This campaign needs to be united, non contradictory and honest.
No more mixed messages from different agencys.
Hear hear, Batmanz!!
The consistent message has always been use a condom when having anal sex with every partner every time. The problem with this approach is that it does not reach many individuals and does not allow for the individual risk assessment and how to negotiate safer sex every time.
Condoms work if they are correctly used, but sadly for many reasons many MSM make decisions not to use them. Prevention work is very complex ans meaningful interventions are expensive.
“The consistent message has always been use a condom…”
Oh really, W6?
Was this the message that the GMFA tried to convey in a series of HIV campaigns in the mid-Noughties that encouaged gay men to DISPENSE with condoms with taglines such as “Cum All Over His Back” and “Pull Out Like You Are a Porn Star”?
Or how about THT’s seedy, erm, “educational” web site, Hardcell.org.uk, that teaches gay men unfortunate enough to stumble across it the exciting delights of bareback sex along with playing with human waste matter and f*lching:- two of the lighter activities this gruesome espouses about!
All paid for by you and me, the taxpayer.
You really need to get your facts sorted out, W6…
Yawn yawn yawn…………….same old same old arguments. Typical of you with your narrow view to quote campaigns and websites that are designed to reach gay guys who do not respond to the usual messages.
You may want to act like the sex police or Mary Whitehouse, but where individuals made risky choices it is better to reduce the harm that may arise from that risky behaviour than not intervene at all.
We know your views Samuel they get wheeled out every time HIV is featured on PN and never change despite plenty of evidence to support the I portable of these interventions.
Designed to reach gay guys who do not respond to the usual messages?
Is that why GMFA’s bareback HIV prevention campaign was plastered all over the pages of QX and Boyz for weeks on ends?
Oh come on, W6! Always full of bluster to argue your way out of the many corners you talk yourself into.
And you are always quoting the same out of date views – we are now in 2012 not the mid naughties for goodness sake move on Samuel. I am very sure that there have been many more campaigns apart from the one you always quote. They are listed on the GMFA website, perhaps you should refresh your memory and get a more up to date campaign to berate.
Here are the links to the 3 ads that Samuel always refers to. They were run in the spring of 2005 – 7 years ago. Since then GMFA have run many different ca\mpaigns, yet Samuel is fixated with this particular campaign. The way he goes on about it anyone would think that GMFA were advocating bareback sex, rather than acknowledging that bareback sex does happen and the risk can be reduced
Of course it is true to say we all react differently to campaign mesages BUT it is very clear that GMFA were in no way promoting bareback sex!
You’re saying that because the “Pullout” campaigns happened 7 years ago, I’m clasping at straws citing them as evidence today of where the HIV sector has got it wrong?
Does your low intellect not rationalise that we are reaping the fallout from these irresponsible campaigns today?
A 21 year old picking up a copy of Boyz in 2004 would have learned that it IS okay to bareback so long as he pulls out before cumming.
The ad gives him the green light to dispense with condoms.
But at the moment of release he is too in the moment to recall in detail what the ad is saying (to pullout).
So he stays put and only realises what he has done when it is too late.
7 years on, at just 28 he is one of thousands who have surrendered control of their lives to a regimen of pharma toxins that keep full-blown Aids at bay, for now, but which impact his body in many other ways.
And you are now trying to suggest those campaigns have not had very real consequences we are not feeling today??!
Change the record, either you were stupid when you were 21 (which is very likely given your track record) or you beleive all 21 year old men cannot think for themselves – you are a control freak, and only you would interpret the ads in the way you do.
You are also missing the point of the ads in terms of one partner wanting to stay in control of the situation by stating Inge does not want to have cum inside him – which significantly lowers risk of transmission – get real Samuel!
How did it ever come to this?
The HIV sector is funded to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to design campaigns based on the spec that 56 Dean Street is calling for, yet still 56 Dean Street has to resort to members of the public to come up with something decent and impactful.
A damning indictment of two decades of campaigns that have stealthily sought to normalise and glamorise HIV and advocating anal sex without condoms.
Shameful, but kudos to 56 Dean Street for taking this initiative when those funded to prevent the rampant spread of HIV in our community have failed through indifference and pandering to the virus itself.
The gay community should take this opportunity and show the likes of THT and GMFA how HIV “PREVENTION” campaigns should be done!
I hope you will be engaging in this process Samuel as this is your big chance.
56 Dean Street (part of the Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust) has been at the forefront of many initiatives including community testing, sexual health information for those who are into the harder sex scene, which you have openly criticised Samuel. You will be interested to also note that some of the initiatives have been part funded by a major drug company, agains something you have openly criticised. How do you also square the fact that 56 Dean Street are also a care provider and also involved in prevention.
This initiative is to be applauded but as usual Samuel you have to change the focus and have your usual pop at the HIV sector.
Let us just wait and see what this initiative comes up with shall we, W6, before getting too carried away.
What criteria will 56 Dean Street be applying for this exercise?
Will it be worth the effort of submitting an idea if, at the end of the day, 56 Dean Street comprises the same PC jobs worth mentality that infests the HIV sector in general?
I am optimistic because 56 Dean Street is not one of the cosy cartel/coterie of outfits that make-up the CHAPS partnership, who together have colluded to keep gay men in ignorance of the true facts about HIV, and deprived of the kind of impactful campaigns that our community has been demanding for many years now.
If 56 Dean Street can confirm that they will judge all entires based on their merits and welcome the entire spectrum of campaigns possible – from rose-tinted to hard-edged – then count me in!
As always Samuel you shout the loudest but when it comes to doing something practical and worthwhile you find some reason not to get involved.
You obviously have not correctly read the article as this gives some information about how this initiative will be run.
In the UK, £1.9m is spent on prevention and £484m on treatment. I refer to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16533448 and the HoL report on HIV in the UK. In London some 23 or 28 hospitaks support 28,000 + 2,891 people (HPA figures accessing care) , should this figure be 46,000? Also refer #20 http://benefits.tcell.org.uk/forums/foi-request-london-specialised-commission-hiv-budget-200910-201011-and-201112-known
Additional information, refer http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-05-17a.107237.h&s=HIV#g107237.r0 (UK HIV research spend 2010-12)
of interest I refer to http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/FinancialHistory.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1076854&SubsidiaryNumber=0 , http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/FinancialHistory.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=288527&SubsidiaryNumber=0 , http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/FinancialHistory.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1088641&SubsidiaryNumber=0 and http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/FinancialHistory.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1014056&SubsidiaryNumber=0
And what point are you trying to make, K?
That £1.9m is in fact wasted because those the funding is awarded to piss it away on campaigns with zero impact, mixed messages, subliminals that reinforce the inevitability of contracting HIV, etc. etc.?
The real scandal is that the awarding bodies donate these funds year after year to the same outfits who do more to pander to HIV than they do to prevent it.
What’s the definition of insanity again? Ah yes. Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result each time.
You couldn’t make it up!
…….In my experience you always make it up Samuel, perhaps you should try and come up with some original lines, because you are like a broken record with your prehistoric Right Wng ideology.
I was just thinking the same thing.
Not only is the HIV sector awash with money compared to many other areas of health, but it has many gay men involved in design, marketing and advertising, including myself.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but this just sounds like another penny-pinching exercise to me. Get some professionals on it, THEN offer it around, and the one that gets public approval gets the job.
I think we need to be clear that 56 Dean Street is part of an NHS Foundation Trust and not is not funded as a charity. (although some charitable donations have been used to promote local outreach testing services).
Foundation Trusts have more flexibility to raise and use funds as they see fit, and this is a great example of how this can help in a particular locality. We are not talking Regional or National Campaigns here, just a very local community based campaign, that is attempting to engage gay men rather than preach to them about their sexual health.
What is meant by “harder sex scene”?
The phrase has often been used by Samuel usually in a very disparaging way to describe individuals who do not fit into the very narrow view Samuel has on sex.
He has used the term to describe sex clubs, dark rooms etc.
Check out THT’s Hardcell.org.uk if you have the stomach, Chris.
That was put together with HIV prevention funding believe it or not.
Let me be absolutely clear, I am NOT against the hard sex scene whatsoever:- how people choose to have sex is entirely up to them as long as everyone involved is adult and consenting.
What I AM against is that the HIV sector aligns itself with clubs that cater for this scene to the detriment of aiming their efforts at the ordinary gay man on the street in need of impactful messages and education about what HIV is and how to prevent infection.
Immersing itself in the extreme sex scene is like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted:- a busted flush because most of the guys involved are already positive or take no notice of messages advocating safe sex.
They too were once the ordinary young gay guy on the street. Perhaps if they’d had consistently impactful messages to guide some of them would have respected their sexual health a lot more.
Obviously then you will not align yourself with a new clinic run 56 Dean Street called CODE where advice is given about harm reduction strategies, such as warning on the slamming crystal meth, injecting steroids safely, how to avoid Hep C etc etc.
Are you saying that gay men should not be given as much information as possible to reduce the risks regardless of thier sexual activities? Open your mind,like it or not gay men slam crystal meth, they have multiple bareback partners, these things happen and must not be ignored by healthcare professionals.
So where are the crystal meth prevention campaigns then, W6?
Isn’t that particularly vile drug a key facilitator for onward HIV transmission?
I have noticed this drug more and more in my occasional excursions onto the scene these last couple of years, so why is it being ignored?
Crystal meth has been a growing problem for many years and there are any charitable organisations that are involved in this subject area. The clinic I mention CODE deals with many aspects of Crystal Meth and HIV, as does HardCell yet you have been critical of these things.
There are organisations like Antedote and TurningPoint that do a great deal of work with drug related problems and organisations like THT Direct always signpost those at risk because of drug related risks.
There are many initiatives within HIV clinics supported by health trainers and psychiatric liason practitioners. I would agree that drug related campaigns are very much underfunded, but who should be doing this vital work?
Again it is left to the charity sector to do what they can, and when they do get involved you openly criticise these projects – which is it to be?
Well they don’t seem to be doing a lot to warn gay men about how nasty and addictive crystal meth is, are they?
I have been offered it on each of the last two times I stepped out on the town, but I do not touch drugs.
What is some youngster was to be introduced to meth and, not knowing how addictive it is, succumbed and subsequently ruined his life, acquiring HIV along the way.
Wasn’t that young chap who fell to his death on the recent Atlantis Cruise introduced to meth? Having never taken drugs before the comedown was devastating for him and he took his own life.
OK, maybe not entirely THT’s remit, but the GMFA describe themselves as the gay men’s health charity yet have never broached crystal meth.
You cannot wrap young gay men up in cotton wool Samuel, how is the Crystal Meth problem somehow the remit of HIV charities? Where is the money going to come from for all these campaigns you want. As you have said to me on many occasions the country is broke.
No one forces anyone to take drugs – it is part of young culture (gay or straight), most of us grow out of it, but sadly some have real difficulties with drugs. We all make choices in life and it is impossible to have a campaign for every vice, which is what you are seemly suggesting.
There are high levels of depression amongst gay men, and substance use can often mask this – perhaps you have been fortunate not to have these difficulties – BUT this is real life Samuel not your “bubble”. If you are so passionate about all these things DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, write to your MP, become a trustee of a drug related Charity, help shape how they do things. Don’t sit there being an armchair critic!
“how is the Crystal Meth problem somehow the remit of HIV charities?”
Now I KNOW W6 talks out of his backside and hasn’t a clue.
Crystal meth is the most disinhibiting of all recreational drugs, and the medical establishment in the US now categorise crystal meth as a key facilitator in the recent upsurge in HIV transmissions there.
I know of 3 people on the London scene who have seroconverted since being introduced to crystal meth.
This new drug problem clearly DOES fall under the HIV sector’s remit, or are they ignoring it because crystal meth is indirectly boosting HIV infection and, in turn, demand for its services?
Furthermore, pos men who are using are in serious trouble because crystal meth seriously impacts the immune system in similar ways Aids itself.
I often hear key HIV sector personnel won’t target crystal meth because they are users themselves and don’t want to be seen demonising other users.
If true, that would be grounds for having their charitable status revoked.
“Where is the money going to come from for all these campaigns you want.”
You really do take true biscuit, don’t you?!
You said it yourself on this very thread, or are THT’s portfolio of multi-million pound prime London properties just really there for show after all?
This charity sits on millions and millions of pounds worth of assets and a lucrative cash reserve yet claims it hasn’t a farthing to rub together for, in this case according to W6, a crystal meth awareness campaign.
They won’t even commission a decent HIV prevention ton campaign with this loot, so what hope do gay men have to make properly informed choices if the information isn’t out there?
Liars, traitors and charlatans are three words that come to mind here.
Sod THT, 56 Dean St et al and their funders.
Gay men should be rallying together and hiring a proper advertising company to come up with proper, graphic messages that serve to inform and deter from engaging in self-destructive, life-debilitating behaviours.
WHY DON’T YOU DO SOMETHING PRACTICAL ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS SAMUEL – MOBILISE THE GAY MEN YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT, BECOME THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO YOU BELEIVE ARE UNABLE TO MAKE ADULT DECISIONS.
Am I really interested in your views on either drugs or HIV – not really. If you came up with some decent debating points then I would engage with you, but as usual you are all headline and no substance. I do not get what your problem is really, you shout the loudest but to nothing, and you are obsessed with money, profits and corporate companies. Money makes the world go around in case you hadnt noticed, so get off your high moral standing and either put up or shut up!
You portray gay men in such derogatory terms, making them sound stupid, inept and need to be warned about every vice going. Perhaps this is indicative of your circle of gay friends but it isnt my experience. You do not have a clue about life other than the bubble you clearly live in.
Don’t want any awareness campaign to fail but this seems to be starting in a position of failure. I work in advertising and despair seeing current awareness campaigns without any big strategic thought. This call-out appealed to me but for some glaring issues:
Including the voting on work. Research, especially poor research, is death to good ads. So the proposition of semi-drunk people in a bar voting for the best on the wall is like voting on the best wallpaper. This needs big thinking not answers on a postcard.
Why are the budgets and messages of all these action groups combined? Bet it’s ego, someone in each wanting to take charge of their task rather than looking at the bigger picture by building bridges. Relinquish control to a core team, or work to one message, seek collective media opportunities and celeb endorsements. Then approach agencies.
Right now it seems futile and small scale, which is not deserving of such an important issue.
Should read: “Why *aren’t* the budgets and messages of all these action groups combined?
I think you raise very important issues about the commissioning of HIV services which has often pitted one charity against another to provide HIV services, this is particularly true if the commissioning process in London.
This particular initiative is an attempt by the NHS Trust involved to develop a very local campaign aimed particularly at younger gay men who frequent the Soho Gay Scene.
56 Dean Street was set up with the intention of engaging directly with gay men in Soho, and is now one of the busiest Sexual Health Clinics in Europe. They have developed many strategies to encourage gay men to regularly test for HIV, most recently teaming up with Gaydar to promote home testing, which has proved to be cost effective and is reaching out to those hard to reach individuals who would not use a traditional testing setting.
Perhaps AB you could provide some advice to 56 Dean Street on a charitable basis to help develop this local initiative to its full potential
Guessing many charities feel the same frustration. Even the DoH recognize the necessity to invest (http://tinyurl.com/84vl2dn). The money could be better spent on existing groups but they seem small and incoherent. So they’ll hire an agency to solve it. Good, if its a message all can attach themselves to. But bad if they repeat the mistakes of the past. With no slight intended, creative departments that are often dominated by heterosexual males that can get their head around issues but still come at it from the worst possible angle – like this sad but industry praised ad: http://tinyurl.com/7nm7z2n
Could they have gone about it any worse that ‘Look out for those evil-looking scorpions’?
Should focus on a long-term change in perceptions toward people that have it. Only when an individual can feel comfortable saying, “I have it we should wear a condom” without negative reactions will there be longevity in reducing exposure. Duty of care is on both but the fear one sided.
Thanks for the links very interesting reading. The Scorpian Ad is hideous, but I am sure there are those who may commend such an ad.
A national campaign produced by ne organisation would be good but I don’t think 10million over 3 years is going to produce the required impact given that it needs to target various groups.
For me online and social media is the way forward as this can be well targeted and also evaluated.
I think this problem of fragmentation will only get worst once Local Authorities take control of prevention funds.
For those people and other, living in lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark, the publication and report from the NHS, refer http://www.selondon.nhs.uk/have_your_say/public_consultations/review_of_hiv_care_and_support_provision/consultation_report
Sigma research report can be found at http://www.sigmaresearch.org.uk/reports/hiv
And HPA approach as http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/HIV/NewHIVDiagnoses/ and http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/InfectiousDiseases/HIVAndSTIs/
If you practice Christian sexual morals, you will have no need of such a place.
What like in Africa where the HIV/AIDS rate is highest in those countries where Christianity (in particular, the most non-Catholic Christians) predominate. One of your own will explain: http://www.martinrothonline.com/MRCC11.htm
Places like this exist because of innate human respect of other human, what you’d call ‘Christian values’ out of some perverse rebranding of basic nature. Clearly by your comment it seems it’s only the gay community seeing value in these values.
So while we can respect Christians following their belief, how can we respect people like you who are just plain ignorant to reality and ignoring your own teachings when temptation served you an opportunity to vent your hate?
I said if you PRACTICE Christian morals you idiot. Clearly those people in Africa do not. Your reply was both disingenuous and ignorant. My point stands. Practice Christian morals for complete protection from STDS.
The cultist’s back!!
Christian sexual morals?
What a contradiction.
I got involved in the hiv/aids field over 20 years ago
.I’v lost many friends including my best friend (who was a nurse tutor, hiv specialist and went on chair his council social services)
I stopped going to funerals at the 25th.
I get tested every year, and have done for the last 15 years.
8 years ago I walked.
I remember a time when we were winning,we had educated ourselves and our community.Back in 95 it all changed,the wonder drugs came out and we took a big step backwards.
I remember one campaign, it was simple,it just said ‘RUBBER UP’
I understand and sympathise with your cynicism.
I think your mistake lies in your concept of a “community”.
There is none; it is merely a collective of like-minded people, but they are probably the single most self-centered, egotistical, tight-fisted bunch of tossers you are ever likely to encounter.
Do what I did after banging your head against a brick wall for so long – If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Do what all the other gay men do best. Make sure you look after yourself. x
Add self-destructive, indifferent and self-obsessed, Spanner1960, and you more or less have a definitive picture of scene-going gay men today.
Perhaps they lost their way because the generation before them, as Batmanz correctly states, dropped the baton in the mid-Nineties when the wonder drugs came along and charities like the THT changed direction entirely and bureaucratised HIV and no longer cared about preventing HIV.
In one fell swoop they undid all the hard work of those Aids pioneers who rallied together in the early Eighties – in the days when there really WAS a sense of gay community – in order to make careers out of HIV off the back of the misery and suffering of the growing numbers of infected men they let down but whom they were able to provide myriad services to, filling their coffers in the process.
It is a scandal of epic proportions that, today, THT manages a portfolio of properties across prime central London worth millions.
And at what cost!!
……..yes and THT get income from these investments, with interest rates at an all time low using the property portfolio to create funding is the right thing to do.
This article is about community engagement not THT, but as always you and only you have to make any HIV story about your dislike for any HIV charity, we know, we get it, now give it a rest, I and many others are very bored of your out of touch and poorly informed Right Wing views.
I would agree that there is no Gay Community, but that is all about gay men and how gay culture is developing, nothing to do with “Aids pioneers” whatever you mean by that.
Oh dear have you had a tiff with your recent scene boy squeeze Samuel??? Spanner I think you have pulled, get yer coat, Sammy wants to make you complete – well suited me thinks, same ideology and loathing of gay men……….but wait Samuel always claims to speak for gay men “on the scene” so I guess he is describing himself.
The only consistent view you have Samuel is one that is out of date!
Grow up or shut up.
Surely someone as intelligent and grown up as you Batmanz should clearly be able to see that Samuel deserves all he gets as he is like a petulant child.
If you want to trade insults – bring it on, or just heed your own advice!
I have to put up with this HIV sector troll each time I try putting forward a few truths about how the HIV sector use the HIV prevention budget against us, not for us, and instead facilitate the spread of HIV to boost their funding.
W6 is a disinformation shill of the worst kind because he cannot even argue properly and blusters all over the place.
The simple truth is that the PC HIV sector is only interested in reducing HIV stigma, not HIV rates, because they regard neg men as victims, which immediately disempowers those infected because it encourages them not to take responsibility for their status:- not unlike police officers who refuse to admit the predominant ethnicity of pedophile gangs because their PC training forces them to perceive immigrants as victims.
The ONLY way the PC sector can destigmatise HIV is to normalise it, and THAT is why they have allowed HIV rates to spiral out of control.
Soon in London it will be neg men who feel the stigma of being the minority…
Move out of London then Samuel – simples! Or get off your backside and do something constructive.
If there was ever a troll it is you, we all know how you bully people on here – you are a far Right agitator amd you make Marine La Pen look moderate!
See what I mean?!
I ally myself with nobody.
Certainly not any of the people on here.
This is not a recent development, it’s been like this for at least 40 years, maybe longer. I think it is part of most gay men’s psyche, maybe its a protective thing, I don’t know, but as far as I’m concerned I have as little to do with gay people in real life as I can.
Hiv prevention is akin to juggling blind-fold.
It is very complicated, and no matter how good you are,sometimes you will drop a ball.
2m on prevention, 500m on treatment?
Ok, I think the prevention budget needs a huge increase. The more cases of prevention affects the amount you spend on treatment, follow? its simple maths.
For those interested further in commissioning and patient forums, refer http://forum-link.net/board/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=53bdf847018c183bd375d806aca53a73 and http://www.forum-link.org/members/index.html
Dean st needs to put together a young outreach team to engage with the local scene.They need to be pro-active,hiv educated and visible in both soho and on the net.
Hiv infection rates among gay men are increasing?
The current message is not working.
Take a look back, We were winning for a while.
Batmanz, while the emphasis remains fixated on testing instead of real, impactful HIV prevention strategies, gay men will continue becoming infected in their thousands, year after year.
56 Dean St, just like the rest, are trying to convince us that mass testing is the solution.
The fact that they have to launch this initiative in the first place shows that it is a failed concept because it reeks of desperation:- they will NEVER get all gay men to come forward to be tested, ever, unless forced to.
And even if they did, do they seriously believe that would then stop the spread of HIV?
Sure, they’d know their status and infected men could seek necessary treatments, but it wouldn’t stop some then wittingly infecting others, and those testing neg would be no less likely to take calculated risks.
56 Dean Street is funded partly based on the amount of HIV tests it makes, so really this is a marketing initiative to bring in more funding more than anything else.
Mass testing as you put it works. Since opt out testing was introduced for pregnant women the rate of mother to baby transmission has reduced significantly – testing and treatment works.
The concept of treatment as prevention has proven to reduce HIV transmission on a population level, but you Samuel either do not understand the concept or are unwilling to acknowledge it intellectually, either way you are plain WRONG.
Let’s hope you never get HIV because you would never be able to cope with it.
Next time you suck cock put a condom on or ask if the guy has an undetectable viral load. Condoms are not as risk free as you may wish to beleive, where as having an undetectable VL can be more effective at reducing transmission.
Face it Samuel you have a lot to learn and catch up with in the fast moving world if HIV science and medicine.
Having re-read what this 56 Dean Street initiative really entails, what they are in fact asking is for people to submit their ideas NOT for an HIV prevention campaign per se, but rather, for a campaign that incentivised gay me to get tested.
Another sellout and yet another wasted effort to try to implore men to come forward to be tested on the back of the lie that this will, somehow, prevent the ongoing spread of HIV.
Are the HIV charities really so desperate that having failed themselves to get men lining up for testing in their thousands, they are now turning to gay men themselves to see what will make then participate in this red herring?
Just for one moment I genuinely thought 56 Dean St were different than the rest.
I should have realised, seeing Stephen Fry’s name attached to the venture (he being a stooge of the THT) that it would be another copout.
Stuff testing!! Bring back REAL, hard-hitting HIV prevention campaigns back before it is too late!!
So now you are also at odds with the medical proffession – Dr Alan McOwen who is the Lead Clinician at 56 Dean Street is a very well respected physician and it was his vision to locate 56 Dean Street in the heart of Soho to enable HIV services to be at the heart of the gay scene in London. I was lucky enough to have him as my HIV Consultant when I was first diagnosed so I have first hand experience of the passion he has for HIV care and prevention so to quote another commentator grow up or shut up, you know nothing!
It is interestring that all the organisations you openly criticise are full of proffessional well read and highly skilled in the area of HIV care and prevention – is it not time that you realise that you are in the minority here.
I say again what has happened to your good chums at Status Prevention????? What have they squandered the donations they made on the back of WAD on I wonder???
When the medical profession has allowed itself to climb into bed with pharma reps and to be seduced and bribed by the many gifts and perks that entails, too damn right I am at odds when anyone from the medical profession speaks out and makes any kind of a claim.
The fact that some doctors have sold their souls on the altar of the Hippocritic Oath, their treachery has tarred the reputation of all because, today, it’s impossible to know who is speaking totally openly and impartially, and who is working to a pharma-coordinated agenda.
So believe your stats and data all you like, W6.
I base my evidence on what is real and tangible:- the fact that HIV is being ALLOWED to spread unhindered because gay men are not receiving the correct and properly targeted education and awareness programmes and strategies, and haven’t been since the mid-Nineties.
It really is laughable that of all the shills the HIV sector could nominate to represent them on this board the best they could find was you…
I represent myself no one else -it is your deluded mind that makes you think I am here for a purpose other than to counter your wildy inaccurate and your blatent far Right ideologies. I have made it my mission to counter your argument because balance is required in any debate.
Seems you are not prepared to trust anyone – I would much prefer to trust emminant proffessionals over your warped mind any day of the week. You carry on I will be there to provide the necessary balance and moderate point of view!
And how do you propose to do that, W6, when you are clearly one of the most unbalanced people on these forums?
Instead of all the bluster, care to elaborate on how and why you contracted HIV in the first place?
Did a condom break?
Did you decide to take a risk?
Was it out of ignorance of not realising that it was a chronic, debilitating, life-impairing disease, perhaps?
Whatever, your bitterness and anger clearly stems from something, and I think we should be told.
Because at the core of all your bluster you seem zealously, almost gloatingly, keen for thousands more gay men to wallow in ignorance and follow you down the road of treatments, treatments and, ah yes, more treatments, because in your warped mind they’re the solution, and the only solution.
What kind of a person does that make you?
The kind of person who reveals himself with every bitter and twisted lemon juice-drenched nuance and syllable he utters, devoid of an ounce of compassion or empathy for his fellow man…
It doesn’t matter how I became infected Samuel because you have already made assumptions about me in your usual way. You might be surprised how many people gay and straight who get a surprise diagnosis – so if I were you I would tread carefully on the way you like to stigmatise HIV and the people who are infected.
True to form you start to bully when in a corner, making highly personal remarks about my mental health – another condition you no doubt like to stigmatise. Shame in you,
The amount of times I have heard “hard hitting campaigns work” from HIV positive people who remember the campaign kind of makes me think that it hasn’t worked for them. Hard hitting campaigns do work for a short while and then it loses its impact or alienates people…that is why they are not used as much anymore.
Testing is VERY important as a means of getting HIV positive people on the HIV drugs as it is now proven that the drugs reduce viral load and onwards transmission of HIV. It is people who have never been tested, recently infected and passing it on to other people burying their heads in the sand. A quarter of people with HIV do not know they have it. So you are mistaken. Look up “Treatment as Prevention”.
I hardly think that the charities have failed. It is up to every gay man to get tested himself, the charities can’t force men to get tested…they can only make it easy for them to be tested, provide the facts and provide condoms and lube.
Great comments Tom – totally agree with everything you have said. Im glad to see there are other like minded and well informed commentators who provide the balance to offset the rubbish Samuel spouts on all things HIV related!
“Whatever happens, condoms will continue to be the bedrock of HIV prevention as the easiest, cheapest and most effective way to stop HIV. If you’re worried that you’ve been at risk, get tested and look after your health.”
Sir Nick, said TODAY.
I rest my case.
The charitys always claim hard hitting campaigns do not work as people switch off. And some people will want to try something if they think it is laced with danger………. Yes some people do switch off and a few will be encouraged to take a risk but the fact is that most people do take heed of such messages – which is why such campaigns are successfully used to curb a multitude of risky activities from drink driving to smoking. And where they have been employed to warn about the danger of Hiv infection they have worked. Time and again…….. It seems the charities are prepared to sacrifice the opportunity to educate the many by abandoning such hard hitting Hiv campaigns on the basis that a few will take no notice and some will have unsafe sex regardless. This is warped logic if you ask me………
If you are marking down Sam.B’s comments as seems to be the case that is extremely immature of you.At least he is making perfect sense in what he says…………………
I do not take much notice of the thumbs up / thumbs down – I know Samuel is passionate about the reds and greens – I just write what I know to be true and backed by plenty of research etc.
You are more than entitled to your views on harder hitting messages – it just depends on what harder hitting means. I know that Samuel has a history of wanting Stigma of HIV to feature in any harder hitting campaign, and he also makes incorrect assertions about modern HIV drugs / side effects. Samuel often has said that stigma is a price worth paying – if you you agree with that so be it, but I think most health proffessionals and experts realise that so called harder hitting campaigns have limited impact.
We are all different in the way we perceive risk and therefore this makes prevention a very complex and difficult area. The most simple message of “rubber up” as another commentator has made simply does not work. I am all for being truthful about HIV, but keep it accurate and up to date!
Hi CJ, thanks for your show of support and the others who have contributed and vocalised their doubts and downright frustration here at the ineptitude and indifference of the HIV sector.
I just wonder how long it will be before W6 releases pit bull Will to hurl vitriol and abuse in our direction, as is the stock in trade of PN’s resident PC disinformo shill.
Of course you are completely right about what you say about hard-hitting campaigns.
Graphic imagery spliced with a little fear is the ultimate deterrent to most, though not all.
The minority who take no notice will almost inevitably end up positive anyway:- it is the majority who do take notice of hard-hitting campaigns whom such efforts should be focused upon.
Smoking in the UK has halved since the 70s thanks to a relentless onslaught of hard-hitting campaigns, and drink-driving is less common these days.
And yes, we should be stigmatising the HIV virus though not the infected.
And guess what?
Most pos men I know agree!
How can you stigmatise a virus Samuel? Look up the means of Stigma as you clearly do not know the meaning of the word. It would take a very intellectual person to be able to put clear blue water between the stigma of a virus and an individual who has a virus, it is human nature to associate something that cannot be seen with the person who has the virus.
You are an utter fool if you think that the majority of the population could distinguish between an attempt to stigmatise a virus – to use one of your favourite words – insane! As you are an intellectual can you give me an example of how you can apply stigma to a virus which does not cause stigma for the person with the virus?
“Graphic imagery spiced with a little fear is the ultimate deterrent to most, though not all”.
Indulge me Samuel please tell us what sort of graphic imagery and how would you spice it up with a little fear – I am all ears!!!!
How many pos men do you know Samuel -well those ones that are open about being HIV positive, there are probably more who feel too ashamed to let even thier closest friends know for fear of rejection – but please go ahead, how many men do you know who are HIV positive????
Can I suggest then, if people were to understand and learn about HIV treatment and it side effects (instead of just a picture of lots of pills), this maybe the way forward! e.g. heart attack, nausea, headaches…. all that which is listed on the patient information packs.
examples http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/SideEffectAnitHIVMeds_cbrochure_en.pdf & http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/9408.pdf
Can I suggest that we focus on information that relates to the UK rather than the US.
Could you identify which drug cause heart attacks for instance?
Oh, so we shouldn’t be taking notice of the trends that are occurring in the US in order to premeditate what will imminently or eventually replicate itself here and equip for that outcome?
What planet are you living on, for heaven’s sake…
Having quickly reviewed the publications you quote k it is very disappointing to read that they are documents from 2005 and 2007.
The only drug that is still used regularly in the UK featured in said documents is Nerirapine, and this drug is much better understood today and liver toxicity is closely monitored. The new formulation Nevirapine XR is much better as it avoids peaks and troughs associated with the older formulation.
It is misleading to quote these out of date documents, particularly when the text refers to older drugs that are no used in the UK anymore. It is shameful in fact to scaremonger about drug side effects, it helps no one!
Wind your neck in Samuel these publications are out of date and all but 1 of the medications listed are no longer used in the UK.
It is rediculous to compare outcomes in the US with the UK health care system, but I know you much prefer to refer to the US rather than more well documented evidence which is monitored and endorsed by the British HIV Association – not that you would be interested in said expert opinion.
Are you suggesting then that even new ART treatment is without short or long term side effects? My suggesstion was an example and to be discussed.
Any medication can produce both short term and long term side effects and these will be as individual as the person taking said medication.
What I find frustrating in discussions about ART is that often the information provided is out I’d date and. It consistent with current UK treatment guidelines. As an example Abacavir has been linked to cardiovascular events & severe hypersensitivity reaction, prescribing Drs are aware if these problems and mitigate against such problems.
Most side effects are short term, & resolve within a few months, if they don’t patients should have these side effects reviewed & the drug changed. There are few instances where uncomplicated HIV infection cannot be successfully treated without long term side effects occurring. ART has improved significantly in the last decade, sadly Samuel will take every opportunity he can to scaremonger.
Thanks for the revised link k…………….NAM provide great understandable information that is measured and usually well reported and accurate. I wonder why you felt the need to post links to US publicationsprior to this new link. It seems to me that much of the infomration that comes out of the US has to be very carefully sifted through as the substance of the information whilst often correct is written with headline grabbing sounds bites, rather than a measured approach.
The NAM booklet you quote povides the precise approach I take to HIV meds. When you are trying to have a debate with Samuel his view is HIV meds = toxins end of. The only AVR he can quote is AZT, which is no longer prescribed as first line treatment in the UK, and this has been the case for some time. When faced with such out of date entrenched point of view such as Samuel has, it is difficult to explain the subtle differences between drug classes & individual drugs & thier side effects.
Fine. Come up with a hard hitting campaign that doesn’t stigmatise people with HIV as dirty or scare people off testing. Crowd fund it if you think it will work and if it does then you would have proved your point. Use an iceberg or an image of a gravestone if you wish. Make your ad go viral on the internet if you are that interested.
Fact is, people who get infected with HIV and put off testing until they are at a late stage of HIV infection are FAR more likely to die within a year of diagnosis according to the HPA. Typically people put off having a test because they are scared of testing or don’t care about their own or partner’s health. Have you ever felt comfortable listening to someone shouting at you? No, your body responds to stress by fight or flight responses. The same information presented matter of factly, using up to date evidence and without excessive emotion is much better at engaging people. Otherwise all professionals who help you will be shouting at you.