The Latest HIV News…

The world of HIV research is often ignored by the mainstream media. And what does come is often confusing, and without knowing the full scope of what’s going on, that might just be for the best anyway. But, even the smallest news story has major implications.

Germen researchers recently found that there is a protein in semen that enhances the ability of HIV to spread.

This little bit of information can help explain a lot of the things we’ve known all along. With a few minor exceptions, HIV is normally spread one of two ways - sexually, or through drug use. The vast majority of which is transmitted sexually, and men who have sex with men are still one of the largest number of people testing HIV Positive.

Before now, each of these factors had their own explanations. For example, more people put themselves at risk through sexual activity than drug use. The first cases of HIV were reported in the gay community, and if you live with the delusion that men who have sex with men never have sex with women… well, let’s just say that all this sounds good in theory, but…

Yes. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but I’m trying to keep it fairly simple. For example, HIV lives primarily in the blood, but that’s not to say that it isn’t found in other areas of the body either (vaginal fluids, breast milk, semen). Most HIV treatments concentrate on what’s in the blood… see, I’m afraid I am losing you already.

So, what does this mean for all of us non-scientists?

First off, I think stories like this should remind us that HIV is a sexually transmitted disease. While we’ve always known HIV can be transmitted via semen, perhaps we ought to be paying more attention to that.

Secondly, this story might help point the way to new treatments. It’s important to remember that in the grand scheme of things, HIV is fairly new to the scene, and new treatment ideas are still big news.

Up until recently, all HIV medications fit into one of only a small handful of categories. But, they all seem to work along the same lines - interrupting the way that HIV attacks the immune system by making more copies of itself in the bloodstream. The process has many steps, and each category of HIV medication we have now interrupts this process in their own way, somewhere in that process.

As I said before, the medications we have now work primarily in the bloodstream, but most (one report I recently read said approximately 80%) new cases of HIV were transmitted through (unprotected) sexual contact. So, what do you think would happen if we interrupted that process?

Yes. I know. There are a lot of “If’s”…

If there is a protein in semen that helps HIV infect new cells (which appears to be true) … if most cases of HIV are transmitted sexually (which, again, appears to be true) … then … would it be possible to think that if science could come up with a way of fighting HIV from blocking the protein found in semen from interacting with HIV, would it be safe to assume the HIV Infection rate would go way down?

Just … something to think about. Keep in mind that it takes an awful lot of time to go from scientific discovery to working everything out and coming up with a new treatment (let alone getting it approved by the FDA.)

Contracting HIV From Organ Donors & Other Medical Procedures…

Throughout the past week, I’ve been watching in the news media about the four individuals who got HIV after receiving organ transplants. On the local and cable television news networks, I have heard so much about how this could have happened, and what’s being done (via the government probe) about it. Via the Internet (especially the blogs) it’s more about … well … paranoia.

It’s starting to seem like every time I get an e-mail, read a blog or network post, I read something that contradicts what I read ten minutes before. It’s all so confusing. One guy says: This hasn’t happened before. The next guy says: That information came from an unreliable source, there have been a few, but they are rare. The next guy says: We need to have a better system in place so this doesn’t happen again. The next guy says: The system we have works great, why not just leave it alone. The next guy says: This hasn’t happened before. The next guy…

It’s hard to know how to respond. Not to sound like I am imitating Grissom on CSI - But, what evidence does the science give us?

The Basic Facts of the Case: Four patients got HIV from infected transplant organs. The gentleman who donated his organs had been exposed to HIV a matter of days before the transplant. As a matter or procedure, all organs are given Rapid HIV Tests before transplant.

The situation: The Rapid HIV Test is a very accurate test when accurately performed (and they’re easy to do). According to the CDC Website about the Tests used:

In the clinical studies by the manufacturer (OraSure Technologies, Inc.), the OraQuick test correctly identified 99.6% of people who were infected with HIV-1 (sensitivity) and 100% of people who were not infected with HIV-1 (specificity). The Food and Drug Administration expects clinical laboratories to obtain similar results.

So the test has an accuracy rate of 99.6% with no false positives. All in all, it’s the most accurate rapid test available.

Here is another fact some may find surprising. The Rapid HIV Test does not actually test for HIV itself, but rather for the antibodies the body produces when it is infected by HIV.

The Problem: When the human body is infected by HIV, it takes time for it to produce the antibodies. For some people, it could take the body a matter of days for the body to produce the antibodies, for others it may take longer. The reason for this is that everyone has different body chemistry and there’s no possible way of knowing how long it will take to produce the antibodies. (Think of it this way: when I get a headache, I take two Advil and it goes away. My roommate gets a similar headache, takes four Advil, and it barely takes the edge off. Why? Because our bodies are different.)

One of the questions I’ve heard over and over again is: Are there any tests that test for the virus itself? The answer is yes, but it’s not any better. For example, doing a viral lode test (which tests how many HIV viruses are contained in a unit of blood) is one costly example - however the test takes much longer to perform and the most sensitive tests can not detect HIV if there are less than fifty viruses per unit of blood. In persons who were infected with HIV in a matter of days before this test, it still may not show up.

With other tests, similar restrictions still apply.

The Solution: The bottom line is that there really, at this point, is no direct solution. But, maybe this can be a wake up call for us to find one.

There is an old saying that goes: “In life, there is no 100%.” In other words, nothing works 100% of the time. It’s unfortunate, and sometimes it totally sucks, but it’s something that we as human beings need to deal with.

Or, maybe this should be a wake up call. HIV can happen to everyone, even those without high risk factors. The one question I haven’t heard through all this:

What can we do to help people who have been infected (or affected) by HIV?

Corky On Video (Part II)

The Year In The Rear-View Mirror (2006)

In some ways, 2006 was a great year… In other ways, it kind of sucked.

We saw Britney Spears Crotch shot by the paparazzi … We heard what Mel Gibson thinks of the Jews … We heard what Michael Richards (who played Kramer on Seinfield) thought about hecklers. No wonder the Jib Jab people think we’ve gone Nucking Futs!

Sigh. Thank god 2006 is over! But, you have to admit - we’ve been through a lot this past year…

It is easy to point the finger at some of worst cases of blatant intolerance - such as James Dobson’s attack on Mary Cheney or Ann Coulter’s many many many anti-gay statements or Don Imus’ and Chris Matthews homophobic review of Brokeback Mountain… But, the truth is that we still live in a time when public “fag-bashing” is still, somewhat, socially acceptable.

Several celebrities came out of the closet this year… Neil Patrick Harris, Lance Bass, and T.R. Knight, for example. Oprah Winfrey, on the other hand, came out as heterosexual.

Two of the most (shockingly) successful movies this year included Brokeback Mountain and Transamerica. The NBC comedy Will and Grace aired their final episode.

Gay Marriage was, off and on, a hot topic - especially in areas like New Jersey.

Chicago (where I live) was host to the Gay Games… and I got to be a part of that.

The 25th Anniversary of AIDS occurred this year as well, and it was published that gays were not the origin of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS.)

Yes - this is just a small reminder of a few of the events that took place over the past year … it serves to remind us not only how far the gay community (in general) has come … but also serve as a reminder about how far we still have to go.

Chicago Takes (It All) Off … For Charity

I rarely get excited over charities … but this time I am going to make an exception.

The fine folks at TPAN (Test Positive Aware Network) are getting ready for a special event called Chicago Takes Off - a strip show … for charity!

Under the artistic direction of Dance for Life founders Keith Elliott and Todd Kiech, Chicago Takes Off promises to over-expose the best assets of Chicago’s dance community, elevating the “Strip-tease” to an art form. Chicago’s dance and performing arts community will donate their time and “many” talents to create this sexy celebration of life.

It looks like it’s going to be an awesome show. (Check out the pictures from the kickoff party!)

Chicago Takes Off will be held on Saturday, February 10 at the Park West. Tickets range in price from $50 to $250 and are available online.

All money raised will go to benefit Test Positive Aware Network, and be used for HIV and AIDS education. TPAN is a unique, peer based service organization that provides support services to clients with HIV or AIDS as well as providing HIV/AIDS educational services as well. TPAN also publishes Positively Aware magazine.

This year (2006) the agency received a major setback, losing over a hundred thousand dollars in government funding. So, this new fundraiser will hopefully go to help eliminate some of the strain the agency has faced this year.

I am often amazed when I hear about HIV Services or Programs from other cities. New York is one of those cities that has, quite often, really amazed me. I usually end up thinking, “Why can’t we do something like that in Chicago?”

One such example is Broadway Bares - a yearly fundraiser in New York. I’ve always wanted to go … but, New York is so far away. Why couldn’t they do something like that here? Well … now, I guess they are.

Stay tuned for further updates!

How Big Is Your … Um … Condom?

I tend not to believe stereotypes, especially when it comes to penis size - although that’s not the kind of thing I normally spend that much mental energy on. As a man with big hands and big feet - I am constantly asked if it’s true what they say about guys with big feet … and it’s not. We don’t all become clowns.

I don’t know if any of these stereotypes have ever been put to scientific tests… but then I found this news story from the BBC news service that … well, it puts an interesting spin on the old stereotype notions.

Seems guys in India are complaining that their condoms are too big.

A survey of over a thousand Indian men concluded that condoms made to international standards are just too big for them. Over half of the men measured as part of this scientific study, by the Indian Counsel of Medical Research, found their penis was considerably smaller than the international standard for condom size. In fact, 60% of the men measured were three to five centimeters short.

They also found that one in every five times a condom is used, it would either fall off or break.

Now, beyond the obvious psychological issues associated with penis size, there’s an even bigger reason this study was important.

India, currently, has one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world. Condoms are an important part of the fight against the spread of HIV. If a condom falls off, it can’t prevent the spread of HIV.

So, they’re calling for a bit of change in India, in making condoms of various sizes available in more places and more ways.

But the bottom line is that a huge cock isn’t all that important. It’s not the size of the tool that’s important, but how the tool is used. It’s not the size of the ship, but the motion of the ocean. It’s … OK, you get the idea.

… Today Is World Aids Day!

Today is World AIDS Day!

Get Informed. Wear or buy something Red. Learn about HIV and AIDS!

It’s hard to believe, but HIV and AIDS has been around for twenty-five years. In some ways, it seems longer. In other ways, it seems like it all started just a few years ago.

Over the past 25 years, we’ve learned a lot about HIV and AIDS. In 1981, we knew next to nothing about HIV and AIDS. Today - we still don’t know everything, but we know a lot more. We may not know how to cure this disease, but we understand a lot more about how to treat it. There are many medications being produced and new ones are coming out every year. We also have more and better ways to treat AIDS complications.

Twenty-five years ago, AIDS barely gave you enough time to say goodbye. Today, people are living much longer.

While some pretty amazing advances have been made - there is still a long way to go. And it doesn’t all fit under the category of medical research.

I am amazed at how often I run across someone who either doesn’t know how to prevent the spread of HIV - or doesn’t care about it.

I am also amazed at how there is still a huge stigma attached to HIV.  I still hear, occasionally, how HIV is God’s punishment for unhealthy lifestyles such as homosexuality, illicit drug use, and sex-working.  AIDS is no longer a “gay disease” … and it hasn’t been for a long time. Record numbers of African Americans, Latinos, and women in general are getting AIDS - is that god’s punishment for being Black, Hispanic, or Female?  And what of the children? What could they have possibly done to deserve God’s wrath like this?

While we have medications available to fight HIV and AIDS, not everyone is able to get them. As I blogged recently, people stuck on the waiting lists for these medications are dying because … well … only just because they’re just on the waiting list.

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about the AIDS crisis in Africa, thanks in part to people like U2’s Bono or Oprah Winfrey. People like them have done extraordinary work, and I don’t want to sound like I am ungrateful to them for that is definitely not the case. While it is true that, in many ways, the AIDS situation in Africa is much worse than it is here in the western world, when you speak of nothing but the AIDS crisis in Africa, it makes it sound like there are no problems here.

What they haven’t talked about much in the mainstream media much is how emergency housing funding for people living with AIDS has pretty much stopped. They haven’t talked much about the organizations set up to help clients with HIV and-or AIDS losing their funding either. Most AIDS Service Organizations have lost a good chunk of their federal funding - for example TPAN lost over a hundred thousand dollars in funding. Clients are not getting the services they need in order to survive because the money just isn’t there. (And yet, how much money are we spending per day in Iraq?)

We need help. Lots of help.

So, what can you do?

The biggest thing is educate yourself about HIV and AIDS, and urge your friends to learn something about it too.

Sometimes, even the littlest things make the biggest difference. Call your local AIDS Service Organization and ask about volunteering opportunities. Maybe you can answer phones, or help serve lunch or deliver lunch - for those with the biggest needs - a friendly smile can make the biggest difference.

Yes - today is World AIDS Day.

The World needs it.

This Shouldn’t Have Happened Here!!!

What if I told you there was a horrible disease that a large number of people had. What if I told you that there was no cure for this disease - but there are ways to treat it. There are several medications available that will not cure this disease - but they will allow those taking it to live longer, healthier, more productive lives.

What if I told you that many people can not afford these life-saving medications because they can’t afford insurance, are too sick to work, or just don’t make enough money. These medications are not cheap.

What if I told you that there was a system the government set up to help low income, disabled, non-insured, or under-insured people and help them afford medical treatments? But, not everyone who needs it is getting it.

What if I told you people were dying, waiting for the drugs that will treat their condition. Why? Because they’re on a waiting list. And, what if I told you that the government just couldn’t afford to get those medications to everyone who needs it. Or, maybe they just don’t want to…

You might think that those kinds of things just don’t happen here in the good old USA. We take care of our citizens who are in need … there are welfare programs … Medicare and Medicaid … Social Security … Disability … so that couldn’t happen here … right?

Wrong.

The disease is AIDS - and this is happening in the United States. South Carolina, to be exact. Six other states too.
The AIDS Drugs Assistance Program (ADAP) was set up to help those who did not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid and had no other way of affording their HIV or AIDS Medications.

Unfortunately - recently the number of people needing assistance has grown quickly - and many people living with AIDS are either going without treatment or getting inadequate care. The system set up to help them is failing them. And, there is nothing they can do - they’re on the waiting list.

Three people on one of those waiting list just died in South Carolina.

They held a vigil in South Carolina yesterday (November 20th) calling attention to the fact that this situation needs to be taken care of - and SOON!

You can support the Campaign to End AIDS (C2EA) … and also find out more information about this on their website.

Light A Virtual Candle!

Go ahead. Light a virtual candle. It’s free to do so. For every virtual candle lit - a dollar gets donated to the National AIDS Fund.

From now until World AIDS Day on December 1st, for every virtual candle lit, the National AIDS Fund will recieve a dollar from Bristol-Meyers Squibb. You can also donate something yourself to the NAF through the virtual candle website.

Go light a virtual candle now! And be sure to Tell Your Friends!

Religious Objections…

After a Minneapolis Bus Driver complained about a gay-themed advertisement on a bus she was driving, she asked to be allowed to drive another bus because the ad offended her religious values. The transit authorities considered this to be a reasonable accommodation to her religious beliefs.

I read about this story shortly after I read about the Minneapolis Cab Drivers who, because of their Muslim beliefs, were refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol.

And these aren’t the only examples of people who are supposed to deal with the public in general but refuse to do something because of their religious beliefs. From time to time we hear about others too: pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions because of religious objections (such as the birth control pill) … or, how about doctors who refuse medical treatments because of religious objections?

I just wonder if things are being pushed too far?

When it comes to the Minneapolis bus driver - according to the Amalgamated Transit Unit Local 1005 - bus drivers have never been excused from driving buses with ads that they object to for religious reasons, including political based messages and endorsements of political candidates.

So, then why start precedent with gay-themed ads?

Legally speaking, most businesses must accommodate its employees religious beliefs unless it brings undue business hardship. However, once you start drawing lines between what diverse groups of people find appropriate or inappropriate, someone is surely guaranteed to feel left uncomfortable or worse. By letting drivers refuse to drive buses with pro-gay ads on them, homosexual employees are left feeling uncomfortable and rejected. And yet, both religion and sexual orientation are supposedly protected by the company’s policies.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that if you deal with the public, you may just have to interact with people you normally wouldn’t associate with or look at things you’d rather not see. If you do not like to deal with people who are different than you - then maybe getting a job in the public sector isn’t such a bright idea.  “The Public” is made up of a wide mixture of people from various political lines of thoughts to religions to sexual orientation to national origins to skin color … and if you would rather not deal with the public - it should be up to you to find a career or job more suited to you.

While this may be a minor blip on the radar - it concerns me because I wonder what could happen next?

When it comes to medical care, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath which states, amongst other things, that they heal their patients to the best of their ability and not deliberately cause anyone harm. When it comes to times of war, battlefield doctors (remember that old show, MASH?) tend to overlook who’se side of the conflict someone was fighting for - and they’re labelled heroes because they healed the sick, even if they were the enemy. But, when it comes to treating someone who has a disease like AIDS, can a doctor refuse treatment because he has a religious objection to the type of person she or he is healing?

I must have forgotten about that part of the Hippocratic Oath where it states it’s ok to refuse medical treatment to someone who needed it just because you disagree with his lifestyle, political views, or sexual orientation.

And in those cases of rape or incest where a woman may want to choose to terminate pregnancy? Or, in times when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother - how do you legislate the idea that one person’s life is worth more than anyone else’s? And why wouldn’t that be unethical?

Or, what if I turned it all around.

What if I refused you when you needed it because I had religious objections to your religious views?

HIV Transmission Laws

At first, I thought they were a good idea. In theory, it sounds good that should someone knowing transmit the HIV Virus to another person, they should be guilty of a crime. However, now that we have seen them in action, and see the way people respond to them – I’ve had to change my mind.

There have been a number of reasons for my change of heart. The first reason is that the laws just don’t have the effect they should. Too much is left up to interpretation. In some cases, they are too specific – in other cases, not specific enough.

In fact, calling many state’s laws HIV Transmission Laws is misleading because the laws have little, if anything, to do with the transmission of HIV. In most states, you are guilty of this offense if you put another individual at risk for catching HIV. Whether or not HIV was actually transmitted is beside the point.

And who decides what constitutes putting someone at risk for catching HIV? Georgia’s HIV Transmission Law was recently put to the test after an HIV positive man spit on a nurse. He was found guilty – even though HIV is not transmitted by spitting on someone. In California, several people have been charged with a felony for not disclosing their HIV status, even though the virus was not transmitted to them, and they remain HIV Negative.

Calling them HIV Disclosure Laws might be a little less confusing in some states, but not any better. In several states, even practicing safe sex with someone after disclosing your HIV status would still make you guilty of breaking the HIV Transmission Laws. In Georgia, this is still true even if both parties knew they were HIV positive before the encounter.

There are those out there (lawmakers included) who believed that passing HIV Transmission Laws would make people think twice about whether or not to disclose their HIV status before engaging in risky behavior. Where this notion came from, I have no idea. Since the passing of these laws, I have yet to hear a single person who decided to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners (or fellow drug addicts) because if they didn’t – they might be convicted of a crime. I really don’t think it’s a factor at all. The subject rarely, if ever, comes up.

The only times I have heard about the subject (other than in a magazine or newspaper) are by those people who are concerned about getting tested for HIV. HIV Transmission Laws scare the crap out of them. I don’t think that’s a common reason for people not to be tested, but it does play into their fears. There are already enough stigmas attached to being HIV positive – do we really need to add one more?

In California right now, there’s even another bent angle to this whole thing. Prosecutors there are trying (and appear to be winning) to convict a man who spread HIV to several women, even though he didn’t know he was positive. They suggest he should have known, even though he refused to get tested. If this succeeds, it makes me wonder what the next step will be … mandatory HIV tests for anyone even considering having a sex life? How well would THAT go over?

So, where did all these HIV Transmission Laws come from in the first place? They all date back to 1990, a time when the HIV situation was a lot different than it was today. (This was the time before we had any good medications, and the mortality rate was the highest it had ever been.) Congress added a provision to the Ryan White Care Act (which was taken back out in 2000) that required all states that received federal AIDS dollars to devise a way to prosecute those who knowingly expose anyone to the HIV Virus without warning them first. In 1990, having HIV (or AIDS) was a death sentence for more people than not – so it’s pretty easy to understand how these people could be charged with felony murder charges. Since the Protease Inhibitors hit the market in the mid 1990s, HIV is no longer a death sentence and most people with HIV are still able to go on living productive lives. Yet, in many areas, knowingly transmitting HIV is still equated with felony murder charges.

In my opinion, the best solution lies not within criminalizing behaviors, but in education and social responsibility. When I hear about someone who knowingly spreads a disease like HIV, my first thought is that this person must have some mental issues, not that the person’s a criminal.

Another thing I figured out was that HIV Transmission Laws only put the responsibility of “safe sex” into the hands of those who are HIV Positive. (Again, this is about social responsibility.) Never-mind the fact that it takes two to tango … if I agree to have unprotected sex with someone (regardless of whether or not they knew they were HIV positive) and get HIV – it’s not my fault. Right?

Wrong! Anyone who engages in risky behavior (be that unsafe sexual practices, sharing drug needles, or whatever) is just as culpable as their partners – HIV status has nothing to do with it. So why doesn’t the law reflect this shared responsibility?

It is clear to me now that these laws just don’t work. Is it time to change them? Maybe. Drop them totally? Maybe. All I know for certain is that if we don’t do something soon – we’re going to be up to our necks in this caca.

25 Years Is A Really Long Time

Monday, June 5th, 2006 - marked the 25th anniversary of the start of the AIDS epidemic.

Looking back over the past twenty-five years - in some ways, it seems like we've come a long way; in other ways, it seems like we're still standing at the same point.

Twenty-Five years ago, nobody knew anything about what was happening, but they knew it was going to be something big, something major. It started with a report from the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) about five gay men with Pneumocystis Pneumonia. Pneumocystis itself wasn't new, but an outbreak of people who shouldn't be getting it sure was.

Because it was thought, at first, that this was a disease plaguing only the gay community, at first, they called it GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). In 1982, the CDC began to realize that half the reported cases were from heterosexual, not homosexual men - they changed its name to AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.)

Throughout the first several years, nobody knew very much about this or why it was happening. They realized it was a sexually transmitted disease, but nobody had any idea what kind of virus it was or how to fight it.

Between 1985 and 86, researchers began working with a drug called Azidothymidine - which had initially been intended as a cancer drug, but failed the initial tests. When they started using the drug on HIV, it showed a lot of promise. On March 20, 1987, the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) approved the use of Azidothymidine (or AZT) for use against HIV, AIDS, and ARC (AIDS-Related Complex - a term we no longer use today but used to mean pre-AIDS illnesses.) In 1990, it was approved as a preventative treatment.

AZT, tho, was not the miracle drug that everyone hoped it would be, but it was a start. The side effects were terrible and the drug turned toxic at the levels it was prescribed at - yet it was still better than the alternative.

So - how far have we come since those days? A long way. We now know a lot more about HIV and how the Virus operates. We know how it enters the system, and what it does once it gets there. We've been able to map how it takes over the immune system.

In 1995, a new class of medications came out called Protease Inhibitors. This was really teh first breakthrough since the AIDS epidemic began. By as early as 1997, an AIDS Diagnosis was no longer a life sentence.

Today, 2006, we have even more types of drugs for use on HIV and AIDS. We are still using AZT (although at a much lesser amount, and in combination with other medications) and Protease Inhibitors, but now we also have Reverse transcriptase inhibitors, Fusion inhibitors, Integrase inhibitors, plus several new drug classes on the not-so-distant horizon too.

We have also learned how to deal with many of the AIDS-related conditions - such as Pneumocystis Pneumonia, Kaposi sarcoma, Tuberculosis, Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) colitis, just to name a few.

That doesn't mean that today there are no health worries with HIV or AIDS - only that we know more about how to prevent and treat these illnesses. We know more about how to fight the virus itself.

This also isn't to say that we still don't have a long way to go. We still have no cure. There are still quite a few unanswered (and unanswerable) questions.

While looking back at all the progress we've made, it saddens me to think that in other ways, we're no better off than we were twenty-five years ago.

Throughout the early years, we often heard about how HIV and AIDS was some form of punishment from God… God doesn't tolerate homosexuality. If you use drugs, Jesus isn't going to allow you to go to Heaven. You're only going to get this if you're immoral or do ungodly things.

It surprises me that even today, this attitude is still present. God doesn't punish anyone for having sex by giving them AIDS - just like He doesn't punish immoral New Orleans' people by throwing them a hurricane or two. And yet, this is what we hear when Fred Phelps and the Westburough Baptist Assholes (pardon my French) show up at the funeral for a (most likely heterosexual) soldier killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

Being open and honest about ones HIV status often leads to isolation. The HIV and AIDS stigma is just as bad now as it ever has been.

If you have HIV or AIDS, most people are still going to think you're either some perverted gay guy or some strung out drug addict. Many will even think its your own fault for getting this disease because if you didn't stick that needle in your arm or have sex with whomever it was that gave it to you - and if its your own damn fault, why should they care?

Even the gay community often turns its back on the HIV/AIDS Epidemic.

Granted, there are cities like New York City that offers so many options for HIV related housing, HIV related social services, HIV support groups, that it's hard to know where to start … and yet there are other cities that offer almost nothing. And the current political climate is only making this issue worse.

Barebacking (having sex without a condom or any form of protection) is big in the gay community right now. You can get barebacking videos at the local adult shops, lots of places have (private) bearbacking parties - it seems like you can see it everywhere. Do these people know this is exactly how you get HIV in the first place? Or is it just that they don't care?

You'd think we'd have learned to live with HIV by now - whether we have the disease or not. And that - that is why we still have a long way to go.

The Immigration Debate Issues … (Part Two)

I think the biggest problem I have with the whole Immigration debate are the attitudes that go with it. And along with those attitudes come values I just don’t understand. 

Let’s say I go to some foreign country… and let’s say that I am going to lobby for legislation that requires all police officers to speak at least basic English. Let’s say that I refuse to obey local laws (I expect to be able to drive, yet I refuse to get a driver’s licence, any form of insurance, and I will refuse to learn the local driving laws. I plan on working an under-the-table job and therefore aren’t going to pay any income tax.) Let’s say that I expect free medical treatment should I come down with anything. Let’s say that I expect all governmental information to be printed in English. Should I go to court, what if I expect that my case should be heard first because I am going to need an interpreter, and they shouldn’t have to wait longer than necessary. I know the locals may get upset for having to wait, but there’s not much I can do about that. Let’s say that I expect my children to be taught in English by English speaking teachers. Let’s say I expect to not only celebrate the 4th of July - but am going to get all my American friends together for a huge parade. I may or may not apply for a parade permit because this is my countries Independence day and I don’t feel I need one. And what if I didn’t like the way I am being treated? And what if I planned on holding rallies to disrupt the normal flow of events because that would really make my point hit home.

You would say that I was a total jerk, right? You’d ask me to pull my head out of my ass, wouldn’t you?

And yet this is what many of the immigrants are asking of us - and public attitude says we need to respect them because they’re just in this country trying to make a better life for themselves. Tell me - how is this right?

Part of being an American Citizen means that if I am unable to take care of myself, I can apply for government programs that can help me out. I’m ok, but many of my friends who are in the same situation I am are facing huge problems. Some of my friends are being evicted from their homes because the government subsidy that used to help them pay their rent is no longer available. They’re being told there just isn’t money for it anymore. The health programs and social service organizations we all relied on are forced to cut their programming - because the funds just aren’t there. And yet, the Bush administration can pay a few billion dollars to hospitals that are losing money because they’re giving free treatments to illegal immigrants, or because there has been such an increase of "undocumented" immigrants on welfare… how is that right?

A good friend of mine from the UK wants to come to Chicago this year to participate in The Gay Games. He’s a cyclist, and a damned good one if I say so myself. But, he’s unable to come to Chicago - or any other place in the USA because he has AIDS. The US has refused his Visa. He wants to come here for no longer than a week to compete in sporting events, and maybe do some shopping, (supporting the local communities and economy) but he can’t. Meanwhile, those that are here illegally … how is that right?

So, if you want to talk about values, I say bring it on. But, tell me what these values are - because the way I see it - some of these values suck!

HIV & The California Courts

There's an interesting wind blowing in California. The case is John B. vs. Superior Court, S128248 and it is asking if HIV+ People should be required by law to tell their partners or playmates about their HIV Status. There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to start.

This lawsuit is pretty much bringing up two issues: the first is about how much your partner (or spouse) is entitled to know about your past sexual history as it relates to spreading infection. The other issue is if one should be held accountable for passing on HIV even they are unaware of their HIV Status.

One of the issues here I have a BIG problem with is that (as reported by law.com) Bridget claims her husband's sexual history is important because he had homosexual sex in the past which increased her chances of getting HIV - an idea that sounds good in theory but is rather lacking in the long run. See, the thing is that it makes it sound like all homosexual sex and only homosexual sex leads to HIV infection.

What if the husband had a history of heterosexual sex rather than homosexual sex? Or, what if he had tried injecting cocaine at a party once? What if he liked to have fun with the occasional hooker? Oh - what if he got a little too frisky with the stripper at his bachelor party? All of these are excellent ways of putting yourself at risk for getting HIV - but we don't hear about any lawsuits because some girl might have gotten HIV after her husband boinked some stripper - only if the poor guy had gay sex.

Let's face one reality here. HIV doesn't care who you are, what gender you are, if you're Gay, Straight, Bi, or Anne Heche… it doesn't matter if you're Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Klingon - the basic reality here is that if you have unprotected sex with anyone - PERIOD - you're putting yourself at risk for HIV.

Another reality here to face - it takes two to tango. Hopefully by now you know that HIV is spreading in all demographic groups. (And, it's not just HIV anymore - syphilis cases are on the rise, as well as numerous other STDs.) If you agree to have unprotected sex with someone, or if you agree to inject drugs with someone, or if you agree to do anything which puts you at risk for getting HIV - both parties are just as guilty. There isn't any of this "if I would have known he had HIV I wouldn't have screwed him."

The only people who really know their HIV status are either (1) Virgins; or (2) the HIV Positive. I don't know how many people have told me that they just got an HIV Test back and that it was safe - as if this little sheet of paper proves anything. All it proves, to me, is that as of six months ago, you most likely didn't have HIV. Whoever it was you screwed around with last night or last weekend or three months ago might have given it to you and it's possible it didn't show up on that test…

Sorry - I am getting away from myself here. Back to the topic at hand. The law.com article states:

"Is it that burdensome of an obligation to warn a partner?" Justice Marvin Baxter asked attorneys arguing the case. "That partner would then have a choice of taking that risk or not taking that risk."

At least three of the seven justices seemed to agree.

And a little farther down:

At one point, George seemed frustrated by Multhaup's responses that disclosure wouldn't accomplish much.

"But what's the burden?" George asked. "Here we're just talking about exchanging a few words."

I'm sorry to say this, Your Honor, with all due respect, but if you think we're only talking about exchanging a few words, it's time to pull your head out of your ass so you can better see the world around you.

Let me put it to you this way: you just found out your date had appeared in a movie called Naughty Nymphos from Neptune - Do you think "Oh, she's a porn star, she might have AIDS." Or, do you think "Where can I get my hands on that movie?" Or, do you think, "Gee, was that you in that scene where they started doing it on the captain's chair, then did it on the floor, then in the elevator, the holodeck…"

It's not just a few words - it's a VERY LOADED QUESTION. A question that leads to any number of other questions. And in case we didn't learn anything from Bill and Hillary - men aren't always totally honest about where they stick their penis. And honestly, speaking as a guy - we're not always sure where we stick the damned thing either. When we follow some cutie home from the bar for a one-night-stand, it isn't as if we ask to see their ID (You mean your name isn't really Aileen Overmann?), union card, social security number, or what numbers they played in last weeks lotto.

The final thing I want to comment on here is about the notion that some people aren't being tested because they don't want to be legally responsible for passing on the virus - just where do you come up with such utter Bullshit Caca Du Torro?

Since 1995 I have lived and worked around HIV+ people. I have given discussions in High School health classes and on college campuses about HIV prevention. I have counseled people while giving them HIV tests. I have run HIV support groups. I have answered phones at the AIDS Hotline. I have stood up and been counted as an HIV Advocate. And I have NEVER, even once, ran across anyone who didn't want to be tested because they were afraid of being sued. I have never ran across anyone who didn't want to get tested in order to avoid homicide or manslaughter charges. That notion is really quite laughable, really.

The biggest reasons I've seen for people not wanting to be tested is because HIV is a horrible disease that is hard for some people to accept they have it … because once you have HIV, you're almost labeled an outcast and there's a fairly good chance your friends or family aren't going to talk to you anymore … because society looks down on you if you have HIV … because Pat Robertson wants you to think you have AIDS because you turned your back on GOD … you get the idea here…

And yes, if you are a politician or are otherwise in a position to help set public policy and you have no idea what it's like to have HIV - chances are you're just going to make things worse - and you will continue to make things worse until you at least learn the basics of what life is like for those of us living with this disease.

An Old Story, I know…

On March 2, 2006, the ACLU filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against a West Virginia Police Chief who they say forced the friend of a gay man having a heart attack to stop performing CPR because the officer assumed he was HIV Positive. (You can read the ACLU Press Release Here, or the details again, according to the ACLU)

While the police officer says the accusations are untrue, the lawyer for the ACLU says they have several witnesses to the alleged events. Either way - it will be interesting to see this one played out.

USA Today reported that police said that safety concerns should not be ignored, quoting Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, as saying that he stresses the need for caution, no matter if its needle pricks or CPR.

The problem is that according to the American Heart Association, there has yet to be a single case of anyone getting HIV from performing CPR. They also point out that there are simple ways to protect yourself if there are health concerns.

That Green was not HIV positive is another issue all together. The story is that the only reason the police assumed Green had HIV was because he was gay. Granted, HIV was once prediminately a gay disease - but those days are long over.

Because the number of HIV cases involving blacks is on a rise, does this mean that it will be ok to deny them CPR now? Nope - I didn't think so.

As I said earlier - it will be fascinating to see how this one turns out…