Indonesia’s Papua is considering the practice of implanting certain HIV carriers with microchips to monitor their behavior. The controversial proposal holds that certain unscrupulous individuals are disproportionately infecting others, because they continue to engage in sexually risky activity after discovering that they are HIV positive.

Dr. John Manangsang, who is helping to prepare a new healthcare regulation bill for Papua’s provincial parliament, said that unusual measures were needed to combat the virus.

“We in the government in Papua have to think hard on ways to provide protection to people from the spread of the disease,” Manangsang told AFP.

“Some of the infected people experience a change of behavior and can turn more aggressive and would not think twice of infecting others,” he alleged, saying lawmakers were considering various sanctions for these people.

“Among one of the means being considered is the monitoring of those infected people who can pose a danger to others,” Manangsang said.

“The use of chip implants is one of the ways to do so, but only for those few who turn aggressive and clearly continue to disregard what they know about the disease and spread the virus to others,” he said.

Not surprisingly, the plan is under fire from international HIV/AIDS and human rights groups.

It begs a host of questions, namely:

1. Why get tested at all if a positive result means the threat of a tracking microchip?
2. How does the government propose to discern “risky” individuals from the rest, i.e. who gets implanted?
3. What will the government do with this information? Where does it end?

Although creative solutions are necessary, the proposal is morally abhorrent and completely counterproductive. The Draconian plan would also require mandatory nationwide testing, because it would obviously further alienate HIV positive individuals and dissuade people from being tested in the first place.

Since the goal is really to isolate HIV carriers from the rest of the population, this plan would likely devolve into an ambiguous form of house-arrest.

First, thanks very much for all the feedback to improve our service. We have listened to you and wish to strike a better balance between personal privacy and the integrity of the information we allow you to share.

1. We now allow you to go by your username on your certificate, rather than your legal name.

2. We no longer ask for the last four digits of your government ID. This was useful, but it just made too many people nervous.

The only information now required on each certificate is:

• Date of test
• Test results (only negative or clean results reported)
• Testing Facility and Location
• Username or First Name and Last Initial or Full Legal Name
• Date of Birth

We leave it to you to mutually establish how much information is required.  If you wish to view a member’s legal name on his/her certificate, you may ask that member to change his/her privacy settings. Changes can be made very quickly in your profile page and you may see your updated certificate by clicking in “Results”.
Please keep the suggestions coming and we can work together to make this a highly useful dating tool.

Thanks again,

Andrew

Having read Dr. Klausner’s response to “He didn’t tell me he was POZ” Q&A on Gay.com, I was as outraged as most of the readers. Here a couple had been together for two years and had engaged in unprotected sex for most of their relationship. Then one of the men discovered that his partner was taking HIV/AIDS antiviral medication and had never disclosed his positive HIV status to his partner of 2 years!

While I understand the sensitivity of the issues and the need never to alienate HIV positive people, this person was committing a crime, an immoral, even murderous act. There is a balance we must strike so that people are not fearful of being tested, but Dr. Klausner’s response seemed to glaze over the severity of what is clearly a crime. It is also a great illustration of why proactive discussions about sexual health, frequent testing and the need to demand proof of test results is so important.

Sure, there is some burden on the man writing the letter and he should have asked his partner, but the law and basic common sense morality places the burden on the knowingly HIV positive party to tell his partners before engaging in unprotected sex.

The bottom line seems fairly clear:

1. If it’s a hookup and you’re meeting online, where is the embarrassment in asking for proof of negative results? After all, you may never even meet this person anyway, especially if you feel he/she is hiding something that could put you at risk. Remember that condoms can break aren’t the whole story. You can do more to reduce the risk. It is possible for people to get caught-up in the moment and to use them improperly or not at all.
2. If it’s a longer term relationship, like the one above, what is there to hide from your partner? Why not show mutual respect and share your results with each other. Heck, you are sharing the most intimate human act, what’s the big deal about a lab result?

It’s not really about trust, it’s about mutual respect and social responsibility. If you respect your partner, you will happily get tested and talk about it openly. If you happen to be positive, well now you can take the medication you need and avoid putting others at risk.

Scientists have discovered DNA strand that dramatically increases the chances of developing heart disease and doubles the chances of having a heart attack at a young age.

This gene is most common among Caucasians with an estimated 25% carrying the gene.  Men under 50 and women under 60 are 40% more likely to suffer from a heart attack and the same group’s lifetime risk is increased by 60%.

The US journal of science holds this gene to be the most important genetic factor in determining one’s predisposition for developing heart disease.

Personalized Medicine

Early identification of such predispositions is important, because preventative measures can be taken early to reduce the risks. Those who test positive will be encouraged to take cholesterol reducing drugs such as Lipitor and undergo routine tests to monitor heart conditions.  Of course, they can also make lifestyle changes sooner, such as proper diet and exercise.

The ability to leverage personal health information through proactive diagnoses will become an increasingly important tool for health care. Sophisticated DNA testing will bring about ever more options to reduce the risks.

One in three sexually active adults over 50 who are infected with HIV has unprotected sex, according to a study by Ohio University researchers. A survey of 260 HIV-positive older adults found that of those having sex, most were male, took Viagra and were in a relationship.

AIDS cases among the over-50 crowd reached 90,000 in 2003. CDC says they will account for half of all HIV/AIDS cases in the United States by 2015 because medical intervention has extended the lifespan of those infected with HIV.

Past studies have shown that up to 65 percent of older adults ages 60 to 71 have sexual intercourse. Among older adults who are HIV-positive, according to the Ohio University findings, 38 percent are sexually active.

Ohio University health psychologist Timothy Heckman explains, “What we don’t know yet is whether these individuals are in a monogamous relationship with someone else who is HIV positive and believe there is no risk of infection.”

Here is the important point: do their partners know they are HIV positive?  Are they monogamous or active with several partners?

If partners suspect them to be negative, on what basis do they form this presumption?  How efficient and on what basis do they serosort?

The behavioral information was gathered from a survey of 260 HIV-positive older adults who were participating in a study examining support groups and was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Nursing Research.

Source: Ohio University

Matriarch’s Dream Come True

Women could soon skip the hassles associated with normal male-female sexual reproduction and simply produce their own sperm. Perhaps no more toilet seats left up and wet towels on the bed. Groundbreaking research has shown that females could use their bone marrow to create sperm.

For men, the news only gets worse. Since the Y chromosome required to produce men, is not present, this will process will yield only daughters. Does this mean the end of the male race?

All joking aside, this will give lesbian couples the ability to have their own maternal daughters. Scientists have already demonstrated that it is possible to produce sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue, and are seeking ethical permission to do the same from women’s bone marrow tissue.

“Theoretically is it possible,” Professor Nayernia said. “The problem is whether the sperm cells are functional or not. I don’t think there is an ethical barrier, so long as it’s safe. We are in the process of applying for ethical approval. We are preparing now to apply to use the existing bone marrow stem cell bank here in Newcastle. We need permission from the patient who supplied the bone marrow, the ethics committee and the hospital itself.”

If sperm cells are successfully developed from female tissue, they will first be tested to see if they can penetrate a hamster’s egg. Further research will be required to if these synthetic sperm will be successful in fertilizing a human egg. . Ultimately, the ability to legally produce humans from will depend on a decision from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority.

“Our next goal is to see if we can get the spermatagonial stem cells to progress to mature sperm in the laboratory and this should take around three to five years of experiments,” Professor Nayernia said.

So, the clock is ticking gents!

(CheckTonight.com)

Sex is a fundamental and primitive act, though the dance that precedes it remains complex and enigmatic. New research tries to unlock the factors that contribute to sexual desire in men and women, searching for answers.

Brain’s Neural Pathways the Key

The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction in Bloomington, Ind. found distinct neural pathways in the brain thought to control sexual stimulation and inhibition. They presume that one pathway acts as the catalyst for sex, while the other delivers the counterbalancing inhibitor. The ease with which these pathways are excited, relative to each other, are determinants in people’s sex-drive, self-control and risk aversion.

The interplay of these two pathways, rather than an individual’s sex-drive may yield interesting behavioral predictors. People who engage in risky sex are not necessarily more sexually active, but may have weaker inhibiting pathways. It follows that this same neural combination may also be a factor in determining one’s predisposition to commit rape and engage in unprotected sex.

Men - Sex Drive and Risk Aversion are Distinct

In the study, men were presented with a series of sexual images and a questionnaire to establish whether they were “easily excited” or “not easily excited” sexually. These groups were then split among “easily inhibited” or “not easily inhibited” with another round of images. In this case, some images depicted healthy consensual sex and others showed violence.

Men found to be more easily sexually excited than other men responded faster to sexual images regardless of their nature. More interestingly was that men who has weaker inhibitions, regardless of their sexual excitability level, responded with a higher degree of sexual interest to the violent sexual images.

This may be the key to understanding one’s propensity to engage in sexually risky behavior. Those with weaker sexual inhibitions are not necessarily more easily excited or more sexually active, but have a weaker ability to control sexual desire once stimulated. This same group reported a lower condom use, despite fewer sexual partners. Given their lowered self-control and poorer judgment, they may also be more likely to commit rape.

Women - Sexuality More Complex and Ambiguous

Women’s sexual desires have long been regarded as more complex and the study found that this belief has merit. Women were found to respond more strongly than men to emotional and psychological factors; whereas men are more easily excited by images.

Ongoing research is trying to unlock the correlation between a woman’s sexual desires and behavior with her self-image. Historically, popular culture may have depicted promiscuous women as ones with low self-esteem, however a recent cultural shift, due in part to Sex and the City, may make correlates less clear. That is, women with a high degree of self-confidence and presumably self-image, like “Samantha Jones”, in the show, may be just as sexually active as women with low self-esteem, who may “give-in”, in order to please. The inextricability of numerous factors and individual variability make such a study an ambitious task at best. The methods will be equally as interesting as the results.

But the study yielded some interesting findings about women’s sexual attraction. Women’s sexual interest in the genders is less binary than men’s. Heterosexual women are more likely to find other women attractive, than are heterosexual men to admire other men. This is especially the case among women with higher sex drives. The study found that men are either straight or gay and there is little in between.

Girls Gone Wild Culture

In the case of women, this seems to square with increasing North American cultural acceptance of heterosexual women engaging in sexual acts with other women. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these acts are largely for public display rather than pure attraction, as scenes from Girls Gone Wild would suggest. However, straight women are much more likely to have a measured physiological sexual response to other women, than are straight men to other men.

What About the “Down Low?”

In the case of men, the results seem to contradict empirical findings about male behavior. For example, the “Down Low” culture, where men who report to be heterosexual, have sex with other men, seems to refute these findings. Here it may be the case that men who report to be heterosexual are actually gay, but resist their true sexual desires most of the time, due to cultural reasons, such as homophobia.

We await findings and further research with great anticipation.

CheckTonight.com

Gonorrhea in the United States has become resistant to all but one class of antibiotic drug, making the risk of the STI an increasingly serious condition.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) no longer recommends the antibiotics called fluoroquinolones to kill the bacteria, because they are no longer effective.

Currently, cephalosoprin’s is the only antibiotic available to treat gonorrhea and it has not shown signs of weakening. However, there are no new drugs being developed and it is simply a matter of time before the bacteria adapts to this treatment.

More than 700,000 Americans contract the sexually transmitted infection (STI) each year and this new emergent superbug could become a major health concern.

“Gonorrhea has now joined the list of other superbugs for which treatment options have become dangerously few,” Dr. Henry Masur, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America advocacy group, said in a statement.

CDC reported that resistance to fluoroquinolones increased from less than 1 percent of cases in 2001 to 13.3 percent in the first half of 2006.

Among homosexual and bisexual men, 38 percent of gonorrhea cases were resistant in the first half of last year. Among heterosexual men, 6.7 percent were resistant.

Crystal meth use among gay men jumped in 2006 and is increasing the risk of HIV and other STD transmission. The LA Times reported that 25% of men visiting an STD clinic used meth in the last year, up from 18% in 2005.

Data from the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center indicates that despite the recent campaigns about the dangers of meth use, it has become an increasingly popular party drug.

The dug is popular for its euphoric effects and increased sexual arousal.  The danger is that it also lowers sexual inhibitions and increases sexually risky behavior. The study of 6360 gay men found that men who were recently diagnosed with HIV were twice as likely to have used crystal methamphetamine within the past year.

A larger study in 2005 revealed that gays who use crystal meth are 5 times more likely to test positive for HIV.  crystal methamphetamine abuse is particularly problematic among gay males.  1 in 10 men who have sex with men used the drug in the past 6 months. This is more than 10 times the usage rate of the total general population.

If you are fearful of being tested, find it a nuisance or just think it’s unnecessary, you are not alone. The trouble is that your partner(s) are in the same boat. They don’t want to get tested either and likely, have never been tested at all. What is worse is that many who have been tested and know they are infected will lie to you and claim to be clean.

A survey completed last month on teenwire.org, which is a site of Planned Parenthood of America Inc., found that 31% of people, who know they are infected with an STD/STI, either would not disclose their results or were not sure if they would. Remember that these are the few who have actually taken steps to get tested. Regrettably, telling a new date or potential partner that you have an STD/STI can mean the end of the date right on the spot. The stigma of having HIV and STDs is a dangerous one and something that must be addressed immediately.

The point is that if you do not want to get tested, neither does your partner. You know how many partners have you had, but have you any idea about your partner? It’s time to get real, face the music and know your own status. Chances are very good that you will test clean and having done so, you can demand the same of your partner.

Andrew Unsworth
Founder: CheckTonight.com