It's always the pretty-boys who bark loudest

Just sayin'.

Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) falsely claimed on Thursday that it was nearly impossible for someone to contract AIDS through heterosexual contact.

“Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community,” he told Michelangelo Signorile, who hosts a radio program on SiriusXM OutQ. “It was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall.”

“My understanding is that it is virtually — not completely, but virtually — impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex.”

And here's a surprise - the bigot is from Tennessee, increasingly one of the most racist and bigoted states in the nation.  And a state in which the Republican party would be right at home in 1950s Alabama.  It's amazing that Tennessee's leaders don't mind making a farce of their state on the national scene.  I'll never spend money in that state if I can help it, and I'd most certainly never recommend anyone study, live there, work there or invest there. And I know plenty others who agree with me.

If that's what Tennessee's leaders were going for, congratulations. Read the rest of this post...

Should someone who is HIV+ disclose their status before sex?

Towleroad has an interesting piece up about the criminalization of HIV, or rather, laws that say that if you have intercourse, know you're HIV+ and don't divulge it, it's a crime. The writer, who teaches at Brooklyn Law School, makes some interesting points about how the law currently doesn't have a lot of nuance to it:

Despite a spate of good news for the eradication of HIV -- the FDA's approval of Truvada to prevent its transmission, the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act and thus retaining the ACA's great benefits for those living with HIV, and the lifting of the HIV/AIDS travel ban that allowed the International AIDS Conference to take place in Washington, D.C. last month -- there are still countless jurisdictions in which it is essentially a crime to be a sexually active HIV-positive man. In some states, individuals with HIV can be convicted of crimes of varying degrees, with penalties exceeding 10 or 20 years in jail, if they have sex without first disclosing their HIV status. And that is true even if they practice safe sex, are taking antiretroviral medications, have undetectable viral loads, and/or are on the receptive side of the sexual encounter, four factors that when combined make it almost impossible to transmit the virus.

If prosecutors can prove that transmission is likely merely by offering evidence that anal sex possibly transmits HIV, then two things happen. First, it is factually incorrect. Anal sex can transmit HIV, but all incidents of anal sex aren't fungible. Second, it is legally insufficient. The notion that a "likelihood" threshold could be satisfied by the mere possibility that HIV could be transmitted both actually lowers the threshold and eviscerates the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Think about it: If all prosecutors had to do was prove is that anal sex can possibly transmit HIV, then no doubt could be reasonable. After all, “[a]nything is possible; there are no metaphysical certainties accessible to human reason; but a merely metaphysical doubt . . . is not a reasonable doubt for the purposes of the criminal law.” This principle does not only exclude the fanciful (“it is possible that I will burst into flames”), but also the realistic, yet remote.

What do you think: Should HIV positive people divulge their status before having sex? Should it depend on what kind of sex, or whether protection is used? Should it depends on the viral load of the HIV positive person? And is a very very small risk of something really really huge acceptable?

My gut reaction is that I'd want to know, regardless. But the writer makes a lot of good points - namely, that my desire to know is based on, perhaps, some unfounded fears of the ease of transmission.

Oh and PS, while I don't really get into sharing information of this nature on the blog, the first time I used a condom it broke, and we had no idea that it broke.  So the condom argument is irrelevant.  Assume there is no condom, then decide if it's still okay not to divulge.

I'm actually a bit annoyed that the writer failed to mention this, the fact that condoms break.  I actually hadn't even thought of it until someone else on Twitter mentioned it, and it's a bit of a game-changer to his argument.  I worry sometimes that we all - and I mean all of us - downplay the severity of AIDS in our own little way, whether we do it by ignoring the plague completely, or by subtly suggesting it's no big deal. Read the rest of this post...

So my doctor pricked herself with my allergy shot needle...

UPDATE: Well according to Wikipedia (and the WHO), the naysayers in the comments are wrong, and I was right, in how I responded to the situation (i.e., by determining that regardless of who paid for it, I should get an HIV and Hep test).

After a needlestick injury, certain procedures must be followed to minimize the risk of infection for the recipient. The affected area should be rinsed and washed thoroughly with soap and water; the practice to "milk out" more blood is controversial and not recommended by the CDC.[1] Lab tests of the recipient are obtained for baseline studies: HIV, acute hepatitis panel (HAV IgM, HBsAg, HB core IgM, HCV) and for immunized individuals HB surface antibody.[24] Unless already known, the infectious status of the source needs to be determined by checking for HBsAG, anti-HCV, and HIV antibody.[24] Unless the source is known to be negative for HBV, HCV, and HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) should be initiated, ideally within one hour of the injury;[8] typically this is done in the emergency department or the occupational health office. Guidelines for PEP have been updated over recent years in view of the introduction of new drugs, and protocols may differ somewhat between countries.

_______________

So I was getting my allergy shot today in France, and after giving me my injection the needle slipped from my doctor's hand and pricked her. She was understandably upset, and I offered to get an HIV test. So, she wrote me a prescription for an HIV test and a Hepatitis test (B and C). Odd that you need a prescription, but apparently you can go to a free center downtown for an HIV test, and a different place for Hepatitis.

The doc warned me that the test was expensive, but this being Europe, expensive usually means 50 euros, or sixty bucks. It was in fact sixty bucks (even the woman behind the counter at the lab told me, "yeah, sorry, it really IS expensive" - I told her she should visit America), and it remains to be seen if Blue Cross Blue Shield considers this an emergency, which is the only thing they pay for when you're traveling abroad.

Through the whole ordeal the doctor didn't once offer to pay for my tests, even though she knew my insurance probably wouldn't cover it, and she knew that it would be "expensive." That kind of bothered me. Interestingly, a French friend, and an American friend who has lived in France a long time, both didn't think the doctor should have offered to pay. All my American friends back in the states said, yes, she should either pay or at least offer.

What do you think?

PS Interestingly, the laboratory doing the test told me that the test is so sensitive that it will pick up whether I was infected in the last couple of days.  I didn't think that was possible.  Anyone up on this? Read the rest of this post...

AIDS and judgment

Interesting paragraph from an article over at HuffPo about HIV in the black community:

Tony Ray, 26, a black activist at the Bronx AIDS Institute, said some narratives are more difficult than others, and that can contribute to the ongoing stigma of the disease. Ray was infected when a condom broke during a one-night stand when he was 17. "In a really weird f---ed up way people judge you by this moral standard," he said. "It's like, 'Oh the condom broke? I'm so sorry'. 'Oh, you were having sex without condoms? Well, that was f---ing stupid'."

I get why HIV activists worry about judgment - it can scare people away from treatment, and can help embolden lawmakers who are only interested in bashing people with AIDS (often as a proxy for people who are gay, among other reasons).  But having sex without a condom is f'g stupid. As is having unprotected sex with someone, especially if you know you're HIV positive.

Jahlove Serrano knows about overlapping epidemics. He's a black, gay, HIV-positive, 25-year-old AIDS activist and youth advocate. These days, with the help of medication, his health is under control. But for years, his life felt like chaos, and he got sicker and sicker. Sitting in the "Youth Pavilion" at the AIDS conference, Serrano explained that he was infected with HIV the night he lost his virginity in a one-night stand with an older man he met on Christopher Street, just a few days before his 16th birthday.

We don't know from the story if the older man knew his status. But he was happy to have unprotected (presumably anal) sex with a kid, who likely didn't know any better. That's not just f'g stupid, it's f'g obnoxious.

None of us are perfect.  But that doesn't mean we're incapable of judging right and wrong, and more importantly, it doesn't mean that notions of right and wrong are entirely counterproductive all the time.

In the larger civil rights battle, we seem to believe that the notion that being a bigot is a bad thing, that saying bigoted things is bad, will help make bigotry less and less acceptable over time.  It's why we get upset when comedians, and other personalities, say obnoxious anti-gay things.  Our outrage isn't simply fueled by outrage, it's fueled by the knowledge that if we make an example of this particular offender, we send a larger message to society that such offenses - such bigotry - is wrong.

I just worry sometimes about what message we're sending to people who are at risk of HIV, but not yet positive, when we refuse to condemn those who, through their own indifference, would help sero-convert a 16 year old kid. Read the rest of this post...

AIDS activists protest at White House

Washington Blade:

U.S. Parks Police on Tuesday arrested 13 protesters who gathered in front of the White House.

Sergeant Paul Brooks, spokesperson for the U.S. Parks Police, told the Blade that those taken into custody failed to obey officers who told them not to stand on the sidewalk in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Housing Works President Charles King, members of ACT UP Philadelphia, the Prevention Justice Alliance and Health Gap were among those arrested as they tried to tie red ribbons with condoms, syringes and other items to the White House fence.

The arrests took place after thousands took part in the “We Can End AIDS” march from the Walter E. Washington Convention Center and other parts of downtown Washington to Lafayette Park. Participants urged President Obama, members of Congress and other lawmakers around the world to provide more resources to fight HIV/AIDS and protect human rights for those living with the virus.

Read the rest of this post...

$1200 a month for a prophylactic AIDS pill? Seriously?

Who can afford that?  No insurance company is going to cover HIVnegative people just because maybe, possibly, you won't get AIDS if you take the pill (but you still might).  Hell, good luck trying to get them to cover Yellow Fever immunizations when you go to an infected region.)  Or the HPV vaccine for that matter.  And no one can afford $1200 a month on their own dime.

Also, the side effects sound a little scary for a drug that's this expensive and only works half the time. Read the rest of this post...

Is AIDS still a priority for the community, the Wash Post asks

It's a good question, but I'm getting really tired of everyone having to demonize "white gay men" all the time. Seriously, is there no other reason that anything bad happens in the world anymore?

The Gill Foundation, for instance, has given approximately $118 million in grants over its 17-year history to aid its mission of furthering LGBT equality. This includes more than $6 million between 1999 and 2007 for fighting HIV across the United States. Since 2007, however, the group’s grants for HIV services have been limited to organizations in Colorado, where it is based. Foundation officials emphasize, however, that Gill is still funding national organizations that work to improve the health and services environment for gay people, including those with and at risk for HIV. But that is much different than directly funding those services.

Why is this happening? Overwhelmingly, these foundations’ giving is decided by rich, white gay men. And these funders are among the Americans who have access to high-quality health care. If they need them, they have access to life-extending antiretroviral drugs, which have made HIV a manageable chronic illness for many.

Gay donors are still giving generously to causes they believe in. While we have seen millions of dollars well spent on issues such as marriage equality and repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” somehow AIDS has fallen off, or at least moved well down, the list of priorities.

Sorry, but I don't think the "all those white men are selfish" argument exactly cuts it. Did Tim Gill help on DADT repeal - and he did - because he selfishly wanted to join the military? I don't think so.

And I didn't bust my butt on DADT over the past 19 years because I plan to enlist. And it's not terribly clear that ENDA will help me directly either, since I work for myself, but I still advocate for it.

There are a lot of reasons that the community doesn't focus as much on AIDS anymore. One big one is that prominent (note that I said "prominent" - meaning "out", meaning "involved") members of the community, of all races, are no longer dying in the numbers they were previously, so people have become complacent. I know black gay men and Latino gay men, and have for years - and few of the ones I've known, of any race, have died in the past twenty years that I've been out.

That doesn't mean black gay men and Latino gay men (and white gay men, for that matter) aren't dying. But I suspect epidemic has gone into the closet - and the recent articles even attest to that fact, the number of minority men who have no idea that they're HIV positive. If they have no idea that they're HIV positive, if they're closeted and not really participating in the community, then their illness is not affecting the rest of us in the same way it did when our friends were dropping dead like flies. The epidemic seems to have moved, in part, to the closet - either because treatment is prolonging life and increasing the quality of life, and thus hiding the fact that people are HIV positive, or because those affected are quite literally in the closet, and thus we don't know of them at all.

None of that means we shouldn't care about their plight. But I get tired of people pulling the pity card as if the importance of their cause naturally means that your cause sucks.  I'm also tired of the suggesting that the only reason their cause isn't doing better is because you're rich, white and a man.  It couldn't possibly be their fault too.

Yes, AIDS matters. And so does marriage. And so did DADT. And so does ENDA.  Don't knock the work on those other hugely important issues.  Ever.  It's been happening more and more lately by some trans advocates, advocates for gay minority youth, and now AIDS advocates.  It's almost a bad thing to them that we got DADT repealed.

If people aren't paying enough attention to AIDS, or whatever issue you're personally pushing, then maybe part of what's needed is some introspection by the groups involved, meaning AIDS groups and AIDS activists. Maybe, just maybe, they're not doing as good a job advocating for the issue as they used to, and should. Read the rest of this post...

Huge AIDS crisis among gay black men in US

AFP:

HIV-AIDS is affecting black gay men in the United States on a scale unseen among any other group in the developed world, said a report issued Wednesday ahead of the International AIDS Conference.

So grave is the crisis that in some US cities, one in two black men who have sex with other men are HIV positive, according to the report from the Black AIDS Institute, the only national HIV-AIDS think tank focusing on African Americans.

I was speaking with someone at an unrelated event the other night, and he was talking about the rising HIV infection rate in France. I mentioned similar problems in the states, and how I was surprised that you don't really hear about AIDS any more. We used to have condoms distributed in bars and all sorts of things, now there's the occasional concert or something. I do worry that people have become more complacent as fewer of their friends are now dying, and the image of AIDS as a manageable disease increases. (And don't even get me started on all the online profiles looking to bareback, and worse, indicating that they're negative!)

Wilson also faulted mainstream gay rights groups for putting the HIV-AIDS crisis on the back burner, now that it is no longer a pressing issue for affluent gays in big cities whose bigger concern today is marriage equality.

"There are almost no national LGBT organizations today that give a rat's ass about the lives of black gay men as they are impacted by HIV-AIDS, and that's disgraceful," he said.

As I mentioned, AIDS certainly isn't the burning number one issue it was ten or twenty years ago. And I agree that that is a problem. I do not however like it at all when people who have some other pet cause in the community disparage marriage equality.

You can trace probably every single problem we have in the community to homophobia. And that includes society's homophobia, and our own internalized homophobia. For example, some of the riskier gay sex practices, in my view, have ties, at least, to years of being brought up and told that you're worthless, a sinner, and going to hell. That does a mighty job on your self-esteem. And with lower self-esteem you might just be willing to try things that you wouldn't if you thought better of yourself. It's more complicated than that, but that's a beginning.

Or take, as the article does, the black community's response to the epidemic.

"Black people are more likely to be diagnosed with HIV, more likely to die from the disease, and less likely to receive treatment than any other race" in the United States, said the civil rights organization in a report.

Citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it said African Americans represent 13 percent of the total population, yet account for more than half of all new HIV diagnoses.

Wilson, 56, attributed part of the problem to the black community's slow response in the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s, when it was already wrestling with poverty, unemployment and the spread of crack cocaine.

It's interesting that the article seems to give the black community a pass for its role in exacerbating the problem, contrary to the article's treatment of white gays today. Marriage equality is "blamed," at least implicitly, while poverty and unemployment are mentioned as almost an understandable deflection of attention.

(We are forgetting that in the 80s there was no possibility of passing ENDA, winning marriage, passing a hate crimes law, or ending the ban on gays in the military (and there was still a ban before DADT).  While I'm sure our groups were busy with other lesser issues back then, there wasn't as much focus on these issues because they didn't really exist at the time.  They do now.  AIDS was "the" issue in the 80s and early 90s.  Yet today there are other also-important issues that compete for our attention as never before.)

In fact, I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to argue that homophobia in the black community played a huge role in that community ignoring AIDS in the 80s, just as it played a huge role in whites ignoring AIDS in the 80s. And the same homophobia, particularly in the black community, continues to play a role today.

I share the concern that AIDS has become almost a footnote in gay advocacy. I don't share the disdain that some in our community seem to show for our civil rights battles. It's just possible that if we got marriage equality, it could go a long ways towards putting an end to that homophobia once and for all. And that helps everyone, including those fighting to promote HIV/AIDS awareness in reluctant populations, and everywhere. Read the rest of this post...

Obama won't speak at international AIDS conference in DC

Granted, a president has a busy schedule so who knows what might have been taking place at the same time. Still, with the conference happening in DC, this doesn't strike me as the wisest move.

President Obama will prepare a video message for attendees at the 19th International AIDS Conference in lieu of making a live appearance at the event, according to the White House.

In a notice issued on Monday, the White House announced that Obama is set to provide a brief video message for the conference, which will take place next week in D.C., as part of "[c]ontinuing his personal engagement on this issue." Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, confirmed this video message will be in lieu of a live appearance at the event.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama urged to speak at upcoming international AIDS conference in DC

Would seem a no-brainer. From Chris Johnson at the Blade:

Tom Myers, chief of public affairs and general counsel for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, was particularly critical of Obama for not yet confirming that he’ll make an appearance at the upcoming 19th International AIDS Conference, which will will take place at D.C.’s Walter E. Washington Convention Center during the week of July 22.

“We are here to express our concern and dismay that, less than two weeks from the start of the conference, President Obama has yet to commit to attending it,” Myers said. “In the 20-odd year history of this conference, it is virtually obligatory for the head of state of the host nation to address the conference at its opening.”

It’s the first time since 1990 that the conference will take place in the United States. Organizers agreed to hold the conference in D.C. after the lifting of the HIV travel ban in 2009, which had prevented HIV-positive foreign nationals from entering the United States. The process for removing the ban started under the Bush administration through legislative action and ended under the Obama administration.

As of Monday, the conference hadn’t yet announced whether it had received confirmation that Obama would speak. Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said he had no updates on whether Obama will attend the conference.

Read the rest of this post...

Suit says Catholic hospital refuses to give meds to HIV positive man because he's gay

The Catholics recently warned that they might just let non-Catholics die, rather than obey federal guidelines on contraception.

And we know that the Catholic church would rather let orphan children go homeless than obey civil rights laws (and would rather let children be serially raped than obey laws on rape and child abuse).

And we know that religious right Republicans want pharmacists to have the right to turn away anyone they don't morally agree with.

So it was only a matter of time before the Catholics chose to let gays die in the name of the Lord. Read the rest of this post...

Should gay men take a pill to (likely) ward off HIV?

It's expensive as hell, and I'd also be worried about what the long-term effects are of taking this pill for 50 years.  Still, it's an interesting notion.  From the NY Daily News:

Gay men who have five or more sex partners per year are part of a high-risk group that could benefit from a daily pill to ward off HIV, said a cost-benefit analysis by researchers on Monday.

The study by experts at Stanford University, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, looked at the costs involved with prescribing a $26 a day pill to men who have sex with men.

The pill, Truvada (tenofovir-emtricitabine), was shown in a landmark 2010 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine to prevent HIV infections in as many as 73 percent of gay men who took it regularly.

Read the rest of this post...

Time for the FDA to ditch the gay blood ban?

I do think it's not entirely irrelevant that there's a lag window between when you're infected and when it can be detected.  Having said that, why doesn't the FDA care about promiscuous heterosexuals, who are also at risk of contracting HIV and other STDS?  More from the Washington Post. Read the rest of this post...

New study of HIV drugs calls into question early use

It's an interesting ethical issue that someone brought to my attention a few months ago. And now a new study confirms it. From the SF Chronicle:

Patients who take one of the most widely prescribed drugs to treat HIV infection increase their risk of kidney damage by up to 34 percent every year they take the medication, according to a study of more than 10,000 HIV-positive veterans.

And it's a debate that is likely to become more heated. For many HIV-infected patients, the benefits of taking tenofovir and preventing full-blown AIDS will far outweigh the risk of long-term kidney damage. But some public health experts have begun to promote the drug for healthy individuals after recent research showed that tenofovir could prevent HIV infection.

In other words, do you take the drug if you're HIV negative in order to help prevent HIV infection? But either someone who is positive but healthy. Should they start taking the drugs right away, wait a few years, or what? When AIDS is no longer necessarily a death sentence, at least not in the medium-term, the cumulative effects of using these drugs over a lifetime, possibly 50 years or more in some cases, become relevant.

Related... I'm so discouraged, and shocked really, when I see guys online openly advertising that they're looking for unsafe sex (aka "barebacking") - and I do see it, more often than makes me comfortable. And they have the nerve to suggest that they're HIV negative and only looking for negative partners. Sorry to disappoint you, Mary, but unless you get tested after each and every time you have sex, you have no idea if you're negative, nor if the guy you're barebacking with is.  Not to mention, you're willing to risk your life on the assumption that guys never lie about sex?  Nothing is a guarantee, and I'm all for people having a fulfilling sex life.  But barebacking, still, and while negative (not that I'm in favor of it otherwise)?  Seriously?

And a lot of these guys are in their 20s.  Oh what a difference it makes not spending every Friday reading the obituaries in the local gay paper. Read the rest of this post...

TN GOP state senator says AIDS came about from "one guy screwing a monkey"

No, senator Stacey Campfield, that's how you came about.  From Mike Signorile:

"Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community -- it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall."

"My understanding is that it is virtually -- not completely, but virtually -- impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex...very rarely [transmitted]."

"What's the average lifespan of a homosexual? it's very short. Google it yourself."

That last absurd tidbit comes from a discredited hate group run by a man called Paul Cameron.  He's been so discredited that the religious right refuses to even mention the guy any more, even though much of their anti-gay "science" is based on Cameron's fake "Nazi" science (that's what the Southern Poverty Law Center called it).  (As an aside, John Boehner's favorite lawyer - well, he's also well-loved by Attorney General Eric Holder and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan - Paul Clement used research based in part on Cameron's work to defend DOMA.)

As for it being nearly impossible to get HIV from heterosexual sex, the majority of new AIDS cases in Sub-Saharan Africa are from heterosexual sex.  And over a quarter of HIV cases in Washington, DC occurred from heterosexual sex.

Sadly, this kind of rhetoric shouldn't surprise.  The Tennessee Republican party is still racist, in 2012, so we shouldn't be surprised that the state government, run by Republicans, is also virulently anti-gay.  Just last year the Tennessee legislature, with the support of its Republican governor and businesses like Comcast, AT&T, FedEx and Blue Cross, repealed every gay and trans rights ordinance in the state, and banned cities across the state from ever passing another civil rights law ever again.

Tennessee is also the proud state where the Tennessee Tea Party, which is little more than a grouping of conservative Republicans, had this to say about Barney Frank's retirement:

"Good riddance you perverted sodomite piece of sh-t!"

Here's a little more about Tennesee's GOP:

GOP Tennessee Lt. Gov calls Islam a 'cult,' says religious freedom may not count for Muslims

TN GOP sends around press release referring to Obama as "Hussein" and showing him in traditional Muslim garb.

TN GOP staffer sends out photo of Obama as a "spook" ("spook" is a racist term to refer to black people).

Then there was the communications director of the TN GOP who distributed the Christmas carol "Barack the Magic Negro."

Or the time racist Tennessee Republicans passed a law that denied a 96 year old black women the right to vote.

Or the time an "unabashed racist" who believes in eugenics, according to AP, won the House primary in Tennessee.

And now Tennessee is trying to ban teachers, and counselors, from ever mentioning the g-word. Which should do wonders to stop schools from helping gay and trans kids who are being bullied.  Oh yeah, the TN GOP senator also had something to say about bullying:

"That bullying thing is the biggest lark out there."

"There are sexually confused children who could be pushed into a lifestyle that I don’t think is appropriate with them and it's not for the norm for society, and they don't know how they can get back from that. I think a lot of times these young teens and young children, they find it very hard on themselves and unfortunately some of them commit suicide."

Yes, the evil gays are forcing teens to kill themselves.

Welcome to Tennessee: America at its worst.

(PS The story does have a happy ending, of sorts. Campbell was recently kicked out of a Knoxville, TN restaurant for his comments on gay people and AIDS.) Read the rest of this post...

Obama remarks on World AIDS Day

December 1, 2011
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON WORLD AIDS DAY

George Washington University
Washington, D.C.

10:27 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Sanjay. It is an honor to be with you today and to follow President Kikwete and President Bush. To Bono and Alicia, to the ONE campaign, thank you for bringing us together. Because of your work, all across Africa there are children who are no longer starving, mothers who are no longer dying of treatable diseases, fathers who are again providing for their families. And because of all of you, so many people are now blessed with hope.

We’ve got members of Congress who have done so much for this cause who are here today, and we want to thank them. Let me also thank President Bush for joining us from Tanzania and for his bold leadership on this issue. I believe that history will record the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief as one of his greatest legacies. And that program -- more ambitious than even the leading advocates thought was possible at the time -- has saved thousands and thousands and thousands of lives, and spurred international action, and laid the foundation for a comprehensive global plan that will impact the lives of millions. And we are proud that we have the opportunity to carry that work forward.

Today is a remarkable day. Today, we come together as a global community, across continents, across faiths and cultures, to renew our commitment to ending the AIDS pandemic once and for all.

Now, if you go back and you look at the themes of past World AIDS Days, if you read them one after another, you’ll see the story of how the human race has confronted one of the most devastating pandemics in our history. You’ll see that in those early years -- when we started losing good men and women to a disease that no one truly understood -- it was about ringing the alarm, calling for global action, proving that this deadly disease was not isolated to one area or one group of people.

And that’s part of what makes today so remarkable, because back in those early years, few could have imagined this day -- that we would be looking ahead to “The Beginning of the End,” marking a World AIDS Day that has gone from that early beginning when people were still uncertain to now a theme, “Getting to Zero.” Few could have imagined that we’d be talking about the real possibility of an AIDS-free generation. But that’s what we’re talking about. That’s why we’re here. And we arrived here because of all of you and your unwavering belief that we can -- and we will -- beat this disease.

Because we invested in anti-retroviral treatment, people who would have died, some of whom are here today, are living full and vibrant lives. Because we developed new tools, more and more mothers are giving birth to children free from this disease. And because of a persistent focus on awareness, the global rate of new infections and deaths is declining.

So make no mistake, we are going to win this fight. But the fight is not over -- not by a long shot. The rate of new infections may be going down elsewhere, but it’s not going down here in America. The infection rate here has been holding steady for over a decade. There are communities in this country being devastated, still, by this disease.

When new infections among young black gay men increase by nearly 50 percent in 3 years, we need to do more to show them that their lives matter. When Latinos are dying sooner than other groups, and when black women feel forgotten, even though they account for most of the new cases among women, then we’ve got to do more.

So this fight is not over. Not for the 1.2 million Americans who are living with HIV right now. Not for the Americans who are infected every day. This fight is not over for them, it’s not over for their families, and as a consequence, it can’t be over for anybody in this room -- and it certainly isn’t over for your President.

Since I took office, we’ve had a robust national dialogue on HIV/AIDS. Members of my administration have fanned out across the country to meet people living with HIV; to meet researchers, faith leaders, medical providers and private sector partners. We’ve spoken to over 4,000 people. And out of all those conversations, we drafted a new plan to combat this disease. Last year, we released that plan -- a first-ever national HIV/AIDS strategy.

We went back to basics: prevention, treatment and focusing our efforts where the need is greatest. And we laid out a vision where every American, regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or socioeconomic status, can get access to life-extending care.

And I want to be clear about something else: Since taking office, we’ve increased overall funding to combat HIV/AIDS to record levels. With bipartisan support, we reauthorized the Ryan White Care Act. And as I signed that bill, I was so proud to also announce that my administration was ending the ban that prohibited people with HIV from entering America. (Applause.) Because of that step, next year, for the first time in two decades, we will host the international AIDS conference. (Applause.)

So we’ve done a lot over the past three years, but we can do so much more. Today, I’m announcing some new commitments. We’re committing an additional $15 million for the Ryan White Program that supports care provided by HIV medical clinics across the country. We want to keep those doors open so they can keep saving lives. We’re committing an additional $35 million for state AIDS-drug assistance programs.

The federal government can’t do this alone, so I’m also calling on state governments, and pharmaceutical companies, and private foundations to do their part to help Americans get access to all the life-saving treatments.

This is a global fight, and it’s one that America must continue to lead. Looking back at the history of HIV/AIDS, you’ll see that no other country has done more than this country, and that’s testament to our leadership as a country. But we can’t be complacent.

I think this is an area where we can also look back and take pride that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have consistently come together to fund this fight -- not just here, but around the world. And that’s a testament to the values that we share as Americans; a commitment that extends across party lines, that’s demonstrated by the fact that President Bush, President Clinton and I are joining you all today.

Since I took office, we’ve increased support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We’ve launched a Global Health Initiative that has improved access to health care, helping bring down the cost of vaccines, and over the next five years, will help save the lives of 4 million more children. And all along, we kept focusing on expanding our impact.

Today, I’m proud to announce that as of September, the United States now supports anti-retroviral treatment for nearly 4 million people worldwide. (Applause.) Four million people. And in just the past year, we’ve provided 600,000 HIV-positive mothers with access to drugs so that 200,000 babies could be born HIV-free. (Applause.) And nearly 13 million people have received care and treatment, including more than 4 million children. So we’ve got some stuff to be proud of.

But we’ve got to do more. We’re achieving these results not by acting alone, but by partnering with developing countries like Tanzania, and with leaders like President Kikwete.

Now, as we go forward, we’ve got to keep refining our strategy so that we’re saving as many lives as possible. We need to listen when the scientific community focuses on prevention. That’s why, as a matter of policy, we’re now investing in what works -- from medical procedures to promoting healthy behavior.

And that’s why we’re setting a goal of providing anti-retroviral drugs to more than 1.5 million HIV-positive pregnant women over the next two years so that they have the chance to give birth to HIV-free babies.

We’re not going to stop there. We know that treatment is also prevention. And today, we’re setting a new target of helping 6 million people get treatment by the end of 2013. (Applause.) That’s 2 million more people than our original goal.

And on this World AIDS Day, here’s my message to everybody who is out there:

To the global community -- we ask you to join us. Countries that have committed to the Global Fund need to give the money that they promised. (Applause.) Countries that haven’t made a pledge, they need to do so. (Applause.) That includes countries that in the past might have been recipients, but now are in a position to step up as major donors. China and other major economies are in a position now to transition in a way that can help more people.

To Congress -- keep working together and keep the commitments you’ve made intact. At a time when so much in Washington divides us, the fight against this disease has united us across parties and across presidents. And it shows that we can do big things when Republicans and Democrats put their common humanity before politics. So we need to carry that spirit forward.

And to all Americans -- we’ve got to keep fighting. Fight for every person who needs our help today, but also fight for every person who didn’t live to see this moment; for the Rock Hudsons and the Arthur Ashes, and every person who woke us up to the reality of HIV/AIDS. We’ve got to fight for Ryan White and his mother Jeanne, and the Ray brothers, and every person who forced us to confront our destructive prejudices and our misguided fears. Fight for Magic Johnson and Mary Fisher, and every man, woman and child, who, when told they were going to die from this disease, they said, “No, we’re not. We’re going to live.”

Keep fighting for all of them because we can end this pandemic. We can beat this disease. We can win this fight. We just have to keep at it, steady, persistent -- today, tomorrow, every day until we get to zero. And as long as I have the honor of being your President, that’s what this administration is going to keep doing. That’s my pledge. That’s my commitment to all of you. And that’s got to be our promise to each other -- because we’ve come so far and we’ve saved so many lives, we might as well finish the fight.

Thank you for all you’ve done. God bless you. God bless America. Thank you. (Applause.)

END 10:41 A.M. EST

Read the rest of this post...

Number of new HIV cases in Northern Ireland jumps

Tomorrow, December 1, is World AIDS Day.  I still don't understand how the numbers can still be increasing.  This is "just" Northern Ireland, but it's the same elsewhere. Read the rest of this post...

Anti-HIV compound discovered (though researcher seems to forget the gay)

An exciting discovery.  Though as cuteliberal notes on Twitter, it's odd that the article only talks about how heterosexual benefits from the gel. Read the rest of this post...

AIDS money likely affected by Super Committee auto-cuts

From Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, reductions in discretionary appropriations for non-defense programs — including HIV/AIDS programs — would range from from 7.8 percent in 2013 to 5.5 percent in 2021, resulting in savings of $294 billion.

Carl Schmid, deputy executive director for the AIDS Institute, said the mandatory cuts that will occur in 2013 "will certainly impact funding levels" for discretionary HIV/AIDS programs such as the Ryan White Care Act, AIDS Drug Assistance Programs and research spending.

"We're going to try to work to make sure that doesn't happen, but if it does happen, there'll be less money for prevention, less money for drugs to keep people healthy, less for care and treatment and less money for research," Schmid said.

Schmid added the potential cuts are of particular concern because the number of people living with HIV/AIDS continues to grow.

According to a CDC report published in August, HIV in the United States continues to disproportionately impact young gay and bisexual men, although as a whole, infection rates have been relatively stable in recent years. New infections among among young men who have sex with men increased 34 percent between 2006 and 2009, while infections among young, black men who have sex with men increased 48 percent from 4,400 in 2006 to 6,500 in 2009.

Read the rest of this post...

British to discriminate somewhat less against gays giving blood

Now they'll only ban you for one year after you've had sex with another guy.  They claim they're worried that HIV or other diseases might be missed by testing, thus the long delay.  I'm curious how many people, six months into being HIV positive, still test negative?  Any? Read the rest of this post...