Here is a good summary of recent events on the AIDS prevention front courtesy of The Washington Post’s Craig Timberg.  It’s succinct and a pretty good read all the way through.  The link is to msnbc since I am not registered at TWP:

A rethink of AIDS policies after string of failures
By Craig Timberg- washingtonpost.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21571977/

Yes we should be spending lots of money on possible high tech medical solutions but we should also be putting a great deal of effort into what works – education and condoms.  One of the greatest failures of our generation is that we have not devoted enough time and resources to these simple but effective solutions.  Yes I know that many cultural issues make it difficult (particularly in Africa), but is that really any more difficult than finding a high tech medical solution?  Unfortunately most people (especially the well-meaning ones?) remain amazingly stupid when it comes to sex – must be the hard wiring I guess…

Play safe,

TS Tempted

I play safe but I have always wondered about oral sex and the chance of catching something terrible like this disease.  When you read up, you always read that the chances are low due to the fact that the virus apparently does not survive in saliva, but then there is always that last phrase that basically says it is possible.  Does anyone have a reputable source that discusses this topic?

hiv/aids is back in a big way and for those who don't play it safe and think it's some kind of cake walk with the new medicines available, think again.    they wreak havoc on the body.  

it's not like you pop a pill and keep on going like nothing is wrong.  uh-uh.  bones, organs, quality of life...never be the same again. keeping at bay all sorts of strange life-threatening infections becomes a daily struggle.   and for some, the medicines don't even work at all.  should i even mention the disease evolving into different and hard to control strains?

i've stopped myself from posting a study that was done on transsexual prostitutes and hiv as i didn't want to offend anyone, but now that i think about it, it's probably best for each and everyone of us that we open up the discussion, stay educated, and realize the societal implications involved in each of our actions.

love ya!  



National HIV Prevention Conference
Atlanta, Georgia - Jun 12-15, 2005

STD/HIV TRANSMISSION ISSUES
AMONG TRANSGENDER COMMERCIAL SEX WORKERS


ISSUE: HIV/STD transmission issues within the TG (transgender) community are misunderstood not only by the general population but by the transgender individual themselves. HIV/STD’s are also increasing at an alarming rate within the TG community.

SETTING: HIV/STD transmission routes unique to the TG individual, issues in testing and receiving care, psychosocial issues of risk taking behavior.

IMPLICATIONS: The Transgender community is a largely diverse group. Within the TG community are particular sub-groups that are more at risk than others. MTF (male to female transgender) sex workers have high rates of HIV infection, with overall rates of 35% in San Francisco in 1997 and 22% in Los Angeles in 1998. A study of MTF sex workers in Atlanta found that 68% tested positive for HIV. Infections among MTFs continue to rise, with an estimated rate of new infections of 3-8% per year. Injection drug use is also visible among MTFs, again putting them at high risk for HIV. In a San Francisco study, 18% of the respondents reported non-hormonal injection drug use in the past six months and half of this group shared syringes. MTFs may inject female hormones in order to feminize their bodies, putting them again at increased risk. Transphobia, or the pervasive social stigmatization of MTFs, greatly exacerbates their HIV risk. This intense stigmatization results in their social marginalization, which includes the denial of educational, employment and housing opportunities. It also creates multiple barriers to accessing health care. Such marginalization lowers MTFs’ self esteem, increases the likelihood of survival sex work and lessens the likelihood of safer sex practices. All of this can lead to high rates of HIV, STDs, drug use and attempted suicide. Pre-GRS (genital reassignment surgery) MTFs primarily have sex with men and are likely to engage in receptive anal sex, which puts them at increased risk. Some MTF commercial sex workers are willing to not use condoms with their paying partners if they are offered more money however, some studies show that most unprotected sex occurs with primary partners, not paying partners. Psychosocial factors such as poverty, low self-esteem, depression, rejection, and powerlessness are cited by many MTFs as barriers to sexual and drug risk reduction. For example, many MTFs state that they engage in unprotected sex because it validates their female gender identity and boosts their self-esteem. Commercial sex is largely a means of survival. For many MTFs, securing employment and housing are more pressing issues than HIV and must be addressed before HIV prevention efforts can be effective. Many trans-gender individuals do not access HIV prevention or health services due to the insensitivity of service providers and health care staff or fear of being revealed as transgender.

Special thanks to: Transgender Advisory Committee to the AIDS Office and the San Francisco Department of Public Health, AIDS Office Kristen Clements, Kerrily Kitano, and Willy Wilkinson San Francisco County Jail (San Bruno), Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center, Tom Waddell Clinic And the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Francisco.

Copyright notice: The National HIV Prevention Conference is collaborative effort by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a U.S. Government agency, and other governmental and non-government organizations. All abstracts published by the conference organizers are in the public domain and can be used without permission. Proper citation, however, is required.

I am troubled even responding to this post, but I have a certain amount of respect for TST and his thoughts. Don't know why!

The dilema is the prevention or the cure. Some lived throgh the death of our friends and acquaintences who died of AIDS in the US during the 80's and 90's. Not trying to sound glib, these were referred to as 'bath house' or 'dirty needle' victims. While this was going on, the fastest proliferation of AIDS was among non-drug using, heterosexual partners having sex in Africa. We could not save the first group, nor educate the latter.

I think the answer lies in the middle. We need a cure. HIV patients today can expect to live a relatively long and fruitful life. Pharmacuticals are amazing. No cure yet, except for Magic, but the death sentence is retarded. It is now easier for people to share their HIV experiences because it does not involve immediate death. This is critical to prevention. One could even tell their partner that protection is needed because they ARE or MAY BE infected. The only other STD easier to discuss with your partener is Herpes because it does not kill, but there is no cure.

Educate those you can reach, spend all you can on a cure, educate those who will listen, reach out for the young.

I don't see a need to rethink our views of AIDS/HIV. Hold the path, it will be the fastest eraticated disease in history.

Finally, wear a condom!

Be safe! Use whole body shrink wrap!

xoxo

Your 'whole-body-shrink-wrap' specialist..;.

To claim technology has failed is not truthful.  The existence of condoms is common knowledge.  The targets of a 'use condoms' campaign aren't going to use them no matter how many times you tell them they exist as people already know they exist.  I think the more reasonable conclusion is that the 'use condoms' campaign has failed, not technology has failed.  A condom itself is technology. If you truly are seeking a guaranteed, no tech solution you should tout the virtue of abstinence.  Much like some people will not practice abstinence, some people will not use condoms.   People treated for HIV with cutting edge technology outlive their "GRIDS" infected predecessors by wide margin.  Prophylactic therapies like lamivudine do prevent the spread of infections.  The owners of the deaf ears the 'use condoms' ads fall upon will still be getting infections and dying fast without drug technology.  You don't need to ask which approach is less effective, It's already evident which approach is ineffective.

hmmm.

great points.  but to discount prevention and education and focus on what can be done after the infection has been passed is a losing strategy.

like cpndude, i saw the reality and impact of AIDS in the late 80's and early 90's.  i saw my friends and, yes, family members, waste away to nothing -  die, helpless and hopeless.  it was devastating.  as you mentioned, people are living longer lives due to new therapies, but what are those lives like is something you missed.  it's not a cake walk.  people are still dying.  i personally buried three friends this past year.

where i think the US, in particular, has failed in recent years when it comes to education and prevention is in allowing the PC, 'let's not offend anyone' crowd to take over.  of course, it's not just that.  you have pharma companies putting out ads for hiv meds with headlines and images making promises that, in a lot of cases, are fantasy.  throw in the people touting abstinence, which is wholly ignorant considering we are social/sexual animals, and add an irresponsible media putting out articles with sensationalist headlines about supposed 'cures' and what have we got?  a recipe for an increase in infections...which is exactly what's happening.

my point in all this is that education and prevention campaigns need to get real in order for them to work.  we can't stop the pharma companies from trying to make a buck.  and the media?  well, they're trying to make a buck, too.  

take a look at this french awareness campaign.  tis is what i'd like to see here in america.  imho, this is the kind of imagery and message we need.

"great points.  but to discount prevention and education and focus on what can be done after the infection has been passed is a losing strategy."

I didn't mean to imply we should discount prevention and education and focus on post infection strategies, I stated that prevention and education fails to affect some people.  I meant to imply that vaccines are the most sensible measure for prevention since the people whom education will affect have already been affected and will incorporate condom as a main defense.  

The french ad you linked is very clever and entertaining, but I believe will be no more effective than any other form of education.  At this point the disease control strategy of preventative measure investments should be moved to vaccines, not clever ads.

Not gonna happen.  Of course they have to say it CAN happen, but the facts of science tell us it can't happen.

Check out aidsmeds.com for some really spot on advice and facts.

First of all I think we need some studies that aren't 10 years old.

My guess is particularly in big cities like SF and Atlanta with large populations of TS street girls that the rates will be even higher than in 1997.  Though I don't know how much over 68% you can go.  That's just plain scary.

In San Diego they did a study in 2003 - and this may be incorrect but about 30-35% of the TS community was hiv positive. (And 30-50% of the community are in sex work.)

Anybody playing on the street is spinning a six shooter with 5 chambers loaded.

I've been very fortunate to have never contracted anything beyond a cold.  But I'm very selective of my partners these days and I do my best to play safe, condoms, washing, etc.

But thanks to backstabbing politicials like congressman Barney Frank who has virtually destroyed any chance of TS's seeing Federal employment protections in my lifetime I don't see much chance of most of us leaving the sex community.

Meanwhile if the government would just provide currently available rapid "OraQuick" HIV tests to the general public, everyone could test prior to sex and I believe the hiv infection rate would drop dramatically.  

Sigh,
TS Jamie
edited for clarity and not to be confrontational.

-- Modified on 11/2/2007 8:57:54 PM

"Though I don't know how much over 68% you can go.  That's just plain scary."

I would bet this figurative 68% is fiction.  A statistically significant percentage of the human population cannot even be infected by HIV as they have a cellular mutation that does not allow the virus to 'inject' it's genetic contents into an immune cell.  I also do not believe statistically that a large portion of the population who plays without protection without the mutation will ever catch HIV.

"But thanks to backstabbing fat ass faggot politicials like congressman Barney Frank who has virtually destroyed any chance of TS's seeing Federal employment protections in my lifetime I don't see much chance of that."

Barney Frank isn't backstabbing you.  Barney Frank is simply not doing anything for you.  My analysis is that Barney Frank functions as a political realist believing that attempts to incorporate TS's into gay special interest legislation would doom it to failure.  By begging for the federal govenment to cure your woes you are asking for politicized solutions since government is about politics.  TS's have lived without Barney Frank's assistance and will continue to do so.  The social acceptance of TS's has increased over the course of time and this is not due to the interventions of Barney Frank or any other politician.

Nobody is stopping anyone from buying an HIV home testing kit.  It's only around $15 if I'm not mistaken.  The testing kits will not stop the transmission of HIV.  They will only pinpoint who has the disease.  

The autonomy of the individual and personal responsibility are more effective solutions than government intervention.  You half admitt this when you claim, "But the right wing religiously extreme government does not want to stop the epidemic.".  Why subject your life to the whims of politicians by granting them power over your health?  The individual, assuming the individual functions rationally, knows what it wants and needs.  You're not going to get what you want from the government unless the US government becomes a trannyocracy.

it's obvious you have some very strong opinions.

so do i.

apparently, you also have some understanding of the pharma business.  so do i.

there is a lot of work being done on vaccines at the moment, but it's light years away from being anywhere near doable on a large scale.  i have been in the labs.  i have spoken with the scientists.  light years away.

until that time, do we sit back and wait...or do we do something?  i vote for doing something that doesn't include counterintuitive suggestions like thinking science will come to the rescue.

and as far as the ads are concerned, hard hitting does work.  the problem with hiv prevention and education is that it's been taken over by a very 'pc' crowd that walk on eggshells.  i'm not going to name names, but even the activists of before have been cowed into submission.

just an aside, i was with a friend of mine, a celebrity, who is very outspoken on this issue, at a pharma-sponsored aids event.  i was there while she was repeatedly warned by the pharma reps not to say anything that might be controversial or hint that the pharma companies were not the miracle workers they claim to be.  she did anyways.  last time they ever asked her to participate.  and you should see the doctors who are pioneers in the field, who have built successful practices because of their work - they bow down to these companies.

my point?  yeah, science will come to the rescue one day.  but not anytime soon.  i've seen it.  it's not tomorrow.  so, in the meantime, we better start thinking of some serious ways to get the message of safety across or else this disease will continue on and continue on and continue on...and many millions more will die.  perhaps even a few of us on this very board.



-- Modified on 11/3/2007 8:46:17 AM

"A statistically significant percentage of the human population cannot even be infected by HIV as they have a cellular mutation that does not allow the virus to 'inject' it's genetic contents into an immune cell."  

really?? could you cite any report i might read about that? first i've ever heard, though, if it's true, it helps explain a few things i had been wondering about for some time. thanks!



"Nobody is stopping anyone from buying an HIV home testing kit.  It's only around $15 if I'm not mistaken."  

actually the u.s. government IS stopping us from buying the HIV home testing kit which allows for a 15minute result. you can (and i have) bought the 'home-testing' kit which requires that one fedex (pkg included w/purchase - which is more like $60 than $15, btw) one's blood sample to their lab and then call in for a result after 24-72 hours, depending on whether you pay extra for 'fast' results. the 'instant' result kit, so far as i know, can only be utilized within the USA by approved clinics and doctors, but NOT by non-certified individuals -- such as your everyday provider and/or hobbyist.


"The testing kits will not stop the transmission of HIV.  They will only pinpoint who has the disease."

true, but one has to at least hope that once an individual is made aware that he/she does have 'the disease' he/she will be more likely to restrict his/her sexual activities. this, of course, depends on the individual, but i personally believe that someone who thinks they might have the bug will tend to excuse their unsafe activities more easily than one who knows they indeed DO have it.


"You're not going to get what you want from the government unless the US government becomes a trannyocracy."

we're never going to get EVERYthing we want from our government, but a bit more individual freedom would certainly be nice...and don't even get me started on the "war on drugs".  how many vaccines might that trillion dollars have helped to discover? and how much funding would the terrorists have lost if their drug sales hadn't been multiplied in value by america's anti-drug policies? (sorry, off topic -- i TOLD you not to get me started!! lol) and as for the 'trannyocracy' -- have you seen Rudy in a dress? not so far-fetched...

The new 'vaccines' probably bind to the  ccr-5 receptor to inhibit HIV's passage into the cell.  They aren't really vaccines and this further underlines the ignorance of TS Tempted's posted article's authors

I think I should have stayed out of this one... oh well, too late.

Someone else posted the 68% which seems high - but plausible in the street community it was done in.

Maybe the reason I never caught anything is because I have that "mutation" GGS talks about, though probably it's because I play as safe as possible. I don't personally subscribe to the theory of immunity and I'm not qualified to debate it.

As for Barney Franks - my comments are some of the more polite that I've heard in various forums.  Yes, I do feel he sold us out by dropping trans people from ENDA.  Any interested parties can read the reams of ENDA info on the net, so we don't clutter up this forum with political mumbo jumbo.

The HIV test GGS is talking about is one where you take a sample - then send it off to a lab and they send you a result in a week or two.  That's worthless.

I'm talking about the standard 20 minute Ora-Quick test you get at many hiv testing stations.  It's easy and quick with immediate results.

It needs to be widely available and free - how many street whores do you think are going to spend $15 each for 10 dates a day to see if they are pos...

Without the easy availability of such tests nobody knows the status of a partners health and we must rely on cheap pieces of rubber to save our lives.

Anyway - guess I won't be getting a date from GGS anytime soon...

I'll shut up now.

Giggle,
TS Jamie

-- Modified on 11/2/2007 8:59:23 PM

I will read up.  Its better to be edjumacated on the topic and not just assume you are being safe.
Thanks,
LATSDOG

Hey GGS - that's an absolutely fabulous link to what is apparently a home test similar to the Ora-Quick.

This is EXACTLY what I feel is needed - I'm going to buy a few and give it a test.

Everyone in the hobby should be aware of this test.  It could save your life.

And honey, when I'm wrong I say so.  I was wrong.  I apologise for doubting you.    I was basing my opinion on out of date info.

Now let's get tested and I'll give you a night to remember...  

The next step is to get this test readily and easily available in every pharmacy and for FREE for sex workers - because as I mentioned earlier I doubt many girls are going to pay $20 a pop (times 2, one for each) to save thier lives...  sigh.

And here's a question - how many gents would be willing to take such tests prior to having sex with an escort?

ALSO: If anyone orders this be sure WHICH test you order - they also offer a test where you provide a sample and mail it back to them.

http://www.hivstdhometest.info/home-hivtest-index.htm

Have fun, play safe,
TS Jamie

-- Modified on 11/3/2007 9:56:31 PM

GGS is right! About one thing, at least.

okay, we'll give him the props on the home hiv test.

as for his thinking regarding science, vaccines, medicines in the pipeline, and prevention/education...well...not so right.

no offense, GGS.  

i apologize, i was not clear in saying that you can not buy a home-test kit which has been FDA-approved. the wording on the advertisement you linked is quite sly. it also pushes an 'at-home' test which *is* FDA-approved, but *that* test comes with packaging to mail-in Your sample for their lab to examine. i literally had to read the ad several times to ferret out the distinction.

now, if you are content with a "WHO-approved" test - and perhaps i should be more global in my thinking and thereby content - then you can buy a test which you can perform on yourself at home, with no mail-in required.

but you can *not* (yet!) buy a fully at-home/no mail-in self-test that is FDA-approved. though i'm not sure FDA approval even matters any more!

i believe the lack of FDA approval has more to do with their concern about the self-tester fouling up the test and/or the potential damage/danger to an individual who might test positive and become suicidal with no counseling available, rather than concern that the test itself is innately faulty.

based on that, i would say that if the self-tester is careful and of sound mind the still-unapproved (by the FDA) test should be adequate.

in fact, i'm going to order a handful right now. thank you for stimulating me to rethink my earlier decision to go with the mail-in....although i still google several articles that dispute the accuracy of the do-it-yourself tests...it's hard to know if those sources are trustworthy, or perhaps biased against their sale...for monetary or religious reasons perhaps...

-- Modified on 11/3/2007 10:45:22 PM