Healthy gay men urged by the WHO to take HIV drugs

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28264436

Healthy gay men urged to take HIV drugs - WHO

Antiretroviral drugs are more widely used to treat people who are already infected with HIV

The World Health Organization (WHO) is urging all sexually active gay men to take antiretroviral drugs to reduce the spread of HIV.

The organisation says the move may help prevent a million new HIV infections over 10 years.

Officials warn rates of HIV in this group remain high across the globe.

But activists suggest this could discourage the use of condoms - one of the best methods to stop the virus spreading.

According to the WHO report, men who have sex with men are 19 times more likely to have HIV than the general population.

'Exciting approach'

Health experts say offering antiretroviral drugs to all at-risk men - known as pre-exposure prophylaxis - will provide an additional way to prevent infection, together with condom use.

When taken consistently by people at high risk, studies show the medication can reduce the chances of getting HIV by up to 92%.

And scientists say encouraging this group of men to take these pills could lead to a 25% reduction in new cases across the globe.

Dr Rosemary Gillespie, of the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "We already know if someone has HIV, using treatment drastically reduces the likelihood of them passing it on, as does using condoms.

"The idea of treatment as prevention is not new, but the idea of extending treatment to HIV-negative people from high-risk groups is.

"Pre-exposure prophylaxis is an exciting approach, and likely to be one of a number of ways in which we can reduce the spread of HIV in the future.

"However, we need to evaluate how effective it will be in preventing HIV among gay men."
'Progress threatened'

She says until the results of UK trials are known, condoms and regular testing remain the best weapons against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

And while the number of people dying of Aids is falling sharply, the WHO says key populations need more attention.

According to the report, transgender women are almost 50 times more likely to have HIV than other adults, a level similar to that seen among people who inject drugs.

And sex workers are 14 times more likely to have HIV than the general population.

"Dr Gottfried Hirnschall of the World Health Organization said: "Failure to provide services to the people who are at greatest risk of HIV jeopardises further progress against the global epidemic and threatens the health and well-being of individuals, their families and the broader community."

Just one of the many reasons i'm celibate/abstinent, the gay health stats are never mentioned: but they're horrifying.

But anyway, i'm interested as to why the BAN IT brigade of doctors, 'experts', politicians and other lobby groups aren't climbing all over this to have gay sex outlawed on public health grounds... or at least have it made more difficult. I mean they've done it with smoking (all in the name of saving people) so logic would dictate that they do it when it comes to homosexual activity... oh wait I forgot about political correctness. Ah.

How much this will cost us though just because people can't practice self-restraint is depressing.

Thoughts?

[Kardan]

You're totally right - I'm glad the government did it with smoking and they should totally do it for gay sex. I mean, for smoking all that second hand smoke is going near me and giving me cancer - and when two other people have gay sex, I can just feel the aids rushing towards me through the air. It's outrageous.

[David]

Edited by mdport. (Trialist Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly, Thanks!

[Hannah]

I completely forgot that sexually active heterosexual people can't get HIV and are definitely not more likely to hide the fact if they did have.

[wixard]

wouldn't it be funny if undertaker was a troll this entire time

just adding to this, thought the thread was gonna be sexually active gay men allowed to give blood soon, in Ireland they're removing the rule which states they can't

[The Don]

wouldn't it be funny if undertaker was a troll this entire time

Is anyone genuinely stupid enough to compare gay sex to smoking?

[FlyingJesus]

I also hope the experts lobby for a gay sex ban of the same magnitude as the smoking ban - I'm totally sick of all the thousands of people having sex in pubs while I'm trying to have a nice quiet drink next to them

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're totally right - I'm glad the government did it with smoking and they should totally do it for gay sex. I mean, for smoking all that second hand smoke is going near me and giving me cancer - and when two other people have gay sex, I can just feel the aids rushing towards me through the air. It's outrageous.

It was only recently we had the 'experts' recommend a blanket ban in cigarettes to those who were born after the year 2000, so this has long gone past the concept of second hand smoking. But indeed, given the promiscuity among homosexuals..... why shouldn't the state step in to help save lives? I mean, if it can do it with smoking/unhealthy foods and alcohol, then why is action morally unacceptable in this instance?

Is it because you *approve* of homosexual relations where as you don't approve of smoking/unhealthy eating? Therefore it would confirm what I keep saying all along with state action in social issues like these, it isn't about health or well being at all: it's simply what you like and dislike.

I also hope the experts lobby for a gay sex ban of the same magnitude as the smoking ban - I'm totally sick of all the thousands of people having sex in pubs while I'm trying to have a nice quiet drink next to them

What if this were changed to "I'm totally sick of a small number of people unproportionately costing the health service billions in HIV drugs"?

- - - Updated - - -

Is anyone genuinely stupid enough to compare gay sex to smoking?

If we're discussing public health and state action, then why not?

It was one of the reasons given before the 1967 Act after all as to why homosexual practices were banned in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

wouldn't it be funny if undertaker was a troll this entire time

just adding to this, thought the thread was gonna be sexually active gay men allowed to give blood soon, in Ireland they're removing the rule which states they can't

I don't believe in the state stepping in over this of course, I would find it absurd. But I find it absurd that people on here can come close to supporting total ban on the mere act of smoking a cigarette for anyone born after 2000 and that's why I am playing devil's advocate.

If the ban-it-brigade stood here and considered state action over the HIV epidemic among homosexuals, then at least they'd show some principle and prove to me that public health was actually their concern (even if I still disagree with them). But they won't do it.

[The Don]

It was only recently we had the 'experts' recommend a blanket ban in cigarettes to those who were born after the year 2000, so this has long gone past the concept of second hand smoking. But indeed, given the promiscuity among homosexuals..... why shouldn't the state step in to help save lives? I mean, if it can do it with smoking/unhealthy foods and alcohol, then why is action morally unacceptable in this instance?

Is it because you *approve* of homosexual relations where as you don't approve of smoking/unhealthy eating? Therefore it would confirm what I keep saying all along with state action in social issues like these, it isn't about health or well being at all: it's simply what you like and dislike.



What if this were changed to "I'm totally sick of a small number of people unproportionately costing the health service billions in HIV drugs"?

- - - Updated - - -



If we're discussing public health and state action, then why not?

It was one of the reasons given before the 1967 Act after all as to why homosexual practices were banned in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't believe in the state stepping in over this of course, I would find it absurd. But I find it absurd that people on here can come close to supporting total ban on the mere act of smoking a cigarette for anyone born after 2000 and that's why I am playing devil's advocate.

If the ban-it-brigade stood here and considered state action over the HIV epidemic among homosexuals, then at least they'd show some principle and prove to me that public health was actually their concern (even if I still disagree with them). But they won't do it.

Please, explain how involuntarily inhaling second hand smoke is comparable to two voluntary adults consenting to have sex. The Smoking Ban is to protect non smokers from the effects (whether you believe there to be any or not is entirely irrelevant) of second hand smoking. Your comparison doesn't serve to protect anyone except the two consenting adults. It's a non comparison, you're essentially comparing apples and oranges.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Please, explain how involuntarily inhaling second hand smoke is comparable to two voluntary adults consenting to have sex. The Smoking Ban is to protect non smokers from the effects (whether you believe there to be any or not is entirely irrelevant) of second hand smoking. Your comparison doesn't serve to protect anyone except the two consenting adults. It's a non comparison, you're essentially comparing apples and oranges.

So HIV carriers don't harm others? Absolutely rubbish.

In any case, you're the one who looked like you would like to endorse a total ban on cigarettes to those born after the year 2000 in the name of public health and safety, so why does this concern for public health not cross over into a demographic group who are at extreme high risk of contracting a deadly disease which they will then pass on to others? Surely, like smokers, they should be forced to do what is better for them and for society?

You're all the same: all for state meddling in smoking, but internet/food/alcohol/the bedroom? WAHHH that's 2far and facizt.