MIKE STOBBE,AP Medical Writer

Saturday, July 24, 2010

ATLANTA (AP) — Poverty is perhaps the most important factor in whether inner-city heterosexuals are infected with the AIDS virus, according to the first government study of its kind.

The study, released Monday, suggests that HIV is epidemic in certain poverty-stricken urban neighborhoods. And, more significantly, poor heterosexuals in those neighborhoods were twice as likely to be infected as heterosexuals who lived in the same community but had more money.

Federal scientists found that race was not a factor — there were no significant differences between blacks, whites or Hispanics.

Health officials have long believed poverty drives HIV epidemics, but there have been few studies to back that up. Some research actually contradicts that belief: Studies in Tanzania, Kenya and some other African countries actually found that wealthy people were more likely to be infected than the poor.

“In the United States, we haven’t have a history of looking in depth at the association between poverty and HIV,” said Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of HIV/AIDS Prevention for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mermin oversees the CDC team that did the new study.

More often, studies have focused on the race of HIV patients, their sexual orientation, or whether or not they use intravenous drugs.

The CDC report was released at the international AIDS conference in Vienna.

The study involved a survey in 2006 and 2007 of 9,000 heterosexual adults, ages 18 to 50. They answered questions on a computer about their income, condom use and other details and were given HIV tests.

The research was done in high-poverty neighborhoods in 23 U.S. cities. It focused on heterosexuals who don’t use intravenous drugs; that group accounts for about 28 percent of Americans living with HIV. It did not involve gay or bisexual men, who have the highest rates of HIV in the United States.

The results: HIV was detected in 2.4 percent of the people who were living below the federal poverty line, which in 2007 was an annual income of roughly $10,000 or less for an individual. The 2.4 percent translates to roughly 1 in 42 people.

In contrast, infections were found in 1.2 percent of people in the same neighborhoods who made more money than the federal poverty guideline. That’s 1 in 83 people.

Both rates were higher than the national average, which is 0.45 percent, or 1 in 222 people.

The results suggest that people in low-income neighborhoods are more likely to be infected because they live among more people who are infected. Perhaps more people in such neighborhoods have used illegal drugs or had other experiences that put them at higher risk, Mermin said.

“It’s epidemiological bad luck,” he said. He described the situation: “I’m in a community where when I meet a new (sexual) partner, the chance that they would have HIV is much higher than if I were wealthy and living in another geographical area.”

Officials need to start looking at the AIDS epidemic in a different light, said Dr. Carlos del Rio, who chairs global health studies at Emory University’s school of public health.

“You talk about ‘Can we decrease the HIV burden in the United States?’ I would say, ‘What can we do to decrease poverty in the United States?’” del Rio said.

He noted there are diseases that are more prevalent in certain racial groups, for genetic reasons. Sickle cell disease, which is most prevalent in blacks, is one example.

But there’s no clear biological reason why the infection rate is eight times higher in blacks than whites, and three times higher in Hispanics than whites. But understanding that blacks are disproportionately poor probably does explain why the rates are higher, del Rio said.

He was an author of a smaller, recent study that found that 60 percent of Atlanta’s HIV cases were located in a downtown area of the city with high proportions of blacks, IV drug users and people living in poverty.

An estimated 1 in 272 Americans is infected with HIV, according to 2006 estimates. In other terms, more than 1.1 million Americans are living with the AIDS virus. The number has grown since 2006, CDC officials believe.

Officials believe the annual number of new HIV infections has been hovering around 55,000 a year since the late 1990s.

___

Online:

The CDC’s HIV Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv

XVIII International AIDS Conference: http://www.aids2010.org/

(C) 2010 Fosters.com.  Entire Article Retrieved from: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100724/GJLIFESTYLES/100719640/-1/FOSLIFESTYLES.

Uganda: Amnesty International condemns attacks against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people

Amnesty International is concerned at continuing harassment and attacks on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) human rights defenders in Uganda, and today called on the Government of Uganda to ensure the safety of LGBT human rights defenders in Uganda and to end the harassment of LGBT people by Ugandan police officers.

On 4 June 2008, three LGBT human rights defenders were arbitrarily arrested after a group of seven activists from Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) distributed a press release to people attending the HIV/AIDS Implementers’ Meeting at the Imperial Royal Hotel in Kampala. The press release and an accompanying report outlined their organisation’s call for HIV prevention programmes for the LGBT community in Uganda.

The three activists were arrested by police officers at the hotel, including one who was reportedly a participant in the meeting, and as of 4 pm on 4 June 2008 were still being held at Jinja Road Police Station in Kampala for questioning.

Amnesty International condemns the arbitrary arrest of these individuals, and is concerned that they may face harassment and degrading treatment in custody as such practices is common against LGBT people in Ugandan police stations. Amnesty International said that the three activists are prisoners of conscience, detained for their peaceful activism for the rights of LGBT people to treatment and prevention measures for HIV/AIDS, and should be released immediately and unconditionally.

These arbitrary arrests follow the recent arbitrary detention and mistreatment while in custody of two transgender individuals in Kampala. On 20 May 2008, the two were dancing at Capital Pub in Kampala, Uganda, when they were detained by club bouncers, harassed and beaten while being asked whether they were men or women, and “accused” of being homosexuals. The club management of Capital Pub called the police, who detained both individuals for four days at Kabalagala Police station. During their detention, both were repeatedly beaten by police officers, and one was kissed, fondled and forcefully propositioned for sex by other detainees, and stripped and had their genitals groped by a police officer. One of the two was denied medical treatment for diabetes, and allowed only one meal a day. After their release on bond, both individuals were charged with public nuisance, and are currently awaiting trial.

Since their release, both individuals have faced harassment and violent attacks from individuals in their neighbourhood who were informed by police of their gender identity. These started with threats and escalated to a serious violent attack on the night of 3 June in Old Kampala, where a group of youths attacked both individuals. One of the attackers has since been arrested by police. Amnesty International calls for this attack to be investigated and any perpetrators brought to justice through fair trials.

Public Document

****************************************

International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK

www.amnesty.org

© 2010 Amnesty International USA
Entire Article Taken From: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20080606001

n Christmas Day, 2009, gay, HIV+ Louisiana bar manager Robert LeCompte was found dead in his club, stabbed more than ten times with “a very long knife.” More than four thousand dollars was missing, and the killer(s) left a note saying that LeCompte had transmitted the virus to his killer. To date, the weapon has not been recovered and no suspects have been named.

The sheriff is “99.9 percent sure this is not a hate crime,” even though LeComte’s HIV status was well-known in the community, and the club catered to a mostly LGBT clientele. They believe the note is a misdirection left by the murderer(s) to put authorities on a false trail. According to sources, many of LeComte’s close friends agree with the authorities and are satisfied with the way the investigation is being handled.

So far, so good. What troubles me, whether real or contrived, is the presence of the note in the first place. The note says this victim was targeted because of his HIV status. It was either premeditated or the note was written hastily by someone who knew the victim’s status – which one is unclear.

What is clear, is that somehow, on some level, transmitting HIV is a valid motive for revenge or murder in the minds of some people.

There have been a lot of arguments and discussion on this point. They largely revolve around two questions:

What is the responsibility of the person with HIV(PWH) in regard to protecting and/or informing their sexual partners?

What is the responsibility of (hopefully) negative people for the same?

The arguments have been made that:

Both are responsible equally.

Negative persons are responsible for keeping themselves negative,

All HIV+ persons should always disclose their status and refuse to engage in risky behavior.

It’s none of your business.

All have valid points from a certain point of view. But perhaps we’re missing something in this discussion. I wonder if we’re missing the image of HIV+ gay man as a predator.

We’ve all heard the stories. Poz sociopaths working to infect everyone they can in anger and retribution for their diagnosis. Urban legend? Who knows? I do become concerned, however, when HIV is perceived as a justifiable motive for any act of revenge or violence.

I don’t believe that society can allow a serial “infector” to operate unchecked, but I do believe that the transmission of HIV is a stigma that remains vividly in the minds of many Americans – it involves a lot of taboo and uncomfortable images of gay sex. In many ways that attitude can make HIV+ gay/bi men worse “perverts” than negative men. HIV is still often associated with promiscuous sexual behavior, and the American puritanical streak permeating our society doesn’t approve. In fact it vehemently disapproves, often putting PWH (Persons With HIV) at some risk for derision, harassment and violence.

Is that what’s happening here?

I don’t know. I’m not sure this is a hate crime, either. But I do know that by the fact of this note, the image of the HIV+ gay man as predator is still a strong, valid image. It ignores any responsibility of the partner to be informed and to protect. It ignores the many HIV+ gay/bi men who work diligently to keep the virus to themselves. It speaks of an idea that, somewhere, makes complete sense. That’s what troubles me.

It means that discrimination, prejudice and shame, real or contrived, are all still very much with us, even when unapparent. Despite the facts, despite our better judgment, hysteria can often still rule the day. And that disturbs me, because, growing up on a ranch, I know what people do to predators.

Copyright 2010 The Bilerico Project.
Entire Article Taken From: http://www.bilerico.com/2010/01/is_hiv_motive_for_a_hate_crime.php

How to Protect Yourself From HIV/AIDS

Contributor
By an eHow Contributing Writer
Article Rating: (15 Ratings)

HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. It is the virus that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome or AIDS. AIDS attacks the body’s immune system, making the body vulnerable to many illnesses. HIV is spread when the blood, urine, feces or semen of an infected person enters an uninfected person’s blood stream through cuts, scrapes, punctures, abrasions or tiny breaks in the skin. Read on to learn how to protect yourself from HIV/AIDS.

Difficulty: Moderately Easy
Instructions
Things You’ll Need:
Medical latex or non-latex gloves
Fresh needles or syringes
Dental dams
Condoms
Spermicide
Step
1
Avoid stereotypes. Anyone can be infected with HIV/AIDS, from the out-and-proud guy across the street to the girl next door.
Step
2
Get tested. It is important to know your own HIV status.
Step
3
Talk to new sexual partners honestly about your risk factors and request the same frank disclosure from them. Risk factors include sharing needles during IV drug use, having unprotected sex with a partner whose HIV status was unknown or unclear and having another sexually transmitted disease.
Step
4
Remember that many people who are infected don’t realize they are infected. They may not even realize they are at risk. When you come into contact with another person’s blood, urine, feces or semen, assume they are infectious unless proven otherwise.
Step
5
Practice safe sex. This means using a condom with spermicide for anal, vaginal or oral penetration. Lesbians may wish to use a dental dam, a thin latex square, for oral sex.
Step
6
Use medical latex or non-latex gloves if you will be coming into contact with another person’s blood, urine, feces or semen. Health care workers consider this a “universal precaution” which means they wear protective equipment regardless of the client’s HIV/AIDS status.
Step
7
Avoid sharing needles if you use IV or injection drugs. Some cities have needle exchange programs and some states allow pharmacies to sell certain types of syringes without a prescription.
Step
8
Keep in mind that abstinence from sexual activity outside of a committed monogamous relationship is one of the best ways to protect yourself from HIV/AIDS.
Step
9
Learn more about how to protect yourself from HIV/AIDS. The American Red Cross offers several excellent community programs as well as publications to help keep both youths and adults safe. See the Resources section below for a link.

The 30-year war on AIDS has produced its share of notable victories. In the U.S., behavioral changes and combination drug therapies brought down the AIDS-related death toll from a peak of nearly 52,000 in 1994 to about 14,600 in 2007, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Yet HIV infections are still spreading rapidly in parts of Africa and Asia. And so far, efforts to find a cure or develop a vaccine that would stop HIV in its tracks have failed.

What if there were another way to slow the pandemic? Gilead Sciences is helping to test a different prevention strategy, which involves dosing individuals at risk of contracting AIDS with drugs normally used to treat people who are already infected. This approach, known as PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), is being tested in 10 clinical trials involving more than 20,000 people in the U.S., Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Gilead has supplied many of the drugs for the trials. Other backers include the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Researchers expect initial results in July.

If the data are positive, the approach could have a big impact on the AIDS pandemic — and on Gilead, says Leerink Swann analyst Josh Schimmer. He says PrEP could bring the Foster City (Calif.) company as much as $1 billion in sales in the U.S., where the number of infections among gay men has been rising since 1991, according to the CDC. Gilead pulled in $5.54 billion last year in sales of its top three AIDS drugs — Truvada, Atripla, and Viread — which are taken by 85% of U.S. patients as a first defense against the virus.

In the PrEP trials, Viread or Truvada is administered to uninfected people from groups most at risk of contracting the virus. The studies are also designed to determine whether those receiving the drugs take greater risks in the belief they’re protected against the virus. Participants receive counseling on ways to avoid infection.

Speaking to a U.S. Senate committee about global health priorities on Mar. 10, Bill Gates said that, if the trials produce positive results, PrEP distribution programs could begin in developing countries in 2012. “PrEP is the next big thing,” says Mitchell Warren, executive director of the New York-based AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. “We have a level of biological plausibility and early data in animal studies that is stronger than anything we have seen in the other approaches.” A study presented last year at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) meeting in Montreal found Truvada cut the risk of infection almost sixteenfold in monkeys.

There are also precedents for such intervention. Drugs made by GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE:GSK – News) and Boehringer Ingelheim are already used to prevent the virus from passing to babies in the wombs of infected mothers, and Glaxo’s Combivir is prescribed to prevent infections in men who take it after unprotected sex with an HIV-positive partner. “I’m very hopeful that this approach will help to reduce HIV infection rates,” says Dawn K. Smith, a researcher at the CDC who’s devising plans to implement the strategy if it proves effective. “But I want to see the trial results before I call myself a believer.”

Too Costly?
The world needs new tools to fight AIDS, which is responsible for more deaths than any other infectious disease. About 33 million people live with HIV, according to UNAIDS, the coalition of U.N. agencies formed to fight it. In 2008, 2.7 million people were newly infected with the virus, and 2 million died from AIDS-related complications.

There could be downsides to PrEP. Gilead acknowledges that healthy patients who take AIDS drugs over the long term could experience side effects. And if the promise of protection from HIV appears to spur those at risk to take fewer precautions, the entire PrEP effort could suffer a black eye.

The prognosis for PrEP in sub-Saharan Africa is mixed. Skeptics worry it may be too costly on a continent where 22 million people are infected and per capita income is $951, according to the World Bank. Speaking at this year’s CROI in San Francisco in February, Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases, expressed confidence in PrEP’s science but questioned the feasibility. “If we can’t get 70% of the people who are infected in low- and middle-income countries on therapy, how are we going to get people who aren’t even infected on therapy?” he asked.

In afflicted African countries, finding people best suited for PrEP will be difficult, since nearly everyone who’s sexually active is at risk of HIV, says Francois Venter, president of the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society. “I have this horror that we’ll have an effective intervention very few people are going to use,” Venter says. “I worry that there hasn’t been enough focus on who’s going to take these drugs.”

Even in wealthy nations cost will be a concern. Giving Truvada to 100,000 at-risk gay men in the U.S. would cost more than $1 billion a year, according to the CDC’s Web site. That sum covers only the cost of the pills and doesn’t include marketing, HIV testing, and doctors’ visits, the agency says.

Assuming PrEP could prevent 50% of infections, it would almost halve the lifetime risk of catching HIV among high-risk gay men in the U.S. — and almost triple the lifetime treatment costs, according to a simulation published in Clinical Infectious Diseases in March 2009. PrEP is “unlikely to confer sufficient benefits to justify the current costs” of Truvada in the U.S., researchers from Yale University and Harvard Medical School concluded in the study. The model assumed a drug cost of $753 a month for each patient. The costs of PrEP could be lower if studies show smaller drug doses are equally effective at preventing infections, or if the pills could be taken less frequently, such as shortly before risky sex, instead of every day, said A. David Paltiel, the study’s lead author.

Also uncertain is how PrEP might affect business for drugmakers. Gilead’s director for clinical affairs, Jim Rooney, says he doesn’t know what the commercial implications might be. “It’s going to depend upon the data,” he says, as well as how health officials evaluate the information and what clinical recommendations they make.

When the first anti-retroviral drugs were approved for treatment in the U.S. in 1987, critics complained they weren’t affordable in poor nations, says the CDC’s Smith. Now, more than 20 years later, about 40% of those infected worldwide are getting the drugs, according to UNAIDS. Says Smith: “If PrEP is highly efficacious, and if countries and UNAIDS and WHO and other public health agencies believe that it has a role to play in reducing new HIV infections, then we will find a way to make it available.”

Article taken in its entirety from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20100405/bs_bw/1015b4173056260350;_ylt=AgRLpYV0aTItBgPns7tG6S.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNuY21hZHByBGFzc2V0A2J3LzIwMTAwNDA1LzEwMTViNDE3MzA1NjI2MDM1MARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEwBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDd2lsbGFuYWlkc3Bp