put it on the surface of a common cold virus, and then immunize animals with it. They found that the animals made antibodies that can stop an unusually diverse set of HIV isolates or varieties.

Some researchers have previously been able to elicit effective antibodies, but usually only against a very limited number of HIV types. With HIV’s known propensity to mutate, antibodies developed against one local strain may not recognize and combat mutant varieties elsewhere. These geographic varieties with different mutations constitute one of the great challenges to finding a broad spectrum vaccine capable of protecting against the vast array of HIV varieties.

The approach taken by the Arnolds and their colleagues has been to identify a part of the AIDS virus that is crucial to its viability – something the virus needs in order to complete its life cycle – and then target this Achilles heel.

“The part that we targeted plays a role in the ability of HIV to enter cells, and is common to most HIV varieties,” Gail Ferstandig Arnold said. “That is a mechanism that would not be easy for the virus to reinvent on the fly, so it turns out to be a really helpful target.”

...but a lot of possibilities have shown promise, so this is, as yet, of undetermined significance. Not until we get a good, strong, human study will we know much more than this.