Posted on 04/03/2005 6:00:14 PM PDT by neverdem
Where have all the condoms gone?
Don't try looking at the Monster, the Hangar, Starlight or Barracuda. On a recent evening, these and more than a dozen other Manhattan gay bars were well stocked with free going-out guides, but not a scrap of literature about H.I.V. prevention or the perils of crystal meth. As for condoms, the frontline defense against sexually transmitted diseases, only one establishment stocked them - behind the bar.
As part of his graduate course work at New York University, Michael Marino set out last winter to compare the AIDS prevention efforts of New York and London. He was troubled by what he found. At most New York bars, and even at some bedrock gay and AIDS service institutions, educational pamphlets and free condoms were hard to find, if not impossible. In London, Mr. Marino found them easily.
"No wonder things are getting so out of control here," he said.
Condoms, which still can be found in vending machines at a handful of places, were once given away by the bucketful. While no one believes free condoms will completely halt the spread of H.I.V., their disappearance from bars, the equivalent of a town hall for some gay men, is a telling indicator of how much steam has been lost in the fight against AIDS.
Although the city health department's recent warning about a rare, possibly more virulent strain of H.I.V. has caused a stir among gay men, many AIDS activists hold out little hope the news will prompt substantial or lasting changes in behavior. They point to the continued popularity of methamphetamine, which has contributed to a rise in condomless intercourse, known as barebacking, and the widespread apathy in which H.I.V. is seen as a nuisance, not a potential killer.
Compounding this laissez-faire attitude, they complain, are drug company advertisements that gloss over the disease's effects by portraying patients as the picture of perfect health.
Locally, at least, the statistics paint a mixed picture. The number of new H.I.V. infections among men who have sex with men declined slightly from 2001 to 2003, according to the most recent figures available, although in much of the country that number has been rising. But AIDS service providers, pointing to a recent spike in syphilis cases and the rise of methamphetamine abuse among gay men, fear it is only a matter of time before New York faces a new surge in infections.
The challenge is far more complicated than handing bar patrons informational brochures and telling them to be good, prevention specialists say.
"Just because folks are well informed doesn't mean they'll necessarily make the wisest choices in terms of their health," said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, who oversees AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "This is true of all humanity, not just gay men."
The reality that gay men continue to have unprotected sex has been vexing health experts for 20 years, although the struggle became even more daunting in the mid-1990's, when a new class of medications sharply reduced death rates and fed the misconception that AIDS is only about as troublesome as the flu.
And then there are those who disdain condoms. With the specter of imminent death gone, the idea of using condoms has become an annoyance for many. "Let's face it, sex with a condom is not as good," said Dr. Robert L. Klitzman, a psychiatrist and professor at Columbia University. "Sex is supposed to be an incredibly intimate moment, and it's not as intimate when there's a piece of plastic between you and your partner."
There is a growing sense that the traditional sloganeering about condoms and club drugs is about as effective as birth-control campaigns that rely on abstinence. The only hope for changing behavior, public health experts and psychologists say, is to recognize and address the underlying factors that propel men into risky situations. Loneliness, alienation and self-hatred, they say, are the real culprits that need to be addressed.
But others, describing such talk as naïve, say it makes more sense to stress personal responsibility. Demonize crystal meth, stigmatize unprotected sex and remind people that living with H.I.V. can be grueling, or worse. An important first step, they say, would be to stop running pharmaceutical ads that portray people with AIDS as carefree and virile.
Other ideas include following the lead of the San Francisco health department, which is seeking strict limitations on the availability of erectile dysfunction drugs that counteract the impotence induced by crystal meth and encourage the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Many AIDS activists in New York, describing current public service campaigns as toothless and ineffective, say bus ads and billboards should remind people that AIDS is a devastating and entirely avoidable illness.
Many prevention advocates agree that only a creative, ever-changing arsenal of tactics can reduce the number of new H.I.V. infections. They point out that it has taken years and millions of dollars to change public attitudes about tobacco and seat belts, and even now reasonable people lapse into old ways.
"Everyone knows smoking is bad for you, but we still print those health warnings on cigarette packs," said Kwame M. Banks, a consultant specializing in prevention work. "People need to hear these messages 100 times a day. That's the way these things work."
Still, when it comes to H.I.V. and AIDS, some wonder whether it is time for a new strategy. Perry Halkitis, a psychologist at New York University who studies the relationship between drug use and sex, believes that many gay men who engage in risky behavior are grappling with profound mental health issues.
"People are not taking risks because they're stupid, or because they wake up one day and say, 'I'm going to take a risk today,' " Dr. Halkitis said. "They do it because the sexual risk fulfills a need, or somehow makes them feel better about themselves."
He and others say any successful fight against H.I.V. must deal with depression, substance abuse and low self-esteem, problems that studies have shown affect gay men at disproportionately higher rates.
"Many people might argue that as a community, we suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder because we're so ostracized by society," Dr. Halkitis said. "Being rejected by family, by our churches, and these days by our government most certainly has an impact."
That emotional fragility has been compounded by the trauma of the 1980's and early 90's, when sickness and death permeated the lives of so many. Peter Staley, a veteran AIDS activist, said it was no coincidence that some of the first people in New York to pick up crystal meth habits have been men 35 to 45 years old.
"We are the long-term survivors who watched friends die, who never thought we'd live to have a midlife crisis," said Mr. Staley, who is H.I.V.-positive and himself a recovering meth addict. "Then the new medications came along, and suddenly everyone returned to their old lives and people moved on to other issues, like gays in the military and gay marriage. Where was the communal processing of the emotional hell we had just gone through? I think as a result we're a deeply scarred group."
While such scars can lead to substance abuse, psychologists say the internalized homophobia and deep-seated feelings of low self-worth are just as powerful. That is where the allure of crystal meth kicks in. Those who have used the drug say it tends to blot out feelings of vulnerability, boosts self-confidence and imbues them with a false sense of connection to strangers.
Then there are the "bug chasers," H.I.V.-negative men who actively seek infection. Although such men are thought to be few in number, mental health experts say the phenomenon reflects the intense alienation that many gay men feel. Louis Pansulla, a psychoanalyst who runs gay therapy groups in New York, said younger men, in the generation that missed the darkest days of the AIDS crisis, believe that infection will win them membership into a clique, albeit one coping with a dreaded disease.
"It's almost a longing to belong, even though it's a completely unconscious thing," he said.
Michelangelo Signorile, the host of a gay-themed talk show on Sirius Satellite Radio, takes a less nuanced view: "If everyone in your group is beautiful, taking steroids, barebacking and H.I.V. positive, having the virus doesn't seem like such a bad thing."
It is for that reason that Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, believes the disease is due for an image makeover. He cites a hard-to-miss ad in last month's Out magazine that is embedded with a tiny audio chip and features two robust men on a beach. Opening the magazine sets off the trill of a ringing phone and a man's voice essentially saying he is having too much fun to worry about his chronic illness. Mr. Weinstein has asked the ad's sponsor, Bristol-Myers Squibb, to stop using the ad for the drug, Reyataz. A spokeswoman said the company was re-examining its advertising campaigns.
"People are in such denial about how serious H.I.V. is," Mr. Weinstein said. "Unfortunately, the best prevention is seeing people die."
Of course, frontline prevention workers hope to avoid a new wave of deaths. At Gay Men's Health Crisis, prevention workers are planning a series of events that seek to promote "connectedness and community."
Others are creating antidrug messages that masquerade as packets of meth that can be dropped on dance floors. A series of subway ads unveiled by the state for the first time shifts responsibility to those who are already infected.
And then there are people like Daniel Carlson, a former marketing executive who became so disgusted by the number of men soliciting unprotected sex online that he and a friend started a group to combat the prevailing ethos about sex and drugs. In the past two years, the group, H.I.V. Forum, has organized a half-dozen town hall meetings on crystal meth and unprotected sex that have drawn packed houses.
"I know it sounds touchy-feely, but if we could just emphasize a little bit more community and brotherhood," Mr. Carlson said. "We have to decide whether we're going to be selfish or whether we're going to care about one another."
What' T.M.I.?
Maybe I'm not awake yet... does that sentence flow right or make sense?
I have said this numerous times, but not as well.
The straight world does have a big problem with other STDs. SOmeplace I read that 20% of the adult population in US was infected with one or another STD. That's comparable to AIDS rates in some African countries, so promiscuity is a problem here as much as it is there.
could it be that the federal dollars have run out and now the NYT wants to get more moeny. The author my be going through a dru spell.
I think it might be grammatically correct, but it certainly is awkard. And then there's the content...
THE GREAT HIV / AIDS HOAX
The multi-billion dollar AIDS/HIV fraud is based on two fabrications: that AIDS is a single disease and that it is caused by the HI virus or the "HIV virus" as some medical/media masterminds call it - perhaps they think the V in HIV stands for volcano.
In Japan "AIDS" is virtually unknown : yet, in random tests, 25% of people were found to be "HIV-positive".
HIV-positive response means nothing of any relevance to health: it can be triggered by vaccination, malnutrition, M.S., measles, influenza,
papilloma virus wart, Epstein Barr virus, leprosy, glandular fever, hepatitis, syphillis ... : over sixty different conditions.
Dr Robert E. Willner, inoculated himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, a HIV-positive haemophiliac, on live Spanish television: an event which was not picked up the pharma-beholden British or US media.
The great HIV/AIDS lie was created by Robert Gallo who was found guilty of "scientific misconduct". "...instead of trying to prove his insane theories about AIDS to his peers...he went public. Then, with the help of
Margaret Heckler, former head of Health and Human Services, who was under great political pressure to come up with an answer to AIDS, the infamous
world press announcement of the discovery of the so-called AIDS virus came about.
This great fraud is now responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands... It was no accident that Gallo just happened to patent the test for HIV the day after the announcement...Gallo is now a multi-millionaire because of AIDS and his fraudulent AIDS test." Dr.
Willner.
By grouping together 25-plus different diseases and other allied factors -
pneumonia, herpes, candidiasis, salmonella, various cancers, infections, vaccine and antibiotic damage, amyl nitrate damage, malnutrition etc.and,
particularly in Africa, TB, malaria, dysentery leprosy and "slim disease" - and calling the whole thing an "AIDS epidemic", a multi-billion dollar/pound "AIDS research and treatment" racket has been created.
The mythical "HIV-induced AIDS plague" in the Third World generates huge sums of cash from Western relief organisations whilst smokescreening the
vaccine/drug boys, responsible for the carnage.
Every death of someone "HIV-positive" is recorded as an "AIDS death".
Periodically, the BBC/ITV/Press visit
Africa/Yugoslavia/Russia etc to
report on the "HIV/AIDS victims" and how they cannot afford the "life-saving AZT." Glaxo Wellcome's lethal drug, AZT, in combination with the diagnosis of
HIV-positive and the prediction, stated or implied, that - "You will die of AIDS" is one of the great pieces of Medical Black Magic - Voodoo Medicine at its most impressive: people have committed suicide on the
basis of the ludicrous diagnosis.
Pregnant women who are HIV-positive have been told to stop breast-feeding, dosed with AZT, have had abortions or have been sterilised. HIV-positive
babies who become ill -from vaccination or whatever - are automatically diagnosed as "suffering from AIDS".
"Considering that there is little scientific proof of the exact linkage of HIV and AIDS, is it ethical to prescribe AZT, a toxic chain terminator of DNA...to 150,000 Americans - among them pregnant women and newborn babies..? Rep.G Gutknecht US House of Representatives.
New Labour "Health" have now announced that all pregnant women in the UK will be "offered" a HIV test. Those who fall for the scam and who are diagnosed as "HIV positive" will be given the chance to have themselves and their unborn child permanently damaged by AZT etc. Pregnancy, itself, can cause a positive diagnosis.
AZT began as a "cancer drug" but was withdrawn for being too toxic: like being thrown out of the Gestapo for cruelty. Its effects include - cancer, hepatitis, dementia, seizures, anxiety, impotence, leukopaenia, , severe
nausea, ataxia, etc. and the termination of DNA synthesis. i.e. AIDS/death by prescription. AZT eventually kills all those who continue to take it.
"WARNING : Retrovir (AZT)...has been associated with symptomatic myopathy, similar to that produced by Human Immunodeficiency Virus..." Glaxo
Wellcome literature!
None of which stops the medical trade from pushing it on every trusting sap who is not ill to start with but is labelled with the "HIV-positive" nonsense and then destroyed by AZT; with "AIDS" getting the blame - and
more billions pouring in for the drug boys, vivisectors, animal breeders and the rest. The latest stunt is to give a "cocktail" of drugs - including AZT, of course, and at £12,000 per head, per year - to all homosexual men who are "HIV-positive".
A particularly good scam is to haul into court someone "guilty of deliberately infecting the victim with the 'HIV-Virus which causes AIDS' " which then develops into "full-blown AIDS" - no mention of vaccine,
antibiotic damage etc or full-blown AZT. Over 2000 - and rising, of the world's scientists are now disputing the HIV hoax, their efforts being continually suppressed by the AIDS establishment, the pharmaceutical/vivisection syndicate and their political and media lackeys
THE FDA SAYS ONLY 1% OF LATEX DEATHS ARE REPORTED
Delayed contact dermatitis from chemicals in rubber has been recognized since the 1930s.4 But except for rare early reports, clinicians did not appreciate systemic allergic reactions to latex proteins until 1979, when case reports began to appear in Europe. 5
Latex allergy erupted in the United States shortly after the Centers for Disease Control introduced universal precautions in 1987. By late 1992, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 1133 reports of serious allergic reactions and anaphylaxis occurring to patients and health care staff associated with 30 classes of latex medical devices. There were 15 patient deaths associated with latex barium enema catheters.5,6
The FDA estimated that the reports represented only 1% of actual occurrences.6
Today, researchers hypothesize that the latex allergy outbreak is the result of multiple factors including deficiencies in manufacturing processes, increased latex exposure, hand care practices, immunological cross reactivity, and changes in latex agricultural practices.1,7,8, 45
Latex allergy affects between 8%-12% of workers in all health disciplines. Latex allergy also affects up to 51% of children with spina bifida, and approximately 1% of the general population.
http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/workplac/wklatex.htm
____________
New US government website attacked for comments on sexuality and effectiveness of condoms
The wording of information about condoms on the site is also potentially misleading (they mean factual). US abstinence education programmes usually only mention condoms when referring to their potential for failure.
The 4parents.com site suggests that condoms offer only “moderate” protection against HIV and gonorrhoea, “less” protection against Chlamidya, herpes and human papilloma virus, and that the ability of condoms to protect against syphilis “has not been well studied.” Although these claims are backed by reference to studies looking at the effectiveness of condoms, they do not acknowledge that the studies were, almost exclusively, conducted in populations with a high prevalence, or risk of sexually transmitted infections.
____
The rest of the article (attacking the new semi honest official statements on condoms) is a pathetic attempt to defend condoms citing the one and only study (if you can call it that) conducted over twelve years ago that claimed that condoms reduced 'AIDS' in the 132 couples studied. As usual the 'conclusions' section of that report which said 'in real world use condoms failed up to 32% of the time' was ignored.
This study has been contradicted by ALL the 400 subsequent studies almost without exception.
________
Do Condoms Protect Against Small Viruses?
The use of condoms is widely recommended to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, including those caused by such viruses as herpes simplex, hepatitis B, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The efficacy of condoms in these circumstances, however, is unknown.
The water-leak test used to ensure the integrity of condoms can detect holes as small as 3 to 4 m in diameter, but sexually transmitted viruses are much smaller, with diameters of 0.04 to 0.15 m. A previous study demonstrated that about one third of condoms tested allowed penetration of HIV-sized polystyrene spheres.
________
Condom Use Linked to Risk of Preeclampsia
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/433419?srcmp=wh-051002
LOS ANGELES (Reuters Health) May 09 - Women who are not exposed to a partner's sperm prior to pregnancy because the couple used condoms may be at increased risk for developing preeclampsia, a new study presented here concludes.
The findings suggest that when the uterus is repeatedly exposed to sperm, a woman's immune system may become accustomed to this "foreign" genetic material, said Dr. Jon I. Einarsson, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
However, when a woman's body has only recently been introduced to the sperm because she stopped using barrier contraception and was trying to conceive, she may have an immune reaction to the paternal genetic material that causes arterial damage and contributes to preeclampsia, Dr. Einarsson suggested. This reaction may be heightened because the placenta produces paternal proteins similar to those on sperm, he told Reuters Health.
Preeclampsia affects about 7% of pregnant women, yet little is understood about why the condition develops, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). The Baylor study findings were presented Wednesday during the College's annual meeting.
Dr. Einarsson described his team's findings for 113 women who developed preeclampsia during their pregnancies and another 226 women who did not.
He said those who used barrier methods and had only been having sex with their partners for a short period of time were most at risk. "Women who used barrier methods who had been having sex with their partners for less than 4 months prior to getting pregnant had a 6.5-fold increased risk of getting preeclampsia, compared with women who did not use barrier methods and had been in a sexual relationship for more than 12 months," he said.
Most women in the study who reported using barrier contraception relied on condoms, while some also used diaphragms. Women who relied on the withdrawal method also were included in this group.
"Women who use barrier methods exclusively prior to pregnancy should consider changing to an alternative method 4 to 6 months prior to getting pregnant, especially if they have other risk factors for preeclampsia, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, or if they are overweight," Dr. Einarsson recommended.
"The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, released the report compiled by the panel of 28 experts, who analyzed about 138 published studies on the use of condoms during penile-vaginal intercourse.
"There was a lack of evidence to help us make a definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of condoms," said panel member Dr. Timothy Schacker, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota"
I'm not at all surprised to read that condoms contain all kinds of carcinogenic or otherwise health damaging materials.
Regardings HIV/AIDS and whether it exists or not, all I can do is read stuff and use whatever little common sense I have to weigh it all out. Not being any kind of a health professional or science minded or science literate person, I am not in a position to have a reasonable opinion.
All I know is that the health practices of homosexuals and indeed, all promiscuous person, are unhealthy in the extreme.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.